Now that I went through more of the posts, I feel like our RP cultures are just two different worlds and our expectations for games and definitions of fun are just different.
So I don't think we'll be able to come to a satisfying conclusion here.
Maybe at your table this is considered fun. Who am I to judge. We can all have fun our own way. That's the beauty of these games.
Here is the thing. We may have vastly different philosophical views on what constitutes D&D. But your philosophy is about destroying one of the bedrocks of the game, which is that low level chars can and do die. My philosophy is about maintaining a fundamental tenet that has been with the game for almost 50 years. I know which one is truer to what D&D is. So no, we cannot all have fun the way we want. It is easier for people to handwave away char death, as opposed to re-introducing the potential of said death through a series of no-doubt convoluted home rules once wotc decides that your philosophy sells more product.
Don't be dramatic. A ten hit point bump in starting survivability is not going to Destroy The Bedrock Of D&D. Just like people aren't demanding creative control of the game's story by wanting the work they put into inserting a character into the story and world the DM creates to be respected.
Meat grinder campaigns where every player spends half their time rerolling their way through a dozen PCs a session and no amount of good play or planning helps avoid that aren't fun. They're disrespectful of the investment in time, energy, and emotional attachment and investment (hereby abbreviated as ****s) each player brings to the table. Every player only brings so many ****s to a game, and once they run out of ****s to give you lose that player and are unlikely to ever regain them. DMs who burn through multiple players' stash of ****s quickly and repeatedly are unlikely to continue being able to find people to serial-murder.
You can give players back their ****s by providing them with a fulfilling narrative and an engaging game, and character death doesn't always mean a withdrawal from the table's ****s Fund. Certain deaths can be a huge inrush of ****s for the group, a harrowing event to rally around and drive the game forward. But if you've killed Charlie four times this session already and you're really gunning for the fifth one? If you smirk like a fool and taunt your players with a "better luck next time, choomba - now get rolling, you're wasting good murder time" while Charlie looks like he's ready to commit murder above the table?
You should consider whether the game evolved away from Murder Fiesta Simulator style games for a reason.
Charlie reminds me of that scene in The Gamers: Dorkness Rising (IMO the best DnD movie ever made) where the bard player brings fifty character sheets.
Charlie reminds me of that scene in The Gamers: Dorkness Rising (IMO the best DnD movie ever made) where the bard player brings fifty character sheets.
I was once told that it was "beyond ridiculous" that my default response to the idea of character death was to sit out the rest of the session and quite possibly the session or two after that while working up the next character and letting the DM find a good place to introduce them. I was informed that this process is a gigantic waste of time when all I needed to do was spend ten minutes rolling up a sheet and then the DM could have my gal show up behind the next closed door the party found, wherever they happened to find it.
Some people are just wired different, I suppose. I can't imagine playing in a game with so little care or ****s for the table's tale. I imagine they feel the same way about a game where they give up hours of session time after so droll and mundane an event as the brutal screaming demise of their avatar.
I keep watching you people chip away at the game's fundamentals, and someone has to stand up for them.
Incorrect. If a new method is better (which may be subjective), you should stop following tradition. Also kind of ironic since we're communicating on the internet, using computers, and controlling electricity, rather than living in a cave & drawing on a wall. You know, because we changed how we communicate, rather than standing by tradition for it's own sake.
I keep watching you people chip away at the game's fundamentals, and someone has to stand up for them.
Incorrect. If a new method is better (which may be subjective), you should stop following tradition. Also kind of ironic since we're communicating on the internet, using computers, and controlling electricity, rather than living in a cave & drawing on a wall. You know, because we changed how we communicate, rather than standing by tradition for it's own sake.
It's funny how one can make very specific, overblown assumptions, yet get upset when said assumptions are mocked.
If a 10 HP boost at level 1 breaks your game, it may be you've got deeper issues. By level 5, that 10 HP is usually less than one swipe from a monster, so it's NOT game breaking, contrary to your belief. Picking the hill of "It's a fundamental part of the game to have a character get smoked without having taken a turn" to die on is........really reaching. That's a mechanic that Wizards, and as per this thread, MANY PLAYERS see as not working as intended. Something that lessens the enjoyment for a decent portion of the populace.
You want insta-kills for folks learning how to play? USE them. Don't think your 'hardcore" attitude is superior or the majority, because the fact Wizards is looking to change it AND threads here outline how many folks feel it should be adjusted proves the majority (including developers) see an issue and want to address it. The hyperbole is that anyone wanting to give early level characters a reasonable chance of surviving has gone from playing a game to simply telling a story. You try to play it up that ANYONE who doesn't want a level 1 character to die before they have a chance to do anything is weak and is playing wrong. Take your hardcore clique and kill off starting characters at your leisure. Stop trying to play it up as the only way to play without breaking the game. Your assumption was wrong when you started and hasn't become true since.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Now that I went through more of the posts, I feel like our RP cultures are just two different worlds and our expectations for games and definitions of fun are just different.
So I don't think we'll be able to come to a satisfying conclusion here.
Maybe at your table this is considered fun. Who am I to judge. We can all have fun our own way. That's the beauty of these games.
Here is the thing. We may have vastly different philosophical views on what constitutes D&D. But your philosophy is about destroying one of the bedrocks of the game, which is that low level chars can and do die. My philosophy is about maintaining a fundamental tenet that has been with the game for almost 50 years. I know which one is truer to what D&D is. So no, we cannot all have fun the way we want. It is easier for people to handwave away char death, as opposed to re-introducing the potential of said death through a series of no-doubt convoluted home rules once wotc decides that your philosophy sells more product.
Don't be dramatic. A ten hit point bump in starting survivability is not going to Destroy The Bedrock Of D&D. Just like people aren't demanding creative control of the game's story by wanting the work they put into inserting a character into the story and world the DM creates to be respected.
Meat grinder campaigns where every player spends half their time rerolling their way through a dozen PCs a session and no amount of good play or planning helps avoid that aren't fun. They're disrespectful of the investment in time, energy, and emotional attachment and investment (hereby abbreviated as ****s) each player brings to the table. Every player only brings so many ****s to a game, and once they run out of ****s to give you lose that player and are unlikely to ever regain them. DMs who burn through multiple players' stash of ****s quickly and repeatedly are unlikely to continue being able to find people to serial-murder.
You can give players back their ****s by providing them with a fulfilling narrative and an engaging game, and character death doesn't always mean a withdrawal from the table's ****s Fund. Certain deaths can be a huge inrush of ****s for the group, a harrowing event to rally around and drive the game forward. But if you've killed Charlie four times this session already and you're really gunning for the fifth one? If you smirk like a fool and taunt your players with a "better luck next time, choomba - now get rolling, you're wasting good murder time" while Charlie looks like he's ready to commit murder above the table?
You should consider whether the game evolved away from Murder Fiesta Simulator style games for a reason.
Stop with the hyperbole. A dozen chars a session?
And yes, a 10 or 15 point bump in HP at 1st level is a massive change in the game. Stop saying it is not. I keep watching you people chip away at the game's fundamentals, and someone has to stand up for them.
you arent defending anything like...at all
but lets be real, ive played almost every edition of the game, with hundreds even possibly thousands of players over my last 22+ years playing, and while I would never like to remove critical hits, almost every group of players I've played with has said it really sucks to die at low level to crits and instant death, and usually we find ways to make sure that wont happen, like giving them extra hp, or more gold so they can get revived, it depends on the group. but, your wrong, 10hp isnt that much of a gamechanger, especailly not when your going through multiple encounters in a day
and yes, there are a smaller select few, who actively enjoy playing without those bonuses, because the challenge is more fun for them, but most of the time, except for the smaller exceptional few who disagree, they agree there is an imbalance in the game regarding crits at lower levels esp in 5e
so...yeah i dont think isnt falwith is the majority anymore, especailly since more and more folk have started agreeing there is an imbalance
Let's keep in mind that it's WoTC that is, for sure, going to make a ruling about this for OneDND. What form that takes, well, that's what this thread is about. :)
Let's keep in mind that it's WoTC that is, for sure, going to make a ruling about this for OneDND. What form that takes, well, that's what this thread is about. :)
im pretty sure they got rid of monster crits, i for one hope they keep it but modify hp XD
Let's keep in mind that it's WoTC that is, for sure, going to make a ruling about this for OneDND. What form that takes, well, that's what this thread is about. :)
im pretty sure they got rid of monster crits, i for one hope they keep it but modify hp XD
Yes, and actually I just can't accept 'monsters don't Crit... now'. This is all UA from OneDND, sure, so it's not written in stone. And, thus this thread, I think a better rule might help manage the situation. If one wants too!
The thread has veered off, but in an interesting direction. Everyone's feelings on the subject are perfectly valid, well posted, and I've loved reading the thread.
Let's keep in mind that it's WoTC that is, for sure, going to make a ruling about this for OneDND. What form that takes, well, that's what this thread is about. :)
im pretty sure they got rid of monster crits, i for one hope they keep it but modify hp XD
Yes, and actually I just can't accept 'monsters don't Crit... now'. This is all UA from OneDND, sure, so it's not written in stone. And, thus this thread, I think a better rule might help manage the situation. If one wants too!
The thread has veered off, but in an interesting direction. Everyone's feelings on the subject are perfectly valid, well posted, and I've loved reading the thread.
pffft fair, honestly monsters are gonna keep critting at my table and ill keep using my variant crit rules when i feel it fits right
btw peeps, what is the origin of the insta-kill rule? I'm an ole AD&D guy who came into 5e, and it didn't exist then. When was this rule introduced, or appeared?
btw, speaking of homebrews, back in the 80s my DM had a homebrew rule called d20 and a 1. That is; if you roll a natural 20, you can roll the d20 again, if you get a 1, that insta-kills anything. Ancient red dragon, doesn't matter. Pretty sure he thought this up so our crazy high level chars could still get killed by that lucky goblin in a horde of a hundred, etc. But also, I once insta-killed an ancient red dragon at level 1. We spent the entire afternoon and early evening just calculating the loot. lol
In response to a couple of comments a bit earlier in this thread, I just wanted to point out that monster critting, insta-kills, and "hardcore D&D" are very, very different things. At least are my table, I have never had a monster crit insta-kill one of my players. It's an uptick in damage, sure, but usually it doesn't do enough to completely kill a character. In fact, I mostly find that it just does a bit more damage and makes the encounter a tad bit harder.
What it does do however is add uncertainty and a small degree of chaos, which allows variance from a normally dull combat and makes things interesting. So for me at least, monster crits enhance the game and add fun. If you don't enjoy a rule, you don't have to play with it. However, monster crits do not make the game "hardcore" and they rarely insta-kill players, those topics are tangentially related to monster crits and not everyone who likes crits is an evil DM who wants to murder their players.
This clearly illustrates how different a fixed amount of damage can be from a crit to taking 2 shots. To refute this, or claim it DOESN'T add to character survivability is to deny basic math and rules, which puts you in homebrew territory. Breaking the 16 damage up into 2 swipes gave the character a chance, they were down and needed help. If that had been a single shot, they would be rerolling a new character while the rest of the party tried to survive the fight.
What most of these "dice rule" folks are stuck on is that it can happen at later levels too. NO SHIT. We aren't talking about a character being 6-8 sessions in and being killed through unfortunate dice rolls. By then some options are likely starting to be available for reviving them (drag the body back to town maybe or some such) We are talking about session 1, maybe an hour in, first fight and BOOM, character is dead. D E A D. No chance for death saves, no chance for a potion or medkit to stabilize, jus flat dead. If that's your table's idea of fun, go crazy. If I was subject to that it would mark the last time I played at that table. When it happened at level 4, I would be disappointed, but would have at LEAST had a chance to play the character I had worked on for a bit. Still sucks, but I wouldn't feel as cheated as if he had gotten a crit insta-death on our first foray.
That example assumes a damaged character though. If we go that route, why not assume 1 HP? In that case, we would not want any monster that could do above 8 damage on a crit to ensure no PC ever goes from alive to dead without death saves. So all mobs would do maximum 1d4 -1 damage on an attack at low levels. if we stick with the original issue (full health to instant death) then a creature that hits for up to 6 damage per hit still has the possibility of killing a wizard in two hits (6 to 0 HP, 0 HP to dead).
I know I'm a bit late to respond to these comments, but I find it rather funny that both of you praised a niched example and made conclusions about the broader reality based off it while ignoring the fact that the example in question is miscalculated and only represents one very specific example. Also, death is not always the end in D&D, painting it as that ignores numerous spells such as Raise Dead, Revivify, and True Resurrection (to name a few).
btw peeps, what is the origin of the insta-kill rule? I'm an ole AD&D guy who came into 5e, and it didn't exist then. When was this rule introduced, or appeared?
btw, speaking of homebrews, back in the 80s my DM had a homebrew rule called d20 and a 1. That is; if you roll a natural 20, you can roll the d20 again, if you get a 1, that insta-kills anything. Ancient red dragon, doesn't matter. Pretty sure he thought this up so our crazy high level chars could still get killed by that lucky goblin in a horde of a hundred, etc. But also, I once insta-killed an ancient red dragon at level 1. We spent the entire afternoon and early evening just calculating the loot. lol
AD&D era, -10 was dead. Or might have been 0 was dead with an optional -10 rule... quite a long time ago, now.
Oh that's right! Wasn't dead at 0 in the PHB, which was published first. Then, the DMG had the -10 rule. ?
I forgot about the -10 hit points to die. You lost a hit point every round, or something? Bleeding out, basically was the concept? And that rule is buried somewhere in the old DMG. I'm too lazy to go look for the page number right now. lol Lazy DM.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I prefer to run and play in campaigns that start at level 3 unless they're set up otherwise, like Strixhaven.
For me, this does a few things.
Mechanically, it's a lot harder to instakill a level 3 character unless they're punching way above their level, and you as a DM have more freedom in setting that up outside of the standard wolf/goblin ambush.
Level 3 characters all have their first subclass feature, so it gives them something to do in combat besides just swinging their sword once or firebolting. (IMO the biggest problem with combat at level 1 and 2 isn't instakills, it's that it's just flat out boring)
I've found that when players create a Level 3 character as opposed to starting at Level 1, they already have some direction on where they want to take them and it's reflected in their subclass or spell selection. They already by default have more personality to draw from, they come up with better backstories, and their builds are already defining their characters and giving me something to work with moving forward. They get a lot more excited about creating a character of this level, are more invested, and it makes the game start a lot better.
There's no "punishment" at the first two levels for picking a class that gets its features at level 3, instead of something that gets it earlier like a sorcerer, warlock, cleric, etc.
At Level 3, you're still just taking your first steps into the world, but have a little more experience than picking up a sword or a wand for the very first time that morning.
Ultimately though, it comes down to what your table and your players decide is the right game for you. Some people want to play for a narratively fulfilling story for a character they create, some DMs like creating and crafting those stories in their world. Other people might want to run a meat grinder. Either are perfectly valid ways to play but you need to be on the same page regarding this as a table.
I find it hilarious that so many people here and on other forums claim to be "vanguards" protecting "true DnD" while forgetting the biggest rule of it - there's no universally "right" way to play.
If you want to play in or run a game where low level characters can be killed instantly because there's a rule in the PHB about it, go for it. There's nothing wrong with that if you can find players that agree with that.
If OneDND comes out with something that stops instakill deaths, well guess what? You can ignore that ruling too or homebrew a different ruling on it if you still want to run that type of campaign.
Just saw a poll on Reddit that is somewhat relevant to this thread. Thought is was really interesting to see that very few people wanted the game to be LESS lethal.
The less lethal crowd is the very small minority and the more lethal crowd are the majority. The about the same people are a VERY close second though.
Which group do you think the 1st level is too deadly crowd is in? Personally, I think that there is likely a fair number in the About the Same crowd, but that would just be speculation.
Let's keep in mind that it's WoTC that is, for sure, going to make a ruling about this for OneDND. What form that takes, well, that's what this thread is about. :)
im pretty sure they got rid of monster crits, i for one hope they keep it but modify hp XD
The D20 tests (which included the crit mechanics) scored the lowest out of the entire survey. I don't think monster crits are gone, but we will have to wait and see.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I prefer to run and play in campaigns that start at level 3 ... SNIP!
Everything you wrote, everyone must read.
I don't really know, but watching some online DMs and games I noticed they all started the campaign with level 3 characters for their players. Which is what every experienced player and DM does right now?
And it solves the insta-kill problem at levels 1 and 2. Just skip levels 1 and 2.
btw peeps, what is the origin of the insta-kill rule? I'm an ole AD&D guy who came into 5e, and it didn't exist then. When was this rule introduced, or appeared?
btw, speaking of homebrews, back in the 80s my DM had a homebrew rule called d20 and a 1. That is; if you roll a natural 20, you can roll the d20 again, if you get a 1, that insta-kills anything. Ancient red dragon, doesn't matter. Pretty sure he thought this up so our crazy high level chars could still get killed by that lucky goblin in a horde of a hundred, etc. But also, I once insta-killed an ancient red dragon at level 1. We spent the entire afternoon and early evening just calculating the loot. lol
AD&D era, -10 was dead. Or might have been 0 was dead with an optional -10 rule... quite a long time ago, now.
Oh that's right! Wasn't dead at 0 in the PHB, which was published first. Then, the DMG had the -10 rule. ?
I forgot about the -10 hit points to die. You lost a hit point every round, or something? Bleeding out, basically was the concept? And that rule is buried somewhere in the old DMG. I'm too lazy to go look for the page number right now. lol Lazy DM.
Checked, it's not in the DMG. But I do remember this rule! Where from???
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I prefer to run and play in campaigns that start at level 3 ... SNIP!
Everything you wrote everyone must read.
I don't really know, but watching some online DMs and games I noticed they all started the campaign with level 3 characters for their players. Which is what every experienced player and DM does right now? Hey, if someone invites you to a level 3 game, you better bring your game! :)
And it solves the inta-kill problem at levels 1 and 2. Just skip levels 1 and 2.
There's really no point narratively to play levels 1 and 2 once a player does it the first time to learn the game. It's like the tutorial mission in an MMO - no point in playing it when you roll up the new character.
Online streamers and DMs also start at this level for the same reasons discussed in this thread - it allows the players enough depth mechanically to create a character with matching story depth that they (and the audience by extension) can get invested in. Everyone likes to joke about the player that is the retired king or unwoken god at level 1 that has the backstory of a level 20 character, but at level 3 your character might have something in their backstory that's unique. Maybe they are the apprentice of a teacher that's studied under them long enough to earn their trust and teachings instead of the brand new recruit on their very first outing. Maybe your fighter spent a few years in the city guard, or had command over a squad and has some renown. Not a legendary name among mortals, but well thought of in the city he serves or among his fellow guards.
Narratively, I know there's a lot of weight behind characters choosing or gaining a subclass that you can miss out on by doing this, However, in almost every game I've played in and seen where someone wanted it as a moment of character development, they usually multiclass at some point in the campaign so they can play out that journey with a character that has enough history behind them to make the choice meaningful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don't be dramatic. A ten hit point bump in starting survivability is not going to Destroy The Bedrock Of D&D. Just like people aren't demanding creative control of the game's story by wanting the work they put into inserting a character into the story and world the DM creates to be respected.
Meat grinder campaigns where every player spends half their time rerolling their way through a dozen PCs a session and no amount of good play or planning helps avoid that aren't fun. They're disrespectful of the investment in time, energy, and emotional attachment and investment (hereby abbreviated as ****s) each player brings to the table. Every player only brings so many ****s to a game, and once they run out of ****s to give you lose that player and are unlikely to ever regain them. DMs who burn through multiple players' stash of ****s quickly and repeatedly are unlikely to continue being able to find people to serial-murder.
You can give players back their ****s by providing them with a fulfilling narrative and an engaging game, and character death doesn't always mean a withdrawal from the table's ****s Fund. Certain deaths can be a huge inrush of ****s for the group, a harrowing event to rally around and drive the game forward. But if you've killed Charlie four times this session already and you're really gunning for the fifth one? If you smirk like a fool and taunt your players with a "better luck next time, choomba - now get rolling, you're wasting good murder time" while Charlie looks like he's ready to commit murder above the table?
You should consider whether the game evolved away from Murder Fiesta Simulator style games for a reason.
Please do not contact or message me.
Charlie reminds me of that scene in The Gamers: Dorkness Rising (IMO the best DnD movie ever made) where the bard player brings fifty character sheets.
I was once told that it was "beyond ridiculous" that my default response to the idea of character death was to sit out the rest of the session and quite possibly the session or two after that while working up the next character and letting the DM find a good place to introduce them. I was informed that this process is a gigantic waste of time when all I needed to do was spend ten minutes rolling up a sheet and then the DM could have my gal show up behind the next closed door the party found, wherever they happened to find it.
Some people are just wired different, I suppose. I can't imagine playing in a game with so little care or ****s for the table's tale. I imagine they feel the same way about a game where they give up hours of session time after so droll and mundane an event as the brutal screaming demise of their avatar.
Please do not contact or message me.
Incorrect. If a new method is better (which may be subjective), you should stop following tradition. Also kind of ironic since we're communicating on the internet, using computers, and controlling electricity, rather than living in a cave & drawing on a wall. You know, because we changed how we communicate, rather than standing by tradition for it's own sake.
It's funny how one can make very specific, overblown assumptions, yet get upset when said assumptions are mocked.
If a 10 HP boost at level 1 breaks your game, it may be you've got deeper issues. By level 5, that 10 HP is usually less than one swipe from a monster, so it's NOT game breaking, contrary to your belief. Picking the hill of "It's a fundamental part of the game to have a character get smoked without having taken a turn" to die on is........really reaching. That's a mechanic that Wizards, and as per this thread, MANY PLAYERS see as not working as intended. Something that lessens the enjoyment for a decent portion of the populace.
You want insta-kills for folks learning how to play? USE them. Don't think your 'hardcore" attitude is superior or the majority, because the fact Wizards is looking to change it AND threads here outline how many folks feel it should be adjusted proves the majority (including developers) see an issue and want to address it. The hyperbole is that anyone wanting to give early level characters a reasonable chance of surviving has gone from playing a game to simply telling a story. You try to play it up that ANYONE who doesn't want a level 1 character to die before they have a chance to do anything is weak and is playing wrong. Take your hardcore clique and kill off starting characters at your leisure. Stop trying to play it up as the only way to play without breaking the game. Your assumption was wrong when you started and hasn't become true since.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
you arent defending anything like...at all
but lets be real, ive played almost every edition of the game, with hundreds even possibly thousands of players over my last 22+ years playing, and while I would never like to remove critical hits, almost every group of players I've played with has said it really sucks to die at low level to crits and instant death, and usually we find ways to make sure that wont happen, like giving them extra hp, or more gold so they can get revived, it depends on the group. but, your wrong, 10hp isnt that much of a gamechanger, especailly not when your going through multiple encounters in a day
and yes, there are a smaller select few, who actively enjoy playing without those bonuses, because the challenge is more fun for them, but most of the time, except for the smaller exceptional few who disagree, they agree there is an imbalance in the game regarding crits at lower levels esp in 5e
so...yeah i dont think isnt falwith is the majority anymore, especailly since more and more folk have started agreeing there is an imbalance
Let's keep in mind that it's WoTC that is, for sure, going to make a ruling about this for OneDND. What form that takes, well, that's what this thread is about. :)
im pretty sure they got rid of monster crits, i for one hope they keep it but modify hp XD
The greatest danger of crit and any fear of it there might be is only relevant at lower level so i'd definitely not get rid of it.
Yes, and actually I just can't accept 'monsters don't Crit... now'. This is all UA from OneDND, sure, so it's not written in stone. And, thus this thread, I think a better rule might help manage the situation. If one wants too!
The thread has veered off, but in an interesting direction. Everyone's feelings on the subject are perfectly valid, well posted, and I've loved reading the thread.
pffft fair, honestly monsters are gonna keep critting at my table and ill keep using my variant crit rules when i feel it fits right
:)
btw peeps, what is the origin of the insta-kill rule? I'm an ole AD&D guy who came into 5e, and it didn't exist then. When was this rule introduced, or appeared?
btw, speaking of homebrews, back in the 80s my DM had a homebrew rule called d20 and a 1. That is; if you roll a natural 20, you can roll the d20 again, if you get a 1, that insta-kills anything. Ancient red dragon, doesn't matter. Pretty sure he thought this up so our crazy high level chars could still get killed by that lucky goblin in a horde of a hundred, etc. But also, I once insta-killed an ancient red dragon at level 1. We spent the entire afternoon and early evening just calculating the loot. lol
In response to a couple of comments a bit earlier in this thread, I just wanted to point out that monster critting, insta-kills, and "hardcore D&D" are very, very different things. At least are my table, I have never had a monster crit insta-kill one of my players. It's an uptick in damage, sure, but usually it doesn't do enough to completely kill a character. In fact, I mostly find that it just does a bit more damage and makes the encounter a tad bit harder.
What it does do however is add uncertainty and a small degree of chaos, which allows variance from a normally dull combat and makes things interesting. So for me at least, monster crits enhance the game and add fun. If you don't enjoy a rule, you don't have to play with it. However, monster crits do not make the game "hardcore" and they rarely insta-kill players, those topics are tangentially related to monster crits and not everyone who likes crits is an evil DM who wants to murder their players.
I know I'm a bit late to respond to these comments, but I find it rather funny that both of you praised a niched example and made conclusions about the broader reality based off it while ignoring the fact that the example in question is miscalculated and only represents one very specific example. Also, death is not always the end in D&D, painting it as that ignores numerous spells such as Raise Dead, Revivify, and True Resurrection (to name a few).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Oh that's right! Wasn't dead at 0 in the PHB, which was published first. Then, the DMG had the -10 rule. ?
I forgot about the -10 hit points to die. You lost a hit point every round, or something? Bleeding out, basically was the concept? And that rule is buried somewhere in the old DMG. I'm too lazy to go look for the page number right now. lol Lazy DM.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I prefer to run and play in campaigns that start at level 3 unless they're set up otherwise, like Strixhaven.
For me, this does a few things.
Ultimately though, it comes down to what your table and your players decide is the right game for you. Some people want to play for a narratively fulfilling story for a character they create, some DMs like creating and crafting those stories in their world. Other people might want to run a meat grinder. Either are perfectly valid ways to play but you need to be on the same page regarding this as a table.
I find it hilarious that so many people here and on other forums claim to be "vanguards" protecting "true DnD" while forgetting the biggest rule of it - there's no universally "right" way to play.
If you want to play in or run a game where low level characters can be killed instantly because there's a rule in the PHB about it, go for it. There's nothing wrong with that if you can find players that agree with that.
If OneDND comes out with something that stops instakill deaths, well guess what? You can ignore that ruling too or homebrew a different ruling on it if you still want to run that type of campaign.
The less lethal crowd is the very small minority and the more lethal crowd are the majority. The about the same people are a VERY close second though.
Which group do you think the 1st level is too deadly crowd is in? Personally, I think that there is likely a fair number in the About the Same crowd, but that would just be speculation.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The D20 tests (which included the crit mechanics) scored the lowest out of the entire survey. I don't think monster crits are gone, but we will have to wait and see.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Everything you wrote, everyone must read.
I don't really know, but watching some online DMs and games I noticed they all started the campaign with level 3 characters for their players. Which is what every experienced player and DM does right now?
And it solves the insta-kill problem at levels 1 and 2. Just skip levels 1 and 2.
Checked, it's not in the DMG. But I do remember this rule! Where from???
There's really no point narratively to play levels 1 and 2 once a player does it the first time to learn the game. It's like the tutorial mission in an MMO - no point in playing it when you roll up the new character.
Online streamers and DMs also start at this level for the same reasons discussed in this thread - it allows the players enough depth mechanically to create a character with matching story depth that they (and the audience by extension) can get invested in. Everyone likes to joke about the player that is the retired king or unwoken god at level 1 that has the backstory of a level 20 character, but at level 3 your character might have something in their backstory that's unique. Maybe they are the apprentice of a teacher that's studied under them long enough to earn their trust and teachings instead of the brand new recruit on their very first outing. Maybe your fighter spent a few years in the city guard, or had command over a squad and has some renown. Not a legendary name among mortals, but well thought of in the city he serves or among his fellow guards.
Narratively, I know there's a lot of weight behind characters choosing or gaining a subclass that you can miss out on by doing this, However, in almost every game I've played in and seen where someone wanted it as a moment of character development, they usually multiclass at some point in the campaign so they can play out that journey with a character that has enough history behind them to make the choice meaningful.