Quote from: HappyDaze;1133977IME, a 5E group can easily overpower almost any level-appropriate encounter, even "Deadly" ones, but they have to watch their resources (primarily spells, but also hit points) closely or else their effectiveness rapidly drops off. The key to planning on the PCs part is more about figuring out when& where they can fit in rests. If they are going on an extended jaunt (30+ "rooms" and lots of discrete encounters) somewhere they cannot take a long rest between (and are unlikely to manage even a short rest without some risk of interruption) then they have to fall back on basic attacks and cantrips a lot more, meaning even the easier encounters can become far tougher (and, depending on the foes/terrain/etc. risk becoming a slog to get through).

Right.  And the GM could do like me, and not only make extended use of the exhaustion rules, but also set up environments where rests aren't guaranteed, and then use mostly Kobold Press monsters--which are typically a little nastier than the default WotC monsters.  Oh, and the short rests only allows use of the Hit Dice, and the long rests do not automatically heal any damage, but simply restore Hit Dice (up to half level).  The net effect is that a "fully operational D&D 5E" party can punch well beyond its weight but it can be worn down pretty rapidly.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1134005Oh, and the short rests only allows use of the Hit Dice, and the long rests do not automatically heal any damage, but simply restore Hit Dice (up to half level).  The net effect is that a "fully operational D&D 5E" party can punch well beyond its weight but it can be worn down pretty rapidly.

Well the RAW is that LR heals all damage.

I use 1 week LRs which works great.

Quote from: S'mon;1134013Well the RAW is that LR heals all damage.

I use 1 week LRs which works great.

Yes.  I was stating how I modified it.   It's an easy change to make it a little more deadly, and most of it is even an option specified in the DMG.

One of the reasons players got over time more and more attached to their characters is that chargen went from a fairly basic thing to an ever more involved one starting with 2e. Class paths, proficiencies, class kits, and more.

The more involved a player is in chargen the more likely they are to either be more invested in the character, or reluctant to go through the process again.

We've gone in D&D from "Roll stats, choose class/race, Buy gear and go" to "choose class, choose race, buy gear and go." to "all that + choose proficiencies and kits" to "all that + feats, backgrounds etc."

The chargens gotten more involved and the threat of character death has diminished some.

Quote from: Omega;1134078The chargens gotten more involved and the threat of character death has diminished some.

There's definitely truth to this statement and I suspect there's something of a statistical distribution of system lethality vs. time to create a character that is linked to popularity of a system.

Old School D&D is popular despite its high lethality because you can literally have a new character in minutes; I have fond memories of running BECMI as a teen at Summer Camp and not even bothering to roll stats, I just made everything a 13, and max starting hit points, the player picked a class, got a pre-picked pack of equipment and entered the grinder (half the fun for a bunch of teen boys was just describing all the ways PCs and entire parties died horribly).

D6 Star Wars similarly could be high lethality (depending on how many CP points the GM handed out), but few people had many problems with it because "pick template/split 18D across 6 stats, then add 7D of skills... Go!" is up there with 1e D&D in terms of fast character generation. You COULD get more nuanced by splitting dice into pips and using specializations, but you didn't have to (and weren't gimped by not doing so either).

5e is also very popular despite it taking much longer to build a PC because the odds of PC death and having to go through the whole process again are quite low.

By contrast, all the various Mechwarrior RPG iterations have never taken off, in my opinion, because creating a PC is rather labor intensive, but then uses the same combat resolution as the war game where there's an ever present 1-in-36 chance to be insta-killed by any of a volley of weapons (1-in-36 on one roll a turn is one thing, 1-in-36 on five to ten rolls a turn is another). Basically, the effort of PC generation isn't worth the likely lifespan of the PC (by contrast, the war game where you just pick one or more mechs in the point range and assign generic pilots is OSR D&D level speed and complexity and therefore much more popular).

Basically, I think there's a sweet spot (or line rather if you were looking at the distribution) of PC complexity vs. lethality where you'll be much more well received and the further you deviate the more niche the game becomes.

Which is why I think 5e's decision to employ a couple of optional dials is actually a pretty good design decision. Feats and even skills can be optional while the classes come with a set of default starting gear. Roll/assign stats, pick race/class, ise default equipment... done! is perfectly viable and a good choice if you also opt to make the higher lethality (and can be further refined by using only the "basic" human/dwarf/elf/halfling and cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard races/classes).

Skills, feats, backgrounds, additional races/classes and personally buying your starting equipment add complexity to chargen and so probably warrant a reduction in lethality to match.

Shadowrun character creation can usually be considered moderately intricate--until you get to equipping your character. That was a total pain in the ass. Everything had multiple mods that could (and almost always were) filled, and sometimes you had software packages to run on the gear and added softs for the mods. PC equipment lists were often huge, but NPCs tended towards verisimilitude-straining degrees of being minimally equipped.

Jeep in mind that even though death was around every corner for the original and early players. Once they got someone to live long enough they started getting more and more cautious and eventually moving heaven and hell to keep the characters going. Which might include a trip to the afterlife to get the character back, or a quest before the cleric NPC will raise them and so on.

This probably dies into the investment aspect of doing whatever can to stave off the loss of a character. Except instead of chargen its the actual play that can instill the urge.

Keep in mind that alot of those oddly specific deathtrap monsters and items in D&D came about because the players were getting ever more careful and harder to challenge.

Quote from: Omega;1134106Jeep in mind that even though death was around every corner for the original and early players. Once they got someone to live long enough they started getting more and more cautious and eventually moving heaven and hell to keep the characters going. Which might include a trip to the afterlife to get the character back, or a quest before the cleric NPC will raise them and so on.

This probably dies into the investment aspect of doing whatever can to stave off the loss of a character. Except instead of chargen its the actual play that can instill the urge.

Keep in mind that alot of those oddly specific deathtrap monsters and items in D&D came about because the players were getting ever more careful and harder to challenge.

Reportedly the entire premise of Tomb of Horrors was Gary trying to challenge his extremely sucessful and meta-skilled players.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1134115Reportedly the entire premise of Tomb of Horrors was Gary trying to challenge his extremely sucessful and meta-skilled players.

Thats what the original players have said. That and its a sort of "take that" from Garys exasperation at some of the letters he was getting from players bragging about their high level characters and how easy D&D was. He just understimated how stupid some of these people were.

Quote from: Omega;1134078One of the reasons players got over time more and more attached to their characters is that chargen went from a fairly basic thing to an ever more involved one starting with 2e. Class paths, proficiencies, class kits, and more.

The more involved a player is in chargen the more likely they are to either be more invested in the character, or reluctant to go through the process again.

We've gone in D&D from "Roll stats, choose class/race, Buy gear and go" to "choose class, choose race, buy gear and go." to "all that + choose proficiencies and kits" to "all that + feats, backgrounds etc."

The chargens gotten more involved and the threat of character death has diminished some.

As I've argued upthread, I do not buy that investment in character is necessarily greater now than back in the day.

Where I agree with you is that investment may come earlier now (maybe even before play begins) because of the effort put into "build" at chargen. Whereas in the past the initial build was minimal and the * real* build happened gradually in the course of actual prolonged play.

Believe me, a character that has been "built" through long-term play is as precious, if not more so, than a character lovingly built at chargen. And the loss of that character, the dismay at "going through the process again," is all the greater if the character took years to build.

Quote from: Zirunel;1134200As I've argued upthread, I do not buy that investment in character is necessarily greater now than back in the day.

Its something I've heard from several players about chargen involvement being a deterrant to wanting to do it again if the characters die frequently, or at all in a few rare cases.

Quote from: Zirunel;1134200As I've argued upthread, I do not buy that investment in character is necessarily greater now than back in the day.

Where I agree with you is that investment may come earlier now (maybe even before play begins) because of the effort put into "build" at chargen. Whereas in the past the initial build was minimal and the * real* build happened gradually in the course of actual prolonged play.

   That was actually what I was trying to get at when I first floated the idea, although I wasn't clear--it was more about initial investment in characters than long-term investment, and the corresponding issues of how easily starting characters both died and were replaced.

Quote from: S'mon;11339765e has lower but possible PC death at 5+. It has easy but not guaranteed raising.
The biggest issue I see these days is that GMs mostly run Adventure Paths/Campaign Adventures, and new or replacement PCs start at or close to the single Party Level. So if one of the 12th level PCs dies in my Princes of the Apocalypse game, player rolls a new level 12 PC. This seriously discourages any idea of retirement.

I'm running my 1e AD&D PBP with start-at-1st, raise dead is rare,  and I can imagine PCs getting (edit) more risk averse at high level, & players may eventually want to start fresh level 1 PCs or even play the Henchmen of the advanced PCs.

It's kinda ironic, since 5e is probably the most "fair" edition for having lower level PCs. If you're within 5 levels of the rest of the party, your proficiency will only be 1 less than everyone else.  I think it's mostly due to the absolutely moronic obsession with milestone xp. If you're too lazy to write down xp numbers, you're probably too lazy to figure out the different rates characters should level.

Quote from: Omega;1134106Jeep in mind

I shall, with my psionic 4x4!

Quote from: Zirunel;1134200As I've argued upthread, I do not buy that investment in character is necessarily greater now than back in the day.

Half the fun of Champions was spending an hour (or longer) crafting your superhero. That was the early 80s. By the late 80s, Palladium was rocking with all their games which need an hour for chargen and death - especially in RIFTS - was pretty common.

As for emotional investment, I doubt there's much difference between 1980 and 2020. There's always players who treat their PCs as disposable pawns and always players who treat their PCs as beloved legends. I've loved playing many characters, but I'd rather they die in battle than vanish because the campaign fell apart.

But maybe I'm wrong. The hobby has gotten swamped with snowflakes so maybe emotional investment in their power fantasies is far greater than in the past.

Quote from: areallifetrex;1134548It's kinda ironic, since 5e is probably the most "fair" edition for having lower level PCs. If you're within 5 levels of the rest of the party, your proficiency will only be 1 less than everyone else.  I think it's mostly due to the absolutely moronic obsession with milestone xp. If you're too lazy to write down xp numbers, you're probably too lazy to figure out the different rates characters should level.

I agree mostly, though there are some issues around tier breaks 4>5 and to a much lesser extent 10>11. Everyone starting at 5th works well and I've done that; starting at 3rd in 5e would work too and would feel a lot like 1e-with-UA starting at 1st.
As you say, the big problem is the 5e XP system, which isn't very well designed to accommodate this (especially not the 10>11 tier break where XP to level goes DOWN), and the prevalence of ad hoc levelling.