# D&D General Refresh my memory on the lethality of 3rd ed



## DarkCrisis

If AD&D is hard mode and 5E is easy mode,  how does 3E fit into it?

From what I can recall, it was about the same as AD&D but more HP?  Things like really high AC bogged things down.. way to crunchy as things got into higher levels.

I’d look in a book but i sold those years ago


----------



## Vaalingrade

Levels 1 and 2 were stupid lethal as most of the party's HP were lass than the weapon dice of the monsters you fought.

Past that, healing was completely insufferable without a cleric until we figured out the wand of cure/vigor deal, and that also made things deadly.

And of course past level 7, everything was rocket tag unless the DM and players called and armistice to just not use the unfairness powers.


----------



## pogre

Vaalingrade said:


> Levels 1 and 2 were stupid lethal as most of the party's HP were lass than the weapon dice of the monsters you fought.
> 
> Past that, healing was completely insufferable without a cleric until we figured out the wand of cure/vigor deal, and that also made things deadly.
> 
> And of course past level 7, everything was rocket tag unless the DM and players called and armistice to just not use the unfairness powers.



Yep.

Wands changed the game very quickly from deadly to not so much. Plus in 3.X you did not have to find wands - you could just make 'em.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

*Earliest levels:* Deadly due to swinginess, especially if you didn't use the technically optional rule to give max HP at first level.
*Mid levels:* Dangerous unless you've realized that a _wand of lesser vigor_ heals 10 HP/minute (technically, exactly 11 HP over 66s) even at CL 1, meaning for 750 gp you get 11*50 = 550 HP from a single wand, or about 1.36 gp/HP (by far the most efficient way to heal, and a trivial expense at high level.)
*High levels:* Rocket tag takes over. Win initiative, you're almost guaranteed to win the fight, possibly in less than a full round. Lose...better hope you have enough contingencies planned to save your butt or you may be dead.
*Epic levels:* _hahahahahaha_ what is this "death" of which you speak


----------



## Voadam

AD&D had you roll your first level Hit Die. Anybody could roll a 1 at first level. 3e gave you max hp on your first level HD. 

1e only went unconscious if you went exactly to 0 hp losing one each round with no roll, otherwise if the blow took you to -1 it was death. 2e was death at -10. 3e gave you staggered at 0, unconscious at -1 and losing 1 per round but with a check to stabilize, then death at -10.

AD&D has a lot more save or die effects. Poison in AD&D was generally save or die, in 3e it is ability damage. In AD&D lots of undead things were permanent effects without magic like energy drain, ghost aging 10-40 years per round, etc. In 3e energy drain caused one negative level but you could save to get rid of it the next day.

At higher levels however there was a bit more rocket tag in 3e where you can do more offense than defense and if you don't take out an opponent pretty fast there is big potential they can take you out.


----------



## Voadam

pogre said:


> Yep.
> 
> Wands changed the game very quickly from deadly to not so much. Plus in 3.X you did not have to find wands - you could just make 'em.



Or buy them.


----------



## Lanefan

Having played both, 3e at low levels is IME fairly similar to 1e - death can and does lurk around every corner.

Once you get to mid-high levels in 3e, probably the biggest determinant of lethality (or most anything else!) is one's degree of system mastery. A true master of the system (read: optimizer) can play it like a fiddle; someone not into system mastery/optimization will instead risk getting played.

This is different from 1e in that while a certain amount of system mastery could be useful there, it wasn't nearly as important as it is in 3e.


----------



## Shiroiken

It really depended on how the DM ran things. The idea of a "Magic Mart" became popular in 3E, and certain items (Wand of Cure Light Wounds) made healing outside of combat trivial. If you had to actually create them, I believe you needed to take a feat to do so, possibly even a feat chain. On a lethal scale of 1 - 10, with 1 being 5E and 10 being AD&D, the game was a 7 if you didn't have access to these items, but only a 3 if you did.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

DarkCrisis said:


> If AD&D is hard mode and 5E is easy mode,  how does 3E fit into it?
> 
> From what I can recall, it was about the same as AD&D but more HP?  Things like really high AC bogged things down.. way to crunchy as things got into higher levels.
> 
> I’d look in a book but i sold those years ago




Level 2 bard vs orc with great axe.
Crit = instagib.

Save or die.

Very lethal. Even compared to ADnD.

Edit:
Lethal in the sense of uncontrollable and random.

3d12+18 just kills al level 2 character.


----------



## James Gasik

Yes, 3e at first blush seems less deadly than AD&D, but critical hits and more deadly monsters belies that very quickly.  Since all monsters have ability scores now, their attacks, damage, saves, AC, and hit points can vary wildly, even at low CR's.

Like a lot of DM's, one of the first 3e DM's I played under would decide that, if a monster has treasure they can use, they will.  Since he was unclear about treasure distribution, he'd roll up treasure randomly, and eyeball anything that went beyond WBL guidelines.

We were fighting hobgoblins, and he'd determined their captain would have access to banded mail +1.  Following the guidelines, he gave the captain 2 levels of Fighter, making him a CR 2.5.  Finding that to be a little odd, he gave him another level of Warrior, making him a full CR 3.

Now by the rules, this changed his base stats from 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 to 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (before taking his +2 Dex, +2 Con into account).  Now that he was 4 HD, he got a +1 to an ability score as well.

When all was said in done, Captain Bloodaxe became a legend for years to come, with Str 16, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 12, 19 AC (Banded Mail +1, +1 Dex bonus, +2 shield), and 32 hit points!  

We eventually pried that armor off of him only because of his horrible Will save (even bolstered by Iron Will it was only a +1), and we learned a valuable lesson about the monster creation rules- always compare the final result to an existing monster.  In every respect save damage, Bloodaxe was superior to an Ogre (and I've seen more than my fair share of low level players taken out by a lucky Ogre crit, lol).

For most characters, "build" optimization really only started to matter by levels above 7-8, other than some Fighter builds, that usually still had a glaring weakness (like chain tripping vs. ranged attackers or big strong things with multiple legs- I watched a chain tripper completely fail to deal with a stock centaur!).

Though the right spells could be troublesome at any level, since the 3e team totally dropped the ball, thinking everyone was going to be using damage spells.  Damage spells that were basically doing the same damage they'd been since the 70's, despite the fact monster hit points had dramatically increased.

When you launched a fireball into a crowd of foes and they were all still alive afterwards, you start looking at other options, and this is when people really started to see what things like web, stinking cloud, and sleet storm could do to a combat.

Having played with (and DM'd for) groups that think "optimization" is taking 2 levels of Fighter for bonus Feats, I will tell you that high level play in 3e was a miserable experience if you didn't have much system mastery.  As a DM, I'd usually refuse to use spellcasters because I knew my players couldn't handle threats that did anything more dramatic than deal hit point damage.  

Where an AD&D Fighter could always count on having decent saves, this was completely not true, and a lousy Hold Person was effectively a death sentence for a lot of characters.


----------



## Zardnaar

Less lethal than AD&D varies by books used, playstyle and knowledge of wands.


----------



## Minigiant

Depends on what you consider lethal.

Sure AD&D was harsher and left you more vurnable to dying if targeted by dangerous stuff. But the dangerous stuff was more in the DMs hands. The unfairly lethal stuff was clearly telegraphed. If you were properly treasure geared up, you could mitigate a lot of it. There were few casters. Many monsters had low accuracy. And super deadly stuff had to be actually placed in your way. It was up to the DM to actually use the brokenly unfair stuff.

But in 3e, everything was deadly. Sure it was easy to heal to full life... but everything could kill you. There was only that small window betwen level 4-7 where monsters don't real a ton of damage and SoS/SoD effects don't show up often when it's not super deadly. But Thor help you if the DM altered a monster or decided to give you a challange. People would randomly drop.


----------



## Nefermandias

Voadam said:


> AD&D had you roll your first level Hit Die. Anybody could roll a 1 at first level. 3e gave you max hp on your first level HD.
> 
> 1e only went unconscious if you went exactly to 0 hp losing one each round with no roll, otherwise if the blow took you to -1 it was death. 2e was death at -10. 3e gave you staggered at 0, unconscious at -1 and losing 1 per round but with a check to stabilize, then death at -10.
> 
> AD&D has a lot more save or die effects. Poison in AD&D was generally save or die, in 3e it is ability damage. In AD&D lots of undead things were permanent effects without magic like energy drain, ghost aging 10-40 years per round, etc. In 3e energy drain caused one negative level but you could save to get rid of it the next day.
> 
> At higher levels however there was a bit more rocket tag in 3e where you can do more offense than defense and if you don't take out an opponent pretty fast there is big potential they can take you out.



People keep saying this -10 thing about 2e, but the Player's Handbook says you die at zero.


----------



## Zardnaar

Nefermandias said:


> People keep saying this -10 thing about 2e, but the Player's Handbook says you die at zero.




 It's an optional rule iirc.


----------



## Nefermandias

Zardnaar said:


> It's an optional rule iirc.



Yes. But it's curious how often people say that like it was the norm.

By the way, can you point me where I can find said optional rule?

EDIT: Found it. "Hovering at Deaths Door", on the DMG. It's not quite the same as 3e though.


----------



## James Gasik

Nefermandias said:


> Yes. But it's curious how often people say that like it was the norm.
> 
> By the way, can you point me where I can find said optional rule?
> 
> EDIT: Found it. "Hovering at Deaths Door", on the DMG. It's not quite the same as 3e though.



It wasn't until I read the DMG that I realized it was an optional rule- it's how everyone I played with ran.  I only remember how dying worked in 1e because I looked it up a few months back, to be honest, all my memories of actually playing 1e have sort of blurred and blended into my 2e ones due to old man brain.


----------



## DarkCrisis

James Gasik said:


> It wasn't until I read the DMG that I realized it was an optional rule- it's how everyone I played with ran.  I only remember how dying worked in 1e because I looked it up a few months back, to be honest, all my memories of actually playing 1e have sort of blurred and blended into my 2e ones due to old man brain.



It’s how I was taught AD&D.


----------



## Zardnaar

We used it as well no idea where from.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Zardnaar said:


> We used it as well no idea where from.




It at least was a siggestion in Night Below to usr that optional rule.


----------



## Zardnaar

UngeheuerLich said:


> It at least was a siggestion in Night Below to usr that optional rule.




 We were using it before we bought that book. 

 Maybe in a BECMI game via that DM or the Rules Cyclopedia?


----------



## Andvari

The confirmation roll reduced the chance of critical hits compared to 5E. Death rules are similar to AD&D 1E, as in you don't die until -10 HP.

However, critical hits do not exist in AD&D 1E. So in 1E, at low levels, even though HP counts are lower than in 3E, it's really unlikely you'll be reduced from positive HP to -10 in one hit.
In 3E, particularly with weapons that dead x3 damage on a crit, that can happen fairly easily. As others have mentioned, creatures like the basic 1/2 CR orc with its great axe could potentially instagib any low-level character in one hit. I personally just switched out their weapons. 

In BECMI and 2E, you die at 0 HP, so those systems are quite deadly by RAW.

So I'd say 3E is deadlier than 1E, but less deadly than BECMI and 2E.

That being said, I don't recall actually playing BECMI without house-ruling in the -10 HP rules from AD&D 1E.


----------



## Zardnaar

Andvari said:


> The confirmation roll reduced the chance of critical hits compared to 5E. Death rules are similar to AD&D 1E, as in you don't die until -10 HP.
> 
> However, critical hits do not exist in AD&D 1E. So in 1E, at low levels, even though HP counts are lower than in 3E, it's really unlikely you'll be reduced from positive HP to -10 in one hit.
> In 3E, particularly with weapons that dead x3 damage on a crit, that can happen fairly easily. As others have mentioned, creatures like the basic 1/2 CR orc with its great axe could potentially instagib any low-level character in one hit. I personally just switched out their weapons.
> 
> In BECMI and 2E, you die at 0 HP, so those systems are quite deadly by RAW.
> 
> So I'd say 3E is deadlier than 1E, but less deadly than BECMI and 2E.
> 
> That being said, I don't recall actually playing BECMI without house-ruling in the -10 HP rules from AD&D 1E.




 I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.


----------



## James Gasik

Zardnaar said:


> I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.



This is what Gary actually wrote:

When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until 10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a drought (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in a coma for 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.

If any creature reaches a state of 6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then treated when at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of flesh , hands, arms, neck, face.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

3rd edition was a game of system mastery. It was easy mode if you knew how to make super powerful characters, and deadly if you didn't.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Zardnaar said:


> I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.



If you took a hit that brought you below -3 you where dead. If your hp where between 0 and -3 (inclusive) you would bleed out 1 hp per round until you died at -10.


----------



## Zardnaar

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you took a hit that brought you below -3 you where dead. If your hp where between 0 and -3 (inclusive) you would bleed out 1 hp per round until you died at -10.




 Derp it's been a while. As always I blame the French.


----------



## Staffan

Another thing to consider about the -1 to -10 rule in 3e is that as you get to higher levels, things do more damage. At 1st or 2nd level, sure, you could take an unlucky crit to go straight to -10 regardless of your hp. But if you're fighting, say, a cloud giant hitting for 4d6+18 the chances of you just bypassing that 10-point buffer between "fine" and "dead" goes up by a lot.


----------



## Zardnaar

Staffan said:


> Another thing to consider about the -1 to -10 rule in 3e is that as you get to higher levels, things do more damage. At 1st or 2nd level, sure, you could take an unlucky crit to go straight to -10 regardless of your hp. But if you're fighting, say, a cloud giant hitting for 4d6+18 the chances of you just bypassing that 10-point buffer between "fine" and "dead" goes up by a lot.




 The 50 damage instant death thing was more likely in 3E as well. 

 Only dragon breath in AD&D would hit 50 damage generally.


----------



## Enrahim2

The critical hit really is a big deal. But I think the -10 limit can actually have killed more due to a false sense of security. There seem to be a buffer that can make people miscalculate. I have had 2 characters in games I have been running die due to actively stepping in the way (attracting aggro) of an enemy clearly telegraphed as very dangerous, while having low hp. They most likely anticipated going on the negative, but not quite -10. They would likely have been right if the roll wasn't a crit. In AD&D I think they wouldnt have taken such a chance without a significantly higher hp buffer (there was others in the party much more able to handle the damage)

3ed also seem to be more prone due to dying by specialisation. I one published adventure I ran, a relatively high level character seemed almost unbeatable due to 8nvesting everything in regeneration, grappling and other defencive tactics. However once the powerful regeneration was taken away due to a surprise effect at the end of a combat where he had done calculated tanking - he was incredibly vulnerable to a surprise spell.

Or we had the party yhat suffered an almost complete TPK due to attacking a dragon in open hills despite only one in the party really having anything reasonabely effective for ranged combat against fire immune enemies..

So i would say 3ed actually are more prone to "accidental" deaths than AD&D. What AD&D on the other hand has is more instadeath effects, in particular the "default" poison. It is also more acceptable at many tables to have the DM present really deadly challenges, as creating new characters are much "cheaper" than in 3ed. And I believe it is mainly this effect that give AD&D a reputation for being more deadly than 3ed. (Along with the lower hp buffer at low levels)


----------



## Oofta

I had a near-TPK (one PC fled) in 3.0 when it was first out.  The PCs ran into some orcs and their base critical damage was quadruple damage but it pretty much was their fault.  

Other than that?  Like most editions it was as deadly as the DM and group wanted it to be.  A bit less "oops you're dead" than previous editions.


----------



## Staffan

Zardnaar said:


> The 50 damage instant death thing was more likely in 3E as well.
> 
> Only dragon breath in AD&D would hit 50 damage generally.



True, but unless I misremember the instagib required failing a DC 15 Fortitude save, and by the time 50-point hits started flying around you probably had a pretty good chance of making those.


----------



## Shatargat

DarkCrisis said:


> If AD&D is hard mode and 5E is easy mode, how does 3E fit into it?



I'd say it's a calculus version.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Woah.

"How big was the fish you caught in 3e?"

"OH MY! IT WAS THIS BIG! YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT!"

Look, I get the impulse to tell war stories about older editions, and try to say, "You have it so good today! Back in my day, the game was so lethal that my character died before we even stated playing!!11!!!!"

But no ... 3e is certainly more lethal 5e (which does a LOT to make the game lower in lethality), but it was also deigned to be less lethal than the prior, TSR versions.

Quick reminder-
The primary and dispositive difference between 3e and the TSR versions was not ascending AC, or oodles of hit points, or saves based on abilities, or any of that nonsense ... it was the idea of the primacy of RAW. 

The whole thing about the evolution from OD&D to AD&D (1e) to 2e is this- it was a game that allowed for many styles of play, but had rules that fundamentally were geared toward high-fatality possibilities and cautious exploration. However, post-Hickman, it gradually morphed into a game that was more about narrative and heroic fantasy. Because of the lack of the primacy of RAW, pumping out of supplements by TSR, and the common use of DM fiat, by the time of 2e (and certainly later-period 2e) it was easy to say that "AD&D" (and 2e) wasn't high in lethality. But that would be a table variation.

The actual play of TSR-era AD&D (without modification) was incredibly lethal- the hit points were much lower. The saves, while they increased across the board, could still be incredibly low (to use one example, in 1e a 15th level MU would need an 11 to save against poison or a breath weapon, and a 21st or higher level thief needed the same save v. breath weapon!). Poison was almost always lethal, and monsters and traps with poison were common. Low-level monsters often had abilities that would take characters out of combat (or out of life) permanently. Weird and deleterious aging effects were common. System shock rolls (or just being a soulless, dead-eyed elf) would keep you from being resurrected. 

Again, a lot of tables didn't play with all rules, or softened them. But this was an issue of table variation and the choice of many table to go for a more heroic narrative style of play. 

The overall story of D&D is a constant march toward less lethality over time. 3e is just a part of that trend.


----------

