D&D General Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition

[Hussar]

Heh and I’m being taken to task for edition warring.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, so we've had a page of 4E digression and I agree with Oofta that we should drop it.

Anyone got any more juice for the original discussion about 1E?

How do folks feel about, or what was your experience of, the expectation or availability of Raise Dead and similar magics in 1E? I get the sense that this was another area of massive variation between tables.

I remember that at the ones I played at it wasn't easily available.

I was gone by AD&D, but in the OD&D games I saw, it wasn't particularly rare after a while, because there were enough PC clerics around who could do it (remembering that you had a lot of vaguely overlapping groups and people who had whole stables of characters, and it wasn't particularly uncommon for people to play more than once a week), So by, say, 1977 there was a lot of availability.

 

[Clint_L]

Just as a point of irony here - I would point out that this entire thread is predicated on arguing about editions.

I think the premise of the thread is to explore whether Ad&D was as lethal as its reputation suggests, particularly in comparison to 5e. I think that as long as we avoid discussing which is better or worse, we are fine.

I have an ingrained loved for 1e; it's how I discovered the game. We played it very differently than we play 5e, and some of that is the rules but most of it is my age and experience. Nevertheless, the 1e that my friends and I played, though much more lethal in theory, was not more lethal in practice, unless you count NPCs, because we went through hirelings and, later, followers like crazy.

Part of that is we were much more attached to our characters. I had my very first D&D character (a ranger) for years. I can still tell you his stats, magic items, and best followers. Whereas now, I always have several character ideas in reserve, and if my current monk died, I would probably refuse the revivify even if available. I'd be excited to try something new. I have a better sense of the big picture, and know that the death of a character is not really a big deal, as long as the story was good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Initially I posted a long post with lots of examples and tangents. But it was way too much of a TL;DR so I deleted it all, going instead only for the bullseye items.



I agree. The only thing is in 1E/2E magic in general & casters had lots of harsh limitations (too many to list here). 5E hoewever not only buffed the overall vertisality and power, but also removed nearly all the limitations and the few that remains are pretty tame.

I'll only list one example:

- Tiny Hut. Previously, it was a nice way to help making temporary camp (only 1 hour per caster level so enough for a night of sleep only if level 8+ caster) for the caster plus 6 medium creature max & protect from the elements better, and had some defensive value too by obscuring sight. Most DMs made it so that too many creatures rushing in would just "pop the bubble" so to speak. Now, it lasts 8 hours, can even protect from a tornado, scorching heat, or extreme freezing, and is also a totally impenetrable fortress, too, better even than a Wall of Force because you can shoot or throw stuff outside, while being immune to be attacked yourself.

Sure, there are a few spell nerfs, but the buffs vastly outnumber the nerfs. So basically, 5E ended up jacking up "up to eleven" the already existing problem.



You might just be right.

The main reasons I "kinda" stick with 5E are:

* Reason 1:

Hard to find players for TTRPG already, even with a popular system like 5E. Became more true with COVID pushing online RPG play as the norm. For "less known" systems, starting a campaign depends a lot on already having a circle of friends who will agree to follow you into anything no matter what. The more common scenario is yeah they all thrust you a lot but half of them won't budge from the one system they're used to and swear only by. So you're still stuck with Mission Impossible: "Finding new players for that much less known system".

Yeah I know PF2 is well known too, especially since the WotC/Hasbro 3rd party licensing fiasco. However, after a dozen or so games as a PF2 player right now, I find it rubs me so much the wrong way, with many things. 5E feels "Yes you can try anything... BUT!" while PF2 feels "Nope ya just can't!" (because you don't have the right Feat, and even then still probably not becauyse if you were allowed that would make that other Feat totally useless and obsolete in comparison). PF2 is the 1st ever system I played where my big strong muscular ranging barbarian tried entering in a tavern full of random mostly mundane NPCs, wielding his big greataxe, and shouting loudly "Everybody out! Or else!" and got a DM answer of "That's trying to Coerce, and you can Coerce only 1 NPC at a time. So, which one?". "Huh? I just want to clear the room ASAP!" I respond. Then he says "Oh I guess you could just pick up that other Feat, then you'll be able to Coerce TWO targets! Oh frak facepalm mode activated. As if, even WITHOUT any Feat, any big strong intimidating guy couldn't just try to do that super basic super classic fantasy trope move! But PF2 says "NOPE YA CAN'T!". Felt way deflated and my PC felt he was a crappy non-intimidating-at-all uncharismatic loser after that, not like say an at least semi-competent protagonist, at all. So IMHO any system where "Board-Gamey Balance" not only trumps but totally massacre STANDARD FANTASY ROLEPLAYING TROPES, that is just extremely bad in my book. Any body should try to do anything that feels at least remotely reasonable to try to do, and Feats should just BOOST such attempts, not "restrict" them.

For an OVERLY SIMPLIFIED system like 5E, lacking a lot of "well detailed well thought of rules accuracy and details", can be a bit forgiveable. DM just wings it using common sense to fill in the gaps. In fact the system INVITES the DM to do that. So, for the players, it's "Anything goes! Sure, try it! BUT!" Almost all other RPGs I've seen do it that way. Let the players' imagination and the fantasy troopes and common sense be the main drives of the story and of what can happen when they try all kinds of stuff. Not making the minutiae of what is written on their character sheets be strict horse blinders, and if it's not written there, then it's automatically "Nope Ya Can't". But for a system that prides itself for having thought of (almost) everything and covering everything in gusto mucho details, while a couple mistakes might still be ok, so many "rules barricades" constantly raising themselves up in the way of imagination, can only mean a hugely flawed design. Iyt's just not very fun feeling "freedom of actions caged" like that. You constantly feel like some kinds of losers. And the rest of the way the rules work also contribute to that ugly feeling.

So, PF2... Big nope there for me. After that campaign is over, I'm definitely not wanting to play PF2 again, unless it's with a good DM that kind of House Ruled away all the naughty word parts, to make "common sense based basic fantasy tropes" trump "rules".

But still, it's a very good playing experience, because it contains many good ideas to steal! Heheheh!


* Reason 2:

5E has at its core elegant & harmonious "central" mechanics. I hate constantly flipping pages in a book. Or searching web pages links. 56E, the core rules, not a big chapter, and here ya go, you've got almost everything already. The main mess of unharmonious rules come from this: Each spell is it's own little pack of rules that don't really agree with the rest or even with quite similar spells.

Meanwhile, most OSR products are instead basically some guy going "Here is my own take on 1E, very close to 1E with all it's bumps and warts and all that, so that you can just directly play any already published 1E adventure, but it is MY version of 1E, in short still very 1E but with all of MY weird personal house rules, too! Yeah, I changed lots of stuff, even stuff that already worked perfectly, so it's basically all still the same kind of naughty word messy maze of mistmatched half-playtested rules. Basically, most of these products give next to -zero- benefit over simply picking up 1E directly. But... DMing for 1E: Been there, done that.

Old School Essentials however seems to be a bit better organized and more "core harmonious", though. Unless I find an even better one, OSE I will eventually try. Will still probably still kick the magic system around, though. Because all those OSR products still strongly enforce the LF;QW problem.

I'm ok with "magic is powerful", as long as the martials ALSO have the same kind of power. Goal is "Linear Fighters; Linear Wizards".

IMHO, "Level X" should means "Level X". Equally power/utility, wether you're martial or caster or multiclass. A "Level 12 PC" should be like saying "You have the power of 12 kilograms of nitroglycerine". A true "measure" of the power/utility of a PC at that level. Not getting a "But which CLASS is he? Because I need that to know how much power/utility he really has!" Nope! Only the level should be enough. The class should determine only HOW that power/utility is to be used. Not "how much of it" the PC has.


I also tried several "storytelling" style system, but they all feel way too "arbitrary". Especially those where what happens as the RESULTS of their characters actions, is partially decided by the players themselves. Yuck. As a DM, big loss of normal DM control. As a player, feeling like the DM is just unimaginative and lazy and lets us do his job in his place. The worst offenders are the full-on "collaborative storytelling" systems where nobody is really DM. Good for a one shot, played forl aughs. For a more serious campaign? Chaos breaks loose really, really fast, with no direction. It fees like little kids playing cowboys and one says "Bang you're dead!" and the other kid answers : "No I'm not!". Those lack way too mcuh "structure" so I strictly (and vastly) prefer "simulationist" systems in the style of PF2 / 5E.

Genuine question: Have you considered checking out 4e? At least in my experience, there's far less of the "you must have these feats to ride" stuff because the rules are pretty clear that, for example, skills are supposed to be VERY broad and flexible. Skill Challenges, Utility Powers, and Rituals* give a diverse and robust suite of tools for social, environmental, and investigational challenges. And, as you say, level really does mean what it means--with just a little bit of of prudence (not even really "optimization") most characters fit within a very reasonable band of utility. Designing encounters where you have good confidence about how challenging they're supposed to be, whether that be trivial, nigh-impossible, or anywhere between, is intentionally quite easy. And, perhaps my favorite part, the game is specifically designed to expect and even require true teamwork--it's not like 3e (or, to a lesser extent, 5e) where you mostly see personal/"selfish" strategy without much concern for your team. Excluding ~~Brother Bactine~~ the designated healer, anyway.

It really sounds like 4e would give you the experience you want. A rich, robust, transparent system where a level is a level is a level, yet the rules are specifically set up to support creative/"off-label" use for skills and other player-side tools (equipment, ritual magic, etc.)

Note, 4e introduced the Ritual Caster concept, but it was one out of ~18 feats, and feats don't compete with ability score bonuses in 4e. You also don't NEED Ritual Caster to cast rituals--you *can just spend a bit of extra gold and buy a consumable ritual scroll instead. Also, 90% of rituals could be cast by anyone, unlike 5e where Ritual Caster is class-locked.

(I promise I intend to speak no more of 4e after this. I just felt that this person could benefit from the suggestion. Nothing more.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, so we've had a page of 4E digression and I agree with Oofta that we should drop it.

Anyone got any more juice for the original discussion about 1E?

How do folks feel about, or what was your experience of, the expectation or availability of Raise Dead and similar magics in 1E? I get the sense that this was another area of massive variation between tables.

I remember that at the ones I played at it wasn't easily available.

I'm much too young to have played either in its heyday, but I dipped my toes into Labyrinth Lord, which AIUI is in that same direction mechanically. My experience was that death was swift, brutal, and very frequently out of the player's hands. Winnowing the lucky from the dead.

 

[Necrofumbler]

If this is your edited post, good god, did you write a novel?

Hmm, it was about 2.5 times the length, I think?

Definitely shoulda cut it down way more.

Well at least I had fun while typing all that so it's not all a waste lol.

 

[Necrofumbler]

Genuine question: Have you considered checking out 4e? At least in my experience, there's far less of the "you must have these feats to ride" stuff because the rules are pretty clear that, for example, skills are supposed to be VERY broad and flexible. Skill Challenges, Utility Powers, and Rituals* give a diverse and robust suite of tools for social, environmental, and investigational challenges. And, as you say, level really does mean what it means--with just a little bit of of prudence (not even really "optimization") most characters fit within a very reasonable band of utility. Designing encounters where you have good confidence about how challenging they're supposed to be, whether that be trivial, nigh-impossible, or anywhere between, is intentionally quite easy. And, perhaps my favorite part, the game is specifically designed to expect and even require true teamwork--it's not like 3e (or, to a lesser extent, 5e) where you mostly see personal/"selfish" strategy without much concern for your team. Excluding ~~Brother Bactine~~ the designated healer, anyway.

It really sounds like 4e would give you the experience you want. A rich, robust, transparent system where a level is a level is a level, yet the rules are specifically set up to support creative/"off-label" use for skills and other player-side tools (equipment, ritual magic, etc.)

Note, 4e introduced the Ritual Caster concept, but it was one out of ~18 feats, and feats don't compete with ability score bonuses in 4e. You also don't NEED Ritual Caster to cast rituals--you *can just spend a bit of extra gold and buy a consumable ritual scroll instead. Also, 90% of rituals could be cast by anyone, unlike 5e where Ritual Caster is class-locked.

(I promise I intend to speak no more of 4e after this. I just felt that this person could benefit from the suggestion. Nothing more.)

4E IHMO is the most balanced game of the entire lot. I just had very a pair of bad experiences with it. Never going to play with strangers in a public venue anymore! Always a moron and/or a dick in every such group. In the interest of sanity, I'll skip those stories.

Our personal feelings of me and my friend right afterwards:

• Too tactical video gamey, too "soul-less".
• It feels closer to a Board Game, a SLOWER more complicated version of D&D minatures, not an RPG.
• All classes feel the exact same.
• Unless the casters go out of their way to expose themselves to TAKE some attacks, the frontline tank WILL go down, fast. The only way to "win" is to try to "distribute" the damage amongst the PCs as much as possible. While an effective tactic, it also goes 180 degrees directly against the very roleplaying trope concept of playing squishy casters.

The big lesson I learned from 4E: Multi-stages encounters are interesting!

They drastically reduce caster power:

• Casters can't target all enemies in one go, because the enemies come in waves.
• Casters won't just directly cast their best spells mindlessly, in case there are reinforcements.
• Casters will take more damage and get some disrupted spells, too, because reinforcements might come from anywhere, especially the sides and the REAR. That way the squishy casters end up WAY more exposed to attacks in the after-the-first stage, and thus get targeted way more, than in "normal" single-stage fights where the tanks simply move to the front where ALL the monsters are, and the caster jusst stay well back, at a safe distance.
• Reinforcements in waves typically means that the enemies get overall much more spread out on the battle map, so area spells become less effective.

While also upping the power of martials:
- They can keep fighting for longer because only a few enemies at a time are attacking the PC in each wave, instead of the PC ending up being fully surrounded by the entire horde right away and being mostly the only one targeted by mosst attacks, while the casters get only a few scratches. Thus the martials end up losing less HP per round.

In 4E, multi-stage encounters are a must to avoid fights quickly becoming too simple and repetitive because that would encourage 5 years old tactics level: Just blast your best encounter powers from best to worst, that's it.

So overall that experience wasn't a total loss.

Maybe I'll try it again sometime, if I find a competent group.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

looks back at the last few pages...

So, uh, how is the 4e discussion going? You know we have forum tags for that!

@Mannahnin - Regarding the availability of resurrection and raise dead, while I find this an interesting question, I am going to "call" your question and "raise" you an additional concern.

I often reference the rule in AD&D about half-orcs and elves- specifically, that they cannot be brought back from the dead through those methods (absent a Rod of Resurrection, which works for ... um ... reasons). I have often wondered how common that rule was enforced in other campaigns; based on what I've observed others saying, it would seem that this is one of the most unused rules in AD&D, outside of people (such as myself) who always recognized that elves are soulless automatons with dead eyes and a scourge upon the land.

So question 1- did anyone else see this rule enforced?

And question 2! Reincarnation was an available spell (Druid 7, MU 6). How common was the use of this spell on PCs instead of raise dead or resurrection in your AD&D campaigns, and why?

 

[Bacon Bits]

I often reference the rule in AD&D about half-orcs and elves- specifically, that they cannot be brought back from the dead through those methods (absent a Rod of Resurrection, which works for ... um ... reasons). I have often wondered how common that rule was enforced in other campaigns; based on what I've observed others saying, it would seem that this is one of the most unused rules in AD&D, outside of people (such as myself) who always recognized that elves are soulless automatons with dead eyes and a scourge upon the land.

So question 1- did anyone else see this rule enforced?

Nope.

In my experience, it was much like the class level limits on multiclassing. Which is to say, during Session 1, the DM insisted the rule was extremely strictly enforced, but by the time you got to Session 50 when it actually came up everyone decided that it wasn't a good rule anymore.

And question 2! Reincarnation was an available spell (Druid 7, MU 6). How common was the use of this spell on PCs instead of raise dead or resurrection in your AD&D campaigns, and why?

In my experience, Reincarnate was much more common than Raise Dead. If you died and didn't have a party Cleric, then, invariably, the only one willing to actually help you out was a Druid. If anything, that got worse in 3e when the spell dropped in level.

I think I just have played with people who like to roll on that reincarnation table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

looks back at the last few pages...

So, uh, how is the 4e discussion going? You know we have forum tags for that!

@Mannahnin - Regarding the availability of resurrection and raise dead, while I find this an interesting question, I am going to "call" your question and "raise" you an additional concern.

I often reference the rule in AD&D about half-orcs and elves- specifically, that they cannot be brought back from the dead through those methods (absent a Rod of Resurrection, which works for ... um ... reasons). I have often wondered how common that rule was enforced in other campaigns; based on what I've observed others saying, it would seem that this is one of the most unused rules in AD&D, outside of people (such as myself) who always recognized that elves are soulless automatons with dead eyes and a scourge upon the land.

I have a speculation here. I'd suggest that rule either didn't exist (or was well hidden) in OD&D (at least I don't recall it every coming up with anyone I ever played with anywhere in California), and as such people who transitioned from OD&D to AD&D just kept doing what they'd always done (a common problem with edition transitions, where people assume uncommon rules are the same as what they're used to). Given the tendency for a lot of people to learn games from other people rather than from the ground up, it may well be that this error propagated via word of mouth.