How many 18th level fighters could an 18th level fighter take out

[Turanil]

Yeah, that's about all I picked up from you on why 3.5e would win over 1e. Aelryinth made plenty of valid points (along with a few I didn't know about). And you didn't do or say anything to disprove them beyond this cop-out of an argument that you can't or have yet to back up. Your own attempt at a 1e character was just a write up of a 3.5e character, not a 1e. There was nothing about that character you made that was 1e except its hit points.

I played from the basic D&D up to current 3.5, more than 25 years of play. It's you who don't know about the subject. The AD&D 1e character obviously has to be translated into d20 terms to make the comparison. Both must have same equipment and ability scores or the comparison doesn't mean anything. Giving artifact in 1e was up to the individual DM, and in 3e DMs can also give whatever treasure they want; as such all this babble about magic item is nonsense. All that I see is snobbery to say that good old days was better than today. It's just a fact: characters in 3e are far more powerful than in 1e or 2e, except maybe for the wizard who could cast 18d6 fireballs instead of 10d6 for 3e wizard. End of subject, I am tired of it.

 

[Aelryinth]

There's no 'good old days is better.' There's ignoring the reality of the situation you are in.

''obviously everything needs to be translated into 3E terms..." Well, no. Obviously, everything needs to be translated into 1E terms. There, didn't that settle everything.

No? For some reason I didn't think so.

A 1E fighter could customize his gear. There was Enchant an Item spell back then, remember? It was just a lot harder...you had to actually go get the components for the stuff on a mad Quest, and you probably wouldn't level while doing it, either.

AC scaled past -10 in 1E. There were examples somewhere of a -12 AC, some god or another, I think...or a Dragon. Can't remember. -10 is just where the table stopped.

We are calling a round a round...if one is fighting the other, they have to be on the same scale.

Prices for gear are guidelines, sure. But all the character classes are balanced by gear and abilities. In 1E, classes were balanced by the experience costs neccessary to go up levels, and saving throws, and THACO. Higher ability scores were common because lower ones did absolutely nothing for you...9-14 were wasted stats...and TH mods were precious, indeed. magic items? those were accessories, and DM's fiat...but they often made or broke the character. You should have seen how many +1 longswords our group accumulated over time.

Even with your 'average array', which totally destroys a 1E fighter, you are overlooking the fact that 2 attacks and being able to move freely means the 2E fighter is attacking twice as often as the 1E, and he has double specialization at hand to even the damage gap considerably.

And lastly...you didn't need special skills to wield two weapons, and they doubled your attacks!

A 1E fighter double specced in short swords and wielding two of them got 5 attacks a round, every round, at highest THACO. And applied full str bonus, too.

A 1E fighter with archery is going to completely destroy a 3E fighter...they can shoot 4 arrows, then move back into cover, and stack str, bow and magic bonuses.

A 1E theif would get slaughtered by a rogue.

A 1E cleric would get hammered by a 3E.

Paladins? 3E one gets all the goodies now...no restriction to ten magic items for them!

Rangers? 1E rangers OWNED Giant-class creatures...which was basically every monster on two legs, from Goblins to titans. Against one another? 3E...customize the FE gives the nod right there.

a 1e Druid...hmm. Wildshape is so much better now I'll have to nod to 3E...but 1E druids got elemental wildshape pretty fast as heirophants...and their best spells hit at level 12, not level 17.

A 1e mage has the fight there, with scaling spells. Unlimited level bases for magic missile and fireball, anyone? Lots of ways spells could break the system. Cast an Epuration and neutralize any spell of your opponents while you hammer him with 9 magic missiles per spell, or 18 dice fireballs or something...blah blah blah.

Different games, different rules, bad matchups.

As for D&D...that's actually a pretty good comparison stat-wise, although the lack of iteratives for non-fighters is a bad thing, and spells scale up forever. Hit point wise, 3E has all the nods to it.

===Aelryinth

 

[Hawken]

I played from the basic D&D up to current 3.5, more than 25 years of play. It's you who don't know about the subject.

Yeah, so? I've played D&D for over 25 years too. More than half of that as a DM, so, I'd say I've got enough experience with the rules to debate you any day of the week.

The AD&D 1e character obviously has to be translated into d20 terms to make the comparison.

Not so obviously. The 3.5 could be converted to 1e, or both to 2e. Or maybe to Marvel? The options are limitless!

Both must have same equipment and ability scores or the comparison doesn't mean anything.

Says who? You? 3.5e fighter has feats, skills, etc. 1e fighter gets superior magic and magic items and whatever other 1e goodies there are. The comparison should be made because of the differences. If you take a 1e fighter and force him to fight a 3.5e fighter using 3.5e rules without his own 1e rules and gear of course the 1e fighter would lose. And vice versa.

Giving artifact in 1e was up to the individual DM, and in 3e DMs can also give whatever treasure they want; as such all this babble about magic item is nonsense.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of artifacts in plenty of adventures that PCs could get unless the DM just took them out of the adventure (but then what would be the point?!). And yes, 3.5 DMs can give out what they want, but when they start doing that, it invariably screws up the balance of the game--that never seemed to be the case with 1e games. When 1e characters managed to get an artifact, there was a real sense of accomplishment because of all the skill, luck and lost companions involved, and only butt-munch DMs would take that away from their players. And if all you finish your rebuttal with, "...this babble...is nonsense," then maybe you should find a different topic or someone less intelligent to debate with.

All that I see is snobbery to say that good old days was better than today. It's just a fact: characters in 3e are far more powerful than in 1e or 2e, except maybe for the wizard who could cast 18d6 fireballs instead of 10d6 for 3e wizard. End of subject, I am tired of it.

I never said that "good old days was better than today". Don't try to justify your position by accusing me of snobbery or putting words in my mouth. 3e characters are not more powerful. They are more customizable. Big difference. No one has yet proven that a 1e 18th fighter with his 1e gear is going to get smoked by a 3.5 18th fighter with his 3.5 gear. And as I've mentioned, 1e classes like the assassin, monk and a few others would smoke their 3.5 counterparts. Especially wizards. Rangers back then were pretty sweet and the psionic characters back then could walk all over the psionic classes today.

Does that mean that 1e is better? No. Just different. The game was different back then. It would be like comparing your grandfather's life growing up to your own. Things are different now than back then and if you were to try and hack it in your grandfather's time you probably couldn't. People back then had different rules and did things on a daily or regular basis that could get them thrown in jail (or at least slapped with a lawsuit) nowadays.

Same with D&D. Yes, 3.5 is much more customizable, but there's still a charm to 1e (and even 2e) that likely won't fade. A 1e character that could defeat a dragon, devil lord or demon prince was a bad-@ss and everyone knew it. Hell, they got followers (and castles if I remember correctly) at 9th level without having to take a feat for it! Nowadays, anyone can whip up a character around 10th level that could take out balors, pit fiends and dragons with hardly any effort (as long as the rolls aren't too bad). That's just not the same kind of excitement or sense of accomplishment, and the rewards definitely aren't the same.

 

[Turanil]

Yes, 3.5 is much more customizable, but there's still a charm to 1e (and even 2e) that likely won't fade. <...> That's just not the same kind of excitement or sense of accomplishment, and the rewards definitely aren't the same.

I never discussed the merits of 1e over 3e; I just said that once you convert the game mechanics, 3e fighters are more powerful than their 1e counterpart. The original post wasn't about which fighter is more powerful in his own setting, but how many 1e fighters a 3e fighter could slay before dying. To make that calculation you must convert the 1e to 3e. Discussing artifacts and charm of 1e over 3e just belongs to another thread. In fact I have nothing to say about the charm of 1e over 3e; myself I prefer Castles & Crusades which is somewhat a blend of d20 system with AD&D 1e flair. The fact that one prefers 1e or 3e was not the point of the original post.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

. To make that calculation you must convert the 1e to 3e.

That would be utterly pointless. When converting from abn earlier edition don'ty you get to take advantage of the new class features? So..a direct number conversion would be bull as it doesn'ty reflect the actual capabilities of the convereted character.

Pit characters against the same monster from thier own editions. Sure stats are gonna vary there but an ogre is an ogre (for example) regradless of edition. Or pit the character against an identical 18th level fighter in his own edition.

(target Ac is 20 in 3e and 0 in AD%D and str 17)

an 18th level 3e fighter armed with a longsword will do ~26 pts damage a round (within his edition)

abn 18th level 1eAD&D (pghbn obnlty) fighter with a longsword will do ~11 ptys of damage a round
(within his edition)

the highest rolled hp a 3e fighter will have (not accounting for stats) is 180

the highest rolled hp a 1eAD&D fighter will have (not accounting for stats) is 117


a 3e fighter may perish in 7 rounds when facing another 18th level fighter

a 1e AD&D fighter may perish in 11 rounds facing another 18th level fighter.

the AD&D fighter is tougher (within his own edition)



but what if if both characters have a con of 18?
the highest rolled hp a 3e fighter will have 252

the highest rolled hp a 1eAD&D fighter will have is 153

a 3e fighter may perish in 10 rounds whbn facing another 18th level fighter

a 1e AD&D fighter may perish in 14 rounds facing another 18th level fighter.

the AD&D fighter is tougher (within his own edition)


of course there are lots of sniggley details that can knock all of this outa whack.

 

[Turanil]

That would be utterly pointless.

The fact is, that pointless or not, the original poster wanted to know how many AD&D 1e fighters a D&D 3e fighter could slay before dying. I just answered that, which is in any case obvious. If you don't like the question and wants to change it to something else, it's your responsibility, but don't tell me I am wrong when answering the question as is.

 

[radferth]

But seriously folks

If, for some odd reason, someone actually cared about the answer to this question, one would have to specify the terms of the engagement. First off, it makes little sense to compare at 18th level, as the two systems rapidly diverge at 10th level or so. So given that, lets look at a 10th level 1st edition fighter converted as numerically closely as possible to 3rd ed statistics. At first glance, it seems easiest to assume the 1st ed fighter is a warior npc class with d10 for hit points. He is going to get another hd, as well slight boost for con if he has a medium con (as 1st ed fighter con bonus is +1 per con point over 14, as opposed to +1 per 2 con points over 10.) If you translate the other 1st edition fighter abilities to SRD 3rd ed feats, you get weapon focus, weapon specialization, and maybe something like two weapon fighting or some exotic weapon proficiency. The number of feats a warrior gets seem to translate pretty nicely. In other words, the 1st ed fighter translates fairly well into a 3rd ed warrior of equal level with d10 hd. This would give him a challenge rating of level-1 (which most folks think is a crock, but there it is). If we follow the 1st ed. fighter to 3rd ed warrior conversion at all levels, a 1st ed fighter has a CR of level-1, or 17 at 18th level. This means a single 18th level 3rd ed figher could beat one most of the time, but would be a mild underdog against 2.

Now if we look at how 1st ed and 3rd ed fighters perform against the great foes of their respective worlds, we see that a 10th level fighter can go up against foes (such as a balor or really big red dragon) that would seem appropriate for a 18th to 20th level 3rd ed fighter. So if one wanted to make a culturally relevent translation, I would say one could double the level of the 1st ed character and have the appropriate level for their 3rd ed translation. This would be easy with fighters, with wizards one would have to make half these levels some prestige class that didn't increase # of spells, but gave some huge bonus to evocation spell damage. Now what does this mean to those still reading this thread, absolutely nothing, I'd guess. Now lets get to topics of true worth, such as how many Conan the Destroyer movie Conans could Howard's original pulp Conan (circa Corsairs of the Black Coast) take out.

Edit: If one wants to tackle this in terms of Mythusmage's post, assume all Conans are gay, and Howard's Conan has no money, but excellent prospects as a bandit, pirate, or mercenary.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

The fact is, that pointless or not, the original poster wanted to know how many AD&D 1e fighters a D&D 3e fighter could slay before dying. I just answered that, which is in any case obvious. If you don't like the question and wants to change it to something else, it's your responsibility, but don't tell me I am wrong when answering the question as is.

Pulling the numbers over without considering what the numbers mean within each system will not give an accurate assessment of whom will defeat whom (or how many of them). Would you pull in a Runequest rpg character directly with his 16 hp and consider those 16 hp to be the same hp as D&D? (probably not). We do have the benefits of similarity in the different editions of D&D that shouldn't make this such a difficult practice but there are differences in detail that do change what some of the numbers mean.

An 18th level AD&D fighter was no less a killing machine in his own game then the 18th level 3e fighter.

 

[Numenorean]

JDJarvis is right. To put them up against each other is a flawed system. To better evaluate each one put them up against their respective enemies in their respective game system.

I Agree in his own world the 1st edition fighter is more powerful. I play 3e now and while the 3e fighter can deal a lot of damage they cannot stand as long in front of creatures an 18th level fighter would face.

3e is very power-intensive. Damage dealt goes up in large amounts. However the defense perspective lags, whereas in 1e there is more of a balance between offense and defense-damage out and damage in. In that system the fighter is more powerful.

 

[Aelryinth]

Yeah, don't forget 1E fighters had the best saves, and most hit points, and no one got close on combat ability...clerics had 2/3 THACO advancement, not the 3/4 that is there now.

And we didn't know what a full attack action was...we just took all our swings at highest skill level!

O yeah, monsters never got Con bonuses to Hit points, and they were a LOT less hit dice floating around back then. Hill Giants were 8 HD, and your biggest Red Dragon had 11 HD and 88 hit points...one round of fighting for a fighter at level 18.

===Aelryinth