D&D 2E 2e, the most lethal edition?

Fanaelialae · Jul 18, 2019

At low levels, I'm inclined to agree with the OP.

However, in the case of high level play, I'd consider 3.x the deadliest edition by a wide margin. In 1e/2e/BECMI your saving throws genuinely got better as you leveled up. In 3e, saving throws typically kept pace with DCs or fell behind. Also, monster damage rose considerably, while the maximum negative hp remained at -9. Admittedly, raising the dead was arguably a bit easier without system shock and the like, but I'm only considering frequency of death, not how often you might repeatedly die.

I played a good amount of BECMI and 2e back in the day, and from what I recall death happened but was relatively infrequent. In 3e, there were campaigns where people were rolling up new characters almost every session. I remember one ill fated campaign that had two TPKs in the first game! The majority of these campaigns were with the same group, so it's not like I had a softie DM running 2e and a RBDM running 3e. This is admittedly anecdotal, but it's my experience.

Hussar · Jul 18, 2019

Of course this also ignores the fact that a by the core 2e fighter does about six or seven times more damage per round than virtually any other edition fighter of an equal level.

I mean even without a str bonus a 2e fighter with longsword specs and a short sword vs a dragon pumps out potentially 36 points of damage on even rounds and 24 on odd rounds.

Let’s see any edition first level fighter do 50 points of damage with no strength bonus in two rounds.

Sacrosanct · Jul 18, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
At low levels, I'm inclined to agree with the OP.

However, in the case of high level play, I'd consider 3.x the deadliest edition by a wide margin. In 1e/2e/BECMI your saving throws genuinely got better as you leveled up. In 3e, saving throws typically kept pace with DCs or fell behind. Also, monster damage rose considerably, while the maximum negative hp remained at -9. Admittedly, raising the dead was arguably a bit easier without system shock and the like, but I'm only considering frequency of death, not how often you might repeatedly die.

I played a good amount of BECMI and 2e back in the day, and from what I recall death happened but was relatively infrequent. In 3e, there were campaigns where people were rolling up new characters almost every session. I remember one ill fated campaign that had two TPKs in the first game! The majority of these campaigns were with the same group, so it's not like I had a softie DM running 2e and a RBDM running 3e. This is admittedly anecdotal, but it's my experience.

3e is kinda tricky, because by RAW, you can have a character that mops the floor with enemies with several builds. Hardly deadly to the PCs. Then factor in you got rid of save or die, level drains, instant death at X amount of points in a single attack, and then you’re hard pressed to convince that 3e is more lethal than previous editions. In TSR D&D, a dragons breath weapon would kill most of the classes even if they made saving throws straight up

Hussar said:
Of course this also ignores the fact that a by the core 2e fighter does about six or seven times more damage per round than virtually any other edition fighter of an equal level.

I mean even without a str bonus a 2e fighter with longsword specs and a short sword vs a dragon pumps out potentially 36 points of damage on even rounds and 24 on odd rounds.

Let’s see any edition first level fighter do 50 points of damage with no strength bonus in two rounds.

How is a 1st level 2e fighter doing 50 points of damage with no strength bonus?

Hussar · Jul 18, 2019

Honestly I think the math here is right out to lunch. Because 3e monsters have stats and stat bonuses, by and large the do about three times more damage per round than 2e monsters. While 3e did give pcs some more hps, they certainly don’t have three times as many.

Try this for a test. Single 1st level fighter vs 5 orcs. Which edition fighter survives? My money is on the 2e fighter. He can kill five orcs in 2 rounds if he’s lucky. Every other edition takes a lot longer.

Sacrosanct · Jul 18, 2019

Hussar said:
Honestly I think the math here is right out to lunch. Because 3e monsters have stats and stat bonuses, by and large the do about three times more damage per round than 2e monsters. While 3e did give pcs some more hps, they certainly don’t have three times as many.

Try this for a test. Single 1st level fighter vs 5 orcs. Which edition fighter survives? My money is on the 2e fighter. He can kill five orcs in 2 rounds if he’s lucky. Every other edition takes a lot longer.

I'm still curious how you're figuring out a fighter does 50 points of damage with no strength bonus. Weapon specialization in 2e gives you a +1 to hit and +2 damage, and an extra attack on the 2nd, 4th, and subsequent even rounds. If you choose to have 2 weapons like you're saying, you suffer a -2 penalty to your primary weapon, and -4 penalty to your off hand weapon. Certainly you should account for that?

Speaking of accounting for things, you're not accounting for save or die in TSR D&D. I see your test against orcs and raise you one against a venomous creature (like a snake, spider, etc). How many 3rd-5th editions fighters would fall to those? Pretty much none. How many TSR edition era ones would fall, even at higher level fighters? Quite a few. What makes a game lethal is more than just how many hp can be soaked up.

Zardnaar · Jul 18, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I'm still curious how you're figuring out a fighter does 50 points of damage with no strength bonus. Weapon specialization in 2e gives you a +1 to hit and +2 damage, and an extra attack on the 2nd, 4th, and subsequent even rounds. If you choose to have 2 weapons like you're saying, you suffer a -2 penalty to your primary weapon, and -4 penalty to your off hand weapon. Certainly you should account for that?

Speaking of accounting for things, you're not accounting for save or die in TSR D&D. I see your test against orcs and raise you one against a venomous creature (like a snake, spider, etc). How many 3rd-5th editions fighters would fall to those? Pretty much none. How many TSR edition era ones would fall, even at higher level fighters? Quite a few. What makes a game lethal is more than just how many hp can be soaked up.

Weapon specialization and increased weapon dice.

1d12+2 and 1d8+2. Max damage 24

Round two.
Extra attack with longsword. 1d12+2 max damage 38 a round.

Two rounds 52 damage.

Dart specialists could also put out around 4 or 5:attacks.

The dual wielding fighter with the fighter handbook could offset all of the dual wield penalty.

2E you tended to level up a lot slower relative to 1E and B/X. No xp for gp. You notice it a lot running 1E or B/X adventures for 2E.

Tony Vargas · Jul 18, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
3e is kinda tricky, because by RAW, you can have a character that mops the floor with enemies with several builds

And and, monsters could pull the same tricks.

... got rid of save or die, level drains, instant death

3e had SoDs, and vs bad saves that only got worse relative to rising (let alone optimized) DCs, and negative levels worked a little differently, mechanically, but we're still pretty awful.

cbwjm · Jul 18, 2019

With high level spells able to deal up to 20 dice (or would it never cap in 1e?) of damage in 1e and earlier rather than the 10 dice in 2e, I'd say that helps the lethality of that edition. Even if players didn't often get to high levels, their opponents might still be up in the upper levels so if your opponent is a high level wizard, you could be toast when that 18th level archmage flung a fireball (Say goodbye to the 11th level party wizard if he doesn't have any protections up).

These are interesting to look at. I can't recall many of the options from 2e as options, until it was pointed out (and until I looked because why would I believe the internet), I would have sworn that the -10 hit point rule was a rule, not an option.

Zardnaar · Jul 18, 2019

1E may be deadlier due to adventure design but if you designed like that in 2E you would be just as dead.

Hussar · Jul 18, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I'm still curious how you're figuring out a fighter does 50 points of damage with no strength bonus. Weapon specialization in 2e gives you a +1 to hit and +2 damage, and an extra attack on the 2nd, 4th, and subsequent even rounds. If you choose to have 2 weapons like you're saying, you suffer a -2 penalty to your primary weapon, and -4 penalty to your off hand weapon. Certainly you should account for that?

Speaking of accounting for things, you're not accounting for save or die in TSR D&D. I see your test against orcs and raise you one against a venomous creature (like a snake, spider, etc). How many 3rd-5th editions fighters would fall to those? Pretty much none. How many TSR edition era ones would fall, even at higher level fighters? Quite a few. What makes a game lethal is more than just how many hp can be soaked up.

Ok, let's use Snakes. Medium viper in 3e deals d6/d6 Con damage DC Fort 11. Fail the save and you could lose up to 12 con from each bite. You die at 0 con. That 2e viper was only lethal about 15% of the time:

Poisonous Snake
All poisonous snakes deliver toxins automatically through their bite. Roll on the table below (or choose) to determine what type of poison is present.

Die Modifier Onset Result of Failed
Roll to Save Time Saving Throw*
1-4 +3 1-4 turns Incapacitated for 2-8 days
5-6 +2 2-5 rounds Death
7-11 +1 2-12 rounds 2-8 points of damage
12-14 None 1-6 rounds 3-12 points of damage
15-17 -1 2-8 rounds Incapacitated for 1-4 days
18-19 -2 1-4 rounds Incapacitated for 1-12 days
20 -3 1 round Death

And even then you were generally at a +2 to your saving throw - that's a what, 7 for a 1st level fighter?

I'm getting the feeling that [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] was maybe closer to right than not.