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

Campbell · Jul 23, 2019

I think a serious argument could be made for 3e. Giving monsters Strength and Constitution bonuses meant many monsters were tougher in comparison to fighters. Rock Paper Scissors saving throws meant PCs were more vulnerable to spells. 3e starts out fairly deadly and becomes more deadly as levels escalate.

Tony Vargas · Jul 23, 2019

Campbell said:
. 3e starts out fairly deadly and becomes more deadly as levels escalate.

That's something that might not be easy to see from just looking in from the outside. The classic game (and even 5e) is deadly, at first, but eventually (quickly) becomes a lot more survivable, and, even if things go south, probably recoverable. But, 3e, went from merely dangerous to rocket tag, and, there was the whole win-at-chargen thing, so what was mildly challenging to one character could be unavoidably lethal to another.

It really kinda stands out among D&D versions, you can see how PF did so well, simply by extending its life of publication.

billd91 · Jul 23, 2019

Zardnaar said:
1E only gives xp in the dmg for gold and monsters.

2E added story do and various optional rules by class.

And demoted gold to an optional rule. Characters leveled a lot more slowly as a result unless the story awards were set pretty high.

Zardnaar · Jul 23, 2019

billd91 said:
And demoted gold to an optional rule. Characters leveled a lot more slowly as a result unless the story awards were set pretty high.

Yep back in the day I never really figured out how many to award and I didn't have many 2E adventures for comparison.

I have more now but most are not good. If you know what you're doing or where and how to find the rules you need 2Es great.

For example if you wanted a narrative heavy D&D game 2E could do that.

Do for gold is optional as well iirc. I think the idea with 2Evwas a build your own sandbox.

Maxperson · Jul 23, 2019

Campbell said:
I think a serious argument could be made for 3e. Giving monsters Strength and Constitution bonuses meant many monsters were tougher in comparison to fighters. Rock Paper Scissors saving throws meant PCs were more vulnerable to spells. 3e starts out fairly deadly and becomes more deadly as levels escalate.

But at the same time 3e gives you many ways to scry, spy and scout out enemies as you level up, as well as many ways to prepare defenses to those deadly encounters. If you play smart, the game is fairly easy.

Fanaelialae · Jul 23, 2019

Maxperson said:
But at the same time 3e gives you many ways to scry, spy and scout out enemies as you level up, as well as many ways to prepare defenses to those deadly encounters. If you play smart, the game is fairly easy.

I'd say that's true of most of the editions. You're probably right insofar as 3e gave you more of such options, but the capacity for such play certainly existed outside 3e.

Zardnaar · Jul 23, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
I'd say that's true of most of the editions. You're probably right insofar as 3e gave you more of such options, but the capacity for such play certainly existed outside 3e.

Spells in 3E were a lot more powerful and a lot of buff spells for example didn't exist in 2E.

A 3E for example is fairly easy to take out via a save or suck like hold monster.

Something I have noticed in 5E as well. S T Rex for example had a 75% chance if flunking a save vs Wis or Cha iirc. A 2E one 75% chance of saving vs spells.

Throw in 5E damage dealing spells not auto scaling and hit point inflation and damage dealing is a bit of a mugs game for wizards and sorcerers.

Sacrosanct · Jul 23, 2019

I think folks also seem to miss how in AD&D, magic resistance was a flat resistance no matter what level the caster was. Much less friendly towards casters than in WoTC editions. There's been a lot talk about how the 2e fighter was better than the 3e one, but fighters weren't the only classes in D&D. TSR era D&D was much more brutal towards casters than 3e was (outright magic resistance, chance to not ever learn a spell, spell interruption, more fragile, etc). In fact, 3e casters were probably the most powerful classes in any edition of D&D, compared to their companions.

billd91 · Jul 23, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I think folks also seem to miss how in AD&D, magic resistance was a flat resistance no matter what level the caster was. Much less friendly towards casters than in WoTC editions. There's been a lot talk about how the 2e fighter was better than the 3e one, but fighters weren't the only classes in D&D. TSR era D&D was much more brutal towards casters than 3e was (outright magic resistance, chance to not ever learn a spell, spell interruption, more fragile, etc). In fact, 3e casters were probably the most powerful classes in any edition of D&D, compared to their companions.

It was flat in 2e - it wasn't in 1e. The value listed was based on an 11th level caster. Every level below that increased the MR by 5%, every level above reduced by 5%.

cbwjm · Jul 24, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I think folks also seem to miss how in AD&D, magic resistance was a flat resistance no matter what level the caster was. Much less friendly towards casters than in WoTC editions. There's been a lot talk about how the 2e fighter was better than the 3e one, but fighters weren't the only classes in D&D. TSR era D&D was much more brutal towards casters than 3e was (outright magic resistance, chance to not ever learn a spell, spell interruption, more fragile, etc). In fact, 3e casters were probably the most powerful classes in any edition of D&D, compared to their companions.

One of the biggest issues for casters is that at higher levels,saving throws improve on the side of the target, in general, there was nothing on the spellcaster's side that really improved the odds that their spells would succeed (at least not in core, I think some options came out that compared their level to the opponents and applied a bonus or penalty). In 3e onwards, spellcaster's had a greater chance of their spell succeeding because their spell save DC/attack bonus increases as they level and often there were additional bonuses that could be applied to improve their chances. As far as I can recall in 2e, only specialists penalised their opponents saving throws (by only 1 point) and there were some individual spells that made the target save at a penalty, but otherwise, your spells that targeted opponents could end up being quite useless. Better to buff your allies or focus on spells that don't require a save.