bag of many edition questions

[unan oranis]

Has there always been a presumed party size for each version of dnd?

What were the most common class/race combos? (or just race in bdnd I guess)

What dominated class builds for each edition? Such as two weapon fighting and weapon specialization for 2e, for example.

What were the most classic tropes? Housecat's buffness or low wizard hp that sort of thing.

Am I tripping out or did other people have serious problems with badgers in their 2e game?

What were the most broken rules? Easily surviving a fall from 100's of feet up, etc.


edit: I'm using the past tense here, but also talking about 4e though I'm pretty up to date on that scene...

 

[Aurumvorax]

Has there always been a presumed party size for each version of dnd?

3E and 4E assume you have a 5-man group. Most AD&D modules were written for 6 people. Basic would be written for up to 9 characters. Keep in mind that AD&D and Basic assumed you hired people (cannon fodder) to stop traps with their faces and offer themselves to monsters so you could sneak by.

What were the most common class/race combos? (or just race in bdnd I guess)

Because of racial class restrictions, AD&D had pretty clear archetypes. I guess you can say that a race's favored class in 3E is what you'd expect to see them play as.

What dominated class builds for each edition? Such as two weapon fighting and weapon specialization for 2e, for example.

In AD&D (especially 2E), weapons did different amounts of damage based on the size of the defender and had unique speeds that modified your initiative. I liked this approach because it made weapons a viable tactic in battle. In 3E, most players just look at damage, size, and weight when determining what they'll use.

What were the most broken rules? Easily surviving a fall from 100's of feet up, etc.

Fighters + darts + dart specialization + high strength = Oh, God. Before this rule was fixed, a fighter could toss like 4 darts per round (at the lowest levels), add strength damage to each attack. They even joked about this in Baldur's Gate with an NPC that had gloves of dexterity and high strength and could decimate the average party by himself.

Oh yeah, fighters could also move and still get their full attacks so... yeah. 3rd Edition really nerfed fighters if anything.

 

[Woas]

uhhhhh.....

 

[Mark]

I've known of (O)D&D/AD&D1E games that had party sizes from a few to many, many with some DMs having a dozen or more players all with their own character and many henchmen/hirelings.

 

[Aramax]

I think 4 is kind of what they have always shot the game at

 

[Fifth Element]

3E and 4E assume you have a 5-man group.

I believe 3E was explicitly built for four, and 4E changed it to five, aparrently becuase more groups have five than four. Earlier editions did not state an explicit expected party size.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Has there always been a presumed party size for each version of dnd?

No. 3E was designed with a baseline assumption of 4 PC's and 4E's design was based on 5 PC's. Yet neither of them presumed that their baseline design assumptions were anything more than that - baseline assumptions.

What were the most common class/race combos? (or just race in bdnd I guess)

Human fighter. I feel quite confident about saying that applies to ALL versions of D&D.

What dominated class builds for each edition? Such as two weapon fighting and weapon specialization for 2e, for example.

The idea of a "build" is something that developed out of 3E and does not particularly apply to previous editions. Certainly there was no "dominant build" as such for them even should you choose to attempt to retroactively apply the concept. The game wasn't INTENDED in earlier editions to work that way so largely it wasn't worked that way.

I have no experience with 4E but my personal experience with 3E was that the closest thing to a dominant build would be a cleaving/spring-attacking approach followed very closely by a two-weapon fighting build and then the standard archer.

What were the most classic tropes? Housecat's buffness or low wizard hp that sort of thing.

Well I can tell you that there was a period during the 1E era where the group I played with thought dwarves were the greatest thing in the game and elves were swishy, interior-decorator ponces whose only reason for inclusion in the game was to be the most convenient butt of jokes. That was a trope I really, really despised since they then gave dwarves the best of most everything and MY elf character the worst. I defeated it though by becoming the DM for the group and putting dwarves in thier rightful place as LOWER class creatures. HA!

Am I tripping out or did other people have serious problems with badgers in their 2e game?

You're tripping. Badgers were good little outdoor encounter buzz-saws.

What were the most broken rules? Easily surviving a fall from 100's of feet up, etc.

Back in the day? Initiative. Nobody I knew ever understood it in 1E. But their own solutions were not much better. 2E's was too simplistic though. The problem these days? As I see it: the RULES and the PLAYERS running the game instead of the DM.

 

[unan oranis]

mmm hmmm... wow a lot of this stuff is coming back now.

Lord almighty, I remember the dagger/dart cheese...

Can anyone tell me what system used these rules? (if any, these could all be house-rules from the foggy past)

1. If you had a missile weapon readied you could shoot it a the top of the first round for free (might have been only for x-bows).

2. Group initiative with a d6

3. Individual initiative with a d10 (almost positive this was 2e), but you had to declare your action before you rolled, with the dm adjudicating a speed modifier (in addition to your weapon speed).

4. Actual death at zero hp, no minus.

5. For every minus hit point you went, you had to rest for one day, but minus 9 you had to rest for a month (85% sure this was a house-rule)

6. Polymorphing had both a risk of constitution related death (some sort of percentile) as well as the risk of accidentally assuming the ego of your new form, permanently. This might be a mash up of 1e and 2e, not sure.

 

[unan oranis]

-snip-

Human fighter. I feel quite confident about saying that applies to ALL versions of D&D.

Nice one. Of course!

The idea of a "build" is something that developed out of 3E and does not particularly apply to previous editions. Certainly there was no "dominant build" as such for them even should you choose to attempt to retroactively apply the concept. The game wasn't INTENDED in earlier editions to work that way so largely it wasn't worked that way.

I have no experience with 4E but my personal experience with 3E was that the closest thing to a dominant build would be a cleaving/spring-attacking approach followed very closely by a two-weapon fighting build and then the standard archer.

I have memories of "kits" from various books somehow making my players characters ridiculously strong or totally useless, I don't know how much customization went into them but I sort of considered them builds.

I can't remember what the popular ones in my group were, or if they had a large impact in the general dnd world.

Also, there were four fighting styles from the fighters kit book (complete fighter?) that almost made two weapon fighting/specialization not the only option - I'm probably off kilter but it seemed build-like to me (in retrospect).

You're tripping. Badgers were good little outdoor encounter buzz-saws.

Tell me about it; one of those little bastards almost killed our whole party... I'm pretty sure the dm fudged for us too.

Back in the day? Initiative. Nobody I knew ever understood it in 1E. But their own solutions were not much better.

Now that's funny, I just posted one of my awkward 1e initiative rules interpretations to see if I got it right or not...

2E's was too simplistic though. The problem these days? As I see it: the RULES and the PLAYERS running the game instead of the DM.

The dwarves strike back eh?

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Can anyone tell me what system used these rules? (if any, these could all be house-rules from the foggy past)

1. If you had a missile weapon readied you could shoot it a the top of the first round for free (might have been only for x-bows).

IIRC bow (and crossbow?) specialization in 2e, and there was a similar rule in the 1e PHB.

4. Actual death at zero hp, no minus.

2e core rules, with death at -10 as an optional rule.

6. Polymorphing had both a risk of constitution related death (some sort of percentile) as well as the risk of accidentally assuming the ego of your new form, permanently. This might be a mash up of 1e and 2e, not sure.

There were system shock rolls in 2e (based on constitution) for some things like polymorph spells, maybe also for Raise Dead and Reincarnation, but my memory's fuzzy on that. That ego thing does sound familiar, I guess that's from the 2e spell description for Polymorph Self.

Also, there were four fighting styles from the fighters kit book (complete fighter?) that almost made two weapon fighting/specialization not the only option - I'm probably off kilter but it seemed build-like to me (in retrospect).

Complete Fighter's Handbook had weapon style specializations for two weapons, two-handed weapons, one handed weapons (with your other hand free) and weapon & shield. The Player's Option books later modified or added to those. So yes, those rules allowed you to have different builds at least for fighter types, and if you wanted an iconic character you just added a kit to the mix.