D&D 5E What would you miss about 5E if you were playing AD&D?

[Sacrosanct]

Those are extreme examples though. .

No, not really, because it exists along every level range. Ogres appear in level 1-3 adventures. Even a 3rd level MU is only going to have 8 HP, and a thief 11. So even at 3rd level, a single hit by an ogre may kill them. The MU at any rate. Dead. Gone. A ghoul only has 2 HD, and has 3 attacks fro a total of 3-14 points of damage not even counting paralyzation. More than enough to kill equal level PCs in one round, even fighters. Owl bears? a 5 HD monster? 4-24 points of damage in one round. That's enough to take out a 10th level average MU, let alone a 5th level one. Giant scorpion? 5+5 HD and can do 3-24 points per round, not counting save or die poison. There are many examples, along every level range. So no, it's not an extreme example.

5e does a lot more damage, but PCs have A LOT more hit points. You don't get a HP Con bonus unless your score is at least 15 in AD&D. A 12 in 5e gives you a +1 bonus. And only fighters could ever get more than a +2 bonus, but that required a minimum 17. In 5e, you got a +3 bonus at 16. The hit die also increased. A MU used a d4 in AD&D, and a thief used a d6. That went to d6 and d8 respectively. In 5e, you start with max HP, not so in AD&D. In AD&D, you stopped rolling for HP at level 9, and only 1 or 2 hp per level unless you were fighter, where you still only got 3 hp level and that's it.

So a 10th level MU in AD&D would have 24 HP, while a 10th level wizard in 5e would have 42; 52 if that wizard managed to have a 12 in his or her Con score. HP in 5e increased at a greater rate than damage did. Ergo, by ratio, attacks did more damage in AD&D than they do in 5e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Modern characters don't actually do more damage than than earlier edition characters. They put up larger numbers, but they are attacking larger pools of hit points. And many of those cool resources they can expend to up their damage sky high wouldn't even be necessary except to deal with the huge bag of hit points that monsters now have.

Average hit points for an ogre in 1e? Less than 20. Average hit points in 5e? around 60. Heck monsters in 1e don't even average more than 10 hp until they've got 3 hit dice; Fireballs used to be lethal rather than an efficient way to reduce monster hit points by a third.

Not to mention the fact that the average 20th level wizard had only 35 HP.

People like to talk about high-level wizards completely eclipsing fighters, but it was never really true without multiclassing or dual-classing involved. When you have only 35 HP between you and death, 70 HP on a friendly suit of armor is much appreciated as a way to buy time. In other words, glass cannons always appreciate friendly tanks.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, not really, because it exists along every level range. Ogres appear in level 1-3 adventures. Even a 3rd level MU is only going to have 8 HP, and a thief 11. So even at 3rd level, a single hit by an ogre may kill them. The MU at any rate. Dead. Gone. A ghoul only has 2 HD, and has 3 attacks fro a total of 3-14 points of damage not even counting paralyzation. More than enough to kill equal level PCs in one round, even fighters. Owl bears? a 5 HD monster? 4-24 points of damage in one round. That's enough to take out a 10th level average MU, let alone a 5th level one. Giant scorpion? 5+5 HD and can do 3-24 points per round, not counting save or die poison. There are many examples, along every level range. So no, it's not an extreme example.

5e does a lot more damage, but PCs have A LOT more hit points. You don't get a HP Con bonus unless your score is at least 15 in AD&D. A 12 in 5e gives you a +1 bonus. And only fighters could ever get more than a +2 bonus, but that required a minimum 17. In 5e, you got a +3 bonus at 16. The hit die also increased. A MU used a d4 in AD&D, and a thief used a d6. That went to d6 and d8 respectively. In 5e, you start with max HP, not so in AD&D. In AD&D, you stopped rolling for HP at level 9, and only 1 or 2 hp per level unless you were fighter, where you still only got 3 hp level and that's it.

So a 10th level MU in AD&D would have 24 HP, while a 10th level wizard in 5e would have 42; 52 if that wizard managed to have a 12 in his or her Con score. HP in 5e increased at a greater rate than damage did. Ergo, by ratio, attacks did more damage in AD&D than they do in 5e.

You fail to account for THAC0 though. A 4 hd ogre only hits with a +3 bonus vs +6 for 5E.

Hit dice are mostly the same a thief would usually be 1 or 2 levels a head so the difference between a d6 and d8 is marginal.

A 5E pc at higher levels will have more hit points AD&D pcs will have better saves. 5E monsters also tend to have double or triple the damage than AD&D equivilents so its a wash.

5E has way more generous healing rates and has removed most of the consquences for death and flunking saves. I find the pacing of an adventure in AD&D to better and 5E has RAW popular houserules AD&D has like max hp at level 1.

Death also occurs at -10 RAW in AD&D not not 0. Most deaths I see in AD&D do not occur via damage more like failed saves or system shock.

 

[Raith5]

There are many small things about 1e and 2e that I struggled with then and I would struggle with now. The biggest thing I would miss from 5e is the survivabilility of PCs and the ability to invest in them and build a story. I just remember so many 1e and 2e PCs dying in absurdly random ways. It resulted in PCs being played in timid fashion with 10 foot poles aplenty and players had multiple back up PCs written up etc. I think 5e is more permissive of mistakes and risks to allow heroic play which you can more easily invest in.

 

[cbwjm]

I did find that the lower levels could be quite lethal in 2e which is why I instituted maximum hit points at 1st level to help mitigate the issue. Even then, it wasn't until around 3rd or 4th level that I felt PCs had a decent level of survivability with 5th/6th level being the point where the PCs finally really came into their power and were able to handle threats without having to worry too much about suddenly dying.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Salamandyr]

You fail to account for THAC0 though. A 4 hd ogre only hits with a +3 bonus vs +6 for 5E.

Hit dice are mostly the same a thief would usually be 1 or 2 levels a head so the difference between a d6 and d8 is marginal.

A 5E pc at higher levels will have more hit points AD&D pcs will have better saves. 5E monsters also tend to have double or triple the damage than AD&D equivilents so its a wash.

5E has way more generous healing rates and has removed most of the consquences for death and flunking saves. I find the pacing of an adventure in AD&D to better and 5E has RAW popular houserules AD&D has like max hp at level 1.

Death also occurs at -10 RAW in AD&D not not 0. Most deaths I see in AD&D do not occur via damage more like failed saves or system shock.

I don't fail to take into account THAC0; 1e fighters will often be sporting higher AC's than their 1e brethren. But that's focussing too closely on the Ogre. The 1e Ogre was intended to be a tough fight for a group of 1st level characters; in 5e it's intended as a pushover for a group of 1st level 5e characters (CR 1). But the point is less about what kind of challenge the ogre is than the fact that so many monsters are a big bag of hit points. It's an easy example I don't have to look up; Even mook monsters like orcs and hobgoblins have so many hit points they can rarely be knocked down in one hit without resource expension. Bugbears go from 10 to 15 hit points to nearly 40. Even a 1e fighter whose DM was stingy with ability scores and predating weapon specializations could count on bringing one down in a couple hits. Unless a fighter blows abilities, or has access to big damage feats, he needs at least 3 to take down that same bugbear.

Every edition has taken some of the luster off of big damage spells like fireball. Hit points keep going up, but the spells keep doing the same amount of damage.

Numbers are bigger...but the effect isn't.

 

[Libramarian]

Why are you participating in a thread about AD&D when you've never played the game?

Huh? I love AD&D and play it often. It's my favorite edition (specifically 1e)

 

[Zardnaar]

Huh? I love AD&D and play it often. It's my favorite edition (specifically 1e)

5E Sunday for us maybe AD&D on Monday

 

[jasper]

1. Rules lawyers..... ah fudge.
2. People taking 3+ minutes to go on their initia..... ah fudge.
3. Lore masters.... ah fudge.
4. Players not paying attention due to..... ah fudge.
5. Dice Cheaters..... Ah fudge.
6. Snarky posters.... Ah fudge that's me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You fail to account for THAC0 though. A 4 hd ogre only hits with a +3 bonus vs +6 for 5E.

No I didn't. The only class with a decent AC in AD&D is going to be the fighter (and cleric behind him). Again, the bonuses for ability scores in 5e happen much sooner, and are higher. In 5e, you get a +1 to your AC with a score of 12, and in 1e you don't get that until it's a 15. That means almost every MU is going to have an AC 10 for the first couple levels at least. Then it might only improve by 1 or 2 when they find a magic ring or something. So while a goblin in 5e might have an attack bonus that a 1e goblin doesn't, the 5e wizard is going to have a higher AC in 5e to offset that. Same basically goes for thieves as well. And this is doubly true when you consider in 5e, you increase your ability scores (which can increase things like AC even further) and you don't in AD&D (unless you're that OP Cavalier crap). Also, a 5HD monster in AD&D (the equivalent of a CR2 or so in 5e) had the equivalent of a +5 bonus to attack. That's not far off from 5e, and when you factor in those things I just said, not much of a difference at all.

So no, I didn't fail to consider the attack matrix (pedantic, but THAC0 wasn't a thing in 1e) compared to attack bonuses in 5e.

Hit dice are mostly the same a thief would usually be 1 or 2 levels a head so the difference between a d6 and d8 is marginal.

.

A thief is only going to be 1 level ahead, looking at the XP tables. So that's 3 more HP? Hardly significant. Especially since after 9th level, they only get 2 hp per level from then out out. 9th level is hit pretty quickly in 5e, and they still get their HD plus Con bonus after that.

Also, I disagree with the Saving throw comment. Most 9th-12th level PCs in AD&D (pretty much end game levels for most players) still failed roughly 50% of the time. IME, PCs in 5e do not fail their basic Con or Dex saves 50% of the time at that level. At lower levels, AD&D PCs fail saves anywhere from 2/3 or 3/4 of the time. Lower level PCs in 5e don't fail saves nearly that much. So 5e has better save rates as well