D&D General Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition

[nevin]

That's why back during 3e I started making magic items rare. Instead of finding a +1 sword, a bracer that let you fly 2x day and a wand of gust of wind 1x day, the group would find Windbreaker the +1 longsword that could cast fly 2x day and gust of wind 1x day. Suddenly magic items were much less common and much cooler to find. The excitement level of the players went way up when finding items.

I remember when I introduced charged magical items for low level parties that had been created for some great war and were cheaper to make. Swords with 10 charges and you could blow the charges to make your sword +1 or +2 for 5 rounds. You'd have thought I gave them a staff of the magi. But I realized it was just that i gave them something they'd never seen before. Shaking that stuff up does wonders for the joy and feel of the magic items or anything else that is magic in the game.

 

[nevin]

Sure. You can kill 1 a session in every edition if you want. How much effort it takes to achieve that death varies considerably, though, and it takes much more effort in 5e than it did in 1e.

I'd put it this way. you can intentionally kill a person per session in 5e if you focus on it. In 1e if you don't pay attention to what you are doing you can easily wipe the party a few times per session.

 

[nevin]

Bingo. It's a completely different approach.

In 5e, you build the character by choice. The primary power of characters is through abilities; this is why, for example, people can "map out" characters and character builds far in advance.

AD&D wasn't like that. There was an element of serendipity- a lot of your "power" and "ability" came from magic items you acquired. So a lot of your core identity, even including weapon choice, would be changed by those items that you found.

This began to change, first with the advent of weapon specialization. Begins tugging at beard and drinking mead ... and it was all downhill from there!

I mostly agree with your snark. I think they took a lot of the wiggle room and tuning out of the game with the magic item rules in 5e. I may miss remember it but the wierd thing is everyone seemed to think it was to reduce the power of magic users's but it really made magic user's more powerful relative to the party. When the non casters can only pull out a couple of magic items then it just makes the magic user more important and more powerful.. In 1e I wouldn't have played a magic user without a fighter to cover me. In 5e I wouldn't care.

 

[Oofta]

Yes it was, but uncoordinated players in 5e survive much better than uncoordinated players in 1e.

Obviously. Dex builds are far more powerful and versatile in 5E! That's what you're talking about, right?

 

[Hussar]

Bingo. It's a completely different approach.

In 5e, you build the character by choice. The primary power of characters is through abilities; this is why, for example, people can "map out" characters and character builds far in advance.

AD&D wasn't like that. There was an element of serendipity- a lot of your "power" and "ability" came from magic items you acquired. So a lot of your core identity, even including weapon choice, would be changed by those items that you found.

This began to change, first with the advent of weapon specialization. Begins tugging at beard and drinking mead ... and it was all downhill from there!

Although, even there, there was a lot of the game guiding you towards certain choices. Yup, you could be proficient in that bohemian ear spoon, but, after the eleventh time you've found a magic longsword, even the thickest player took the hint. The best magic weapons were all longswords and your odds of finding anything other than a sword were... not good. So, naturally, players gravitated pretty hard towards swords.

Helped too that swords were by far the best weapons in the game.

It's always the trade off. Sure, you can have your character power grow "organically" by using the stuff that you find. That's great. But, it also means that everyone is going to lean harder and harder into ensuring they can use what they find. OTOH, you can have your character power grow mechanically by gaining most of your character power through the class. But, then you run into the whole powergaming thing. It's all about the tradeoffs.

 

[nevin]

really......uncoordinated party tactics....in a 1e party someone had to protect the mage. If you had a full 6 member party usually the Cleric, and at least one other party member covered the magic user so they could actually function, because even one hit took them completely out of the round, then your other 3 or 4 party members would fight, coordinating the takedown of 1st the casters if you could get to them because that stopped the most damage, then the high damage dealers, the cleric popped heals, protected the caster and fought if necessary. the mage took out other casters and did AOE mostly but if they could use a spell to take down an enemy hero or get a spell off to give the martials tactical advantage that was good as well. Any deviation from protecting the mage usually meant dead mage and if the enemies attacking had spell casters or a lot of ranged attacks then it was usually run away or party wipe at that point. running headlong into battle like some guy in a movie was usually a death sentence till about 7th level for a fighter. For anyone else but a monk it was usually a death sentence at any level.

 

[nevin]

Although, even there, there was a lot of the game guiding you towards certain choices. Yup, you could be proficient in that bohemian ear spoon, but, after the eleventh time you've found a magic longsword, even the thickest player took the hint. The best magic weapons were all longswords and your odds of finding anything other than a sword were... not good. So, naturally, players gravitated pretty hard towards swords.

Helped too that swords were by far the best weapons in the game.

It's always the trade off. Sure, you can have your character power grow "organically" by using the stuff that you find. That's great. But, it also means that everyone is going to lean harder and harder into ensuring they can use what they find. OTOH, you can have your character power grow mechanically by gaining most of your character power through the class. But, then you run into the whole powergaming thing. It's all about the tradeoffs.

and as snarf said serendipity. You could use those longswords and then suddenly you found a Maul of the Titans. Boom now you use the big sledge hammer. There was no planning out your character and knowing what you were going to do for 10 levels. (shudder at the sickness of that)

 

[Hussar]

really......uncoordinated party tactics....in a 1e party someone had to protect the mage. If you had a full 6 member party usually the Cleric, and at least one other party member covered the magic user so they could actually function, because even one hit took them completely out of the round, then your other 3 or 4 party members would fight, coordinating the takedown of 1st the casters if you could get to them because that stopped the most damage, then the high damage dealers, the cleric popped heals, protected the caster and fought if necessary. the mage took out other casters and did AOE mostly but if they could use a spell to take down an enemy hero or get a spell off to give the martials tactical advantage that was good as well. Any deviation from protecting the mage usually meant dead mage and if the enemies attacking had spell casters or a lot of ranged attacks then it was usually run away or party wipe at that point. running headlong into battle like some guy in a movie was usually a death sentence till about 7th level for a fighter. For anyone else but a monk it was usually a death sentence at any level.

Other caster? What other caster?

I kid, but, not entirely. This is where playing modules makes such a HUGE difference. There are virtually no enemy casters in modules. ((Yeah, yeah, I know there are a few, sit down in the back)) It's why I always kinda laugh when people talk about losing equipment to fireballs. What fireballs? Monsters didn't have class levels. Most monsters had virtually no spell ability at all. And, again, ranged attacks from enemies? What ranged attacks? Wolves don't have ranged attacks. Most "monsters" don't have ranged attacks - manticores being something of an exception.

See, this is where I don't get it. That 7th level fighter has +1 Plate Mail, +2 shield and probably a 15 or 16 Dex. He's got a -2 or -3 AC. The monsters need 20's to hit him. Certainly any monster like an orc or a hobgoblin that was using a bow. That 7th level fighter could stand there and take literally a hundred attacks and not die. A hundred attacks might hit him 5 times for like 15 points of damage. Meanwhile, he's turned the enemies into a fine red mist.

It's all about different experiences. What you're describing, I never, ever saw in AD&D.

 

[Hussar]

and as snarf said serendipity. You could use those longswords and then suddenly you found a Maul of the Titans. Boom now you use the big sledge hammer. There was no planning out your character and knowing what you were going to do for 10 levels. (shudder at the sickness of that)

Or, you sold the Maul and kept your +3 Frostbrand because you didn't have weapon proficiency in warhammer and it was going to be three levels before you could even use it. Oh, and you didn't have a Girdle of Giant Strength, so, that Maul was just dead weight anyway because there was no guarantee that you could get that Girdle.

And the "sickness" is EXACTLY why these sorts of discussions just fly straight up people's left nostrils. Oh noes, people play differently than you do. What calamity.

 

[Maxperson]

Obviously. Dex builds are far more powerful and versatile in 5E! That's what you're talking about, right?

And more hit points. And better armor class. And MUCH easier saves. And no save or die instantly. And better chances to hit. And weaker spells. And weaker magic items. And less loss of those items you have. And feats. And skills. And better and more stat bonuses. And...