D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[Reynard]

Re-check that.

In 1e, Bard was an optional prestige class. Yes, Magic-Users, Clerics and Druids had spells, but Druid shapeshifting? That was a 7th-level ability.

As for the others, yes, Paladins had some magical powers early. They got Lay on Hands, Detect Evil, Protection from Evil, eventually gaining Turn Undead, and even more abilities if they had a Holy Sword. But their spell-casting didn't kick in until Level 9 (yes 9!).

Rangers didn't get any magical powers or spell casting until 8th-level, at which point they got 1 -2 first level druid spells, eventually adding 2nd-level spells at 12th, and 3rd-level ones at 16th. Level 1 Magic-User spells followed at Level 9, followed by 2nd-level ones at 13th.

From 1st to 7th-level, the Ranger's magical powers were non-existent. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. That is vastly different from getting a pile of spells and supernatural abilities starting at 1st-level.

I recognize this is a flavor distinction as much as a power one. It's all about the feel of a setting, not power level. Part of it is that the ubiquitous magic hurts my ability to suspend disbelief - a lot. I want magic to feel magical.

Magic in baseline D&D feels...productized.

Lots of us had high magic settings with 1E, inspired by Elric and other big magic fiction. Pretending high magic is a modern thing is not very convincing.

 

[Greg K]

The thing is 1E/2E were never low magic. Wizard, bard, druid, cleric, paladin and ranger all had some elements of what could be described as magic. Not to mention that multi classing was much more prevalent during those editions so you often saw a magical and non magical class together. Elves had magic powers as a race and magic items were ubiquitous. Even setting specific subclasses say the Knights of Solamnia had magic per se.

True. However, spellcasters could have their spells disrupted just by hitting them and wizards only had d4 hp/level. As for paladins and rangers, they had prerequisites one had to meet in order to qualify and they did not get spells early. Bards were optional in 1e and you had to go through figher and thief levels before you could take a level in bard.
In 2e, Bards, Paladins, and Rangers (along with Druids), in addition to having prerequisites, were all optional according to the PHB. Of course most groups, in my experience, ignored the prerequisites, but they were technically not allowable by default.
edit: I see @JohnSnow just beat me to much of this.

 

[jerryrice4949]

True. However, spellcasters could have their spells disrupted just by hitting them and wizards only had d4 hp/level. As for paladins and rangers, they had prerequisites one had to meet in order to qualify and they did not get spells early. Bards were optional in 1e and you had to go through figher and thief levels before you could take a level in bard.
In 2e, Bards, Paladins, and Rangers (along with Druids), in addition to having prerequisites, were all optional according to the PHB. Of course most groups, in my experience, ignored the prerequisites, but they were technically not allowable by default.
edit: I see @JohnSnow just beat me to much of this.

True but magic items were heavily used by all classes and in much greater amounts than the current edition. Magic permeated the game.

 

[jerryrice4949]

Re-check that.

In 1e, Bard was an optional prestige class. Yes, Magic-Users, Clerics and Druids had spells, but Druid shapeshifting? That was a 7th-level ability.

As for the others, yes, Paladins had some magical powers early. They got Lay on Hands, Detect Evil, Protection from Evil, eventually gaining Turn Undead, and even more abilities if they had a Holy Sword. But their spell-casting didn't kick in until Level 9 (yes 9!).

Rangers didn't get any magical powers or spell casting until 8th-level, at which point they got 1 -2 first level druid spells, eventually adding 2nd-level spells at 12th, and 3rd-level ones at 16th. Level 1 Magic-User spells followed at Level 9, followed by 2nd-level ones at 13th.

From 1st to 7th-level, the Ranger's magical powers were non-existent. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. That is vastly different from getting a pile of spells and supernatural abilities starting at 1st-level.

I recognize this is a flavor distinction as much as a power one. It's all about the feel of a setting, not power level. Part of it is that the ubiquitous magic hurts my ability to suspend disbelief - a lot. I want magic to feel magical.

Magic in baseline D&D feels...productized.

Magic feeling magical is less about class features which can often be explained in other ways and more by the world building and story telling of the DM and how NPCs in the world react to magic when they encounter it.

 

[JohnSnow]

Sure yeah, I can relate - I’m definitely an outlier and my tastes don’t neatly line up with any edition of D&D.

That is one of the reasons I picked up my old setting and instead of continuing to write it for D&D, I’m letting it become its own thing (aka fantasy heartbreaker).

A GM who lives long enough will become a games designer, right?

I’ve been enjoying playing other games right now - I’m playing Delta Green tomorrow and then in a few weeks running AD&D1e with Unearthed Arcana/Dragon mag/OSRIC. Deepening your exposure to games may not “answer” all your questions, but every couple games you might have an ah-hah moment “THAT’S what I’m looking for!”

Yeah, it probably would, but I'm old enough that I don't want to have to learn to GM a dozen new game systems.

Over the years, other than the D&D and d20 variants (too many to list), I've run or played long(ish) campaigns of Top Secret, S.I., d6 Star Wars (extensively), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Call of Cthulhu, a bunch of different Palladium games, and Hero System. I had a friend run us through a few PbtA games, and I've dug fairly extensively into Savage Worlds, but I haven't been able to get my group to play it. And that's just a small sampling.

I barely have time to get my group together to play at all, so the idea of having to learn a brand-new system to play it once is just exhausting. And since I'm the perpetual GM, that's usually what adopting a new system means.

Basically, I'm grumpy and don't want to have to learn a whole new system just because it seems like the WotC designers think fantasy X-Men is "kewl."

 

[Greg K]

True but magic items were heavily used by all classes and in much greater amounts than the current edition. Magic permeated the game.

I found this to be dependent both upon group and that published adventures had more magic items than the rules suggested (at least in 1e as I never bought/ran 2e adventures).

 

[JohnSnow]

True but magic items were heavily used by all classes and in much greater amounts than the current edition. Magic permeated the game.

And admonishments against "Monty Haul" style gaming were literally everywhere.

A lot of DMs and groups ignored them, obviously, and come 3e, Cook and Tweet institutionalized high-magic settings in the ruleset. And the designers seem to have never really considered walking that back. Wahoo fantasy slowly came to dominate the game.

I get some people like it. I just miss the days when not every character was a spell caster, not everyone had dark vision, and per-day abilities weren't the default.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, it probably would, but I'm old enough that I don't want to have to learn to GM a dozen new game systems.

Over the years, other than the D&D and d20 variants (too many to list), I've run or played long(ish) campaigns of Top Secret, S.I., d6 Star Wars (extensively), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Call of Cthulhu, a bunch of different Palladium games, and Hero System. I had a friend run us through a few PbtA games, and I've dug fairly extensively into Savage Worlds, but I haven't been able to get my group to play it. And that's just a small sampling.

I barely have time to get my group together to play at all, so the idea of having to learn a brand-new system to play it once is just exhausting. And since I'm the perpetual GM, that's usually what adopting a new system means.

Basically, I'm grumpy and don't want to have to learn a whole new system just because it seems like the WotC designers think fantasy X-Men is "kewl."

Well, yeah, the WotC ship sailed long ago as far as superheroism. I appreciate your sentiment, so I think your question might better be framed as which of the OSR variants is closest to what you’re after, which sounds like an old school game with modern mechanics, less lethality, and more player options? For example. Old Swords Reign, Castles & Crusades, and Shadowdark are all attempts at “old school feel with modern rules.”

You have lots of gaming experience and a very clear idea of what you want, so the realistic expectation (by all means be grumpy too ) is that you’re not going to find the perfect system that hits all your points - But you may find an OSR game that is significantly closer to 70-80% of what you want.

Edit: Oh! The answer is not “play more Palladium!” Just to be clear

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am sure you know. You have been on these threads long enough. That aside it has been implied in this thread that magic in 5E is much more common than previous editions.

Less common and less powerful are different metrics, to be fair.

 

[Greg K]

and I've dug fairly extensively into Savage Worlds, but I haven't been able to get my group to play it.

Too bad. It is a good game. Is there a particular reason you have not been able to get them to play?

Basically, I'm grumpy and don't want to have to learn a whole new system just because it seems like the WotC designers think fantasy X-Men is "kewl."

Lol. I too don't think fantasy X-men are "kewl". If I want supers, I have Icons: Assembled Edition, BASH!: Ultimate Edition, Mutants & Masterminds 2e, Mutants & Masterminds 3e/DC Adventures, and a bunch of other supers.