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

[Voadam]

Could be, but wasn't always, depending on what spells the 5th-level mage could get access to. Remember, in the TSR editions you didn't get to choose your spells; what you got at level-up was random and after that it was all about what you happened to stumble across and-or what other mages in the party happened to have and were willing to let you learn.

In TSR D&D that actually depends on the specifics of the edition and DM campaign set up choices.

Moldvay Basic:

"Each magic-user and elf has a spell book for the spells that he or she has learned. A first level character will only have one spell (a
first level spell) in the spell book. A second level character will have two spells (both first level) in the spell book; a third level character will have three spells (two first level spells and one second level spell) in the spell book. The DM may choose which spells a character has in the book, or may allow the player to select them."

2e PH:

Whenever a specialist reaches a new level, he automatically gains one spell of his school to add to his spell books. This spell can be selected by the DM or he can allow the player to pick. No roll for learning the spell need be made. It is assumed that the character has discovered this new spell during the course of his research and study.

The closest I can find on OD&D explaining new spell acquisitions is "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level. If a duplicate set of such books is desired, the cost will be the same as the initial investment for research as listed above, i.e. 2,000, 4,000, 8,000, etc. Loss of these books will require replacement at the above expense."

 

[Mannahnin]

Could be, but wasn't always, depending on what spells the 5th-level mage could get access to. Remember, in the TSR editions you didn't get to choose your spells; what you got at level-up was random and after that it was all about what you happened to stumble across and-or what other mages in the party happened to have and were willing to let you learn.

No, I think you're misremembering the rules again. In 1E you got read magic and three mostly random spells to start (if you rolled well you might get to choose one or more), but the DMG says you add one every time you gained a level and doesn't say anything about that being random. The random element was the chance to learn % roll. Yes, you'd certainly be trying to hunt down new ones on scrolls or wherever, and you'd be sharing with fellow PC mages if you were "superior players" (quoth the Gygax).

I've always seen the thief's backstab as a skirmish implementation of the Voltigeur. A Napoleonic term for light cavalry units that charge file & rank units of the enemy transversally instead of frontally. Very devastating.

I always recognized it from movies and fiction. Backstabbing is a classic coward's attack, but also one which dramatically slays a lot of folks in media. The Thief's backstab as presented in the TSR editions, in contrast to the WotC editions, is explicitly not a battlefield flank attack. It's blindsiding someone when they have no idea of your presence and no clue an attack is coming, stabbing them in their vital organs when they're not paying attention.

As much as people say that 5e required a lot of DM fixing, 1e and 2e required just as much DM adjudication and fixing. .

Substantially more so, IME. At least to play the way most folks wanted them to, which is evidently with more durable characters, from the way we saw healing accelerate through the editions.

 

[Stormonu]

I agree 1E/2E thieves were a mixed bag. As a DM I thought they were a great - nearly overpowered - class until I ran a Dark Sun game and in the first few scenes the thief player got ganked when he failed his MS/HS roll to sneak into the enemy's camp to steal some water (like a 20% chance of success, and that was at 3rd level). 1E's chances were too low (in all areas) to depend on until the teen levels and while 2E gave you slightly more control over where to specialize, it was still generally too low to be dependable when you really need it and you were really playing Russian Roulette if you took point as the party's scout. It was just a matter of time before the dice betrayed you and you got eaten by a trap you failed to detect or a monster you failed to hide from.

Backstabbing was a nice ability against maybe a single "average" foe, but I rarely saw it used because it was so difficult to set up properly and that foe usually had friends. With the rest of the party was a round or two away so you wouldn't blow the ambush in the first place, that meant you might take one out but their friends would beat you down before you got help.

 

[SteveC]

For me, very definitely feel the same way (that is, not fitting in). The good news is that there are so many great "5E adjacent" games out there at the moment. The bad news is that I play entirely virtually, so I have to get one with VTT support. And with a lot of these products coming from very small developers (often one person...) that's a tall order for them.

I find myself sticking with games that I can easily run that way. I've been involved with some projects where developers ask me questions from another site where I'm a mod, and I always suggest (selfishly) that VTT support is key.

 

[Minigiant]

For me, very definitely feel the same way (that is, not fitting in). The good news is that there are so many great "5E adjacent" games out there at the moment. The bad news is that I play entirely virtually, so I have to get one with VTT support. And with a lot of these products coming from very small developers (often one person...) that's a tall order for them

That's the rub on supply and demand.

The companies big enough to support VTT play are too big to run on niche desire

The companies small enough to run niche desires are too small to support VTT play.

From the beginning, even Gygax added stuff he didn't really plan to be in the game to broaden his player and customer base.

 

[SteveC]

That's the rub on supply and demand.

The companies big enough to support VTT play are too big to run on niche desire

The companies small enough to run niche desires are too small to support VTT play.

I definitely agree with you. I just advise people who have a product that gets any traction at all that they need a VTT option to make it out of a incredibly niche market. There are some exceptions, I'm sure, but in general. And that's too bad because this keeps some really good games from getting to the table.

The ability to create a module for a VTT is getting to be as important in my mind as in-house art or editing.

 

[Mannahnin]

At least some of the VTTs are easy enough to use that you can develop character sheets and basic automation on your own without a lot of overhead. I know people who've done it for tiny games, for example Delta's Original Edition Delta variant of OD&D.

But that's obviously a lot less support than full modules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The closest I can find on OD&D explaining new spell acquisitions is "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level. If a duplicate set of such books is desired, the cost will be the same as the initial investment for research as listed above, i.e. 2,000, 4,000, 8,000, etc. Loss of these books will require replacement at the above expense."

As I recall back in the day, most people just let you pick a selection of spells to fill out your slots when you levelled, and then you had to acquire any others through teaching or scrolls.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At least some of the VTTs are easy enough to use that you can develop character sheets and basic automation on your own without a lot of overhead. I know people who've done it for tiny games, for example Delta's Original Edition Delta variant of OD&D.

But that's obviously a lot less support than full modules.

I really do wonder how many people really demand full automation. Without expect the game to do all the bookkeeping for you, its not that hard to run most trad style games with just a decent set of die rollers and the capability to support maps and tokens.

 

[Lanefan]

"Evil DM" was not an aspect of 1st edition I ever liked.

Nothing to do with the evilness of the DM; more to do with the way that everything in a typical 1e world really was out to kill you (or drain your levels, or break your items, or turn you into a goldfish) and would - and did - try to do so at every opportunity. You-as-player then had to carefully navigate your character around the mines as best you could, taking time to rest up and (ideally) avoiding or mitigating the risks whenever possible.

1e at its best was - and still is - war, not sport.