D&D 2E 2e, the most lethal edition?

[Hussar]

Most of these creatures crit on a 20. To do the 10x damage you keep mentioning, they have to not only hit with every attack, but also crit. 95%(a bit lower if multiple attacks) of the time, most of them will be doing 2.5 to 5 times the CR, and then get wrecked by the massive damage PCs can do.

No. They don't.

Look at the 3.5 srd. Pick a given CR creature and the max damage for that critter is about 10XCR. Almost like clockwork.

Now, sure, that's max damage. Sure. I get that. But, the trick is, the monsters only have to get lucky once. One lucky string and a PC dies. And, over the course of a campaign, the monsters are virtually guaranteed to get lucky at least once per level.

Or, put it another way, what do you think rocket tag means?

 

[Sacrosanct]

No. They don't.

Look at the 3.5 srd. Pick a given CR creature and the max damage for that critter is about 10XCR. Almost like clockwork.

Now, sure, that's max damage. Sure. I get that. But, the trick is, the monsters only have to get lucky once. One lucky string and a PC dies. And, over the course of a campaign, the monsters are virtually guaranteed to get lucky at least once per level.

Or, put it another way, what do you think rocket tag means?

I did look at some common monsters (that rely on damage instead of powers or special attacks), and you're mistaken

Ogre CR3 max dmg: 23
Orc CR ½, max dmg 12
Bugbear CR2, max dmg 10
Bulette CR 7, max dmg 56
T Rex, CR 8, max dmg 31
Dire wolf, CR 3, max dmg 18
Dragon Turtle, CR9, max dmg 72

Also, it's not just a lucky once thing. Some of those, it requires all attacks to hit, and then every one of those die rolls to hit max damage. Statistically so improbable it probably never happens.

Also, and as I pointed out earlier that I assume you must not have read, your flaw in your argument that you're basing it on a one encounter thing. I think that's a a flaw because it ignores how total damage a PC might face before they level up is much more in TSR D&D than 3e, even if the spike damage is higher in 3e due to crits.

Using your example earlier, the orc does more average damage per hit than in TSR era, but you're only facing about a dozen encounters with orcs until you level up. In 1e? You're getting about 15 XP per orc (considering avg hp and average wealth an orc would carry). So if the 3e orc does an average of 10 points of damage, and each combat is 2 rounds, and you're fighting a dozen of them to level to level 2, you're only looking at potentially taking roughly 250 total points of damage. In 1e, if the orc does an average of 4.5 points of damage, and each combat lasts 2 rounds, you need to fight around 125 of them to get to level 2 (depending on class). That's looking at 1,125 points of damage you might take before getting to level 2.

And that's not even considering how lower levels in 3e were much easier to make your saving throws, and how low level 3e PCs were much more powerful than 1e ones were. Additionally, once you do start to get to higher levels, in 3e you had things like cure wounds wands out the yazoo that you didn't have in TSR era D&D

 

[Hussar]

Low level 3e characters are more powerful than 2e ones? Really? When my 2e character can kill 5 HD creatures in one round? 40+ points of damage in a single round? Things like Sleep spells being insta kill for most encounters? Meh.

I'm very much not convinced.

Sure, an ogre might be doing a bit less than 10xCR (although not far off either), but, a troll (a pretty common monster) at CR 5 is doing 54 damage - a bit more. A Fire Giant at CR 10 is doing 99 (before power attack). A Wyvern at CR 6 is 72 damage before poison (for a potential 24 points of Con damage, more than enough to kill any PC).

It's not like 10XCr is a totally off base claim. There are a number of creatures that do it without crits and pretty common creatures too. Then you get some of the weirder ones like, say, an Athach (CR 8) which pumps out a whopping 116 points of damage in a single round. Or a Behir (CR 8) with 96 points of damage before breath weapon (and unless you have magic to get free, you're grappled until the cows come home).

Yes, if we're going to get stupidly pedantic, the CRx10 rule of thumb isn't perfectly true. As you say, a CR 7 Bulette is only doing 56 damage. Of course, a 7th level PC likely only has about 50 HP at the absolute outside and likely about 45, unless you're that raging barbarian, meaning you're still dead. Oh, and of course, that ignores the fact that it can jump at any time for an extra two claw attacks, bringing it's damage total to 84 points in a single round.

But, hey, we're interested in actual facts right? Not cherry picking examples.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Low level 3e characters are more powerful than 2e ones? Really? When my 2e character can kill 5 HD creatures in one round? 40+ points of damage in a single round? Things like Sleep spells being insta kill for most encounters? Meh.

I'm very much not convinced.

Sure, an ogre might be doing a bit less than 10xCR (although not far off either), but, a troll (a pretty common monster) at CR 5 is doing 54 damage - a bit more. A Fire Giant at CR 10 is doing 99 (before power attack). A Wyvern at CR 6 is 72 damage before poison (for a potential 24 points of Con damage, more than enough to kill any PC).

It's not like 10XCr is a totally off base claim. There are a number of creatures that do it without crits and pretty common creatures too. Then you get some of the weirder ones like, say, an Athach (CR 8) which pumps out a whopping 116 points of damage in a single round. Or a Behir (CR 8) with 96 points of damage before breath weapon (and unless you have magic to get free, you're grappled until the cows come home).

Yes, if we're going to get stupidly pedantic, the CRx10 rule of thumb isn't perfectly true. As you say, a CR 7 Bulette is only doing 56 damage. Of course, a 7th level PC likely only has about 50 HP at the absolute outside and likely about 45, unless you're that raging barbarian, meaning you're still dead. Oh, and of course, that ignores the fact that it can jump at any time for an extra two claw attacks, bringing it's damage total to 84 points in a single round.

But, hey, we're interested in actual facts right? Not cherry picking examples.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I gave a list of some of the more common monsters one would expect to encounter. You're the one who made the claim that damage = 10xCR was "almost clockwork". And it's not. Well, maybe if you were intending to reference the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" standard. Go look at other monsters like the hippogriff, or several others. Your "clockwork" standard doesn't hold up. Besides of which, what an arbitrary way to evaluate something. There are no CRs in TSR D&D, so right out of the gate you're comparing apples and oranges. An AD&D owlbear would be a CR3 creature maybe? And they can do 24 points of damage. 3e they are CR 4 with 32 points of potential damage? They are both 8 damage per CR. Doesn't exactly show how 3e monsters are much harder by comparison.

And yes, 3e PCs at low level are more powerful than TSR era ones. I already gave the reasons for this upthread, so I won't repeat them all with the math...again. Between 3e PCs starting at max hp, having better chances to hit, pass saves MUCH easier than TSR PCs do (and when they do fail, they don't instant die by poison like they do in TSR era), rolling 4d6 drop lowest compared to 3d6 in order (default for every TSR edition except 1e), extra spellcasting (cantrips), much less chance to get spells interrupted, no chance of failing to learn spells, MUCH better chance to succeed at skills, ability to score critical hits as core, each class having extra powers via baked in powers and feats, every class getting CON HP bonuses, and blanket multiclassing rules not limited to only demi-humans, I don't see how you can possibly argue that 3e PCs not more powerful than TSR era ones. You talk about cherry picking, but you're only using an example of a specialized fighter. There are more classes in TSR D&D than a fighter.

If you're not convinced, I don't know what to tell you. The list is pretty extensive and the math is pretty sound.

*Edit* also, stop with this claim of "I can kill a 5HD creature in 1 round". It's not true. Even a specialized fighter with two weapons only gets 2 attacks the first round (one with primary, one with secondary), takes a stiff penalty to do so (-2/-4 to hit respectively). Let's even be generous and assume that fighter has a 16 strength. That's 1d12+3 and 1d8+1 damage in the first round (assuming weapon spec in the long sword). Or 16 points of damage against large creatures. 1d8+3 and 1d6+1 against S/M (12 points). A 5 HD creature has 33 HP on average.

For Christ's sake, a housecat will kill a 1st level MU in TSR era D&D...

What's that you're saying about facts...

 

[Zardnaar]

How good a 2E fighter is really depends on what's used. Our 2E usually uses.

Thief/Wizard/Fighters Handbook
Bits of Spells and Magic
Tome of Magic
Faith's and Avatars Trilogy.
Bits of Combat and Tactics

 

[Hussar]

Note, I said one round, not FIRST round.

And, since we're insisting on being pedantic -there's no such thing as "core" in 2e. Everything in 2e was "core". Thus the Fighter's Handbook was core, making that -2/-4 for two weapon fighting largely moot since you could spend a couple of proficiencies to get rid of that.

You keep insisting on 3d6 for character generation, but, forget that 3e assumes elite array for judging PC's - 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. A 25 point buy value character. That's what CR assumes anyway. So, suddenly your Con bonuses are largely limited to +1-+2/level. Not exactly going to make much difference when 3e monsters generally do between twice and six times more damage than their 2e counterparts.

I'm still rather baffled why you think that 3e characters hit more often. Monsters in 2e are typically around AC 5. And limited to AC -10. You want to talk dragons? How about that Elder Wyrm 3e dragon with a 35+ AC with Shield and Mage Armor on top. Oh, right, the fact that every 3e dragon is ALSO a spell caster doesn't matter I guess.

IME, a 2e party was effectively one or two levels higher value than a 1e party - if the 1e module was for, say, 5th level PC's, I could use 4th level 2e PC's and expect them to do quite well. Watch what a 2e party does to Keep on the Borderlands if you think that 2e parties weren't MASSIVELY more powerful than their Basic D&D counterparts.

Oh, and you want to bring up multiclass characters? Hrm... my 3e fighter/wizard has 2 levels of fighter and 3 levels of wizard, while, if the party is 5th level, my F/MU is 4/4 - yeah, so much weaker than the 3e version. To the point where no one ever took multiclassing other than a couple level dip if you were a caster because it so badly weakened your character. A two class character in 2e is maybe (and only maybe) 1 level behind the rest of the party. Even with three classes, you're generally only one level back. Woo, I lose one level of fighter to gain FOUR levels of Wizard and Five levels of Thief. Gee, that's a hard decision.

Yeah, it looks like Lowkey was right. You aren't looking for discussion, you're just looking for validation. Well, no. 2e is by far not the most lethal edition. Third in line, maybe. Depending more on how much Fudge was being played during the game. But most lethal? Not even close.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Note, I said one round, not FIRST round.

Oh, well hey, let me set up a few rounds with the right spell combos then in 3e, and I'll see your damage and up you by a ton!

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this excuse. When people say "I can do this in one round!" they typically mean it to mean the first round. Not after other conditions from previous rounds have been met. SMH

And, since we're insisting on being pedantic -there's no such thing as "core" in 2e. Everything in 2e was "core". Thus the Fighter's Handbook was core, making that -2/-4 for two weapon fighting largely moot since you could spend a couple of proficiencies to get rid of that.

You keep insisting on 3d6 for character generation, but, forget that 3e assumes elite array for judging PC's - 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. A 25 point buy value character. That's what CR assumes anyway. So, suddenly your Con bonuses are largely limited to +1-+2/level. Not exactly going to make much difference when 3e monsters generally do between twice and six times more damage than their 2e counterparts.

No, it doesn't. Well, not for apples to apples, which is character generation. You're moving the goal posts again to compare unlike comparisons. For chargen, 3e assumes 4d6 drop lowest. In every edition of TSR era except 1e, it assumes 3d6 in order. If you understand basic math, that means you know that the average 3e PC will have higher stats than the 2e comparison. Which of course translates into a more powerful PC, not just on raw numbers (because stats in 3e gave you higher bonuses for the same # your stat is with the lone exception of exceptional STR for fighters--a rare corner case), but because it impacts everything else in 3e, from saving throws, save DCs, skill checks, etc. And since ALL PCs in 3e could have a CON bonus depending on on CON and it wasn't limited as in AD&D. You keep ignoring these things. ALL classes in 3e could get a bonus higher than +1/+3 if they had an 18 strength. ALL classes could get a CON bonus higher than +2. If one edition has limitations the other doesn't, guess what that means, by the definition of what limitation is?

I'm still rather baffled why you think that 3e characters hit more often. Monsters in 2e are typically around AC 5. And limited to AC -10. You want to talk dragons? How about that Elder Wyrm 3e dragon with a 35+ AC with Shield and Mage Armor on top. Oh, right, the fact that every 3e dragon is ALSO a spell caster doesn't matter I guess.

We're talking about low level comparisons and you throw out a dragon? More goal post shifting. 3e gives bonuses even at level 1 that you don't see in TSR era. Regardless of STR/DEX modifier, the fighter gets a bonus to hit on all attacks. Then also gets a feat to improve that even more (didn't exist in AD&D). Casters got bonuses to hit and saves based on ability scores that TSR era PCs never got. Rogues got an exponential boost in success rates at their skills than their TSR era thief counterparts got. All of this is at level 1.

IME, a 2e party was effectively one or two levels higher value than a 1e party

Well, so far your opinion has been wrong on many accounts, so forgive me if I don't give this much weight either. Especially since even just a cursory glance at the math easily disproves this claim.

Oh, and you want to bring up multiclass characters? Hrm... my 3e fighter/wizard has 2 levels of fighter and 3 levels of wizard, while, if the party is 5th level, my F/MU is 4/4 - yeah, so much weaker than the 3e version. To the point where no one ever took multiclassing other than a couple level dip if you were a caster because it so badly weakened your character. A two class character in 2e is maybe (and only maybe) 1 level behind the rest of the party. Even with three classes, you're generally only one level back. Woo, I lose one level of fighter to gain FOUR levels of Wizard and Five levels of Thief. Gee, that's a hard decision.

I brought up multiclass because the point is that every class can multiclass in 3e. You can't in AD&D, and for those demihuman races that could, you were limited in how high a level you can get. And you didn't get to choose which classes to multiclass in as you leveled. You were forced to split XP evenly. There was no level dipping in AD&D; it didn't exist. Gee, more limitations that didn't exist in 3e.

Yeah, it looks like Lowkey was right. You aren't looking for discussion, you're just looking for validation. .

I've provided a laundry list of ways in which 3e PCs (especially at lower levels) are more powerful than TSR era comparisons. I've done the math for you. All you have done is ignore all of that and given the one fighter specialization example, and you shift the goal posts with that as well. So you might want to back off on the pot shots full of irony here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We're talking about low level comparisons and you throw out a dragon? More goal post shifting.

One of the truthiest claims I've heard from you, so far, is that 2e monsters were boosted in power a lot more than 2e pcs (relative to the conventional-wisdom-deadliest 1e or 0e). But the example you rest that on is Dragons.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One of the truthiest claims I've heard from you, so far, is that 2e monsters were boosted in power a lot more than 2e pcs (relative to the conventional-wisdom-deadliest 1e or 0e). But the example you rest that on is Dragons.

The conversation had shifted in the past 200 posts. In the discussion he and I were talking about, it was comparing low level 3e vs low level TSR era D&D, and his claim that 2e low level PCs were more powerful by comparison than 3e, then brought up an elder worm dragon? What does that have to do with lower level comparisons?

But certainly you already knew the context of the conversation has completely changed. Certainly you would never cherry pick part of a quote and take it out of context, right?

 

[Zardnaar]

Note, I said one round, not FIRST round.

And, since we're insisting on being pedantic -there's no such thing as "core" in 2e. Everything in 2e was "core". Thus the Fighter's Handbook was core, making that -2/-4 for two weapon fighting largely moot since you could spend a couple of proficiencies to get rid of that.

You keep insisting on 3d6 for character generation, but, forget that 3e assumes elite array for judging PC's - 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. A 25 point buy value character. That's what CR assumes anyway. So, suddenly your Con bonuses are largely limited to +1-+2/level. Not exactly going to make much difference when 3e monsters generally do between twice and six times more damage than their 2e counterparts.

I'm still rather baffled why you think that 3e characters hit more often. Monsters in 2e are typically around AC 5. And limited to AC -10. You want to talk dragons? How about that Elder Wyrm 3e dragon with a 35+ AC with Shield and Mage Armor on top. Oh, right, the fact that every 3e dragon is ALSO a spell caster doesn't matter I guess.

IME, a 2e party was effectively one or two levels higher value than a 1e party - if the 1e module was for, say, 5th level PC's, I could use 4th level 2e PC's and expect them to do quite well. Watch what a 2e party does to Keep on the Borderlands if you think that 2e parties weren't MASSIVELY more powerful than their Basic D&D counterparts.

Oh, and you want to bring up multiclass characters? Hrm... my 3e fighter/wizard has 2 levels of fighter and 3 levels of wizard, while, if the party is 5th level, my F/MU is 4/4 - yeah, so much weaker than the 3e version. To the point where no one ever took multiclassing other than a couple level dip if you were a caster because it so badly weakened your character. A two class character in 2e is maybe (and only maybe) 1 level behind the rest of the party. Even with three classes, you're generally only one level back. Woo, I lose one level of fighter to gain FOUR levels of Wizard and Five levels of Thief. Gee, that's a hard decision.

Yeah, it looks like Lowkey was right. You aren't looking for discussion, you're just looking for validation. Well, no. 2e is by far not the most lethal edition. Third in line, maybe. Depending more on how much Fudge was being played during the game. But most lethal? Not even close.

Erm 1E PCs were more powerful than 2E. 2E nerfed most if the classes. At least comparing phb to phb.

2E with a few option all rules maybe but even then 1E had UA, method V dice rolling, weapon specialization which was better iirc and rangers could get.

2E nerfed spells, nerfed Druids,Rangers, Paladin's, wizards via spell nerfs, clerics are roughly the same but multiclasiing and spells were nerfed.

Fighters kinda got nerfed, kinda buffed overall nerfed if you used WS from UA. Thieves kinda got buffed in the ability to specialize but got less skill points but could backstab with any weapon. Overall minor buff.
And you can't really compare Bards fairly. If you play the same adventures same everything else 2E classes are weaker and have tougher Giants, outsiders and dragons to deal with.