An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Victim]

One of the things that struck me while I was reading the PHB was saving throws. While there are a few creatures or effects that have saving throw bonuses or penalties associated with them, for the most part a character's ability to resist a special attack or spell is dependent entirely on the character's level. There's no scaling of difficulties with respect to where the attack or spell comes from. Moreover, most inhabitants of the 2e world are 0 level commoners. It becomes suddenly very apparent why horrible monsters scare the bejeezus out od the common folk of a D&D 2e world: even a relatively weak creature can kill you with a touch or a glance. Only adventurers, and high level ones at that, can track them down and kill them. Levelled commoners, etc... in 3e, along with scaled DCs for saves, change this aspect of the world. The local master smith can stand up against the orcs, or even the ghouls, because while he is not as powerful as a PC classed character, he's still 5th level. His 2e counterprt, no matter how skilled a smith, still only has 4 hp and virtually no chance to save.

Granted, that's highly dependent on the campaign. Many FR supplements had no problem making common folk higher level, and I might peg a master smith as Expert 2 rather than Expert 5. He wouldn't stand up to orcs or ghouls so well then (especially Fort is an Expert weak save). And with higher level monsters and characters being more dangerous, there's still a need for adventurers.

I think that damage was generally less dangerous in previous editions. Sure, characters had fewer HP and heals weren't as good or plentiful. But most things had no damage bonus. Damage was something that wore characters done over a series of encounters or with large numbers, not things like Claw/Claw/Bite/Rend/Die on a lucky round of attacks. Now damage is usually THE immediate threat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that damage was generally less dangerous in previous editions. Sure, characters had fewer HP and heals weren't as good or plentiful. But most things had no damage bonus.

This was definitely one of the biggest things that we noticed moving into 3e, especially once the PCs reached 5th-7th level - in 1e PCs of that level would very rarely be killed in a single blow - but with higher damage and critical hits we were losing PCs all over the place - the players '1e instincts' meant that they were not retreating or becoming defensive when they should in '3e'.

(We actually had to introduce a houserule to extend the dying threshold in the end!)

 

[Wik]

This was definitely one of the biggest things that we noticed moving into 3e, especially once the PCs reached 5th-7th level - in 1e PCs of that level would very rarely be killed in a single blow - but with higher damage and critical hits we were losing PCs all over the place - the players '1e instincts' meant that they were not retreating or becoming defensive when they should in '3e'.

(We actually had to introduce a houserule to extend the dying threshold in the end!)

3e Does seem to a bit more lethal, doesn't it? I'm running Savage Tide right now - my group is around 7th level. While I've played mid-level 3e games before, they've always been one-shots. Now, I'm really getting an idea of just how dangerous some critters are - we had a big baddie (the first monster of episode 4, for you STAP fans) almost kill our paladin in two hits - something like 60 points of damage.

My theory about this has to do with the rise of video games (where damage scales in regards to character level; something that doesn't occur as heavily in 2e and earlier editions). Also, I think it might just touch in with 3e's design philosophy - making charcters is fun.

If characters die more often (and, in my experience, they do in 3e), you get a chance to make characters more often. And with all those splatbooks out there, odds are good you have a build in mind when your current PC kicks the bucket (out of my four players, three already have their replacement PCs rearing to go - the Goliath Fighter wants to make a half-elven beguiler; the dragon shaman wants to be a phanaton scout, or maybe a dragonfire adept; and the paladin wants to make himself a human mage).

All that being said, I like the 3e way of doing things. Every combat, our group is on the edge of their seats, knowing that every round is vitally important for their success. Whereas, in 2e, combat often seemed like a war of attrition (unless you were a wizard... then it was "where can I place my fireball for maximum effect?").

 

[pemerton]

The previous games were about challenging the players, so one of the main tasks of the DM was to present that challenge. This took the form of difficult tactical situations, puzzles, traps, tricks and roleplaying challenges. The DM was doing his job when the players scratched their heads and said to themselves "Wow... this is a tough one!"

<snip>

I do see the previous games and 3E opposed on this issue to a degree: in 3E you can roll Diplomacy instead of having to roleplay your discussion with the disgruntled Burgomaster, etc. (In fact, if I understand the rules in 3.5 right you can talk the Lich Lord into being your friend during the climactic showdown if you roll high enough) And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'... whether you know the combos to get an amazing damage per round output, unbeatable lockdown sequence or unstoppable skill bonus, etc.

I think there is still scope for player skill outside the area of character builds. For example, there is also tactical optimisation of activity during encounters - When do I Rage?, What spell do I cast?, How much and where should I move?, etc. Although one interesting thing about 3E is that it allows for character builds where these questions are less important - Sorcerers, certain types of Fighter, etc, who have effectively unlimited uses of their key abilities, and a rather narrow range of tactical choices.

Part of this is perhaps related to the overall business model of WOTC on the issue: once you sell the rulebooks you will continue to sell books containing "power-ups" which one can buy, almost like a booster pack for a CCG, to gain new build options. In the previous games the challenge was not on this level, so the focus seems to have been primarily on taxing the wits and skill of the players during the game itself. But if the DM had to resort to somewhat unreasonable methods of ensuring the challenge he would seem antagonistic. It's possible to be a Killer DM in 3E (too many monsters or excessive DCs) but there seems to be less room for antagonism in the way I defined it.

In 3E, the "antagonistic" GM might be the one who imposes arbitrary (from the players' point of view) restrictions on the use of non-core materials. Rule zero is the text of the rulebooks that opens the door to this antagonism.

 

[Hussar]

T. Foster - I agree with much of what you said, but it does illustrate nicely one of the main differences between editions. As you say, EGG does take a very different tone in different sources. The tough coach approach, however, is pretty far removed from humiliate your players if they don't do what you want.

And, that is one of the differences. 1e very often tries to talk out of both sides of its mouth. Take treasure for example. There are a plethora of Agony Aunt style articles in Dragon as well as pages of advice in the DMG talking about how campaigns should keep a tight control over PC wealth. The Monte Haul campaign was the bane of a good game. Don't be too stingy, went the advice, but, don't flood the market either.

Then you had modules. The Giant's series has over 1 MILLION gp's in straight up treasure, not counting magic. That's a whole lot of cash. I remember playing those modules and our magical treasure list was some three pages long. It got absolutely ridiculous. And, there were things like portable holes and bags of holding in there for helping you cart out your coin. You can put a whole lot of cash in a 10 foot cube.

3e designers really do try to follow the advice given in the DMG. It's very rare, and considered bad design, to drop too much wealth in a module. Puzzles are designed so that the skills of the character are taken into consideration, while there are still nods towards player skills as well. The Savage Tide has combination lock puzzles with clues that test the player and not the character. But, most of the problems and puzzles do take the PC into account. And rightly so. While I might be a nuclear physicist, my PC certainly isn't. There should be a limit on how much player knowledge can overcome a challenge.

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

Think about this analogy...

OD&D = John Carter of Mars - Free-wheeling action adventure sci-fi/fantasy mix (there are even encounter tables for "Mars" in the books).

AD&D1 = Conan - Action-oriented, somewhat dark fantasy, where the heroes (PCs) can literally rise to become kings (or at least barons).

AD&D2 = Wheel of Time - More detailed worlds and stories, emphasis more on who you are rather than what you do (this may have more to do with the accesories than the actual game system).

D&D3.x = Final Fantasy - Much more detailed rules set, actions are more heavily defined, emphasis on "leveling" and getting the new power/feat/spell/magic item.

Not that I think these are absolutes. Far from it. But these seem to be trends that the games support by their designs.

Just a thought.

 

[Hussar]

Wow, we managed to go two whole pages before someone brings up the 3e=computer games thing.

This has so much to do with experience. IME, my 1e Paladin/Cavalier was a freaking GOD. Managed to get the Hammer of Thunderbolts trio of Hammer, gauntlets and girdle care of the G series and also had a backup Holy Avenger.

Lessee, the Holy Avenger gave me instant dispel magic (100% chance) vs any spell cast at my level or lower. How's that for being able to walk through the Queen of the Demonweb pits solo?

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

This conversation over at dragonsfoot is germane re: dice rolls substituting for player agency. Check it out ...

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9260

Though 1E lacks the skill system of 2E or 3.5E, a similar GUI-driven type interface with the game can occur where there is an inappropriate reliance on character stats (skills are, after all, nothing more than a modified ability score check). Although skills (or feats for that matter) seem to imply limited input options, this situation isn't necessarily the logical conclusion of this conceit. Skills and feats can be viewed as actions at which the character is particularly accomplished; it does not preclude a character from attempting any action whatever.

I am strongly attracted to the idea that a high intelligence score might confer a nominal hint from the DM about a particular puzzle, or a sucessful search check gives rise to a telling observation (ie scrapes next to our painting).

Nevertheless, these are critical issues for a DM to consider. It really all depends on what style of play you and your group consider to be the most fun.

 

[RFisher]

And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'...

This is probably an aspect of why I tend to prefer classic D&D to 3e, which I don't consider much.

Although I don't think--in practice--the "build" is that dominant. But it certainly is an element that was almost non-existant in cD&D, started growing in AD&D & Gaz-era cD&D, & is undeniably a big part of 3e.

This is one of those things that late-2e/3e borrowed from other RPGs. To make it more "modern" or "state-of-the-art". When 3e first came out, I was very happy D&D had finally been "modernized". But, now, I think a large part of cD&D's appeal for me is that it is different from most of the other games on my shelves.

3e designers really do try to follow the advice given in the DMG.

Is this a good thing?

 

[Hussar]

Is this a good thing?

IMO? Most certainly. The biggest problem I had with 1e and 2e was the schizophrenic nature of the books. Picking up any new book meant that I had to parse the entire thing to fit it into my campaign because designer X had a wild hair up his bum about something and felt the need to rewrite the game.

Take a look at clerics in 2e. You have the standard cleric in the PHB. Then you have the Complete Priest clerics which basically rape the class down to something utterly unplayable. Then you have Faiths and Avatars which is chock full of fluffy goodness but creates clerics that are more powerful than anything out there. Yeah, sure, let's have a priest that can summon fire elementals at 5th level once per week for an hour AND allow him to cast any wizard spell with the words Fire or Flame in the name as a cleric spell of the same level (priest of Kossuth).

At least I know that when I pick up a 3rd edition book, it will conform to known guidelines set down in the core. If I then choose to deviate from those guidelines, I can do so easily because the same starting point is used in every book. If my game is lower wealth, like my World's Largest Dungeon game, with no chance of crafting magic items, then I can adjust elements to suit. However, if various books are all coming from different starting points, I have no "ground zero" state from which to work.

In other words, I feel that when I buy a supplement, I shouldn't have to rework someone else's work constantly to make it fit. If the supplements start from the same point, then adjusting for my personal campaign becomes much, much easier.

And isn't that the point of buying supplements? To make my life as the DM easier?