Character Power Levels 1e/2e vs. 3.5e

[Numion]

I think they're actually roughly equivalent in terms of world-impact (ability to kill ogres, say) up to about 10th level, then every 1 3e level is about 2 1/2e levels worth of power, up through 20th. Epic 3e levels are more like 3 1/2e levels up through 30th.

How do you figure?

Blaster spells were better in 1/2e, since monsters only got the d8 (or whatever it was) per hit dice for hit points, so 1d6 per level damage from Fireball was pretty good through all levels. In 3e these spells lose potency because the monsters start to gain everincreasing con bonus to each hit die, while the blaster spells don't. This means that blaster spells become less effectual as levels increase.

Just an example, but also instadeath spells can lose potency due to insane con bonuses on some monsters. Actually I don't know if the characters world-impact changes at all. Monsters are much tougher, and they have built-in methods of increasing power in RAW.

 

[shilsen]

Of course, you probably shouldn't compare the characters to each other, but the characters to the monsters and opposition they'd be facing. 1e dragons are wusses compared top 3e dragons too.

In that sense, a group of 12th levels could kill a great wyrm red dragon in 1e, but in 3e it takes probably 20th level dudes. If you convert a world from 1e to 3e .. the characters, level per level, have become weaker, since in the new edition they can't go looking for great wyrm dragons, whereas they could before.

That's the exact comparison I thought of when I saw this thread title. With regard to attack bonuses and hit pts of damage dealt, 3e characters are probably well ahead of earlier edition characters. But the "world impact", to use the phrase being used in some posts above, is probably lower for the 3e character. Whereas in earlier editions, PCs with levels in the teens could take on and defeat some of the most powerful dragons, in 3e they would be murdered. I'd say that 3e characters are mechanically stronger but contextually about the same strength or weaker (in 3e you can get killed at 20th lvl by a kobold!).

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

This may sound stupid, but how about a 15th level 1e fighter vs. 15th level 3.5 fighter? (I get the feeling THAC0 may be a problem.)

 

[The_Magician]

This may sound stupid, but how about a 15th level 1e fighter vs. 15th level 3.5 fighter? (I get the feeling THAC0 may be a problem.)

1e fighter wins. All he has to do is strip himself naked, getting an AC of 10. With his THAC0 he would easily hit the high AC 3.5 fighter every round, while the later would have a harder time breaking through the 1e fighter's 10 AC. =D I mean, really, even a level 1 1e fighter with a THAC0 20 can hit a 15th level 3.5e fighter with a 20+ AC. =D

Seriously, though, I dont think even a rough estimate can be given, unless some serious math is put on the works. A damage dealt by characters in both versions is not a constant number. it is a variable, and thus can not be easily compared. It is a variable, because it is interlocked with the rest of the system it is part of. While some numbers may remain the same in both editions (like the natural AC being 10), they are also variables of the 'balanced' equation of that system. In 1e, the lower the AC the better. In 3e+ the opposite is true. And yet in both editions characters have a beginning natural armor of 10. That 10 is not a constant. It is a variable. You cant just say that if a 1e 15th level fighter deals X damage and a 3.5e 15th level fighter deals 1.5X damage, that a 3.5e fighter is 50% stronger/more dealy than a 1e fighter. Because that increase in damage is probably counterbalanced somewhere with another variable. In 2e, for example, a 13+ level fighter with a melee weapon specialisation could attack 5 times in 2 rounds without any penalties to his attack rolls. That's another variable on the equation of the 2nd ed system. So it is really hard to tell, because you cant treat those numbers as constants. They are variables. Ghouls in 2nd ed have 2 HD while in 3.5e they have 3 HD. Tarrasque in 2nd ed has 300hp while in 3e it has 840hp! A great wyrm GolD Dragon in 2nd ed has 24 HD(HD being a D8 for all monsters in 2nd ed) while a Great Wyrm GOld Dragon in 3e has 41d12+451 hp!! If monsters are also tougher, then that counterbalances with characters making more damage. And that doesnt mean that monsters are also tougher in 3e, because those numbers are variables as well. For the system to be balanced, the monsters need an increase in their statistics because of a increse in the statistics of the characters.

And that's the feeling I get from 3e+. Before 3e+ some people would get confused with the fact that, for some things, the higher the number the better, while for others, the opposite was true. To try to simplify things, in 3e they changed that. The higher the better. To anything. So you have a new system equation which is adding numbers up all the time. You can even see a reflect to that in the 3e MM. In 2E you would get the CLimate, Diet, Intelligence, Activity Cyclke, etc information first, and numbers later. In 3e+ you get the numbers first.

Only my two cents, though.

 

[Storm Raven]

I was attempting to explain to a friend who scoffed at the 20th level pre-epic cap by telling him that with the utilization of feats characters in 3.5e are far more powerful than their previous edition counterparts.

I know that a 10th level 3.5e fighter (sans magic of any kind) is signifigantly more powerful than his 1e/2e counterpart (sans magic of any kind) but what would be the equivalent level of the 10th level 3.5e character in a 1e or 2e campaign? Would he be 2, 3, 4+ levels higher in regards to pure death dealing potential if placed into a previous edition campaign?

The problem with this sort of comparison is that AD&D characters' relative power varied so wildly from character to character.Sure, the 10th level AD&D fighter might be somehwat less imposing than his 3e counterpart, but nothing in 3e can really compete with most multi-classed or dual-classed AD&D characters.

In AD&D, level just wasn't that reliable a scaling factor for comparing characters to one another within the system, let alone comparing them across systems.

 

[Quasqueton]

I noticed last night, looking through my old Against the Giants module, a 10th-level AD&D1 magic-user (wizard) in the main room could wipe out most of the hill giants with one slightly above average fireball [most of the hill giants had less than 40 hit points]. Compare that to a 10th-level D&D3.x wizard: that fireball would only take off about a third of the D&D3.x hill giants' hit points. Big difference, there.

In AD&D1, those hill giants did, what, 2d6 (7 avg) damage? In D&D3.x they do 2d8+10 (19 avg) damage. AD&D1 hill giant AC was, what ~16 [4]? In D&D3.x they have 20 [0].

Quasqueton

 

[DragonLancer]

Comparrison of characters from prior editions is a fairly moot point IMO. Third edition characters are much more powerful than prior edition characters simply because of a more modular rules set and because of feats.

 

[Storm Raven]

Comparrison of characters from prior editions is a fairly moot point IMO. Third edition characters are much more powerful than prior edition characters simply because of a more modular rules set and because of feats.

Power is a relative thing. Characters made using the 3e rules may have bigger numbers, and a bunch of options, but their opposition does too. Compared to their predecessors, 3e characters are probably less well-off than previous edition characters in many ways.

 

[Henry]

I noticed last night, looking through my old Against the Giants module, a 10th-level AD&D1 magic-user (wizard) in the main room could wipe out most of the hill giants with one slightly above average fireball [most of the hill giants had less than 40 hit points]. Compare that to a 10th-level D&D3.x wizard: that fireball would only take off about a third of the D&D3.x hill giants' hit points. Big difference, there.

In AD&D1, those hill giants did, what, 2d6 (7 avg) damage? In D&D3.x they do 2d8+10 (19 avg) damage. AD&D1 hill giant AC was, what ~16 [4]? In D&D3.x they have 20 [0].

Quasqueton

Hill giants in AD&D 1: 2d8 dmg, a THACO of 12, AC 4. However, remember that AD&D 1 10th level fighters only had Max 9d10 +0 to 40 more hit points, with an average of about 63 hp, and an AC between 2 to -2, unless the DM was giving out lots of magic armor. This means that the Giants are hitting about 30% to 50% of the time, and slicing off about 10 points per slice. A Hill giant, for a AD&D fighter, was still a challenge, and nothing to be trifled with below 6th or 7th level.

Having run this just this January for a group at Gameday, the giants of the Steading still posed a threat, and against a party of 5 or 6 people, could wipe them out if the adventurers were not careful. In our game, however, we had TEN players, and one of them was a druid who summoned a fire elemental and a 'growthed Brown Bear, so with twelve combatants the fight was nasty, brutish, and (for the giants) very short.

 

[Numion]

Comparrison of characters from prior editions is a fairly moot point IMO. Third edition characters are much more powerful than prior edition characters simply because of a more modular rules set and because of feats.

Comparisons between editions are moot, but not because the numbers are bigger in 3.X. It's because the numbers don't mean the same things. A 3.5E hit point is not a 1/2E hitpoint. It doesn't really matter if the 3E PCs can dish out more damage, when the monsters also deal more, and have much more hitpoints too.

Like I said, 12th level group in 1/2E can go after the baddest dragons of the realms. 3.XE group of similar level is rather mincemeat ofr trying the same. Why would the 3E group be more powerful, then?