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

[radferth]

In terms of their foes, I would say the characters in the respective systems are roughly equal at low levels. I would echo what others have said in that 12th level 1/2 ed. characters would be roughly equal to 20th level 3.5 ed. characters. I guess once above 3rd level, one could try (1/2 ed level -2) x 2 = 3.5 ed level, if you need a definite number. Straight numerical comparasons don't mean much, since the values don't mean the same thing in each system (e.g. hit points are much more plentiful in 3rd ed, therefore they are much less valuble).

 

[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.

OK.

AD&D1 hill giants translated to D&D3:
AC 16, Attack +8, Damage 2d8 [~10]

AD&D1 fighter translated to D&D3:
AC 20, hit points 71 (9 x5.5, +18 [+2 con bonus], +4 [10th level]) [Edit: fixed miscalc on hit points]

Hill giant hits fighter 40% of the time (1 try per round), doing 10 damage each hit (or 4 points per round figuring the average hit chance in), needing 18 rounds to kill the AD&D1 fighter.



D&D3 hill giants:
AC 20, Attack +16/+11, Damage 2d8+10 [~20]

D&D3 10th-level fighter:
AC 20, hit points 79 (10, + 9x5.5, +20 [+2 con bonus])

Hill giant hits fighter 80%/55% of the time, doing 20 damage each hit (or 27 [16 +11] per round figuring the average hit chance in), needing 3 rounds to kill the D&D3 fighter.

Is my math right?

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

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.

NB most of the world is comprised of low level humans, at least IMC. I agree high level 3e PCs are less able to kill powerful monsters than their 1e counterparts, but they can kill far more city guard.

 

[Henry]

Is my math right?

Quasqueton

The Hill giants actual average is about 9 damage per hit (I was rounding to nearest 10), and adjust that 3E fighter to about an AC 22, and hit points about 81, and that's about right. (In our 10th level Eberron game this year, I don't think I had a single PC below a 20 for Armor Class). Doesn't change much, but a little. That's still 7 hits needed, and the AC means that it'll take about 14 rounds for the AD&D giant to hit that.

I don't doubt that Hill giants in 3E aren't more dangerous than AD&D hill giants - just the opposite, most creatures in 3E are more deadly, except for a couple of instances of monsters with save or die abilities yet absurdly low DCs. However, they are also still a threat in AD&D to their respective challengers. That 10th level fighter still wouldn't be that happy in the main lodge of steading, especially with Nosnra and the Cloud giants trooping around.

Take G1 as written, though, and a party of 10th level 3E characters probably won't make it through at all!

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

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.

On the other hand:

1e wizards, lower hp, monsters lower hp, fireball higher damage
3e wizards, higher hp, monsters higher hp, fireball lower damage

 

[Quasqueton]

The Hill giants actual average is about 9 damage per hit (I was rounding to nearest 10),

Yeah, I know. I followed your example by making the 19 a 20 -- nice round number fore easier crunching.

adjust that 3E fighter to about an AC 22, and hit points about 81

Why? You can't go giving one side more stuff (or more/better personalized stuff). If you give one fighter more/better magic equipment or ability scores, you have to give the other also (and remember that AD&D1 characters got full Dex bonus in heavy armor). This is supposed to be a neutral comparison.

I was just following the suggestion that one needs to compare the characters with their environment to judge their power levels.

I think it interesting that most people pick the fighter class to compare between editions. Feats, as a pickable mechanic, are a big difference between the editions, and fighter get the most of them in the latest. And it seems (from reading all the info back when D&D3 was announced and anticipated) that feats were first a thing for fighters specifically, to give them some mechanic to match what the other classes got - skills, spells, special abilities, etc.

Fighters used to be a good baseline for comparisons, because they had nothing special. Now, though, fighters have a major part in a major mechanic. And ironically, that can make them one of the most variable classes -- not good for using as a comparison.

Quasqueton

 

[Storm Raven]

On the other hand:

1e wizards, lower hp, monsters lower hp, fireball higher damage
3e wizards, higher hp, monsters higher hp, fireball lower damage

I'm not sure what the "on the other hand" is supposed to mean. Like I said, in many ways 3e characters are worse off than their predecessors. Your example does nothing to disprove that statement - the 3e wizard faces enemies who generally have higher hit points, and his attack spells generally do less damage. How is that an "on the other hand"?

 

[Orius]

The best* way is to compare attack bonuses.

I think in some ways that a +1 to hit in 3e is worth maybe half of what was in the old days. To me it seems a 3e +2 sword is about equal to a +1 sword in an older edition of the game.

I don't really see it as a huge problem. I think the fact that AC doesn't have an upper limit anymore helps to balance out the ease with which high level opponents could hit each other in the old days. Scaling saves are good too. In the old days a save was often save against a hard to roll number or die for a low level character, while characters generally saved more often as they leveled. In 3e, saves are more level based and don't present such quick deaths for low level characters like they did in the past, but manage to still present a threat to high level characters. And I like the fact that the opponents the PCs face are generally tougher than they were in the past; one big problem with add ons to 2e (and I surmise 1e UA may have fallen into this category as well) was that the PCs got more powerful while the opposition stayed the same.

 

[molonel]

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 will respectfully disagree. In both 1st edition and 2nd edition AD&D, the game really started to unravel at around 10th or 12th level. 3rd Edition is actually designed to go up to 20th level. It is sometimes a hard adjustment for 1st and 2nd edition veterans to adjust. The game feels like it's going so damn FAST. That's because in previous editions of the game, you weren't supposed to reach those levels, really. But in 3e, you are SUPPOSED to reach those levels, and they are SUPPOSED to be playable.

Most of the feats in 3e come from abilities in 1st and 2nd ed, particularly 2e. Cleave and Great Cleave? You had that in 1e with fighters being able to make a number of attacks equal to their level against 0-level creatures. Whirlwind Attack? Check out the 1e Oriental Adventures. That's where it came from. Anyone who has never played the game at upper levels seems to think that feats make characters god-awful powerful. Yes, there are some broken feats, but the worst examples I've seen come from 3rd party supplements. All the stuff in core is balanced.

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?

Hard to say, really. Monks are certainly more playable than they were in 1e. Wizards have more that they can do at low levels, instead of just being one-shot magic missile flintlock muskets.

I'd have to say, more powerful at WHAT? You can actually build different kinds of fighters in 3e. Not everyone wields a longsword. Unlike 2e, not everyone is a TWF elven bladesinger (with longswords, naturally) or a dart expert.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

I'm not sure what the "on the other hand" is supposed to mean. Like I said, in many ways 3e characters are worse off than their predecessors. Your example does nothing to disprove that statement - the 3e wizard faces enemies who generally have higher hit points, and his attack spells generally do less damage. How is that an "on the other hand"?

Sorry, I quoted wrong post