Damage potential, then and now

[Quasqueton]

D&D3 has bonus types to keep stacking numbers from getting crazy. Spells have damage dice caps. And dragons have hundreds of hit points.

AD&D did not have bonus types, so everything stacked with everything (or did it?). Spells had no damage dice caps. And dragons had a few dozen hit points.

In all my years playing AD&D, I never experienced any astronomical stacking problems. Is this a symptom of not having many munchkin/powergamer Players, or because my campaigns rarely went above 7th level?

What kept 10th-level AD&D characters from wiping out an 88 hit point ancient red dragon in one round? What is the inherent aspect of D&D3 that lets equal-level PCs deal 88 damage in one round, dispite the bonus type and dice cap restrictions?

Quasqueton

 

[the Jester]

A few things:

The first 'stacking' rules come from 1e- the whole thing about whether you can wear a cloak of protection, ring of protection, magic armor and bracers of defense at the same time.

As to how the damage potential is so much higher:

-Higher stats, with no upper limit.

-Feats like Power Attack.

-Weapons that deal extra damage dice being very common (flaming etc.)

-Bigger damage dice for many weapons (1e two-handed sword = 1d10; 3e greatsword = 2d6).

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Fewer modifiers, in general. You might have a +5 to hit and damage from your kickass sword, but you didn't have power attack, weapon focus and specialization, etc. Also there were caps on THAC0, caps on hit points, caps on AC, etc.

Also (and I'm sure someone with a copy of the 1ed rules handy could figure it out), I suspect it was a lot harder to hit in 1ed, as attack and AC scaled in level more closely. In 3.x, it seems AC in most organic characters advances far less swiftly than BAB and other to hit bonuses. If hitpoints didn't scale up to compensate, fights would be over in two rounds.

In 3rd Ed, the bonus stacking rules have been greatly subverted by the addition of different categories. Look at some of the smackdown builds for examples. Also, greater numbers of iterative attacks, combined with lower ACs, results in more hits per round. Dice cap restrictions on spells are offset by more spells available to cast per day, by SR that isn't as absolute as in 1ed, by having different saves for different spells, and other things.

 

[Henry]

Fewer bonuses to go around back then. Also, fewer HIT POINTS then than now. Nowadays, the well-prepared party is going into combat with blesses, prayers, mage armors, shields, hastes, a half-dozen feats to bolster attacks and damage, and one 20th level fighter has almost as many hit points as a first edition 20th level party had COMBINED.

In older editions, players rarely messed with "buffing" spells except for about 3 or 4 total, and they were not cast as often. Bless for instance affected far fewer people for far fewer rounds, and chant was almost useless in combat. Prayer was quite useful, but you were 5th level before it was useable. Wizards had hastes, strengths, and fire shields, and later mage armors (called armor), but rarely messed with anything beyond those spells. It just wasn't worth it to do so regularly; limited casting slots and the durations of combats made it more problematic.

I remember when it was announced in 3E that hit points scaled to 20th level that I balked - what kind of a video-gamey atmosphere was that?!?!?! I played it and found it to be far different than I envisoned, mostly because the spells had scaled dramatically, too!

In older editions, damage output was influenced by fewer attacks, lower hit points, lower AC's, and lower attack bonuses.

 

[monboesen]

And believe me you put he smacdown on in the earlier editions. Can't really remember if it was 1ed or 2ed, but I distinctly remember our partys 4 fightertypes (at about 8th level) going through 2 lesser (150 hp each) and 1 greater undead colossus (250 hp) in something like 3-4 rounds.

Our DM was often flabbergasted at the damage potential of our characters. Of course back then it was two weapon style and high str/dex for everyone.

 

[apoptosis]

In general, the lower damage potential (and lower overall hp) is something i really preferred about the old system. I understand why they made damage and hp more linear and not have it plateau and it emulates what i think the designers wanted it to, but my personal preferences would have been to keep damage output and hp levels lower.

While i am sure people have stories of huge damage potentials in the older versions, all my experience (since 1980) was that damage potential was definitely much less and didnt increase with level so much.

 

[Quasqueton]

While i am sure people have stories of huge damage potentials in the older versions, all my experience (since 1980) was that damage potential was definitely much less and didnt increase with level so much.

But my question is "How did the damage levels stay low?"

There were no stacking restrictions and damage dice caps in earlier editions. How is that damage didn't reach the same levesl we see in a system with restrictions and caps?

Quasqueton

 

[Staffan]

While i am sure people have stories of huge damage potentials in the older versions, all my experience (since 1980) was that damage potential was definitely much less and didnt increase with level so much.

The nastiest damage potential I saw in 2e was in a Dark Sun campaign (of course), and partially due to a house rule I had. I had changed the psionic power enhanced strength to be able to pump Strength to 20 (with each step of exceptional Str being considered one point), or to 24 on a Power Score roll - this was because stats in Dark Sun could go as high as 20 plus natural modifiers naturally, and I figured the power should scale with that.

Anyway, the house-ruled version of enhanced strength combined with the five natural attacks of a thri-kreen (four claws @ 1d4, bite at 1d4+1) made for some seriously nasty damage potential. Especially with the addition of accellerate from The Will and the Way (basically, psionic haste).

Though it was fun to see the expression on the player's face the first time he ran into someone with the incredibly broken kinetic control power, which allowed the user to absorb hp damage and later inflict it on someone else.

 

[apoptosis]

But my question is "How did the damage levels stay low?"

There were no stacking restrictions and damage dice caps in earlier editions. How is that damage didn't reach the same levesl we see in a system with restrictions and caps?

Quasqueton

Good question, my guess is what others point out...fewer attacks..i think 5/2 was the best you could do (3 attacks and then 2 attacks), i think ability scores were a lot lower (tended to be limited to 18's..or 18/00...though yes certain items could go above that...belts of giant strength).

No feats to increase damage, while u could stack bonuses, much fewer to stack. You basically only had ure regular strenght damage, the bonus of the weapon and +1 (if i remember correctly) for specialization.

I remember that doing 15 damage a hit was around average and maybe 30 points a round even at high levels (which obviously would depend on how magic item heavy ure campaign was).....

This is all off top of my head, dont remember all the numbers.......

 

[Doug McCrae]

1e two-handed sword = 1d10; 3e greatsword = 2d6

1e two-handed sword = 3d6 vs large