Damage potential, then and now

[Zappo]

I didn't have stacking problems in 2E because I spent most of my preparation time getting headaches over what classes, items and spells I would allow to the PCs, so that I wouldn't get stacking problems afterwards. Thank WotC for 3E.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Don't forget the huge CON bonuses for everyone in 3e! pumps up hp no end!

Part of me finds it annoying though that while they scaled up melee fighters damage, wizards spells were kept where they were (capped too? I can't remember whether fireball was uncapped in 1e).

It was the same approach they took in dealing with 3e empowered buff spells lasting all day. They went for the double whammy of increasing the fighters melee damage and effectively reducing the wizards fireball damage (relative to target hit points). One or the other would be good, both not so good IMO.

Cheers

 

[Staffan]

I can't remember whether fireball was uncapped in 1e).

Not in 1e, but in 2e. It was also capped in Rules Cyclopedia (as were all damaging spells), but to 20d6.

 

[Devilkiller]

Hmm...my 2e dwarven fighter had about 140 hit points. His damage potential wasnt' huge (say 75 or so?), but he had a vorpal sword that cut off heads on a 17-20, no confirmation. The DM in that campaign allowed you to buy/comission just about any magic item in the 1e DMG for thelisted price. I'm sure I could have pumped my damage up over 100 per round with a girdle of giant strength. I just thought that chopping off heads was more fun.

Many old time DMs would probably say this guy was crazy for letting players get hold of items like the girdle of giant Str or especially the crazy deadly vorpal sword. I think the high availability of "any magic item you want" is probably the biggest power up in 3e. The power was there in 1e/2e, most players simply never got it. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just a change in the attitude of 3e.

Another factor is that many DMs still base the ability scores they let players ave on 2e norms, where you had to have a 15 in a score to be measurably good at it. Combined with wacky races becoming more standard this leads to some crazy combos. I am currently playing a (Krynn) minotaur who started the game with a 22 Str, 16 Dex, and 16 Con. The DM seemed surprised that I was tearing up encounters of the party's theoretical EL all by myself. The character isn't particularly well crafted. He just has crazy high ability scores. Of course our druid with Augment Summoning can summon hippogriffs who fight nearly as well as I do, so maybe I'm not that insanely ahead of the curve after all.

 

[SWBaxter]

What kept 10th-level AD&D characters from wiping out an 88 hit point ancient red dragon in one round?

Nothing. That's why older issues of Dragon magazine have so many articles about improving dragons so they're a challenge for a party - a decently played 1E group ate them for breakfast (actually, I vaguely recall an article on culinary uses for dragons, too...). Remember that 1E modules included events like tackling fortresses full of giants, invading the home plane of demon lords and killing them, and so on - butt-kicking was a 1E party's business, and business was good.

For example, anyone who played through Dragonlance - actually played the modules, rather than just follow the novels - racked up a kill count of huge ancient dragons that certainly goes into the double digits. Things have changed greatly since then...

 

[Evilhalfling]

besides buffs, and power attacks there is the matter of raising abilitiy scores.
an 18 str gave you +1 to hit, +2 damage and the strength you rolled was what you had forever. If you were a fighter type, you could roll percentile for more (cheating more often than not) The strength spell stoped at 18 (I believe), and only mages had it, yes it lasted all day but wasn't much use. Just the fact that you get 1.5 str damage from 2 handed weapons changes things dramatically as well.

As I have long ago lost all my 1st ed characters.
I figured out the stats for a well loved 2nd ed 11th lvl Paladin (played up from first)
converted from negative AC and Thac0:
AC 22 (+2 field plate, +1 shield) 20 when shield punching
3/2 attacks +2 unbreakable Axe +12 (1d8+7)
Shield punch +8 (1d3+5)
critical hit on 20, critical miss on 1 - he really hated critical misses.

His last adventure took him to the Abyss and almost back.

 

[apoptosis]

Part of me finds it annoying though that while they scaled up melee fighters damage, wizards spells were kept where they were (capped too? I can't remember whether fireball was uncapped in 1e).

It was the same approach they took in dealing with 3e empowered buff spells lasting all day. They went for the double whammy of increasing the fighters melee damage and effectively reducing the wizards fireball damage (relative to target hit points). One or the other would be good, both not so good IMO.

Cheers

This actually really annoys me. I actually liked wizards having fewer spells per day(compared to what they have now) but their spells packing a huge punch. NOt so much of a problem cuz i dont play standard 3e and doubtfully ever will. In the modified version i play spells tend to packer a much bigger punch compared to melee attacks but are more limited in uses per day

Not how everyone would want to change the rules but fits my aesthetics of the game

 

[schnee]

I remember that about dragons. The 'subdual' rules and low damage meant they were push-overs. I remember the Dragon article that gave Ancient dragons several times the HP, multiple attacks with more damage, etc.

About 1st ed. AD&D... Only fighters got more than +2 per HD from CON. Bonuses were lower for stats. Only fighters got multiple melee attacks. There were so few 'bonuses' that stacking was a non-issue; they were actually the exception rather than the rule, so the ones that were 'broken' (i.e. Girdle of Giant Strength, Gauntlets of Ogre Power) were fixed in the descriptions. No ability buffs spells. A lot more... it was just a 'flatter' game in some ways.

 

[A'koss]

Yeah, once you strip away all those misc. bonuses from feats, spells and other powers, fewer multiple attacks, fewer ability score bonuses and (the biggee) the fact that at higher levels - you always made your Saving Throws and you can see why it was so different.

Cheers!

 

[Goblyn]

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

From remembering my days of 2e, the damage levels didn't stay low. After the party fought many powerful enemies from level 8 - 11, I noticed, and mentioned to the DM, that his baddies never got more than a single round's worth of actions before they were dropped to somewhere like -50 hit points by the one character who didin't beat them in initiative.

In 3e, my characters rarely deal an amount of damage with more than a single digit. I've only played up to level 8, but still.