[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[MerricB]

I'm not familiar with OD&D, I understand B/X though. The original D&D is something I have had no exposure to. I cut my teeth on 1e.

I love B/X D&D. It's a superior system. I learnt from Moldvay BD&D and AD&D 1e at the same time. (This was about 1982). Moldvay did a great job of teaching the basics of being a DM - something that isn't in AD&D. Gary's speaking to a more experienced audience.

What I meant regarding all the games being the same is, since were eliminating the details between editions, that every rpg i have ever played has consisted of rolling a die and trying to hit a pre-determined target number, whether that be high or low.

One day, try playing Lace & Steel, if you can find it. It's a great game, with an ingenious card-based combat system.

If you reduce a RPG system to "roll a die and you succeed or fail", then - yes - RPG systems do begin to look similar. However, when you look at things slightly more closely, you notice some striking similarities or differences.

For the moment, I'll ignore saving throws (they changed significantly in the details between 2e and 3e). I can use a 2e monster in a 3e game with only two changes to the stats.

Let's take an Ogre.
AC 5, HD 4+1, THAC0 17, #AT 1, D 1-10.
To transform into a 3e creature - AC is 20-AC.
AC 15
Attack bonus is 20-THAC0
Attack +3 (1d10)

There you go. I did that a lot in September 2000, after the 3e PHB had come out and the 3e MM still had a month to go. Two numbers are simply reformatted and we have the 3e system.

Obviously, it's weaker than a 3e Ogre. Why? Ability scores. The prime difference between 3e and previous editions. (Funnily enough, a 2e ogre wielding a greatsword would convert to 3e as Attack +5 (1d12+6) - it only uses its strength bonus to hit & damage when wielding weapons!)

There's a fascinating example in BECM D&D of the use of ability scores. In B/X D&D, monsters don't have ability scores. Unfortunately, with the Master rules, they added the maze spell, which requires you to know that target's Intelligence. Oops. So, in the Master book, there's a table listing all the monsters' Intelligence scores from each of the previous rulebooks, just to allow this one spell to work. Go figure.

3e is greatly removed from oD&D as to its system, but much less so when compared to 2e with Player's Option. There is a clear line of descent through the previous systems, as well as mechanics that are obviously still inspired from the optional combat system of OD&D. (The default combat system in OD&D used the Chainmail tables... and no hit points! You either were killed by a blow or you were fine!)

The functioning of AC, the d20 attack roll, Hit points and basic spells such as magic missile and fireball are recognisable throughout the editions.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Are we counting the UA as core, for the purpose of this discussion?

What an interesting question!

The answer is yes - with qualifications. Certainly, the use of UA was assumed by most AD&D books after it was introduced. It's not an optional book.

However, when I discuss the difference between editions, I look at D&D at various points in time. In 1974, there was no Supplement I: Greyhawk, and so the game is extremely different from what came later. When I discuss AD&D, I refer to it as either AD&D or AD&D+UA. For 1979-1984, you have a significant amount of play and development before UA (most of Gygax's work). From 1985 onwards, the game shifts dramatically. Not only because Gary left, but also because of what Gary introduced in UA.

Have you seen Isle of the Ape? Gary introduced a bunch of rules for challenging high-level PCs in that which aren't in any other source.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

A 3e 1st level character would simply mow through 1e 1st level character, if you were to run both systems simultaneously. 1e vs 2e? the two characters would have a much more even fight. I'm a fan of running more than one system simultaneously since I saw Mentzer talk about it at DF and tried it myself, so I've run these situations and the results have almost only been the same.

Hang on, that's apples and oranges though. Compare what those characters are fighting. A 1e fighter could take on 5 orcs and reasonably be expected to win. A 3e character dies at the third one. Or, put it another way, a 1e orc cannot drop a 1e fighter (assuming full hit points) in one round, but a 3e orc can.

A 2e fighter gets specs. Plus he likely has two weapon specs as well. That gives him 5/2 attacks. Compared to the 1e fighters single attack. If we whack in the UA then the 1e fighter has specs, and double specs for +3/hit and damage over the 2e fighters +1/+2.

A 2e fighter with an 18/55 str, specs in longsword, using longsword and shortsword can do about 50 points of damage in a single round against an ogre. More than enough to kill the toughest of ogres in a single round. At first level.

Show me a 1st level 3e character that can come even close to that level of damage.

The idea that 3e characters are so much more powerful than earlier editions is a myth. That sort of power doesn't come into the mix until about double digit levels. But, even then if you compare the characters vs the opponents of their respective games, the 1e fighters are FAR more powerful.

Or, put it another way, I obliterated a 10th level cleric the other day in a single round, with a Rast (ok, an advanced Rast that was CR 9 ) without any special rolls, crits or magic. Straight up attack.

Other than a dragon, show me a creature in 1e that can drop a 10th level character from full hit points to dead in a single round.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Other than a dragon, show me a creature in 1e that can drop a 10th level character from full hit points to dead in a single round.

Just off the top of my head: Spider, large; spider, huge; spider, giant; spider, phase; scorpion, giant; centipede, giant; snake (various kinds); about thirty other poisonous monsters; cockatrice; basilisk; medusa; dracolisk; gorgon; catoblepas; green slime; yellow mold; rot grub; mind flayer; purple worm and about ten other creatures that swallow you whole; demons, daemons, devils and assorted other extraplanar creatures; liches and other high level spellcasters...

In fact 1e is absolutely stuffed full of critters that can kill you in a round.

 

[MerricB]

In fact 1e is absolutely stuffed full of critters that can kill you in a round.

It certainly is! However, for the purpose of the question, it should be interpreted as what critters can kill you in one round with damage.

That's an interesting side-point. Save or die effects. Although 3e has reduced their effectiveness (especially as regards poison!), at higher levels, 3e is actually potentially more deadly than AD&D, due to the increased values of the DCs!

(Personally, I feel that poison has been nerfed too much in 3e, although the nastier poisons, such as that of a wyvern, are still sufficiently terrifying. )

Cheers!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

It certainly is! However, for the purpose of the question, it should be interpreted as what critters can kill you in one round with damage.

I agree, and that in itself is revealing. 3.x hates save-or-die so it's no wonder creatures do more damage; it's just a balancing factor after the initial nerfs.

I think there's another useful point to be drawn from this, though, which is that individual 3.x monsters are undoubtedly nastier in melee because they come in small numbers... 1e has hordes of mooks by comparison. By the AD&D DMG, the typical size of a band of orcs on dungeon level 2 is 2d6+12 creatures.

Throw 19 orcs at a party of 2nd level 3.x characters and they're toast.

I see this as a consequence of the general slowing down of melee in 3.x. A fight with 19 orcs would take forever to resolve under those rules! In 1e it's over in five minutes (or one minute if our intrepid party uses a no-saving-throw area effect wipeout spell like sleep) and on with the adventure.

 

[Thurbane]

I think in comparing 1st level characters from various editions and the "Invincible 1E fighter" people are forgetting a major factor - there was no "max HP at 1st level" rule in 1E or 2E. True, many people used it as a houserule, but as far as I am aware, it never existed as an official rule. Add to that that you didn't start getting CON bonus hit points until your score was 15 or higher. It is now entirely possible to have a fighter with ONE hit point at first level.

But let's be generous - lets give him an average 5.5 (6) hit points, plus a 15 CON, for a grand total of 7. Can anyone still not see an orc with his 1d8 battle axe not able to take this guy out in one round? To imagine such a character besting 5 orcs all by himself is somewhat of a strecth, at best.

From all of my personal experience, playing 1E, 2E and 3.5, I would say that an equivalent level 3.5 fighter could easily trounce his earlier edition cousins at any given level.

Not that these kind of comparisons are especially useful anyway...

 

[Thurbane]

I agree, and that in itself is revealing. 3.x hates save-or-die so it's no wonder creatures do more damage; it's just a balancing factor after the initial nerfs.

Yeah, that really took myself and my group by surprise when we first switched from 2E to 3.5 - poison didn't kill outright any more. Took us all a bit of getting used to.

I see this as a consequence of the general slowing down of melee in 3.x. A fight with 19 orcs would take forever to resolve under those rules! In 1e it's over in five minutes (or one minute if our intrepid party uses a no-saving-throw area effect wipeout spell like sleep) and on with the adventure.

I've also found this to be the case. Back in 1E, we once had a group of TEN players and one DM, and the combat rounds took, on average, about the same amount of time that a round takes us in 3.5 with only FOUR players. Part of that is (was) us still learning the finer points of 3.5 combat, but then again quite a few of the ten 1E players we used to have were fairly new to AD&D.

 

[Henry]

Yeah, that really took myself and my group by surprise when we first switched from 2E to 3.5 - poison didn't kill outright any more. Took us all a bit of getting used to.
I've also found this to be the case. Back in 1E, we once had a group of TEN players and one DM, and the combat rounds took, on average, about the same amount of time that a round takes us in 3.5 with only FOUR players. Part of that is (was) us still learning the finer points of 3.5 combat, but then again quite a few of the ten 1E players we used to have were fairly new to AD&D.

I've played a number of AD&D and Castles & Crusades games over the past couple of years, and the hardest thing to do for us, for me especially, was go back to rolling inits every round! I kept slipping subconsciously back into cyclic inits, and COULD not get used to re-ordering people's inits every round, because when I did roll each round, it got MUUUUCH slower for us.

But let's be generous - lets give him an average 5.5 (6) hit points, plus a 15 CON, for a grand total of 7. Can anyone still not see an orc with his 1d8 battle axe not able to take this guy out in one round? To imagine such a character besting 5 orcs all by himself is somewhat of a strecth, at best.

Also remembering that the fighters have about the same AC -- about a 4 in 1E, and a 16 or so in 3E, so the Orcs will be hitting at about the same frequency (Remember the orc's to hit charts start at 17 to hit an AC 0, don't they? Or is it 19?). That 1E fighter, by himself, WILL LIKELY be dropped by 5 orcs, even fighting one at a time and them not ganged up.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I've played a number of AD&D and Castles & Crusades games over the past couple of years, and the hardest thing to do for us, for me especially, was go back to rolling inits every round! I kept slipping subconsciously back into cyclic inits, and COULD not get used to re-ordering people's inits every round, because when I did roll each round, it got MUUUUCH slower for us.

You used individual initiative for large combats in 1e?