How did pre-3E D&D "play"?

[RigaMortus2]

Hence 'meat shield', a derogatory term that did not exist prior to 3e.

Say what? That term is so old. I've been using it since I was 16 yrs old, so that is like 17 years ago. And it wasn't even D&D that we used it for. IIRC, my GM used that term before I did, and he used it when Game Mastering RIFTS.

 

[S'mon]

OK, I never saw it until 3e.

 

[teitan]

My experience is totally different on that accord. I feel that fighters where far more effective in 3.x than in any previous edition. In my campaigns, they where always a 'main' character. All the other players would run like weenies if they felt the enemy could take down the fighter. The fighter, even at high levels, was a damage dealing brute.



That term was started way before 3.x FYI.

I've got to concur with PeelSeel. Wizards were dropping 10d6 in fireballs while Fighters were doing a single die type MAYBE 2 times a round. Heck, I remember Meat Shield from back in 1e. Wizards outstripped EVERYBODY once they got Lightning Bolt and Fireball.

 

[teitan]

Can a 5th level Fighter in your game stand against a CR 5 troll? Can a Fighter stand against a giant of CR equal to their level? Definitely not, in my experience - and that's intentional to the CR system; in order to use up 25% of party resources while being attacked by 4 PCs a monster has to be equal to 2 PCs in offense & defense. A 10th level Fighter can probably wade through most CR 5 foes, but in 1e a 10th level Fighter can wade through critters that in 3e are CR 12+.

Except that monsters in 1e and 2e had maybe a third of their 3e hit points and most die capped around 10 or thereabouts. Your point doesn't prove the point you tried to make in your first point though, it skirts around it and ignores certain facts. A tenth level fighter who does 2d8+2 for strength (on average for Fighters) and MAYBE +2 magical (longsword) does not equal more than even the 10d6 that the 10th level mage could wield and the fighter was nearly maxed out in his damage ability with my estimate. Best scenario, 2d8 (two attacks, long sword weapon of choice if you have common sense since all magic weapons seemed to be longswords) with +8 (two attacks at +4 for Strength) and +10 for a +5 sword with two attacks is still only about 34 points MAX. Sure the Mage could roll poor on his attack but he is also hitting MORE enemies in that single attack. The Fighter could hit 1 one round, 2 the next for 17 points max in this hypothetical scenario.

 

[Korgoth]

Yes, what DD and Philotomy said.

My response on reading the thread title: It plays fine. Flawlessly, in fact.

Perhaps the most important thing about old school D&D: challenge the players, not their numeric constructs or their 'ability' to get a lucky roll. Make them use their personal smarts to win.

 

[S'mon]

Except that monsters in 1e and 2e had maybe a third of their 3e hit points and most die capped around 10 or thereabouts. Your point doesn't prove the point you tried to make in your first point though, it skirts around it and ignores certain facts. A tenth level fighter who does 2d8+2 for strength (on average for Fighters) and MAYBE +2 magical (longsword) does not equal more than even the 10d6 that the 10th level mage could wield and the fighter was nearly maxed out in his damage ability with my estimate. Best scenario, 2d8 (two attacks, long sword weapon of choice if you have common sense since all magic weapons seemed to be longswords) with +8 (two attacks at +4 for Strength) and +10 for a +5 sword with two attacks is still only about 34 points MAX. Sure the Mage could roll poor on his attack but he is also hitting MORE enemies in that single attack. The Fighter could hit 1 one round, 2 the next for 17 points max in this hypothetical scenario.

Um, weak monsters was the point. In 1e IMC at 10th level the PCs would be fighting eg an army of 100 fire giants besieging the city (actually happened). The Magic-User would run out of spells long before they were all dead, while the Fighter would keep on hacking for dozens of rounds. Short encounters with high-damage opponents, as 3e, plays to the Wizard's strengths. I recall battles in 1e where high level Fighters would take on armies and kill hundreds - it would take a long time, but they could kill many more foes than a 1e M-U of comparable level.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Plenty of excellent comments above, so I'll only make one.

Invincible Overlord This also addresses the PC vs. NPC rules. As there weren't any rules for making NPCs when it was writen you had things like 3rd level Thieves as barmaids! Basically, a group of 1st level PCs were in for a world of hurt if they tried to lord it over the wait staff at the local tavern. This became common (in JG modules anyway) until the concept of 0 level commoners was introduced. Not sure how many people actually played it that way, or for how long, but it was a trope that did exist early on.

 

[Dr_Games]

I'm looking into making a short free RPG that "plays like" OD&D and BD&D though it could be mechanically very different. For that purpose, I'm looking for feedback on how you felt pre-3E "played".

I wrote up a lengthy response only to get bounced out.

Let me see if this posts before I waste time again.

In service,

Rich

The Original Dr. Games Site

 

[MortalPlague]

Rolling 3d6 in order for each ability score.
Never seen anyone do this, ever.

I did this once. It was my first true campaign, back in second edition, and we wanted to do things low powered. We wound up with a great collection of characters who we still talk about to this day. The most notable was Allieta, and elf wizard who didn't have enough dexterity to make the prerequisites to be an elf (even after adjustment). So we came up with a story about how she had been the victim of a magical experiment gone wrong at the hands of her master, and it had sapped her dexterity. It was a great campaign.

 

[Dr_Games]

OK, looks like it is working now.

Pre-3rd Ed. versions of D&D felt different in that:

* There was a clear link back to significant bodies of fantasy literature, mythology and legends. The world had a Lord of the Rings feel with regards to races and classes. Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" series provided the magic system. Fritz Lieber provided the motivation for the thief class, and Robert Howard provided the basis for the fighter class. The Bible gave the names of the major devils and demons.

* There was a significant focus on non-combat situations and campaigning from the amount of space devoted to those aspects in the core rules to the number of abilities and spells that were to be used over long periods in non-combat situations.

* The early versions had a significant physics and common sense base to them in that as a DM you had some idea of what was feasible based on real-world experience. The daily, encounter, and at-will abilities now make it more Manga like. You really have now experiential basis for DM calls. [Put another way, the early versions of D&D had a "fantasy Earth" basis for the worlds while later versions have a "battle-mat" basis for the world.]

* Player characters were special, chosen of the gods. Most folks never advanced levels. Being a hero was a big deal, and the rules reflected that.

* The classes looked, advanced, and felt very different. Now the plug-ins at each level vary by class, but the classes themselves are pretty generic.

I have lots more if you are looking for it.

Castles and Crusaders and Hackmast both do a pretty good job of capturing the feel of 1st Ed. AD&D.

In service,

Rich
The Original Dr. Games Site