My, how the adventures have changed...

[Wik]

Like another poster, I also disagree with this, but for a more specific reason. In 1E, poison just killed you with a failed save, period. In 3E, poison has specific effect types that have defined CR's (from Song & Silence, but can be extraopolated from the core prices). Only the most virulent and highly expensive poison in the game does 3d6 Con damage; there are certainly none that do 4d6 or 5d6.

Since this party is 1st level, they're most likely to encounter a low-level poison trap. My DMG has the CR 2 poison needle with Greenblood Oil, which does 1/1d2 Con. That's the most likely "suggested" poison trap at this level, and that's definitely not going to kill anybody.

Yeah, that's true. Poisons in 3e are a LOT less deadly than they were in older editions. Evne the most toxic of poisons, at 3d6, isn't gonna kill you 50% of the time.

 

[Wik]

1e had 3 types that kill, and 6 that didn't
2e had 4 types that kill, and 12 that didn't
Most didn't fall into the "Death category". Try knowing what you are talking about.

Fair enough. It is true, that there were different kinds of poison. However, as the Auld Grump pointed out, most monsters and adventures inflicted type F (that was the poison kind, right?).

And many of the others were save or die types in a different form - paralysis or unconsciousness, or sleep... and I think there was even a Petrification one, as well. So, yeah, poisons could be pretty harsh.

In any case, both my personal experience, the RAW, and the poisons included in TSR published adventures tended to focus on death-dealing poisons. And, in 3e, death-dealing poisons... aren't. Which is something I'm very glad to see, truth be told.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Fair enough. It is true, that there were different kinds of poison. However, as the Auld Grump pointed out, most monsters and adventures inflicted type F (that was the poison kind, right?).

And many of the others were save or die types in a different form - paralysis or unconsciousness, or sleep... and I think there was even a Petrification one, as well. So, yeah, poisons could be pretty harsh.

In any case, both my personal experience, the RAW, and the poisons included in TSR published adventures tended to focus on death-dealing poisons. And, in 3e, death-dealing poisons... aren't. Which is something I'm very glad to see, truth be told.

Adding secondary damage in 3.X also means that the Slow Poison spell actually does something now....
'Bob keels over dead after the giant scorpion stings him.'
'I cast Slow Poison!'
'Why? He's already dead, you don't get much slower than that....'

The Auld Grump

 

[Joshua Randall]

I guess that, no matter the edition, it's still D&D to me.

Doesn't Billy Joel have a song about that?

 

[Freak of Nurture]

But the only ones you saw, with rare exception - even in 'official' adventures, were the ones that if you failed your save you died. Take a look through old adventures and old Dungeon magazines, you will be astounded at how seldom you see anything but 'save or die' poisons.

This was pretty much true up until 3e.

If you are going to be rude then try knowing what your talking about - it will work better in the long run.

The Auld Grump, an option that is never used does not count.

I've been running 1&2e adventures since they were published and no I don't have stats handy on the proportion of poison types in every adventure ever published, and neither do you. I just know offhand about the 70 or so adventures I have run several times and can run at the drop of a hat. In those, the save or die poisons are almost all at higher levels when the party can deal with the death fairly easily.

I wasn't trying to be rude, btw. I just get tired of people slamming older editions without even understanding them. For example:
"Inside the chest is a +1 longsword. Everyone in the group looks at it, and decides it's useless - the fighter is proficient in axes, the halfling is too small, and the elf is proficient in short swords ("It's more in character!"). Since the item cannot be sold, the PCs leave it in the chest. But, hey, at least they found the red ruby!"

This is just silly. They might not know it's a magical sword, but it is a finely made weapon which would be taken either way. I have no idea how he thought it couldn't be sold. The fighter or elf might not be proficient in it, but there is a very high chance at least one of them will be in a few levels. And even if they weren't they would only have a -1 to hit with it. Once they find out it's a +1 sword (via a 1st level spell) one of them would keep it for use on special monsters only hit by magic weapons.

 

[Wik]

You know, if you're gonna slam me for not "understanding" the game, you should get your own rules quotations correct. In 2e, not being proficient in a weapon is AT LEAST a -2 penalty (I found this out by digging out my books... I haven't played 2e in about eight years, so I can understand someone else not being crystal clear on things - some people, I guess, cannot).

Just though I'd mention that.

Now, the point of this thread wasn't to be wholly accurate - I don't think any of us have actually run the "Go into dungeon, kill some goblins, go home" adventure without even a few twists. Mostly, though, I just wanted to point out how the dynamics of the game led to different focuses that occur IN game.

And, in my experience, 1) Poisons in earlier games were lethal, and (if you were like me) a DM would often switch them out for less-violent poisons. But there were an awful number of type F poisons out there, even at lower levels. It really sucks.

2) treasure changed from edition to edition. In all editions but 2e, you can pretty much get away with rolling a random weapon type and giving that out as treasure; in 3e, that means it might not mesh with someone's specialties, but in that case, it can be swapped out for cash later on. In 2e, a game with a huge weapons list and a fairly small selection of weapons you can be proficient in (a 1st level fighter was probably proficient in three weapons, specializing in one... and I think at 20th level, he'd still know less then ten weapons!), unless you were skilled in longsword, random weapon determination kind of sucks.

(Fun story - in all our games, everyone made it a point to be proficient in a different set of weapons, but we set it up so that if our longsword specialist died, there was at least one other person in the group who knew how to use one).

That's not a "slam" on the edition, by the way - just one of the pecularities that coloured the play experience. Just like how in 3e you tend to think more about the mechanics of your character than you do in BECMI or 2e, or how (if my games are any indication) you have a much higher chance of your character having a "sir" in front of his name if you are playing 1e.

 

[Spatula]

2) treasure changed from edition to edition. In all editions but 2e, you can pretty much get away with rolling a random weapon type and giving that out as treasure; in 3e, that means it might not mesh with someone's specialties

To be fair, that started (AD&D-wise) with Unearthed Arcana, back during the 1e days, which introduced weapon specialization, double weapon specialization, triple weapon specialization... Of course back then, the longsword was the best 1-handed weapon, and as a result that's what players (and the treasure tables) tended to focus on. So... maybe in 3e it is more likely a random treasure won't mesh with the party, since most weapons are fairly equal, and choosing something other than longsword or 2H sword isn't stupid. But the source of that problem goes way back.

 

[Wik]

Yeah, absolutely. Though, I didn`t really want to look beyond the core books for this - and core 1e has no non-weapon proficiencies, and I think it lacks weapon proficiencies (I know it lacks specialization rules).

Once we go beyond core, I have to start complaining about the weird BECMI classes that got introduced, attack ranks (is that what they were called), 1e UA oddities, 2e`s love for kits, kits, and more kits, not to mention the god-awful skills and powers expansions... and some of the power-creep to be found in feats (and if we let third party sources in on this, it gets even stranger!)

But let`s consider a scenario: the PCs open up a chest, and find a weapon they`ve never seen before. Let`s say it`s a Ranseur, or something like that.

BECMI: The fighter, elf or dwarf picks it up and can use it. The cleric can`t because it inflicts stabbing, the wizard can`t because it`s not on his list, and halfling can`t because it`s too big. Easy enough.

1e (prior to UA): Pretty much the same goes. Someone picks it up, and has fun with it.

2e: Odds are, no one has the item, and since there are no rules for selling items (and it seems to be suggested in the DMG that selling items is WRONG!), the item has little worth. So, the DM fudges things - which is what 2e is about, apparently - and changes the weapon type. Not a big deal, but still.

3e: The weapon is a martial weapon, meaning a lot of different classes can use it. No one has Weapon Focus in it, of course, but that`s not going to stop the fighter from using it, at least until he gets a weapon he`s specialized in (and then he`lll just sell the silly thing, and use the extra money to buy some nice items). Easy fix.

IN this particular case, random weapon determination only truly sucks if you`re playing 2e. One of the pecularities of the system, that you`ll see reflected in the adventures.

 

[Agamon]

Good read, Wik. Quite apt, poison niggles or no, lol.

 

[Wik]

Good read, Wik. Quite apt, poison niggles or no, lol.

Glad you liked it. You know, I think I should make a post that actually outlines an adventure from each "era" of D&D. But that would more show how I've aged and changed as a gamer, rather than highlighting any real "system" quirks.