What are the Differences between the various D&D editions?

[MerricB]

OD&D (original boxed set)
* Three classes: Fighting-Man, Cleric and Magic-User
* Four Races: Human, Dwarf, Elf and Hobbit (Halfling)
* Three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic
* Ability scores had very little effect. (bonus to XP earnt, Dex gave bonus to hit with missiles; Con gave bonus to HP).
* Hit points for everyone based on d6. (1st level Fighter had 1d6+1; a Lord had 9d6+3, etc).
* Combat damage is d6 for all creatures and weapons.
* Combat attack is d20, high is good - table-based, AC vs. character level
* Armour Class from 9 (no armour) to 2 (plate + shield)
* Saving throws are d20, high is good - table-based.
* Magic-Users: 1st through 6th level spells.
* Clerics: 1st through 5th level spells.
* Monster Hit Dice: d6
* XP tables differ for each class, and are exponential until "name" level.
* XP awards are 100 XP/monster Hit Dice.

Supplement I: Greyhawk
The first movement towards AD&D.
* Ability score bonuses expanded drastically; Exceptional strength added. Strength for opening doors - d6, low is good. Constitution for surviving resurration - d%, low is good.
* Hit points now use different dies (d4 for Wizards and Thieves, d6 for Clerics, d8 for Fighting Men)
* New classes: Paladin and Thief
* Thief abilities (e.g. Move Silently, Pick Pockets) are % based, low is good, except for hear noise (d6, low is good)
* Combat Damage different dice changed for different weapons (d4 dagger; d8 sword); also two damage codes: vs. Small/Medium and vs. Large
* Magic-Users gain 7th-9th level spells
* Clerics gain 6th-7th level spells
* Monster Hit Dice: d8
* Monster XP awards are based on table - Hit Dice base, plus special awards for special abilities.
* Very low level limits for demi-humans

Supplement II: Blackmoor
* New classes: Monk and Assassin
* Optional damage hit system

Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry
* Psionics introduced (trade off class abilities for psionic ability)
* Alternative initiative system introduced - requires tracking of segments, very complicated.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
* combines most of the advancements of the previous releases (including material from The Strategic Review, such as the Illusionist, Ranger and Bard)
* New combat rules - although attacking and saves are the same, drastically new initiative system. Basically comparing d6s, but much, much more complicated. And it doesn't hang together...
* Surprise determined by d6 rolls (low indicates surprise, but a 2 represents more surprise than a 1!)
* Hit dice for characters changed: Fighters d10, clerics d8, thieves d6, magic-user d4
* Monster spell resistance: % roll, low indicates it works. (Calculation very odd: a 55% spell resistance was against a 11th level MU; +/-5% for each level difference...)
* Unarmed combat rules that include d%... I think.
* Psionic rules (just bonus abilities, no balancing factor).
* Nine Alignments
* d% monster reaction table
* d% morale system (low good; on failure, consult table for difference between roll and morale score)
* Armour Class 10=no armour; 2=plate + shield
* Low level limits for demi-humans, slightly adjusted for high ability scores

Dungeons and Dragons, Basic Set (Holmes)
* Based on original D&D + Greyhawk supplement.
* Uses original ability score system with a small amount of Greyhawk additions.
* Uses Greyhawk hit dice.
* Initiative is based on Highest Dex goes first
* Turn Undead: 2d6; high is good (based on table)
* Monster Hit Dice: d8
* Five Alignments: LG, CG, TN, LE, CE
* 2d6 monster reaction table
* AC 9 to 2.

Dungeons and Dragons, Basic Set (Moldvay)
* First of the classic basic editions
* New ability score bonus system (13-15=+1; 16-17=+2; 18=+3) consistent for most classes
* Uses Greyhawk hit dice
* Three Alignments: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic
* AC 9 to 2
* Initiative based on a d6 system.
* Races as classes - Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling

Unearthed Arcana (AD&D)
* Added Cavalier, Barbarian and Thief-Acrobat (incredible bonuses for Cav and Barb balanced by role-playing penalties)
* New unarmed combat system, along with disarming rules (based on saving throws)

Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (AD&D)
* For the first time in a rulebook for AD&D, the idea of rolling a d20 vs an ability score (low is better) was presented. (OA may have technically been first; and the idea had been floated in Dragon Magazine).
* Non-Weapon Proficiencies added. Basically, d20 vs. Ability Score (with modifiers)

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd edition
* Major revisions to the combat system to make it clearer
* Initiative and Surprise based on d10 and much simpler
* New Unarmed Attack system (simpler, but not much better)
* Non-Weapon Proficiencies integrated into the main rules.

There's a bunch more, but along with John's summary, that should give you an idea of the early editions.

Cheers!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

...so what makes these editions different than each other?

The mindset of the players, at least to me. 3E is all about streamline rules and options, to offer the biggest choice ever...it's a toolbox approach to building a character. If you're in the mood, you can pick three or four different classes for your character during his career, plus a template. It offers a geat amount of customization.
The earlier editions weren't that modular, even though they tried to get it into 2E in the later days, with class kits. There simply wasn't as much room for cutomization. Basic D&D had only a few "advanced" classes, kinda, like the paladin/anti-palading, druid and mystic you could get into after 9th level. The Gazeteers offered variant classes, like the Elven Mage in GAZ5, or the Dwarven Cleric in GAZ6. AD&D had multiclassing rules for demihumans as a way to equalize their level caps, and dual-classing for humans...which meant giving up one career and starting a new class at 1st level.
The mindset simply has changed. Back then, you built your class concept at the start and from then on simply played the character with little changes. A fighter usually stayed a fighter, wizards were wizards and rarely did try to get into the cleric's robes, etc. Made things easier, but for a lot of people, boring (not for me, though). Now, players can go and customize their characters with multiple classes, prestige classes and templates, changing everything about them within 5 levels. It sure makes for more interesting character builds...but sometimes I get the impression that customization has taken the spotlight from characterization. But that's just my impression, mind you.

 

[johnsemlak]

d playing since '98, so what makes these editions different than each other? How many EDITIONS of D&D do we really have over the years? Seems to be more than 3 to me.

The answer to why we say 3rd edition is that 3rd edition is really the 3rd edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (at least in the origin of its name). The word 'Advanced' was dropped because there was no longer a 'Basic' D&D to comapre it with. So, yes, 3rd edition is not really a 3rd edition at all, but I think its the simplist way to look at it.

[quote[
My other comment and question: Didn't all these editions use the d20 as it's core dice mechanic? Just because it wasn't specifically labelled d20, isn't it all really the same (in the end)?[/QUOTE]

Prior to 3e the d20 was mainly used for attack rolls and saving throws as I recall, but of course, those are the most common die rolls anyway. Theif skills were made using % dice.

 

[diaglo]

Supplement I: Greyhawk
The first movement towards AD&D.

the end of D&D as we knew it.

Dungeons and Dragons, Basic Set (Holmes)

2edD&D which was revised into 3edD&D also by Holmes

Unearthed Arcana (AD&D)

written by Gary for his Powergaming scions

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd edition

and so it kept declining... until She Who Shall not be named really killed, burned, and salted the fertile ground.

 

[Henry]

Merric is not only the ENWorld Optimist, he's the ENWorld historian, as well.


To confuse you further, the game named CHAINMAIL (produced in 1969 by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren) used 3d6 to roll to hit, instead of 1d20. After all, until Gary started looking at school-supply catalogs, there WERE no polyhedral dice in common distribution like we knew them! (Someone's going to bring up the Ancient Roman d20, but I'm talking availability, here). He found "platonic solids" in a school supply catalog, and ordered a bunch, and got a company to die-cut them with numbers.

Diaglo or Merric, help please - did the first 1974 boxes come with chits or actual dice?

 

[diaglo]

Diaglo or Merric, help please - did the first 1974 boxes come with chits or actual dice?

chits were the fault of the Blumes much later. late 1978/early 1979 suggestion to save money. so it was the Holmes Basic set only.

edit: with the correction to the Chainmail rules. you could order dice from them.

my OD&D boxed set didn't come with dice. but i got some from the FLGS.

 

[TerraDave]

At one point TSR was selling the White Box+Supplements (OD&D); the AD&D hardbacks; and the Basic Expert combo: so you had 3 editions right there! A lot of material could be used in all three (and was), and while people tended to play Advanced (since advanced must be better) they used some conventions/rules from the other editions to work around AD&D's more baroque elements (simultaneous initiative anyone?).

The changes for 2nd edition have been described above, but they were not huge. There was a change of style. OD&D and AD&D had a definite style thanks to their creator. 2nd edition lost that, instead we go what is now called fluff. So much fluff, so little style (like replacing a glass of scotch with a big bag of marshmallows).

3rd edition was a big change, with a much tighter rules set and more workable options. For better or worse it doesn't really have the fluff or style of earlier editions, at least not in the core rules.

 

[Nikosandros]

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
* Monster spell resistance: % roll, low indicates it works. (Calculation very odd: a 55% spell resistance was against a 11th level MU; +/-5% for each level difference...)

Hey, it's just like in 3E!

Just divide by 5, add 12 and voila!

 

[RFisher]

OD&D
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e
RC D&D (Rules Cyclopedia?)
D&D 3e
D&D 3.5e
C&C (this is a D&D variant to me in all ways so I am including it in the list)

First, I'd draw a big division between the "d20 system" editions (post-2000) & the pre-2000 editions. While both groups share many of the same concepts, capatibility between post-2000 & pre-2000 is much less than within the two groups. (Not that compatibility has ever been much of an issue for groups I've played in. We used AD&D modules with GURPS while mostly converting on-the-fly.)

Then there's the distinction between AD&D & pre-2000 D&D. Before AD&D, D&D campaigns varied a lot. AD&D was an attempt to create a broader set of guidelines based on the original D&D game--including the supplements--so that the AD&D played anywhere would be more recognizable as the same game than was the case with D&D.

TSR continued to support D&D, though. Although there are some rumors as to why this is true, the stated reason was that the looser game that tended to be more customized by its participants had a place alongside AD&D.

(I'll skip the distinctions between OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic/Expert, & Mentzer BECMI. FWIW, the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh edition is currently my personal favorite.)

Pre-2000 D&D was allowed to evolve parallel to AD&D, though. The RC represents the pinnacle of a game arguably as complex as AD&D but evolved along different lines.

The differences between AD&D1e & 2e are probably adequately covered lots of places. Probably most people will say 2e was either too conservative a change or not conservative enough.

& the UA & survival guides era of 1e & the later evolutions in 2e are worthy of discussion as well. 2e built on the foundation of the UA & survival guides, although it was very selective of what it took from the UA. I never played 2e with all the supplements, but--from what I've seen--it can be come significantly its own edition.

Post-2000 D&D really does draw from both AD&D & pre-2000 D&D as well as from non-D&D games. It's almost equal parts, building on the foundations of previous D&D editions & rebuilding parts based on inspiration from other games.

C&C is an odd beast in that it borrows from just about all editions. If you made a triangle with pre-2000 D&D at one vertex, AD&D at another, & post-2000 at the third; C&C might be pretty close to the center. If I had to pick one edition it is most like, however, I guess I'd pick the RC.

I hope that helps.

 

[johnsemlak]

Post-2000 D&D really does draw from both AD&D & pre-2000 D&D as well as from non-D&D games. It's almost equal parts, building on the foundations of previous D&D editions & rebuilding parts based on inspiration from other games.

It's probably worth mentioning that 3e also built off of concepts from other roleplaying games as well (in part because designers Cook at Tweet had extensive experience with other FRPGs). I'm not greatly familiar with any non-D&D RPG, so I can't comment much, but my impression is that 3e marks the first time the game was vastly influenced by concepts from other games. OTOH, I've witnessed many debates on which games (Ars Magica, Hero, Champions, Rolemaster, etc) actually gave concepts to D&D and seen some conflicting statements in this area.

C&C is an odd beast in that it borrows from just about all editions. If you made a triangle with pre-2000 D&D at one vertex, AD&D at another, & post-2000 at the third; C&C might be pretty close to the center. If I had to pick one edition it is most like, however, I guess I'd pick the RC.

I hope that helps.

Since we're discussing C&C as an 'edition' of D&D it's probably worth bringing up Hackmaster, which I havne't played but seems to be a hybrid of 1e and 2e, with a few other things... Unlike C&C, Hackmaster is produced under a license from WotC (besides the OGL) and is thus somewhat 'official'.