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

[Acid_crash]

All I really know is AD&D 2e, D&D 3e/3.5e, and the upcoming C&C, but for those who really know, what are the differences between the following editions of D&D?

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)

Plus, if I forgot any, let me know... but I have only started 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.

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)?

 

[Turjan]

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)?

Following this notion, Talislanta would be the ultimate "d20 lite"...

 

[WayneLigon]

It would be an astounding task to make a list of all the ways the various editions differ.

You'd kind of have an idea of the way things in OD&D worked by looking at the Rules Cyclopedia, though that book is a compilation and updating of the various Basic D&D books that came before it. But some of the same ideas are there: classes and races are the same thing (ie, you can't have an elf fighter; you have either an elf or a human fighter), combat is done by consulting a matrix, saving throws are in quasi-arbitrary groups based on effect, each class has it's own XP advancement scheme, etc. OD&D was way more basic than that; each class had d6 hit dice. All sources of damage - weapons, moster attacks, etc - did 1d6 damage. The first supplement to OD&D, Greyhawk, changes all that and introduces varying damage, varying dice, etc. A detailed look at what it added (and by inference what OD&D did not have) can be found here.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1E) retained some rules fom the original and supplements, plus new material and material that had appeared elsewhere. Gone was the class/race sameness. There were new classes, new races, new spells...a whole new ballgame. Classes still had their own XP charts, wizards still were worthless in combat, and there were still no skills other than class abilities. You still consulted a combat matrix to find out if you hit or not. You still could not multiclass if you were human. Races still had level and class limits. Stats still don't really mean anything unless they are very high or very low.

So much detail. Too tired. Whew. Someone.. carry...on....

 

[johnsemlak]

There's a useful summary of changes from 1e to 2e here:
http://users.rcn.com/aardy/faq/rgfdfaq4.html#E13

A similar summary of changes from 2e to 3.0e is here:
http://users.rcn.com/aardy/faq/rgfdfaq4.html#E14

 

[johnsemlak]

Really, however, all the editions prior to 3e were much more similar to each other as compared with the differences between 2e. and 3e.

Adventures written in 1e, 2e, and OD&D/Rules Cyclopedia were easily compatible, especially at lower levels.

 

[Trainz]

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1E) retained some rules fom the original and supplements, plus new material and material that had appeared elsewhere. Gone was the class/race sameness. There were new classes, new races, new spells...a whole new ballgame. Classes still had their own XP charts, wizards still were worthless in combat, and there were still no skills other than class abilities. You still consulted a combat matrix to find out if you hit or not. You still could not multiclass if you were human. Races still had level and class limits. Stats still don't really mean anything unless they are very high or very low.

So much detail. Too tired. Whew. Someone.. carry...on....

I will. For 1st Ed AD&D at least.

The classes were Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User (3rd ed's wizard), Illusionist, Thief (Rogue), Druid, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Bard. Supplements (mainly the original Unearthed Arcana) introduced the Thief-Acrobat (IIRC), Barbarian, Cavalier.

Things of note about 1st Ed. Most races were SWEET. It was interesting to pick almost all races. The only advantage humans had, was dualclassing (somewhat like 3rd ed's multiclassing), and non-human races had instead what was known then as multi-classing. When you created an elf, you decided right then and there if he would be single classed or have many classes, and couldn't change that during his career. You could thus have an elven fighter/M-U/thief. These were weak though. Their advancement was *slow*.

Another interesting thing was the only two arcane classes, M-U and Illusionist. Illusionists had their own spell list, and some spells were available only to them. Some spells overlapped with the M-U of course.

M-U's spells were *sweet*. There was no cap on damage. A 21st level M-U casting Magic-Missile would cast 11 missiles. A 35th level M-U's fireball did 35d6 damage.

M-U's absolutely dominated the world, and that is probably why such important NPC's such as Mordenkainen, Blackstaff, and Elminster were M-U's (these NPC's were created a long time ago).

Barbarians were atrocious fighting machines. They hated magic, and were quite restricted on their magic items use, but a barbarian's dexterity and constitution bonus was DOUBLED. A 5th level barbarian with 18 Con had 5d12+40 hp's.

Cavaliers were quite simply a fascinating class to play. It had gradual bonuses to hit with lance, sword, and some other weapon. They were totally immune to fear. Their code of honor was quite precise. I had fun with mine, until his honor had him killed. It was a common joke that sooner or later a cavalier was doomed because he could simply not retreat.

The Bard... now THAT was a weird class. You had to first get about 7 levels of fighters, after you took about 8 levels of thief, and then you switched to druid, but at that point you also gained bardic abilities. If you could do all that, well the bard was no push-over. He was quite strong. Quite indeed.

And the ranger was quite strong too. Almost as strong as the fighter, plus he had M-U spells and of course tracking and a few woodland abilities.

There was no such thing as epic levels. The system was built in to let you play until whatever level. Armor Class was reversed: AC 10 meant you were a lame duck, AC -20 meant nothing could touch you. Although you needed table to figure out how much you needed to hit, combat was extremely simple.

Between you and me, 1st Ed was quite fun, 2nd Ed took the fun out of 1st Ed, and 3rd Ed brought it back, but in an absolutely different manner.

I think it would be a good idea for WotC to peruse the 1st Ed books before doing 4th Ed. Merging the best of 3rd ed and 1st ed would be quite astonishing. Make combat simpler, keep feats and skills, reduce the potency of AoO (or get rid of them altogether), and bring back those awesome arcane spells, while adjusting metamagic feats accordingly.

Yup.

 

[johnsemlak]

Here's a few more notes:

OD&D -- OD&D is a term is loosely applied to the original white box and it's later supplements (Called Supplement 1-IV, and they were named Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and ELdridge Wizardry (I forget the other one); note that Greyhawk and Blackmoor here had very little to do with the settings--tehy were just supplementary rules. The white box was introduced in 1974, with the supplements coming later.

The rules in these sets were rather disorganized and incomplete. Originally, you could play three classes: Fighting-men, Clerics, and Magic users. You could play 4 races I believe: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings. Most of the other classes of the game were introduced in the later supplements.

THe rules were primarily focused on dungeon crawls--there was less information covering wilderness adventuring. In a lot of areas, DMs had to make judgements on the spot in places where the rules were incomplete.

OD&D is also often used to denote the various incarnations of the Basic D&D ruleset (which saw at least three similar but distinct versions released between 1978 - 1983) and the follow-up rulesets called the Expert Set (sold in a famous blue box), the Companion set, and the Masters set. All these rulesets were always sold as boxed sets untill they were all rolled into on book, the Rules Cyclopedia.

Though often referred to as OD&D as well, these rules were rather different than the earlier versions of D&D in the white box. One key difference was that races and classes were not separate. You either played a human (of one of four classes: Fighter, thief (rogue), magicuser, or cleric) or a demihuman. Each demihuman race was considered a class. Dwarves were basically fighters (i.e. a dwarf could only be a fighter), Elves were fighter/magic users, and halflings were (strangely) fighters.

The Basic set covered rules for levels 1-3. The D&D Expert set expanded rules for characters 4-14. Teh Companion set then continued with levels 15-25, and the Masters set provided the conclusion at 26-36. The Rules Cyclopedia rolled all the rules into one hardback book (btw, the Rules Cyclopedia is frequently cited as one of hte best value RPG products ever made).

A few other traits of D&D in the Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters rulesets:

• There were only three alignments: Law, Neutral, and Chaos
• Level advanceemnt was from level 1 to 36. After that, you could become an immortal, and there were rules for attaining immortality and playing an immortal.
• There was no way in the rules to change classes.
• There was no way in the rules for monsters to have character levels, though some later supplements offered material on this.
• Gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs didn't exist as playable races. Gnomes were NPCs only and didn't have character levels at all. Half-elves simply didnt' exist, and Orcs/Half-orcs were monsters only.
• The was no Bard class (several fan-created versions exist).
• Originally there was no monk, though a 'mystic' class was introduced in the Masters set (basically a monk).
• There was no Ranger. The Companion set introduced Paladins. Paladins were lawful fighters who became Paladins at 9th level. There was an anti-paladin class called the Avenger.
• Druids were neutral Clerics, and only became a class as such at 9th level.
• No psionics.
• The official monster list for Basic-Expert etc D&D was rather small. There was no 'Monster Manual' as such, though there was a supplement of new mosnters released much later. Most monsters came from the monster chapters in the rulebooks, and were really very limited. Several iconic D&D monsters (Mind Flayers, Drow) had no official equivelent for Basic/Expert.
• The default setting for this version of D&D was called Mystara, and originally called the Known World. (Nearly) all modules were set in it by default, and the game was written pretty much from the assumption that the world would be used (though the DM's chapters did give advice on creating their own worlds). Some classic modules of the setting include X1--The Isle of Dread; X2 - Castle Amber, X4-5 -- The Desert Nomad's series, B10 -- Night's Dark Terror, and X9 -- The Savage Coast, which spawned it's own subsetting called Red Steel/The Savage Coast. B2 The Keep on the Borderlands is another classic module from the D&D line but it was setting neutral.
• The cosmology was rather different from the standard D&D. It was only described in the later Companion and Masters sets, and was pretty much ignored in the Basic and Expert sets.

THe D&D Basic set (generally known as the 'red box', though it was originally in a blue box) was a very common entry point for younger people to D&D, and I think you'll find a lot of 30-something people on these boards who started D&D with one of the red box versions. However, most of these people probably moved on quickly to AD&D.

AD&D was introduced in 1977 with the Monster Manual, in 1978 with the PHB, and in 1979 with the DMG. These were sold in hardback format (a departure form the boxed sets sold earlier). I think trainz adequately described AD&D above.

During the 80s, there were two distinct lines of D&D: AD&D, and Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters D&D (called simply (O)D&D at the time). Both were supported with modules and supplements, and articles in Dragon and Dungeon magazines. One of my favorite D&D product lines of all time was the Gazateer Series, offering setting information on Mystara, as well as a number of new rules like a skill system, additional classes, options for spellcasting Dwarves, PC Orcs and Humanoids, specialized schools for wizards, etc.

In the early 90's the (O)D&D line (as opposed to the AD&D line) was pretty much discontinued. The Mystara setting was converted to AD&D 2nd Edition, and saw a few 2e releases.

 

[Deset Gled]

The general difference I see between D+D 3.x and previous editions (AD+D 1e, 2e) was the mentality in game design. Older versions of D+D were written to support fantastic ideas and wild fantasies and let people let creativity run rampant, using a multitude of sources, books, and rules to weave the stories they wanted to be a part of. D+D 3.x is designed to create a solid set of rules so that people could partake in a balanced and consistent game, while still allowing as much of the previously mentioned as much as possible.

There was a thread awhile back that showed the 2e and 3e rules for scroll creation next to each other. 2e reads like a fantasy novel, but doesn't really explain how creation works in game terms with any type of efficiency or playability. 3e reads like a harsh set or rules, outlines what must be done, and mentions all specifics, but isn't something most people would bundle up with under the covers on a cold night to read (though, admitedly, I might).

I think the same aspect of D+D fantasy vs rules can be seen in Andy Williams. There's a guy that's been around D+D for a long time. He answers rules questions based on his gut feelings of how the world should work, not on how the text rules it to be. He's a 2e kinda guy.

 

[Algolei]

OAD&D is the only true game, all others are mere...uh...(I forget). Something something something....

 

[johnsemlak]

A few other traits common to most of hte pre-3e editions of D&D

• Experience was gained primarily by collecting treasure. The standard rule was 1 GP = 1 XP
• CHaracter HD was capped, generally at around 9th level. PCs who advanced further would simply gain a flat 1, 2, or 3 HP depending on their class.
• Experience required for each level increased by much larger amounts each level (e.g. for fighters it was roughly 2000, 4000, 8000, 16,000, 32,000, etc). This had large implications for multiclass characters or characters who fell behind other PCs in level.
• Each class had its own character advancement chart, with rather different xp requirements for each level.
• Demihumans (now an obsolete term) had level limits.
• Saving throws were divided into 5 categories: Poison/Death, Wands/Staves/Rods, Spells, Breath Weapon, and Paralysis.
• None of editions had a particularly integrated skill system. Rogue skills were simply class abilities, and in the standard rules other PCs didn't generally get skills, though several optional skills systems were created.
• There were no feats, as such, though a few of hte 3e feats were class abilities. This fact most affected fighters, who had very limited abilities to improve. Really, the only way for a fighter to improve was by improving their attack rolls, gaining multiple attacks per round, and gaining weapon specialization (similar to the current version).
• Only fighter types got multiple attacks
• The rules for creating magic items were much less developed.
• In combat, surprised was determined simply by a d6 roll. PCs or monsters were usually surprised on a roll of 1 IIRC.
• Initiative was generally determined simply with a d6 roll, though in AD&D it was rather complex
• AC started at 10 (9 in Basic D&D) and got lower. Generally, to determine whether you hit, you rolled d20, added your modifiers, and consulted a table to determine whether you hit or not.

All of this is based on memory and I could ahve forgotten a few things. 2e did make a few changes to the above, but not nearly as much as 3e.