Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Victim" data-source="post: 1408602" data-attributes="member: 78">Hmm.&nbsp; I wouldn't say that at all.&nbsp; From my experiences, 1e characters generally are pretty good against HP death in most cases.&nbsp; Fighter types will generally have roughly the same HP totals between editions at early to mid levels.&nbsp; At higher levels, first and second ed pretty much stopped, and in 3.0 Con increasing magic will add to character's HP.However, most conventional monster attacks were less threatening in prior editions.&nbsp; Unfortunately, I don't have my 2nd ed MM, and acrobat reader keeps crashing, so I'll have to rely on crappy memory for old monster stats.&nbsp; 2nd ed orcs: THACO 20, 1d8 or 1d10 damage.&nbsp; 3.0 orcs: attack +3, damage 1d12+3, nasty critical hits.&nbsp; At higher levels, more monsters have multiple attacks and huge strength scores, so their damage increases alot.&nbsp; Since most giants have 3 attacks instead of 1, they can kill characters in melee far more readily.Also, the changes to saving throws mean that even high level characters fear save based effects.Black Lotus Extract is pertty much save or die poison.&nbsp; Dark Reaver powder, burnt othur fumes, deathblade, and wyvern poison also do decent Con damage.In my opinion, much of the nastiness in 1e was in all the no-save or die effects, or other rather arbitrary effects.&nbsp; One edition is no more deadly than the other, just the methods used are different.&nbsp; The Heart of Nightfang Spire versus the Tomb of Horrors, if you will.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Victim, post: 1408602, member: 78"] Hmm. I wouldn't say that at all. From my experiences, 1e characters generally are pretty good against HP death in most cases. Fighter types will generally have roughly the same HP totals between editions at early to mid levels. At higher levels, first and second ed pretty much stopped, and in 3.0 Con increasing magic will add to character's HP. However, most conventional monster attacks were less threatening in prior editions. Unfortunately, I don't have my 2nd ed MM, and acrobat reader keeps crashing, so I'll have to rely on crappy memory for old monster stats. 2nd ed orcs: THACO 20, 1d8 or 1d10 damage. 3.0 orcs: attack +3, damage 1d12+3, nasty critical hits. At higher levels, more monsters have multiple attacks and huge strength scores, so their damage increases alot. Since most giants have 3 attacks instead of 1, they can kill characters in melee far more readily. Also, the changes to saving throws mean that even high level characters fear save based effects. Black Lotus Extract is pertty much save or die poison. Dark Reaver powder, burnt othur fumes, deathblade, and wyvern poison also do decent Con damage. In my opinion, much of the nastiness in 1e was in all the no-save or die effects, or other rather arbitrary effects. One edition is no more deadly than the other, just the methods used are different. The Heart of Nightfang Spire versus the Tomb of Horrors, if you will. [/QUOTE]

Verification