TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[francisca]

AD&D 1e is "D&D" in my mind. I still play it, I don't have trouble finding people to play it, and we have a lot of fun doing so. That is the short answer as to why I still play it.

I use the more granular attack and save charts that Lakofka published in The Dragon, I run side-based initiative, I generally discard the weapon vs. AC tables, and can't remember the last time I bothered with weapon speed (probably the 1980s). So, a lot of the complaining people do about 1e doesn't apply to my game, as I chucked out a lot of the stuff that slowed the game down. I run a pretty lean, quick version of combat. This is very common with the other people I have played with over the decades, but it is anecdotal, your mileage may vary, etc...

One thing I do like about 2e is the way dragons are handled. I prefer that to the way they are presented in 1e.

 

[Jahydin]

One thing I do like about 2e is the way dragons are handled. I prefer that to the way they are presented in 1e.

How come? AD&D dragons too weak?

 

[Jahydin]

I remember seeing some BECMI weapon masteries that had multiple levels and looked way cooler than what PHB specialization got you.

Are these the same ones in Rules Cyclopedia?

 

[James Gasik]

Are these the same ones in Rules Cyclopedia?

I think so? It's been awhile, but I think the ones I'm thinking of were in a supplement (maybe Red Steel?), adventure, or Dragon article, because it was detailing some new weapon. I just recalled being fairly impressed with the idea of multiple mastery levels, especially as compared to how 2e handled specialization (where the only multi-level proficiencies I was familiar with were unarmed combat, and if memory serves two bi-level Fighting Styles. Oh and Bladesong).

 

[rabindranath72]

How come? AD&D dragons too weak?

The short answer: the 2e dragons are way stronger than the 1e ones, bordering on the broken/overpowered. So much so that you (DM) may be reluctant to use them at all. I know I was. The 1e dragons are tough and if played well, lethal, but seem well balanced across many levels of play. 2e dragons are feasible only at high levels. A good test is the Dragonlance campaign. With 1e dragons it's very challenging; with 2e dragons it's next to impossible (unless the PCs simply escape).

 

[mixmastashizz]

The short answer: the 2e dragons are way stronger than the 1e ones, bordering on the broken/overpowered. So much so that you (DM) may be reluctant to use them at all. I know I was. The 1e dragons are tough and if played well, lethal, but seem well balanced across many levels of play. 2e dragons are feasible only at high levels. A good test is the Dragonlance campaign. With 1e dragons it's very challenging; with 2e dragons it's next to impossible (unless the PCs simply escape).

At first I balked at 1e dragons and on paper preferred the 2e versions.

After actually playing 1e for any considerable time, I prefer the 1e versions. The 2e ones are a massive overcorrection imo

 

[rabindranath72]

At first I balked at 1e dragons and on paper preferred the 2e versions.

After actually playing 1e for any considerable time, I prefer the 1e versions. The 2e ones are a massive overcorrection imo

2e dragons owe a lot to BECMI's Master Set dragons. I recall back then I struggled using the latter in my BECMI games as well.

 

[Emerikol]

I was really happy to see dragons get a boost. A dragon causes a kingdom to fall. It should be one of the most powerful creatures alive. A challenge for a high level party. 3e boosted them even more I think.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I was really happy to see dragons get a boost. A dragon causes a kingdom to fall. It should be one of the most powerful creatures alive. A challenge for a high level party. 3e boosted them even more I think.

It's hard to do apple to apples with the 2e-->3e transition, as the relative value of things changed. All* monsters got Con to their HP, which brought up numbers across the board. Their opposition (the PCs) changed as well, with some basic qualities of, say, fighters changing wildly (moving from best to worst saves; and the challenges of getting multiple attacks if you moved more than 5'). Magic/Spell Resistance changed as well, with 1e's flat-%-but-drops-for-MUs-over-level-12 to 2e's flat % to 3e's score vs caster level roll modified by feats (and several types of spells bypassing completely). So the picture is not perfectly clear.*except for the exceptions, as always.

Certainly within the edition, dragons got favored child status. A HD of dragon got the most HP, best saves, second-best skill points, and all the other perks that say 'we really want these to be bestest.' Their innate dragon fear effect was a powerful no-action save-or-suck that most opponents had no resistance. They also had immunity to sleep, paralysis, a couple species-specific ones, and a see-blind ability which was hard to counter.

I think the most telling thing about them was that discussion about facing them often rested not in best way to shore up PC combat numbers or optimal strategy to stop dragons from leveraging their best abilities, but instead finding the perfect spell or combo (in this case Assay Spell Resistance combined with Shivering Touch vs. the dragon's low touch AC and Dex score) to find an end-run around their resilience and immunities.

 

[billd91]

fighters changing wildly (moving from best to worst saves;

People talk about fighters having the best saves in AD&D a lot, but I think relatively few actually experienced it much. In AD&D, fighters did have the fastest improving saves and the overall best saves at relatively high levels - but for the first 6 levels or so, they actually kind of sucked compared to clerics and magic users. But if most people didn't play high levels back in the day (as surveys suggested), they probably didn't actually experience it or, if they did, they only experienced it for a very few levels.