Players of Older D&D (2e/earlier) and Clones - Page 104 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Players of Older D&D (2e/earlier) and Clones

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tefarek View Post
Cool, thanks, BW.

It's not that I hate the rules in 3.5, I think some of the combat ones are improvements, for me it was more the feel of the game is totally different than the "old school" versions.

In old school D&D, your PC is a "fighter", basically a farmer with a kitchen knife. A couple elderly orcs can beat you up. The low level adventures felt more realistic to me, because they were simple, dangerous, you had to use your wits. The DM ran everything. The players rolled when the DM told them to.

In 3.5, it's more like video game, where you start off as an "optimized" half-dragon/half-elf with basilisk blood, and your class is Iron-Ninja/Pope/Double-Volcano-Frost-Necromancer, who decided to go adventuring right after he slayed 5 dragons simultaneously in his teen-age years. Players dictate rolls against their numbers, and control the action almost as much as the DM.

Just my rant. Damn kids these days, get off my lawn!!
I feel the same way. It was very hard to me at least to do an adventure on the fly because you had so much crap to deal with when writing down monster stats. not like old school when all you needed was something like this.

Orc- AC: 6 HD 1 HP 8, 6x3, 4 #A 1 Damage/attack 1-8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tefarek View Post
In old school D&D, your PC is a "fighter", basically a farmer with a kitchen knife.
You mean you always start as 0-level characters? Because the 1st-level Fighting Man in OD&D is described as "veteran" according to the class title.
If anything, I find old school PCs to be more powerful than 3e, not less.

He is called a veteran because he fights as a man +1 and has 1 more hit point (2-7 instead of 1-6). If you use the alternate (now standard) combat system normal men and characters have the same to hits until the characters go up (at 4th level for fighter, 5th level for cleric and 6th level for magic-users). A 15+ in con can get you 1 more hit point and a 12+ dex gets you a +1 to hit with a missile weapon. Compared to later editions I am not seeing how these characters could possibly be more powerful. Adding in supplements gives you a wide range, up to fairly close to the power level of 1e before UA.

Classic D&D characters fair a bit better as they use Greyhawk hit dice (except magic-user who get shafted) and ability scores start meaning something but that all depends on luck and btb (3d6 in order) you don't see a lot of super heroes, most characters have strengths and weaknesses. Which gives you something to role-play with but usually doesn't make them much more powerful than a normal man (little lone our orc).

1e can produce much more powerful characters. Improved hit dice, top end ability scores getting high mods (though again using the standard 4d6 drop 1 arrange to taste you still don't see a lot of power because mods don't start until 15+ and most characters are lucky to have 2 scores in that range). With Unearthed Arcana adding in weapon specialization you do indeed begin to see more powerful fighters at first level (now on average the orc doesn't stand a chance) but still nothing compared to the power of 3.x characters.

In 3.x ability mods (based off of Classic but much more liberal) throw the whole deal way off, feats keep it going and the design of the game pretty much makes it impossible for a DM following the rules to create an encounter that PCs can't handle, unlike older editions where running away is a required survival tool.

I played 3.5 for a lot of years, pretty much its entire run as the current system. I had a lot of fun but what Tef said strikes very close to home for me. I realized after all those years and all those games that I wasn't playing D&D anymore, not as I understand it and enjoy it. Most of my 3.5 games were played with my teenage kids and it was a great game for them, a couple still play,never switched to 4e, and don't intend to play 5e. D&D is different for people depending on what edition you started with and what you enjoy about it. There is nothing wrong with a game where players have just as much control as the DM, it just isn't D&D for me. It is for the kids that I taught to play.

The part that brings in the overkill in 1e and 2e are the add-ons. Players benefited from UA rules and then 2e handbooks, but the modules don't get that advantage. They still used MM entries and then throw in chief's and shaman's and the like with levels with little advanced features. While this kept things are par with characters being heroes, wading through swathes of orcs and downing trolls when it should be the other way around, modules still only used standard features while characters exploded.

This also due to some DM's not using tactics and/or intelligence that a lot of critters have. Goblins are a dozen per swing, but a dozen goblins use mob rules. Add an intelligent leader, you have tactics at your hand (focused ranged attacked, for instance). They know that continuously plinking them with arrows and darts will force the heroes to use up potions. The hardiest of fighters still slip on grease...and then the grease is set on fire.

Yeah, it gets pretty overwhelming when you use material that supersedes previous publications. Not so much when you keep it the same.

Otherwise, BW pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Even the kits did not OP 2E, just gave a touch of customization that was lacking in 1E and "Vanilla" 2E. Yes, some kits are "No Brainers" such as the Myrmidon. But there was definitely a massive surge in power between 1E/2E and 3x+.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Wyvern View Post
He is called a veteran because he fights as a man +1 and has 1 more hit point (2-7 instead of 1-6). If you use the alternate (now standard) combat system normal men and characters have the same to hits until the characters go up (at 4th level for fighter, 5th level for cleric and 6th level for magic-users). A 15+ in con can get you 1 more hit point and a 12+ dex gets you a +1 to hit with a missile weapon. Compared to later editions I am not seeing how these characters could possibly be more powerful. Adding in supplements gives you a wide range, up to fairly close to the power level of 1e before UA.
Yeah, so? Power is relative to the opposition, and most 1/2 and 1 hit dice monsters go down in one swing. And OD&D is a system where every single HP helps, so this one point is the difference between every strike being potentially lethal, and having a buffer.
Fighters in 3e might have dozens of hit points, but a simple orc with a two-handed axe can take them down in one strike, due to the 1d12+6 or 7 due to the orcs having a frigging +4 Str Modifier.
And the lack of specialised feats means OSR fighters can go for trips, disarms, attacking mid-air while falling, or whatever. That's distinctly unlike in 3e where not having a feat or a chain of feats makes this a distinctly suboptimal option.
Now, if you want to make the argument 3e upped the power level, I agree! It just didn't do so for Fighters, just for the spellcasters.

Quote:
In 3.x ability mods (based off of Classic but much more liberal) throw the whole deal way off, feats keep it going and the design of the game pretty much makes it impossible for a DM following the rules to create an encounter that PCs can't handle, unlike older editions where running away is a required survival tool.
Especially with Fighters, encounters they can't handle can be created pretty much without the GM meaning to, IME.
That is, unless you have a kind GM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
Yeah, so? Power is relative to the opposition, and most 1/2 and 1 hit dice monsters go down in one swing. And OD&D is a system where every single HP helps, so this one point is the difference between every strike being potentially lethal, and having a buffer.
Fighters in 3e might have dozens of hit points, but a simple orc with a two-handed axe can take them down in one strike, due to the 1d12+6 or 7 due to the orcs having a frigging +4 Str Modifier.
And the lack of specialised feats means OSR fighters can go for trips, disarms, attacking mid-air while falling, or whatever. That's distinctly unlike in 3e where not having a feat or a chain of feats makes this a distinctly suboptimal option.
Now, if you want to make the argument 3e upped the power level, I agree! It just didn't do so for Fighters, just for the spellcasters.


Especially with Fighters, encounters they can't handle can be created pretty much without the GM meaning to, IME.
That is, unless you have a kind GM.
I have an example for you. I took my players through Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. the Blue Dragon as described was way way under powered for the party who was made up of 3rd level and 4th level fighters. I found that the modules for 3.x to be way underpowered but thats my opinion. I mean why should all the monsters you encounter have only avg hit points?

Quote:
And OD&D is a system where every single HP helps, so this one point is the difference between every strike being potentially lethal, and having a buffer.
Everything else you said makes sense. I don't know 3E so I can't say for certain which version of character is more powerful at level 1, but to say having 7 hit points at least gives you a buffer in a system where all weapons do 1-6 damage does not support the OD&D character being more powerful. You need to consider what happens after or even during the fight. Remember OD&D- No healing at level 1 (clerics don't get their first spell until level 2), no healing surges (if those are in 3rd ed, I don't know), no healing skill (if applicable), no bandaging, not even lay on hands in OD&D. I recall healing potions cost a couple hundred gold in OD&D, 1st and 2nd ed, whereas now they are 50gp ea in 4th and Pathfinder. So healing made life easier for even the 1st ed+ but OD&D if you had 1hp left after a fight, you were useless.

Here is my test for a D&D system.
How many times did a simple locked door end the adventure?

For me.
Basic, never.
advanced, only if magical
3rd plus, so many times I stopped counting

Can't a rogue currently "take 10" or "take 20" to perform a rogue skill with 100% success? Or another character can assist to raise the chance of success? Was any of that in 3.0?

The only benefit of OD&D, 1st and 2nd ed was that usually there were 5-7 members in a party (due to high mortality rate), so at least one was bound to make their "open doors" strength check, even if it was only on a 1 in 6.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 05:19:56pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status