D&D 1st and 2nd Ed. sure was one crappy game, wasn't it?

[Lago_AM3P]

Just finally got my hands on a few copies, realized that I spent quite a bit of money on weaksauce BS.

I have no idea how anyone could stand these games. Unless you're a spellcaster, you are pretty much the same character at level 1 as you are at the end of the game. You don't even eventually get hardcore enough that you get immunity to petty bullshit--your character progression grows weaker as you get more powerful.

There aren't even any (standard) rules to customize your character beyond the weaksauce abilities you get. Not even magic items. In 3rd Edition, you could pick up a cloak of the bat or a magic carpet and add a whole new dimension to your character. But since there aren't any rules in these previous editions to get these, what the hell man? Why didn't they let characters get their own treasure?

What was up with this? I complain a lot about 3rd Edition, but a big selling point of this game even today is that the ability ratio of this game is very high even for bottom-of-the-barrel classes (monks, bards) compared to other games. I can't stand to play MMORPGs outside of massively tooled-up MUDS anymore; a game like Final Fantasy XI bores me to tears because your character doesn't get anything new at all.

[User3]

1 & 2E were all about 'make it up.'

[User3]

In 1st and 2nd Ed., Fireball was everything to a spellcaster. From Level 5 to Level Umpteen. Now when you cast Fireball in 3.X, people laugh at you.

[Crissa]

The last campaign that had magic items dripping from it I was in, was a 2nd ed campaign.

Want an item? Quest! Loot! Steal!

Half the party had a Cloak of the Bat!

Just because you couldn't make stuff yourself doesn't mean there wasn't tons of it around to get.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Agreed. Most groups that I gamed with had enough magic items to go around. However, having a magical item was more of a big deal - if you had a magic spear, that was cool: there wasn't any, "Well, I'll cash it in and have the party wizard make me a flaming longsword."

Yes, characters weren't as powerful, but neither were the monsters. Keep in mind that making scrolls was not as easy, so at low level as a magic-user you were pretty darn weak. The key was to survive as a wizard to become high level, not an easy task. Note that most people retired their characters at around 10th to 15th level, so the ultra-high levels that you see printed in the books were rarely played. Furthermore, magic resistance in earlier editions was a bear, so though the spells are there, many times they didn't work. The fighter (fighting classes) were the only way to multi-attack using BAB. Finally, also note that though the thief was not as powerful at level-for-level equivalencies, (a) being able to get the experiece point bonus was easier for some of the base classes than others, (b) the amount of experience points required to get to those levels was less than other classes, and (c) many of the classes you could not qualify for unless you had certain ability scores.

In short, it was pretty balanced and I remember having a blast playing those editions.

[RandomCasualty]

1129937198[/unixtime]]
I have no idea how anyone could stand these games. Unless you're a spellcaster, you are pretty much the same character at level 1 as you are at the end of the game. You don't even eventually get hardcore enough that you get immunity to petty bullshit

Well, for the most part, this was a natural part of the game. Resource depletion was more a part of 2nd edition than it ever was in 3rd. You didn't have infinite healing with wands of CLW back then, and healing spells themselves were a lot crappier.

Basically a band of orcs was still a resource depleting enounter, even at level 8 or so. This was kind of a good thing at times because it gave you more diverse stuff to throw at the PCs. 3E has a very narrow challenge window due to its rapidly scaling bonuses. It ironically means in most cases that if you're going after a mind flayer elder brain that the individual mind flayers mean dick. This just wasn't true in 2nd ed.

There aren't even any (standard) rules to customize your character beyond the weaksauce abilities you get. Not even magic items. In 3rd Edition, you could pick up a cloak of the bat or a magic carpet and add a whole new dimension to your character. But since there aren't any rules in these previous editions to get these, what the hell man? Why didn't they let characters get their own treasure?

The lack of customizeable class abilities (well class abilities in general), sucks but I always hated "picking" your treasure. I thought that was a pretty stupid idea. I mean... it's treasure, and it's supposed to be cool stuff you find. When you can pick it, it loses all coolness. Then it's just another class ability. It's nice to have something in the game that isn't selected and just sort of happens, it makes the game feel more organic and adaptable, instead of just blindly following a build from start to finish.

As for why class abilities aren't very prevalent, back then, having fighter BaB was a big deal. You didn't have bonuses pouring from every orifice of your character sheet, so that little +1 to attack you get from every level of fighter was really worth it. As was the weapon spec. Your character did end up feeling very generic, but it was a much more realistic fantasy style back then.

[User3]

Basically a band of orcs was still a resource depleting enounter, even at level 8 or so. This was kind of a good thing at times because it gave you more diverse stuff to throw at the PCs. 3E has a very narrow challenge window due to its rapidly scaling bonuses. It ironically means in most cases that if you're going after a mind flayer elder brain that the individual mind flayers mean dick. This just wasn't true in 2nd ed.

You're not playing 3E the right way then. A band of Orcs can still kill 11th level parties. And an individual Mind Flayer can still destroy 14th level parties.

That's what character levels are for. And templates. And PrC's.

None of that stuff existed in 1E or 2E. 3E is the most customizable version of the game - and allows even lowly Kobolds to be party-killers even into the high levels.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Mechanically, yeah, there was little to differentiate characters of a given class, basically your ability scores and proficencies. The attitude back then, for right or wrong, was that the player made his own character unique by creating an interesting personality and backstory for him.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1130100085[/unixtime]]
You're not playing 3E the right way then. A band of Orcs can still kill 11th level parties. And an individual Mind Flayer can still destroy 14th level parties.

That's what character levels are for. And templates. And PrC's.

None of that stuff existed in 1E or 2E. 3E is the most customizable version of the game - and allows even lowly Kobolds to be party-killers even into the high levels.

True, you can add on a bunch of stuff to make them competetive, but it makes things different, because now you're fighting a cabal of high level mind flayers + the high powered elder brain.

1E and 2E gave armies of lesser monsters more of a threat. Simple numbers were a bit more valuable. Granted they still weren't by any means great, but having 20 1st level fighters on your side could actually be fairly useful in a lot of situations. The main difference was creature ACs. Creatures in 1E and 2E had rather crappy ACs comparatively, so generally an 18 or better for even a 1st level character with no attack bonuses was a hit. This made a big difference from a tactical perspective.

[Josh_Kablack]

I'm pretty solidly in the "each edition was an improvement" camp, but seriously, one of the biggest problems with 3e is that for half of the playable levels, PCs can reasonably be expected to have abilities that were rare or unknown among the gods of greek mythology (or other mythologies), which makes it hard for DMs to understand the power levels they are dealing with and nigh-impossible for new players to understand the mechanics of playing their characters. In previous editions, this problem was far less severe.

[RandomCasualty]

1130200071[/unixtime]]I'm pretty solidly in the "each edition was an improvement" camp, but seriously, one of the biggest problems with 3e is that for half of the playable levels, PCs can reasonably be expected to have abilities that were rare or unknown among the gods of greek mythology (or other mythologies), which makes it hard for DMs to understand the power levels they are dealing with and nigh-impossible for new players to understand the mechanics of playing their characters. In previous editions, this problem was far less severe.

Yeah, I find a lot of the high magic abilities to be very difficult to deal with. And it's not so much that some PCs have them, so much as the fact that they're transferrable, making them many times more abusive than similar powers in the hands of superheroes.

When you can not only teleport yourself but teleport the entire group, or have the entire group fly or walk through walls or whatever, the problem is much worse than one individual PC who can do that.

[User3]

I don't see the parity problem. The DM's monster's have the full realm of capabilities as the heroes do.

[Josh_Kablack]

I honestly have no problem running pretty high powered games. (aside from a bunch of idosyncratic stuff about the ELH rules)

But I do have somewhat of a problem that the D&D spell-lists contain a number of abilities that can render traditional fantasy plots uninteresting as game scenarios or campaigns
Example
while the D&D rulebooks provide little useful advice or guidance for setting up appropriate scenarios for characters with those abilities.

For another example

Santa Claus is a 20th level character, yes, officially. That Kaiju Bulette who looks an awful lot like Godzilla from Dragon #289 is around CR 20. It's certainly possible to put a Santa vs. Godzilla scenario together, but if it is going to be at all challenging for the PC here or interesting for the player, then you absolutely cannot base it off the bit in Red Nails where the T-Rex trees Conan. That's just going to result in Santa flying off with a ho-ho-ho and writing the evil wizard's name on the naughty list.

[RandomCasualty]

1130353066[/unixtime]]I don't see the parity problem. The DM's monster's have the full realm of capabilities as the heroes do.

But entirely different objectives, that's the main difference. Teleportation isn't necessarily bad in the hands of a villain, because the PCs don't spend time building monster/trap filled dungeons with which to bypass. So the villain really gains no advantage against the PCs by being able to teleport. The PCs on the other hand, gain a big advantage from teleportation because their objectives are to penetrate a big dungeon.

Using the "everyone gets them so it's innately balanced" isn't a good paradigm for an RPG. Remember that this isn't chess where both sides have the same objective. Obtaining the scepter of power is a heck of a lot different than protecting the scepter of power, and giving both sides the same capabilities isn't necessarily going to produce a balanced result.

[User3]

And yet, I've seen tournament DM's use teleport ambushes as much as the player's do. Sometimes to steal things from the party - sometimes to attempt to kill them. And yes, it's possible to do so without breaking the game or abusing such a spell. Some DM's tweak or temper the parameters of certain game mechanics. Teleport in general is an abuseable game mechanic (at certain levels). But at least providing the spell "as is" in the PHB allows DM and game groups to adjust it any number of ways - is a good thing.

Regarding the Sceptre of Power, there are a number of game mechanics around that can make finding or obtaining the item to be a real pain in the ass. Assuming you have devious players. Or savvy powergamer players.

[RandomCasualty]

1130440553[/unixtime]]And yet, I've seen tournament DM's use teleport ambushes as much as the player's do. Sometimes to steal things from the party - sometimes to attempt to kill them. And yes, it's possible to do so without breaking the game or abusing such a spell. Some DM's tweak or temper the parameters of certain game mechanics. Teleport in general is an abuseable game mechanic (at certain levels). But at least providing the spell "as is" in the PHB allows DM and game groups to adjust it any number of ways - is a good thing.

Well honestly I'd prefer they provide a toned down non-abuseable teleport in the core, and then let optional mechanic books present the more dangerous "use at your own risk" variations. I don't have a problem with having spells that require a lot of DM/player adjudication, I just don't think they should be present in the core rules.

2nd edition largely got around this problem by keeping players at lower levels. 10th level in 1E and 2E was equivalent to what 20 is in 3E. You in fact probably needed to play way more sessions to get from 1st to 10 in 1E/2E than you need to play to go from 1st level to 20th in 3E.

8th-10th level heroes in 2nd edition were pretty much legendary figures, they could kill huge dragons, slay pit fiends, pretty much do a ton of crap. In 3E, they're just another bunch of guys. Pretty powerful, but they've still got a long way to go.

2nd edition basically stopped the game after 10th level, where 3rd continues it, even encourages high level play, but doesn't actually make much effort to keep it balanced.

[erik]

1130542825[/unixtime8th-10th level heroes in 2nd edition were pretty much legendary figures...
In 3E, they're just another bunch of guys. Pretty powerful, but they've still got a long way to go.

In fact, they have 10,000 exp to go until they become legendary.

As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are “legendary,”

Heh.

And I'd say characters around level 8-10 are pretty legendary in many fantasy/sci-fi genres.

Conan and Gandalf take note:
They can teleport, incinerate large numbers of enemies at once, polymorph into giants, dragons and other large critters, fly, and have artistic performances of the calibre where the very gods may take interest.


[edit: accursed quote tag typoes]

[RandomCasualty]

1130565827[/unixtime]]
And I'd say characters around level 8-10 are pretty legendary in many fantasy/sci-fi genres.

Compared to fantasy novels, sure, but not compared to everything else in the game, and that's really what matters.

At 10th level there is a ton of stuff in the MM that's still way more badass.

[erik]

I suppose if that is your yardstick, then aren't characters from earlier editions also non-legendary, as there are tougher critters still?

Or is there a threshold where if percentage of monsters in monster manuals tougher than PC's >x, then PCs !Legendary? If that is the case, then do the PCs become less and less legendary as more monster manuals are written?

Ooooor, do you rate the PCs by what astounding feats they can do, that place them head and shoulders above joe unlegendary?

I suppose either method is valid.

Being legendary or not is almost totally role play, IMGO. I'd argue that even though Conan would get his ass handed to him in 3e (if only because he doesn't have the sweet pimp gear entitled to a barbarian of his level, and that he'd be better off in firbolg form or somesuch), he is totally legendary. All thanks to his fame from deeds performed. Most people in the Hyborian age setting know that he is bad ass and not to be messed with (at some point in the storyline anyway), even though most haven't ever met him or seen him do anything.

Legend is all about reputation.


Uuuh, and to stray back to topic, after I played 3rd Edition, I could never go back to earlier editions (unlike how I could go from 1st advanced, or 2nd advanced back to 1st, without so much as a shrug). 3rd Edition spoiled me... and then 3.5 spoiled 3rd, but in a different way.

[RandomCasualty]

1130579949[/unixtime]]I suppose if that is your yardstick, then aren't characters from earlier editions also non-legendary, as there are tougher critters still?

Well, not really. A party of 8th level characters in earlier editions could pretty much take on and win against almost anything. And indeed, this was the case by design, as characters peaked when they reached 9th level. They stopped gaining hp, and in 1st edition, they gained the title of lord and started gaining followers, because indeed at that point you were supposed to retire and form your own kingdom. It got to a point where there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference between 8th levels and 15th levels. As one of my friends who played a 16th level 2E fighter was eager to point out, a level beyond 9th was just 3 hit points and a THACO, that's it. And by then you were pretty much hitting with every swing anyway.

So I think there's a definite different feel from being an 8th level in 3rd edition and an 8th level in older editions.

Uuuh, and to stray back to topic, after I played 3rd Edition, I could never go back to earlier editions (unlike how I could go from 1st advanced, or 2nd advanced back to 1st, without so much as a shrug). 3rd Edition spoiled me... and then 3.5 spoiled 3rd, but in a different way.

As for being spoiled, well, I don't know. There were things about the older editions that I liked, but I don't know if I could go back. The streamlined combat system and ability scores totally changes the game around. 3rd edition just seems so much more polished.

Though, I have been considering running a game in an older edition lately, more for nostalgia over system preference. Though in terms of 2E's strengths I will list them.

-Monster stat blocks were simpler. (it was much simpler to run a 2nd edition combat, you could really remember a monster by a thaco, their HD, an AC, and some damage dice) Way less stats to keep track of and way less work for the DM, whcih was kinda cool.

-PCs died less. Back in 2E, going to -10 hp was actually a fair margin, since monsters didn't have strength bonuses (except for giants), so you were taking your damage in 1-8 or 1-10 point increments. Taking 10+ damage in a single attack was rare. IMO this makes the game feel more heroic.

-Spells were less broken. Seriously... polymorph isn't nearly as broken.... and things just seemed to work smoother out of the box in 2E. Now, this doesn't mean things were more balanced, a lot of things outright sucked, but you didn't have glaring balance problems that would totally fuck up your game, at least not until level 9+, which you rarely saw anyway.

-Divine casters aren't totally uber (though on the downside the rogue totally blows)

[Murtak]

PCs died less. Back in 2E, going to -10 hp was actually a fair margin, since monsters didn't have strength bonuses (except for giants), so you were taking your damage in 1-8 or 1-10 point increments. Taking 10+ damage in a single attack was rare. IMO this makes the game feel more heroic.

The death threshold in 3rd is total crap, no doubt about that. In our campaigns characters (including living monsters) die when they are in the negatives by 1/4 their maximum HPs.

Spells were less broken. Seriously... polymorph isn't nearly as broken.... and things just seemed to work smoother out of the box in 2E. Now, this doesn't mean things were more balanced, a lot of things outright sucked, but you didn't have glaring balance problems that would totally fvck up your game, at least not until level 9+, which you rarely saw anyway.

I think you may be suffering from nostalgia here, or possibly you just did not do or experience any min-maxing back in the days of 2nd edition.

From the top of my head 2nd edition featured that color gem spell, which could take anyone out of the combat without a save - and this was a first level spell, though you needed to be like level 7 to use the big powers like paralysation and death.

[Josh_Kablack]

1130598117[/unixtime]]
I think you may be suffering from nostalgia here, or possibly you just did not do or experience any min-maxing back in the days of 2nd edition.

Honestly, I think that spells from previous editions were likely abused far less than 3.x spells.

Of course, that's because I think that the explosive growth of the internet combined with the popularity (and consistancy) of 3rd edition to create an online community where rules exploits are shared a lot faster than they were in the older days. I think if you would have had the same fan community conversing on the same scale back in the day, you would have seen far far worse abuses in previous editions.

[Murtak]

Oh yeah, that too. Before the days of web communities if you wanted to abuse the system you needed to understand the rules thoroughly, have a decent grasp of the system as a whole and then put in the effort to find the abuseable parts. Nowadays all you need to do is check some message boards.

[RandomCasualty]

1130601603[/unixtime]]

Honestly, I think that spells from previous editions were likely abused far less than 3.x spells.

Of course, that's because I think that the explosive growth of the internet combined with the popularity (and consistancy) of 3rd edition to create an online community where rules exploits are shared a lot faster than they were in the older days. I think if you would have had the same fan community conversing on the same scale back in the day, you would have seen far far worse abuses in previous editions.

True, the internet has had a big effect on abusing the rules, since it alows rules lawyers to collaborate and thus think up new schemes as well as bolster their own self esteem to get the balls to try some of this stuff in a real game.

In 2nd edition, house ruling was second nature. A lot of the rules were flat out ambiguous and DMs just did whatever to make the game work. This actually meant fewer people abused stuff because it was also second nature to say "That just ain't happening" when a PC came up with a broken combo. 3E has much more emphasis on playing by the rules, and thus DMs tend to allow the broken stuff more often.

There were some broken 1st and 2nd edition spells, especially in some of the supplements, but most of the time you'd never expect those spells to actually be abused.

Still in sheer quantity, I think 3E has way more broken spells, simply because it has more broken mechanics. Also, infinite wealth loops meant practically nothing in 2E, where in 3E, they break the game. I could honestly care less if a wizard was going to abuse fabricate in a 2E game. Let him make his own tower and get a laboratory, he wasn't going to totally load up on magic items and that was all you cared about.

A lot of the structure of 3E is much more abuseable by nature. This is of course not including the player's option books for 2E which brought in a ton of abusive classes. You could seriously make an uber cleric there. I believe you could have weapon spec, fighter THACO, fighter HD, and still cast good spells.

But talking about core 2E versus core 3E, it felt less abuseable. Again, this doesn't mean more balanced, because a lot of the classes were total ass. Clerics really were boring as hell to play, and rogues disarmed traps and did nothing else. 3E overall is a much more fun game, despite being more broken.

[Murtak]

So your argument is, 2nd edition was so crappy that DMs did not worry about nerfing anything they deemed overpowered and thus spells were less broken?

Uuuh .... well, let's just say I disagree with that kind of logic.