D&D Edition Comparisons (Project)

[Woodzyowl]

So I need to get some feedback on the strong points and weak points of the editions of D&D (Namely, AD&D 1&2 and D&D 3.0/5). I have only ever played 3.5 and 4.0 before, but I consider 4.0 to not even be D&D (no arguments about this please) so it will not be included in said project.

[Janus]

I've only really played 3.5 and 4e, so I can't give any personal anecdotes, but Wikipedia gives a decent list of the changes in each edition. Hope it helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons

[dsmiles]

I have lots of experience with all editions, and I need to warn you: This will end badly.

[Woodzyowl]

I have lots of experience with all editions, and I need to warn you: This will end badly.

Hopefully it will give me some insight into the strong and weak points though. It would be nice if people would hold to their opinions instead of criticizing others, but I can only control what people say oh so much.

[Gamer Girl]

0E/1E--Very, very, very few rules. Basically a DM had to make up about 75% of the rules of the game.

2E--Lots more rules to cover things, but still left a good 50% of the game vague and un-ruled.

3E--Rules for nearly everything and everything is nicely quantified. DM's are expected to only make up about 10% of the rules, as long as they follow the Core Rules.

4E--Even more rules for everything and everything is set in stone. A DM is expected to make up 0% of the rules.

[Jude_H]

Basic is optimal for excluding gnomes.
AD&D is the best for bards that make your head hurt just thinking about.
2e is optimal as far as SICK TABLES are concerned.
3e is the paragon of day-long char-gen.
3.5 is optimal for being pretty much the same thing, but in hardback.
4e is ideal for inciting sweet edition snobbery.

I hope that helps! :smalltongue:

[Chambers]

A strength of 3rd edition was the incredible variety of mechanics that you could use to make your character. The weakness was that those different mechanic systems were not balanced against each other.

A strength of 4th edition is that the mechanics of the game actually do something in helping character fulfill party roles. A weakness is that the multiclassing/hybrid system doesn't work very well, partially because the classes are built very role-specific.

[oxybe]

here are my issues with 3rd ed/PF (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9548763&postcount=28)

most of my issues with 1st & 2nd edition is that:

-the game does little to empower the characters. far too much of player actions are simple "how nice is the GM feeling" when you ask "can i try this?". while i enjoy rules-light, i also enjoy a proper framework to base my actions off of.

-the subsystems are worse then the ones in 3rd ed, which is one reason why i was VERY happy when 3.5 came out. there is, overall, less consistency between subsystems. i'm not just talking about ThAC0, but also includingstuff like the old Turn Undead, the Grapple/Unarmed/overwhelm(or whatever). you know what? i'm going to add the over complication of "too many similar weapons" and with not enough distinction between them.

-low levels are too frail. far too easy to die in the early game. i forget which one said it (Gygax or Anderson) but that you shouldn't bother naming your PC until 5th level. i know it was tongue-in-cheek, but still. towards the late end of 2nd ed, i was pretty much done roleplaying due to having enough of the meatgrinder some of my PCs were simply being put through.

-GP = XP. in early editions, a large part of your power was gained not on how many things you killed but based on how much money you made. monsters were each worth a small amount of static XP so people either tried to avoid combat entirely or find ways to get it over with quickly so they can loot the hoard. if anything, i can call pre-3rd my "dungeon crawl" phase, for better or worst.

-uneven level progressions, i can understand that you wanted to slow down the progression of the wizard's power cosmic, but it was still kinda annoying to have the PCs level at different times. it made eyeballing encounters harder then already was (i can't remember any guideline other then "throw monsters at the wall PCs and see what sticks doesn't kill them").

as a side note to this: "dead" levels, usually those past 10th-ish where you only gained 1 HP and if you were a mage, more spells. really, if you mean the game to stop being played after X levels, don't add more levels and hope for the best.

-uneven power levels. yes i understand that by design fighters drool and wizards rule (by virtue of sheer versatility alone). doesn't mean i like it. pre-3rd had a few more hoops to jump through to balance out wizards, but being able to push a button and unleash a nuke on the third tuesday of every second month if an attorney, a dentist and a behir groomer are present at the time does not balance out the fact that you can still unleash a nuke.

as far as i'm concerned each edition after the first fixed some of the issues with the previous one, but unfortunately fathered in a lot of issues the previous edition had.

[Aron Times]

Two walls of text.

/thread

I agree with just about everything oxybe said.

[ken-do-nim]

0E/1E--Very, very, very few rules. Basically a DM had to make up about 75% of the rules of the game.


Just so you know, 1E is anything but rules-light. A lot of people just happen to ignore many of its rules, because you can.

[The Big Dice]

Why do people insist on ignoring D&D in favour of AD&D for these kind of comparisons? You're missing out on the game that provides the name, as well as adding another four editions to the mix. Considering that the 1991 Rules Compendium is possibly one of the greatest editions of D&D ever, that's a sad loss.

[mathemagician]

"but I consider 4.0 to not even be D&D (no arguments about this please) so it will not be included in said project."


Why try to do something like compiling "strong points and weak points" if you're going to let your opinions get in the way of objective writing?

Just a thought, you asked that people don't argue this, but who's to say you're not throwing out weak points because they go against your favored system, or in your opinion they are invalid?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Why do people insist on ignoring D&D in favour of AD&D for these kind of comparisons? You're missing out on the game that provides the name, as well as adding another four editions to the mix. Considering that the 1991 Rules Compendium is possibly one of the greatest editions of D&D ever, that's a sad loss.

This. Oh so very much this. The Rules Cyclopedia was a full-featured D&D game, complete with campaign setting, in a single volume with much cleaner and simpler mechanics than either version of AD&D.

[navar100]

2E - The Rules stress player characters be restricted. They start as pathetic weaklings but eventually become powerful dreadnoughts.

3E - The Rules stress player characters can do anything. They start weak yet competent but soon become powerful dreadnoughts.

4E - The Rules stress player characters must be alike. They start competent enough but don't increase in power much. Numbers get bigger, but everyone's numbers get bigger at the same rate and amount, plus or minus a die roll here and there.

[Gamer Girl]

Just so you know, 1E is anything but rules-light. A lot of people just happen to ignore many of its rules, because you can.

Rules-light is not really the right word. 1E had plenty of rules, but it still left a lot up to each DM.

And most importunately 1E was vague rules. Question:If I cast Shield twice in 1E do I get two shields and their bonuses? Answer:Ask your DM as the rules say nothing about this. (Unlike 3E for example where it's a shield bonus and their are rules for bonus types and stacking).

[Tyndmyr]

"but I consider 4.0 to not even be D&D (no arguments about this please) so it will not be included in said project."


Why try to do something like compiling "strong points and weak points" if you're going to let your opinions get in the way of objective writing?

Just a thought, you asked that people don't argue this, but who's to say you're not throwing out weak points because they go against your favored system, or in your opinion they are invalid?

He's just not including 4e. It's not about strong or weak points of 4e, it's just not part of the comparison. It is a significantly different game....it is an outlier. Excluding it makes it significantly easier to compare the rest of them. Favorite system is quite irrelevant to that.


IMO, D&D has always been rules heavy. It's trended fairly consistently toward more comprehensive, clear rules. It didn't really start out there, but it's definitely gone in that direction.

It has also trended away from a simple one-track model of class toward more complexity.

3.5 is particularly close to 3.0, and both editions had a notable number of splatbooks. What sort of attributes are you looking to compare?

[oxybe]

4E - The Rules stress player characters use the same basic framework for task resolution rather then different subsystems, yet each class has it's own play style, or variety of styles. Characters start as fully competent heroes and eventually become powerful dreadnoughts.

fixed for inaccuracies.

[valadil]

but I consider 4.0 to not even be D&D (no arguments about this please) so it will not be included in said project.

That's a very loaded statement. I think you'd be better off saying that you're looking for pros and cons without an edition war, so you're omitting 4e because including it will absolutely lead to one. It may not be the real reason, but I don't think anyone will be able to take exception to it.

[navar100]

fixed for inaccuracies.

Where?

And so it begins.

[Tvtyrant]

I can't wait to see what kinds of wedges 5E will drive into the community. /sarcasm

Anyways, I think the biggest thing that has changed is us, not the game. AD&D lacked the sort of op boards that have sprung up in 3s (collective 3) lifetime. How many people would individually come up with the Batman wizard? The God? The steady growth from Cindy to Mailman? If Treantmonk and Doc Roc and the other optimizers (not insulting anyone here mind) played AD&D back in ye olden days then they would have changed the way their game was played, but the community as a whole didn't have the communication it does now.

Honestly everytime someone comes onto an op board they are changed permanently by the experience, as others have deconstructed it and handed out its secrets. How many players have personally broken down the rate of saves by type? Now you don't have to, the work has been done. If AD&D had come out in 2000 the image of it would be completely different then it is today, IMO.

[randomhero00]

3rd editions main problem is the amount of tricked out characters you can build. Altho that's part of the fun of it TBH.

[Gamer Girl]

Anyways, I think the biggest thing that has changed is us, not the game.

I'll second this and add:

1.Before 3E most gamers either read novels or just saw things in their minds. There was very little support for fantasy out there. Only a handful of movies and such had visual effects(compare the effects of Clash of the Titans, for example). Way back then they only had s-l-o-w text role-playing fantasy games and very limited graphics. The two biggest influences by the time 3E came out were video games and anime, both with lots and lots of action, color and energy. And they changed the game forever.


And, well, other stuff that we can't talk about here:smallfrown:

[The Big Dice]

IMO, D&D has always been rules heavy. It's trended fairly consistently toward more comprehensive, clear rules. It didn't really start out there, but it's definitely gone in that direction.

It has also trended away from a simple one-track model of class toward more complexity.
AD&D follows this line of development. 0E, Basic, B/X, BECMI and RC editions tend to follow a similar structure of simplicity and elegance. Complexity only gets added for things like dominions, warfare and higher level weapon mastery abilities.

Older editions also make epic play more epic by not putting an arbitrary point in the game at which the rules change. Other than your characters ascending to Immortality, obviously. They also make the change from characters traipsing round as ultra rich tramps to them ruling kingdoms and setting up schools of magic and so on.

Dark Dungeons, the Rules Compendium retro-clone is out there and it's free. I really do suggest checking out the other branch of the D&D family tree. The one that got treated as the red headed stepchild. You might be pleasantly surprised by what you find.

[Eldan]

I'll second this and add:

1.Before 3E most gamers either read novels or just saw things in their minds. There was very little support for fantasy out there. Only a handful of movies and such had visual effects(compare the effects of Clash of the Titans, for example). Way back then they only had s-l-o-w text role-playing fantasy games and very limited graphics. The two biggest influences by the time 3E came out were video games and anime, both with lots and lots of action, color and energy. And they changed the game forever.


And, well, other stuff that we can't talk about here:smallfrown:

Man, I still remember when I saw my first good-ish Anime at about the age of 14. My jaw nearly fell off. "My god. There's fantasy things that aren't books?"

[oxybe]

i remember my first anime as a kid: the original run of Dragonball on TV.

no Z.

no GT.

just Goku, Krillin, Bulma, Yamcha, Oolong & Poir, in a rickety van and a flying, orange cloud VS the Red Ribbon Army (among other things).

then again, i also remember watching Ghostbusters & the cheesy TMNT cartoons in the late 80's-early 90's as well as the whole VERY awesome 90's run of "steven speilberg" cartoons, Batman: The animated series (a dark cartoon..), the actual awesome disney cartoons like Gargoyles, etc...

being a kid in the 90's rocked.

[Eldan]

You have to remember that this was Swiss/German television I watched. There were some of those shows, but they were usually even more changed from the originals than the American versions, and the voice acting was sometimes so bad, even as a kid I found it unwatchable. Plus, I wasn't really allowed to watch more than a half hour or so of TV each day for most of the nineties. I mean, I maybe of the right age for a 90s kid, but my knowledge of pop culture really comes more from the 2000s.

[oxybe]

You have to remember that this was Swiss/German television I watched. There were some of those shows, but they were usually even more changed from the originals than the American versions, and the voice acting was sometimes so bad, even as a kid I found it unwatchable. Plus, I wasn't really allowed to watch more than a half hour or so of TV each day for most of the nineties. I mean, I maybe of the right age for a 90s kid, but my knowledge of pop culture really comes more from the 2000s.

ouch. i don't know what the quality of Swiss/German cartoons are like in the 90's but here in Canada, it was a great time to be a kid.

now as for bad dubbing, that is something no show deserves. :smallfrown:

[Woodzyowl]

Wow people, great job! I now have my second required source of information. :belkar:

[ken-do-nim]

Rules-light is not really the right word. 1E had plenty of rules, but it still left a lot up to each DM.

And most importunately 1E was vague rules. Question:If I cast Shield twice in 1E do I get two shields and their bonuses? Answer:Ask your DM as the rules say nothing about this. (Unlike 3E for example where it's a shield bonus and their are rules for bonus types and stacking).

I see what you are saying, but bad example. The 1E shield spell provides flat armor classes; 2 vs. thrown missiles, 3 vs. fired missiles, 4 vs. all other attacks. Casting it twice would provide no additional benefit. In general though, a lot of the vague spell description issues are cleared up in 2E. I run 1E, but I always carry my 2E PHB with me to the game to consult for rulings. I very occasionally - such as for ranger/paladin casting levels - consult my 3E PHB.

[Tvtyrant]

My childhood was filled with Spiderman, Batman, DB and the X-men on the animated side, and Tolkien, Watership Down, and the like on the literature side. My image of fantasy has always been X-Men versus Orcs to be honest!

[dsmiles]

My image of fantasy has always been X-Men versus Orcs to be honest!
:eek:
...
...
:confused:
...
...
:amused:
...
...
:biggrin:
AWESOME!