which as stronger characters 5e or 2e?

[Tonden Ockay]

Are classes stronger or weaker in 5e then they were in 2e?

What a bout a level 10 5e fighter vs a 2e fighter?

What is your thoughts on this?

I do feel 5e wizards are stronger then 2e wizards at the lower levels, yet a little weaker at higher levels. I for one like this.

[Person_Man]

In 2E, non-full casters are almost entirely composed of "dead levels" where they gained nothing but higher bonuses, Saves, and/or % success rates at certain Skills. These bonuses could be really potent (for example, Warriors with high Constitution got A LOT more hit points then non-Warriors), but you had few options outside of what a normal humanoid could do.

Arcane full casters had much, much more powerful magic at their disposal. (Especially when you consider all the options they got in splat books). But there were many, many limiting factors. (Higher level spells took longer to memorize and cast, and were sometimes easy to disrupt). They sucked terribly at low levels, but could re-write reality at high levels.

Divine full casters were pretty much limited to being second rate meat shields that could also heal and cast protection magic, and they were limited to 7th level spells. This was improved by splat books, but their reputation for sucking was so great that the 3.0 rewrites went overboard in the other direction to try and convince players to use them more often.

[charcoalninja]

In 2E, non-full casters are almost entirely composed of "dead levels" where they gained nothing but higher bonuses, Saves, and/or % success rates at certain Skills. These bonuses could be really potent (for example, Warriors with high Constitution got A LOT more hit points then non-Warriors), but you had few options outside of what a normal humanoid could do.

Arcane full casters had much, much more powerful magic at their disposal. (Especially when you consider all the options they got in splat books). But there were many, many limiting factors. (Higher level spells took longer to memorize and cast, and were sometimes easy to disrupt). They sucked terribly at low levels, but could re-write reality at high levels.

Divine full casters were pretty much limited to being second rate meat shields that could also heal and cast protection magic, and they were limited to 7th level spells. This was improved by splat books, but their reputation for sucking was so great that the 3.0 rewrites went overboard in the other direction to try and convince players to use them more often.

2e Harm instantly wind a one on one fight as it was a no save just lose spell. Blade barrier, and fire storm were potent attack spells. The cleric had all the defenses of a fighter with incredible magic. Plague of doom did 1000 damage. Cleric's were anything but weak. What they were, was expected to be healbots because 2e had 0 other ways of getting hp back in a reasonable fashion.

Arcane casters were crazy powerful once Stoneskin showed up and they could ignore the effects of having a titan hit them with a redwood. So 5e has stronger muggles but vastly weaker casters. 2e casters were beyond crazy strong.

[rhouck]

5e casters are stronger at low levels by virtue of unlimited cantrips, slightly better hp, and options to get armor. The spells prepared system is also far better with limited spell slots than spells memorized.

But they are definitely weaker at higher levels. They can cast less spells. The spells themselves are weaker (compare 2e vs 5e stoneskin, or any of the many "save or suck/die" spells that now allow repeated save attempts). Spells don't automatically scale by caster level like they used to (e.g., magic missile, fireball). And the concentration mechanic limits the number of buffs that can exist.

That's certainly not say they are underpowered now, as they are still quite powerful at high levels in 5e. I think WotC has done a good job of reining in their power at high levels with corresponding buffs to make them more fun (and a bit less squishy) at lower levels.

[kaoskonfety]

Low level fighters/ 10th level fighters
This is harder to say? ... mostly due to the STACKS of optional armor and combat options in 2nd and because the differences are less clear/more swingy per character. More stat dependant in 2nd... High enough Con you wound up TOUGH, high STR and you were beastly at hit/damage, dex was delicious gravy.
- Does a max STR Con fighter in 5th stack up to the MAX fighter in 2nd? no... the old strength bonuses were bonkers. (+6 to hit and 12 to damage was it?)
- but the 5th ed has the option to do a GOOD finesse fighter (if you had Dex and Str in 2nd you played a thief or a fighter/thief, not a fighter with a rapier and a bow)
I'd probably argue you average better off as a fighter in 5th ed, you have more options and are less dependant of demigod stats, and you have some control over those stats?

One thing on level 10 fighter for 2nd? check how many times you need to kill the Tarraque to get the EXP for that. Fighter advancement largely stopped around there (but you got you choice of castle and retainers? so yay?)

Low level casters?
5e they are significantly better than 2nd, if only cause cantrips at will in place of one spell per day period (seriously, one spell per day was awful, worse if you manages to waste it/get interupted). I'm not sure where I'd say 2nd ed wizards get back to "on par" and start over taking in strength, but it does happen somewhere after 6th level and before 15th - its the extra higher level spell slots that make the bulk of the difference. People will site specific spells but getting a number of 7th, 8th and 9th level options 'per day'? yum.

This of course assumes your INT is over 13 and you have a decent chance to LEARN any of those spells.... (3d6 as the fall for stats was far from unheard of, playing a wizard who cannot make the roll to save their life and has to memorize 2nd level spells in their 3rd and 4th level slots? ew)

[Tonden Ockay]

I like the sounds of Wizards being buffed at the start of the game and having their power at endgame being taken down a bit.

I also like the sounds of players being able to do more with a class when not having high stats.

I remember playing AD&D 2nd edition and everyone feeling like they had to have two or three simi high stats or they would be worthless. If this has changed then that sounds good to me.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I like the sounds of Wizards being buffed at the start of the game and having their power at endgame being taken down a bit.

I also like the sounds of players being able to do more with a class when not having high stats.

I remember playing AD&D 2nd edition and everyone feeling like they had to have two or three simi high stats or they would be worthless. If this has changed then that sounds good to me.

It also helps that more 2 or 3 out 15 possible rolls actually matter now and Int/Cha aren't dump stats anymore

[Chronos]

In 2e, Int was essential for a wizard, but did absolutely nothing for anyone else. In 5e, by contrast, Int is essential for a wizard, but does absolutely nothing for anyone else. I'm not seeing the distinction.

Overall, I think the trend is that all classes in 5e were weakened compared to their 2e counterparts, but that they then gave the casters a bunch of new benefits to make up for it.

[TrollCapAmerica]

In 2e, Int was essential for a wizard, but did absolutely nothing for anyone else. In 5e, by contrast, Int is essential for a wizard, but does absolutely nothing for anyone else. I'm not seeing the distinction.

Overall, I think the trend is that all classes in 5e were weakened compared to their 2e counterparts, but that they then gave the casters a bunch of new benefits to make up for it.

I think it's mechanics more than anything else. There was like a handful of broken OP options a lot of us old Grognards liked to pretend didn't exist. The mechanics just don't allow a weapon specialist multiple-class demi-human that never miss past a certain point and doesn't care about level limits because they arent playing to lv15

Past those sorts of things all the class are improved across the board and nobody feels worthless like a straight Thief or Monk used to be

[Chronos]

You didn't need any optimization at all in 2e for a fighter to be almost guaranteed to hit someone wearing nonmagical full plate and a shield-- Any high-level fighter could do that. By contrast, a 5e fighter of the same level will have somewhere around a 60% chance of hitting that target. In fact, once you adjust for the THAC0 system vs. the attack bonus system, armor is almost identical between 2nd, 3rd, and 5th editions, but everyone's attack bonus by level in 5e is comparable to what wizards got in 2e. This is partially made up for by the fact that it's so much easier to get a 20 ability score in 5e, but then again, a 20 ability score doesn't mean as much as it did in 2e, either.

On the other hand, on thinking about it some more, I can't really think of any significant way that casters are weaker compared to 2e, and they're stronger in three major ways: First, saving throws have changed. In 2e, saves scaled with the defender's level, but not with the attacker's, so at high levels, your enemy was almost guaranteed to make a save against your spell. In 5e, though, saves scale with the attacker's level, but not with the defender's, provided that you target one of your opponent's poor saves (an option that didn't even exist in 2e, since all spells called for a Save Versus Spell). So 5e save spells become much more reliable, rather than less. Second, it's no longer possible to interrupt a spellcaster's casting, while in 2e, it would happen whenever a spellcaster tried to cast in melee range, and often even if they weren't, if the other side had a decent initiative roll. Third, spellcasters used to have very low endurance, due to a small number of spell slots. In 5e, the number of spell slots is similarly low, but spellcasters have very powerful cantrips that they can use all day, plus usually rituals.

So overall, I guess I'd say that mundane classes are weaker now, but spellcasters are more powerful.

[Tonden Ockay]

2e Warriors go a weapon and a low Thaco

5e Warriors get things to help while leveling and they get more attacks per round.

It would seem that 5e characters would be stronger just have a lower chance of hitting

[Chronos]

OK, I just looked it up. A fighter with weapon specialization (which was pretty much all of them) got 1.5 attacks per round at first level, 2 at 7th level, and 2.5 at 13th level. So they started off a bit ahead of 5e fighters, but eventually fall a bit behind 5e fighters. They'd also get +1 to hit and +2 damage from that specialization. On the other hand, if they specialized in throwing darts instead of a melee weapon, they got 4 attacks per round immediately from level 1, 5 at level 7, and 6 at level 13. Darts, of course, had a very low damage die, but you still got that bonus damage from specialization, as well as from strength and any magic you might have had.

The paladin and the ranger (who couldn't specialize) started off and ended up with the same number of attacks per round as their 5e equivalents, but fell behind in between: 1 at first level, 1.5 at 7th, and 2 at 13.

And since I have my 2e PHB out anyway, I figured I'd look up the strength bonuses, too. Scores of anywhere from 8 to 15 made no difference at all, a 16 gave you +1 to damage, 17 was +1 to hit and +1 to damage, 18 was +1 hit, +2 damage, and 18 with percentile (scored between 18 and 19, only available to warrior-types) ranged from +1/+3 to +3/+6. All of the official ability-score generation methods in the book, even the optional rules, were random, so this could result in huge variations in a character's power level based on a roll at character creation. In practice, most DMs that I played with used some sort of ability score array instead. Of course, all of that went out the window if you found a Belt of Giant Strength, but then, that's true again now, too.

Oh, one other difference I'm reminded of between 2e and 5e: Hit points can get much higher now. In 2e, you didn't even start getting bonus HP for Con until a score of 15, and bonus HP capped out at +2 for everyone but warriors. Plus, you stopped gaining more hit dice after 9 or 10 levels, instead gaining only a fixed number of HP per level: 3 for warriors, 2 for priests or rogues, and 1 for mages (with no Con bonus for any of them). In one sense, this is better for 5e characters, but in another, it's not, because their foes also have similarly-inflated HP. And it hits the mundanes especially hard, since damage is their only way of taking out enemies.

[MeeposFire]

There are a LOT of little things to look into when thinking abut 2e AD&D. For instance specializing in punching is an effective way to get lots of attacks, accuracy, and damage when you wield cesti. That set up is better than any other melee set up in 2e unless you allow grandmastery (later and slightly more rare splat book though still valid) or if your DM absolutely prevents you from finding magic cesti (possible).

Also you have to consider how different your characters are to the monsters in each edition. For instance monsters in AD&D all use d8 HD, have their thac0 table, and were relatively fragile. Your characters did not need a bunch of attacks or high ability scores to kill these monsters at levels 3+ or so. In fact AD&D is the most attribute independent edition ever. A player wanting to create a fighter actually should not put their highest ability score in strength unless you can get bonus XP or you can get an 18. Combatwise a 17 in str is worth less than it is in con, dex, or even intelligence. Anybody who says int is not great for a fighter in 2e either does not play with the optional prof rules, does not allow for full specialization rules, or has not taken the time to ind out how powerful bonus proficiencies are over a single +1 to hit and damage (or less).

As for those character you are even more fragile in many ways in AD&D except with saving throws. So you have to keep that in mind. Also AD&D has a lot of rules that are even more frequently debated or ignored than 5e. For instance stone skin is really not as good as people say as it prevents damage not hits. This means that your spell casting is disrupted when you are hit while using stoneskin even though you took no damage because the rule on disruption is about getting hit not damage. However many people do not play that way.

Comparing the two editions is actually more complicated than you might think.I will say though that you are less likely to be killed by a mob of low level enemies as a high level character in 2e but that is a corner case really.

[Naanomi]

That set up is better than any other melee set up in 2e unless you allow grandmastery (later and slightly more rare splat book though still valid)
I still wonder to this day what Grand Mastering the Naginata did in terms of damage...

Ninja martial arts were also effective; as were some Humanoid Handbook giant weapons. Specializing heavily in wrestling was also devestating for foes it worked on.

Newer edition rogues are clearly stronger than their 2e counterparts. Skills that were laughably low even into mid levels; backstab at most once a combat; no other significant tricks... Though you did level up quicker than anyone except high-level druids

[MeeposFire]

I still wonder to this day what Grand Mastering the Naginata did in terms of damage...

Ninja martial arts were also effective; as were some Humanoid Handbook giant weapons. Specializing heavily in wrestling was also devestating for foes it worked on.

Newer edition rogues are clearly stronger than their 2e counterparts. Skills that were laughably low even into mid levels; backstab at most once a combat; no other significant tricks... Though you did level up quicker than anyone except high-level druids

One problem with 2e is that GM depended on what book you were using. For instance in one book you could just get an extra attack, +3 to hit, +5 damage, and an improvement in attack speed. In another you could get those benefits (or similar) but also get a bonus to crit chance (sort of) and gives you a knock down ability. Also in many versions GM gave you +1.5 attacks per round which is huge in 2e.

Agree with you on thieves in general though the leveling part was excellent. In general I think the rogue classes need a little bit more to be where they should be. I liked how in IWD they gave thieves evasion which was a big help in helping them survive. I think stuff like that, more ways to get bonus damage, and better proficiency progression (how do rogues have the worst prof progression?) would help them a lot.

[TrollCapAmerica]

When you think of AD&D you have to divvy it up by eras (Something not addressed remains a thing)

Early 1st ed- No weapon specialization. so Fighters are punchbots. Casters are easy to disrupt saving throws almost automatic by BFC buffs and sometimes damage is viable. The majority of a characters uniqueness comes from magic items. Demi-humans are stupidly OP. Thieves are to survive lethal traps and getting caught scounting with skills that fail half the time before high level

Late 1st- Adding Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures adds a lot of mostly mediocre classes the allmighty weapon specialization option that creates an impassable gap in melee combat and an expanded treasure table including +6 weapons including a Holy Avenger. Some extra spells especially from the Greyhawk splatbook

Early Second- Now only single classed Fighters get Weapon specialization and are the only mundane class worth using. The spell lists are cleaned up but the divine side is kind of a mess

Late 2nd-Between kits racebooks players options guides Ninja martial arts books and stupid FR splats you have hordes of shoddily organized options ranging from really OP to redundant to perfectly acceptable on rare occasions

[Kyutaru]

Fighters were way more powerful in 2nd edition. Weapon proficiencies gave you lots of attacks just like 5th, but everything had fewer hitpoints. A 20th level wizard had maybe 60 hp. Fighters gained 1d10 per level to level 9 and then only 3 hp every level after that. Haste would also double your attacks per round so as a fighter you would be capable of swinging stupid amounts of times, especially if you were a dual wielder. The penalties for dual wielding were basically offset by your ridiculous THAC0 and you never took a penalty for attacking more times per round like 3rd edition. This coupled with the ludicrous strength damage bonuses in a game with so few hitpoints that get added to every swing and fighters were absolute terrors.

A fully buffed high level fighter could take down a 300 hitpoint boss in a single round.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Fighters were way more powerful in 2nd edition. Weapon proficiencies gave you lots of attacks just like 5th, but everything had fewer hitpoints. A 20th level wizard had maybe 60 hp. Fighters gained 1d10 per level to level 9 and then only 3 hp every level after that. Haste would also double your attacks per round so as a fighter you would be capable of swinging stupid amounts of times, especially if you were a dual wielder. The penalties for dual wielding were basically offset by your ridiculous THAC0 and you never took a penalty for attacking more times per round like 3rd edition. This coupled with the ludicrous strength damage bonuses in a game with so few hitpoints that get added to every swing and fighters were absolute terrors.

A fully buffed high level fighter could take down a 300 hitpoint boss in a single round.

Aye tis true. It's really not that Fighters were good it was that Weapon specialization was that great especially when combined with lucky rolls on ability scores and/or magic item tables. There was generally less nobility in old editions as well so a Fighter based with something was already winning. A hasted flying Fighter was darn near unstoppable

[MeeposFire]

Fighters were way more powerful in 2nd edition. Weapon proficiencies gave you lots of attacks just like 5th, but everything had fewer hitpoints. A 20th level wizard had maybe 60 hp. Fighters gained 1d10 per level to level 9 and then only 3 hp every level after that. Haste would also double your attacks per round so as a fighter you would be capable of swinging stupid amounts of times, especially if you were a dual wielder. The penalties for dual wielding were basically offset by your ridiculous THAC0 and you never took a penalty for attacking more times per round like 3rd edition. This coupled with the ludicrous strength damage bonuses in a game with so few hitpoints that get added to every swing and fighters were absolute terrors.

A fully buffed high level fighter could take down a 300 hitpoint boss in a single round.

Yes though in true AD&D fashion there were costs to that power. Haste aged you a year and if you were playing RAW then that means you need to roll a system shock roll (any magical aging requires a roll and haste magically ages you). Most people do not play that way but that rule exists.

I am not a fan of using that particular draw back but it does require some thought about that sort of thing.

2e fighters are probably the best that they ever were in terms of power and versatility in total though in 5e they at least got most of it back relative to say 3e. Being able to move and attack is an amazing ability that you had to a degree in 2e and you now have again in 5e as is the ability to make multiple attacks without penalty.

I do think that 5e fighters are more dynamic than 2e fighters. A 2e fighter was powerful relative to its game but it did not give you much in terms of variety while in combat. Even the champion fighter gets some optional abilities to use in combat such as action surge, second wind, or free saves which gives you more things to use and that is the most vanilla of the fighter options.

[Eslin]

Fighters were way more powerful in 2nd edition. Weapon proficiencies gave you lots of attacks just like 5th, but everything had fewer hitpoints. A 20th level wizard had maybe 60 hp. Fighters gained 1d10 per level to level 9 and then only 3 hp every level after that. Haste would also double your attacks per round so as a fighter you would be capable of swinging stupid amounts of times, especially if you were a dual wielder. The penalties for dual wielding were basically offset by your ridiculous THAC0 and you never took a penalty for attacking more times per round like 3rd edition. This coupled with the ludicrous strength damage bonuses in a game with so few hitpoints that get added to every swing and fighters were absolute terrors.

A fully buffed high level fighter could take down a 300 hitpoint boss in a single round.

That sounds really, really boring. Unless I'm missing something here their strategy was basically say 'I attack' until the fight finished?

[Mrmox42]

The Bard was powerful then, if almost impossible to get, because of Ability requirements

[Kurald Galain]

In 2e, Int was essential for a wizard, but did absolutely nothing for anyone else.
Well, the amount of skills (NWPs) you got depended on your int.


Overall, I think the trend is that all classes in 5e were weakened compared to their 2e counterparts, but that they then gave the casters a bunch of new benefits to make up for it.
Yeah, pretty much this. Any moderate to high level 2E character is clearly stronger than its 5E counterpart. Although it's a good point that casters can no longer be interrupted and their victims have a MUCH lower chance to make their saving throw, the 2E caster is still stronger due to its much larger spell list.

So in terms of power level, it seems to be 3E > PF > 2E > 5E.


5e Warriors get things to help while leveling and they get more attacks per round.
Pssst, 2E warriors also get more attacks per round.


That sounds really, really boring. Unless I'm missing something here their strategy was basically say 'I attack' until the fight finished?
Sure, but that's the same as the basic fighter now. Every edition has at least one class that doesn't do anything but standard attacks, and players that dislike that will play another class instead.

[Eslin]

Sure, but that's the same as the basic fighter now. Every edition has at least one class that doesn't do anything but standard attacks, and players that dislike that will play another class instead.

I guess, though the lack of any martial alternatives is kind of annoying.

[Kurald Galain]

I guess, though the lack of any martial alternatives is kind of annoying.

I agree.

Basically, 2E's approach is that you can try a martial stunt and hope the DM allows it. 3E's approach is that you can try a martial stunt, but only if you have the proper build and feats. 4E's approach is that you can try a martial stunt, but it will automatically be less effective than your standard attacks. So 5E's approach to stunting really isn't so bad if you think about it :smallcool:

[JAL_1138]

The Bard was powerful then, if almost impossible to get, because of Ability requirements

The 2e bard was weaker than the 1e bard--so are most things--but much easier to get as it was a class option right out of the gate instead of a triple-class combo relying on the dualclassing rules. The ability requirements were still brutal to get but I can't remember whether bard or paladin was tougher to get, don't have my books with me. They were a lot of fun though--the wizard could cast higher-level spells, but your low-level spells were more powerful since you leveled twice as fast. You also got some good Thief skills, although it was a very limited selection and didn't have the best ones.

The 5e bard is back to being one of the classes you could solo with like in 2nd, instead of something of a fifth wheel (unless kitted out in a very particular way using some obscure PrCs). I really like the 5e bard, especially the valor bard since I like to melee with them instead of just hang back and cast, but I miss being able to use absolutely any weapon without penalty and miss the specific thief skills (although I can see why they don't give thieves' tools expertise to bards; their existing expertise is already encroaching on the rogue's schtick). And I miss having a decent weapon list. And polearms. Glaive-guisarme, bill-guisarme, guisarme-voulge, ranseur, spetum, partisan, hook fauchard, military fork, halberds that you could actually use the pointy bits on, poleaxe...

[Tonden Ockay]

First off we do not use the broken Combat and Tactics so the higher INT as a Warrior isn't going to help a lot in combat.

As for attacks with a melee weapon Fighters in 2e with Weapon Specialization only gets 5 attacks every two rounds, while in 5e they get 4 attacks each round. Someone said they get up to 5 but I only see 4 atm.

So if you do not use Combat and Tactics in 2e then I would think that 5e warriors would be stronger.

Yes they only get a +6 to hit at level 20 while 2e warriors get a Thaco of 1. However Dragons in 2e have up to a -11 AC while in 5e they have a 22 (22 = -2) So its not as big of a gap as it might first look to be.

Plus in 5e you get a +1 for a stat of 12 and a +4 for a stat of 18. That is a lot better then 2e.

[SharkForce]

You didn't need any optimization at all in 2e for a fighter to be almost guaranteed to hit someone wearing nonmagical full plate and a shield-- Any high-level fighter could do that. By contrast, a 5e fighter of the same level will have somewhere around a 60% chance of hitting that target. In fact, once you adjust for the THAC0 system vs. the attack bonus system, armor is almost identical between 2nd, 3rd, and 5th editions, but everyone's attack bonus by level in 5e is comparable to what wizards got in 2e. This is partially made up for by the fact that it's so much easier to get a 20 ability score in 5e, but then again, a 20 ability score doesn't mean as much as it did in 2e, either.

On the other hand, on thinking about it some more, I can't really think of any significant way that casters are weaker compared to 2e, and they're stronger in three major ways: First, saving throws have changed. In 2e, saves scaled with the defender's level, but not with the attacker's, so at high levels, your enemy was almost guaranteed to make a save against your spell. In 5e, though, saves scale with the attacker's level, but not with the defender's, provided that you target one of your opponent's poor saves (an option that didn't even exist in 2e, since all spells called for a Save Versus Spell). So 5e save spells become much more reliable, rather than less. Second, it's no longer possible to interrupt a spellcaster's casting, while in 2e, it would happen whenever a spellcaster tried to cast in melee range, and often even if they weren't, if the other side had a decent initiative roll. Third, spellcasters used to have very low endurance, due to a small number of spell slots. In 5e, the number of spell slots is similarly low, but spellcasters have very powerful cantrips that they can use all day, plus usually rituals.

So overall, I guess I'd say that mundane classes are weaker now, but spellcasters are more powerful.

matter of perspective i guess. i still play 2nd AD&D (modified classes but rules are otherwise mostly intact with a few exceptions) and i can assure you, i have *very* few difficulties in landing spells with proper planning. and no, i'm not talking about using minor malison or anything like that... you just have to pick the right spells. and remember that sometimes, buffing is the most effective option.

i've got a transmuter (more or less... modified classes, remember?) who gives out a couple of strength spells to get people to or near 18/00 strength and cat's grace for good dex. when casting the slow spell, courtesy of a ring he has, you are -6 on the saving throw (-2 for any alteration spell in general). he has a few other spells which include built-in saving throw penalties, and in fact, not all spells use saves vs spell at all; many spells will specify paralysis, death, petrification, etc as appropriate.

the spells i cast are generally speaking much more effective, in some cases devastating. if i choose right, there may not be any saving throw allowed at all. as noted, hit points scale much less ridiculously and as a result, even if enemies save against a fireball or a snilloc's snowball swarm (which i can boost the damage of significantly in 2nd edition with the right items; no such luck in 5th) it can do quite impressive damage. i can polymorph into a much larger variety of creatures with an equally large variety of abilities (i recently got to use an umber hulk form and kool-aid man my way through a dungeon). i can use an illusion spell to create a semi-real mind flayer that has a cone-shaped 3d4 round stun that actually works basically as well as the real thing if they don't make their save (it doesn't matter whether they are really stunned or just so convinced they're stunned that they act like it).

because i'm a specialist wizard, i actually have quite a few spells of each level... with the right items, i can get substantially more.

the same is basically true of most classes. i'll grant that finding the powerful options is perhaps not as straightforward, but 2e characters are definitely more powerful. i will, however, grant that 2e non-casters had a lot fewer interesting options though.

at low-levels, there's an argument for 5e being a bit stronger. at mid-high levels, not even close. you can do some crazy stuff once you get some levels under your belt in 2nd.

[Kurald Galain]

As for attacks with a melee weapon Fighters in 2e with Weapon Specialization only gets 5 attacks every two rounds, while in 5e they get 4 attacks each round. Someone said they get up to 5 but I only see 4 atm.

Your example is off: it fails to account for (1) the HUGE accuracy advantage the 2E fighter has over 5E; (2) the fact that 2E monsters have much lower hit points; (3) no fighter in either system is going to have a strength of 12, whereas at a more realistic strength of 20 they're pretty much tied; and (4) magic swords in 2E give a much bigger benefit than in 5E.

So yeah, the 2E fighter clearly wins this one.

[Joe the Rat]

Stronger compared to what? each other? 2e is more accurate on the 1-3 rolls per minute, which covers 10-40 rolls made by a 5e fighter (6 second rounds, not 60). 2e will go first since their dex modifier to initiative is twice as important (d10)... but then they get held back by weapon speeds. Oh, and you will cap out with twice the hit points in 5 as your HD don't stop around 9-10. Or more, if you weren't a fighter or cleric. Actually, more than that, since you can recover hit points throughout the day to an extent without using magic. 20 strength? Can't happen without magic in 2e. 5e can get there with nothing more than leveling up. If you want theoretical rolled maximums for your arm wrestling, you're looking at Fighter STR 18(00) vs Fighter STR 20 (rolled 18, variant human with +1 to str and Athletic or Medium Armor Mastery). It might be better to go 18(00) vs. 19 - that's officially Ogre Strength in each.

It doesn't make as much sense to measure them against each other directly. It's still a bit dodgy to compare number ranges directly. Each has a different set of assumptions about how their worlds scale. So measure them against their own worlds. How does a character in each stand up against a horde of orcs? What's their Orcs Killed Per Round average at level 1? Level 6? Level 10? Level 15? Should this be OK per minute, or is the kills per minute better used to compare Kobold Kills via the sweep rules? How about toughness: What's the Orc Attacks to 0 hp count? How do these scale by level? Maybe use larger units to account for the effect of multi-attack of multiple targets. What's the Hill Giant KPR?

Maybe get esoteric and go Save or Die vs. Save or Damage: How many doses of cobra venom does it take on average to kill a character via poison? What if we include bite damage? What if it's a Dwarf? Or Energy Drain: How many licks does it take for a succubus to get to the center of a 10th level Thief? (Go ask Mr. Owl!)

[Person_Man]

2e Harm instantly wind a one on one fight as it was a no save just lose spell. Blade barrier, and fire storm were potent attack spells. The cleric had all the defenses of a fighter with incredible magic. Plague of doom did 1000 damage. Cleric's were anything but weak. What they were, was expected to be healbots because 2e had 0 other ways of getting hp back in a reasonable fashion.

IIRC, Heal/Harm took 1 round to cast but had a range of touch, and was thus easily disrupted. It also left the target with a couple of hit points, and thus wasn't an instant-kill button. I have several painful childhood memories of failing to cast it. (Though it certainly was very powerful if you could pull it off).

I can't remember the specifics on Blade Barrier, but I feel like it also took a while to cast.

Either way, both were 6th level spells. Similarly, Creeping Doom was a 7th level spell. (And as I noted above, Clerics were limited to 7th level spells). So you didn't get access to them until higher levels, and then had pretty limited uses per day.

Again, the problem was fixed by adding spells in splat books, so its a bit of a moot point.

The larger point I was trying to make was that divine casters were generally weaker in 2E in most games. I probably should have specified "at low-mid levels" as well.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I wish I still had that old D&D tier list I once did to kind illustrate how the much maligned imbalance of 3.5 has always really been around in one form or another

I slogged out both races and class from 1st and 2nd highlighting all that. It was kinda fun revisiting my teenage years and remembering all the craps we tried to overlook while still having fun

Honestly what it would really come down too (Looking at core book rules only) Fighter with Weapon specialization luck on his Strength ability scores rolls and magic item tables would be a supercharged version of the Champion but honestly the other classes are all significantly better or at least more consistently useful

[Chronos]

For fairness, we should probably restrict this to the core books for 2e, since that's all that we have so far for 5e. Yeah, later books increased 2e's power significantly, but then, that's likely to be true for 5e, also.

We should probably also compare round to round, and not minute to minute, since rounds are the unit of time that actually matters in both games, and what you (and your foes) can accomplish in a round is about comparable.

And I'd forgotten that Int gave bonus proficiencies in 2e. That means that it's actually become more of a dumpstat, not less.


Quoth JAL_1138:

The 2e bard was weaker than the 1e bard--so are most things--but much easier to get as it was a class option right out of the gate instead of a triple-class combo relying on the dualclassing rules. The ability requirements were still brutal to get but I can't remember whether bard or paladin was tougher to get, don't have my books with me.
I'm pretty sure that paladin was the toughest-- They needed a 17 in Cha to even be allowed to take the class, but Cha accomplished absolutely nothing mechanically in 2e, so having to drop your best score in it really hurt. I remember being very surprised to see a half-orc paladin in the 3e preview materials: "Well, OK, obviously they've removed the racial requirement (only humans were allowed to be paladins), but how does a race with a -2 Cha penalty get a 17?".

[Tonden Ockay]

Your example is off: it fails to account for (1) the HUGE accuracy advantage the 2E fighter has over 5E; (2) the fact that 2E monsters have much lower hit points; (3) no fighter in either system is going to have a strength of 12, whereas at a more realistic strength of 20 they're pretty much tied; and (4) magic swords in 2E give a much bigger benefit than in 5E.

So yeah, the 2E fighter clearly wins this one.

I have seen fighters in 2e with 12 STR. I for one didn't play in power gamer campaigns. Roll 3d6 and see how many high stats you get. There are also DEX fighters not all had to be STR fighter builds.

I don't know what 2e games you played but I never had a 20 stat in 2e unless it was Dark Sun. I was lucky if I had an 18 to put on STR then I had to roll the percent dice to see what STR I got (18/00 was really hard to get).

As for 5e Warriors if you get lucky to roll an 18 to put on STR you do not have to roll a percent and as a Human you can have a 19 or 20 STR to start.


> If I had it to do again in 2e I would put my best stat on DEX and make a DEX fighter build. I would use Long Bow, Darts, and a light one handed sword. May be even a spear, but hey that is just me

[SharkForce]

still a good idea to put a high roll into strength in 2e (especially 18) assuming you have a party that works together.

strength lasts 1 hour/level, is a level 2 spell, and as a fighter often adds quite well to your strength attribute. starting with a roll of 18/00 may not be common, but buffing it to that was not so hard, and was typically the best mileage you were likely getting from a spell as far as dealing damage.

[TrollCapAmerica]

still a good idea to put a high roll into strength in 2e (especially 18) assuming you have a party that works together.

strength lasts 1 hour/level, is a level 2 spell, and as a fighter often adds quite well to your strength attribute. starting with a roll of 18/00 may not be common, but buffing it to that was not so hard, and was typically the best mileage you were likely getting from a spell as far as dealing damage.

And god help ya when a PC got Gauntlets of Ogre power or a Girdler of Giant strength. Killing Lloth was trivial at that point

Made even worse because being so obviously good they popped up fairly frequently in published material/Adventures and weren't as unavailable as you would think

[Tonden Ockay]

And god help ya when a PC got Gauntlets of Ogre power or a Girdler of Giant strength. Killing Lloth was trivial at that point

Made even worse because being so obviously good they popped up fairly frequently in published material/Adventures and weren't as unavailable as you would think

Not saying it can't happen but open up the 2e DMG and check out your odds of rolling one of these items. First you have to get treasure then you have to get the kind that has a chance for a magical item. Then roll under the percent needed to get a magical item. Next roll on a magical item chat. Any way its rare to do.

[Tonden Ockay]

When I make a character I do not make them in the thoughts that I am will get an 18/00 STR (you have to pick the warrior class before you get to roll the percent to STR) or that I will get an magical item.

I hear about what you could do if you got this rare thing or that rare thing. It should be about what anyone could do with their 2e or 5e character without counting on getting some rare roll or items.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Not saying it can't happen but open up the 2e DMG and check out your odds of rolling one of these items. First you have to get treasure then you have to get the kind that has a chance for a magical item. Then roll under the percent needed to get a magical item. Next roll on a magical item chat. Any way its rare to do.

This is why specified published material. It can be amazing how many NPCs have perfectly tailored items instead of the random mishmash that PCs end up with.

Adventures tend to have a lot more useful magic items laying around than Murlynds spoons too

[SharkForce]

When I make a character I do not make them in the thoughts that I am will get an 18/00 STR (you have to pick the warrior class before you get to roll the percent to STR) or that I will get an magical item.

I hear about what you could do if you got this rare thing or that rare thing. It should be about what anyone could do with their 2e or 5e character without counting on getting some rare roll or items.

as I already pointed out, it's not all that far out of reach with buffs. as early as level 3, my transmuter can provide up to 6 hours a day of a substantial strength boost using only material from the PHB. you may not hit 18/00 with every fighter, but if you're making strength a priority than 18/01-18/50 is very much within reach, and gets you +1 attack and +3 damage without having to find anything rare (in fact, since specialist wizards get a bonus spell known as a class ability, you don't even have to find the strength spell).

[JAL_1138]

They needed a 17 in Cha to even be allowed to take the class, but Cha accomplished absolutely nothing mechanically in 2e, so having to drop your best score in it really hurt.

High Cha gave you a massive reaction adjustment bonus when you made a cha check, so a pally (17...yikes, that's high) could effectively talk their way through just about anything their code of conduct would allow, absent some kind of penalty (creature is evil, etc.). It also affected hireling and henchmen, in I think both numbers and morale checks. I think you could also get full encounter XP for persuading an opponent not to fight, but that might've been either misremembered or from a splatbook.

[Kurald Galain]

Not saying it can't happen but open up the 2e DMG and check out your odds of rolling one of these items.

Good. Now open up any printed adventure module and check out the actual loot that's printed in there. Most of them actually have lists of specific items, rather than random loot.

[Tonden Ockay]

Good. Now open up any printed adventure module and check out the actual loot that's printed in there. Most of them actually have lists of specific items, rather than random loot.

Ok but out of every Adventure printed how many have these items? I am guessing not very many. I my self never recall playing or DMing a pre-made adventure that had these in it. So again they still seem rare to get rare. However lest say your group gets is lucky and gets one. Now you have to decide who in the group gets it. My groups are from 5 to 8 players and they all would want it no matter their class. Once again whats the chance of you getting an magical item that you want. I'm just saying don't build a character around a rare magical item you hope to get.

I know for one, I like running and playing in low magical campaigns. But then again I'm not a supper hero fan. I play RPG table top games to role play and if I for some reason want to power game I play a video game.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm just saying don't build a character around a rare magical item you hope to get.

Nobody was suggesting that.

We were comparing fighters at strength 20, because that level of strength is plausibly attainable in both 2E and 5E. It doesn't require any items; as several people have pointed out above, low-level buff spells will also do the trick.

[SharkForce]

Nobody was suggesting that.

We were comparing fighters at strength 20, because that level of strength is plausibly attainable in both 2E and 5E. It doesn't require any items; as several people have pointed out above, low-level buff spells will also do the trick.

not quite. the strength spell caps out at 18/00 strength.

on the other hand, there's an improved strength spell somewhere... I think dark sun? gives d4+4 strength to warriors, adds one category of strength per roll instead of 10% on the exceptional dice, and caps out at 25. way shorter duration (I think 1 round/level), but while it lasts it's pretty crazy... but then again, this is dark sun we're talking about, where lucky rolls and appropriate race can give you 24 strength from chargen, so not exactly standard :P

anyways, short version: 18/00 strength is totally plausible with buffs in 2e. 20 is not.

[Tonden Ockay]

2e 18/00 STR is +3 to hit +6 to damage

5e 20 STR +5 to hit and damage


2e Warrior 5 attacks every 2 rounds

5e Warriors 5 attacks every round and cit on what is it 18,19, or 20.

Oh and that is with the 5e character not having any buffs

Yes creatures in 5e has more HPs but so does the player characters. They start getting CON bonus with a 12 stat and they still get to roll HPs after level 10 unlike 2e.

[hymer]

IIRC, Heal/Harm took 1 round to cast but had a range of touch, and was thus easily disrupted. It also left the target with a couple of hit points, and thus wasn't an instant-kill button. I have several painful childhood memories of failing to cast it. (Though it certainly was very powerful if you could pull it off).

Spot on.


I can't remember the specifics on Blade Barrier, but I feel like it also took a while to cast.

Casting time 9 (the higher the number the worse), so not a full round. But quite prone to lose the initiative, which was of course rolled on d10s and rerolled every round. Anway, getting it cast on you is save for nothing.


there's an improved strength spell somewhere... I think dark sun? gives d4+4 strength to warriors, adds one category of strength per roll instead of 10% on the exceptional dice, and caps out at 25. way shorter duration (I think 1 round/level), but while it lasts it's pretty crazy... but then again, this is dark sun we're talking about, where lucky rolls and appropriate race can give you 24 strength from chargen, so not exactly standard :P

Player's Option: Spells & Magic p. 145 has Improved Strength. It's a fourth level spell, and you're right about the duration. It counts the percentiles in brackets and adds 1d8+4 to the strength of a warrior. So a warrior with 16 (+0/+1) strength would get at least 18/76 (+2/+4), and at most 23 (+5/+11) from it.

[Kurald Galain]

2e 18/00 STR is +3 to hit +6 to damage

5e 20 STR +5 to hit and damage


2e Warrior 5 attacks every 2 rounds

5e Warriors 5 attacks every round and cit on what is it 18,19, or 20.

And you omit the most important one: 2E warrior gets +26 to hit over his career (+19 from level, +5 from magic weapon, +2 from weapon spec; not counting buffs, or other ways to reach the strength cap of 25) whereas the 5E warrior gets a measly +5 (+4 from leveling, +1 from magic weapon, and he's already at the strength cap so that's it). Yep, by comparison the 2E guy gets plus twenty-one to hit.

[SharkForce]

2e 18/00 STR is +3 to hit +6 to damage

5e 20 STR +5 to hit and damage


2e Warrior 5 attacks every 2 rounds

5e Warriors 5 attacks every round and cit on what is it 18,19, or 20.

Oh and that is with the 5e character not having any buffs

Yes creatures in 5e has more HPs but so does the player characters. They start getting CON bonus with a 12 stat and they still get to roll HPs after level 10 unlike 2e.

you've missed the point of the lower HP thing.

a 20 HD monster in 2nd edition has about 90 HP. a buffed fighter could quite plausibly outright kill that creature in one round because every attack was likely to hit, and damage increases were much more accessible. also, the 5e fighter only has 5 attacks with some means of using a bonus action, so it's only fair to compare to a similar fighter in 2nd (ie using TWF), which means 7/2 attacks. each of which was very likely to hit, would benefit from weapon specialization, could easily be buffed to 18/XX strength with a fair chance of 18/00 on many fighters, and then mix in some support from the rest of the party... for example, if there's a level 15 wizard, a simple enlarge spell was granting +150% damage (which my group rules multiplies only weapon damage otherwise it gets out of hand, though i'm not sure if that's what the official rules would allow)... which is just a bit more than +1d4 that the 5e fighter is getting to chew through a much larger HP pool with a much lower attack bonus, and that's just *one* buff the 2nd edition fighter could potentially be enjoying. throw in a haste and the 2e fighter is enjoying 7 attacks per round (one more than the 5e fighter). let the wizard not only buff his ally, but also actually cast a debuffing spell, and it gets even more scary.

and again, this is just with the core 3 books. start looking at some of the other material, and it gets even more scary.

[MeeposFire]

you've missed the point of the lower HP thing.

a 20 HD monster in 2nd edition has about 90 HP. a buffed fighter could quite plausibly outright kill that creature in one round because every attack was likely to hit, and damage increases were much more accessible. also, the 5e fighter only has 5 attacks with some means of using a bonus action, so it's only fair to compare to a similar fighter in 2nd (ie using TWF), which means 7/2 attacks. each of which was very likely to hit, would benefit from weapon specialization, could easily be buffed to 18/XX strength with a fair chance of 18/00 on many fighters, and then mix in some support from the rest of the party... for example, if there's a level 15 wizard, a simple enlarge spell was granting +150% damage (which my group rules multiplies only weapon damage otherwise it gets out of hand, though i'm not sure if that's what the official rules would allow)... which is just a bit more than +1d4 that the 5e fighter is getting to chew through a much larger HP pool with a much lower attack bonus, and that's just *one* buff the 2nd edition fighter could potentially be enjoying. throw in a haste and the 2e fighter is enjoying 7 attacks per round (one more than the 5e fighter). let the wizard not only buff his ally, but also actually cast a debuffing spell, and it gets even more scary.

and again, this is just with the core 3 books. start looking at some of the other material, and it gets even more scary.

Yes the lack of a con bonus is huge when using monsters in AD&D. Also high HD critters were fairly rare. Most of the classic monsters were in the 9-14 range. Big T was the exception he had 300HP (HD was given as 70 though he always has 300 HP). As you can see the Big T was the big exception back in the day.

The Big T is a great example of how much con bonus helps in terms of HP. The 2e Big T has 70 HD but only 300 HP. The 5e Big T has only 33HD (less than half) but has over twice the HP at 676. The combo of bigger HD (D20 v D8) and con bonus (which adds more bonus HP than the 2e Big T has in total HP) means that it takes far more to kill.

A 2e fighter with the right equipment, style bonuses, and load out could potentially kill the Big T in just a few rounds alone. For instance just using an earlier set of books (complete handbook of fighters and the PHB) using cesti, punching specialization (only once just to not be too insane), weapon specialization (cestus), tumbling prof, +5 magical weapons (at 20th level that is plausible), 18/00 str (low for high level but just to be fair), and two weapon fighting are the basis of this fighter (I will forgo knock out chance since I do not believe you should be able to knock out the Big T with a cestus punch). Just a note a dual cestus build will have 4.5 attacks per round from punching specialization (+1 attack per round), weapon specialization in cestus (+.5), and sual wielding (+1) and the combo of all these things are specifically mentioned to work in the book itself as a specific option for a gladiator type (also note that this is considered one of the more fair handbooks this is not considered to be a broken book like the elf book).

4.5(2.5+1+2+5+6)=74.25 damage per round which means Big T is dead in about 4 rounds by the moderately optimized fighter type using the more basic set of books. Also note I could have easily bumped the damage up by specializing in punching more which is one of the only ways to boost damage in melee without allowing weapon mastery.

If you add in some more optimization material such as grand mastery, higher str, spell buffs from friends or potions, and other boosts it could get worse. Let us use one of the more basic versions of grand mastery (so no damage dice buff and avoid knock down, crit chance and the like), and either an item or spell to get higher level str (let us use fire giant I have seen those in published adventures). Do note that grand mastery adds an additional attack per round.

5.5(2.5+1+5+5+10)=129.25 per round and Big T will be easily dead by the third round and possibly by the 2nd. With the optimized build (not fully yet I could devote more to punching than just 1 prof and we still have not used things like haste to really pump up the damage or using the highest levels of str).


Since I have a feeling you may try to dismiss this due to using books outside of the PHB I will also try out a very basic fighter though still with 18/00 str (gauntlets of ogre power are fairly common in 2e and if not you will get a str boosting spell or potion if you were going to fight the Big T I think that is a fair assessment). I will also keep the magical weapons but I will use a different weapon set up of long sword and short sword (just to keep complaints to a minimum).

2.5(4.5+5+2+6)=43.75+3.5+5+2+6=60.25 so Big T takes about 5 rounds.

Do note that in all of these examples the 2e fighter only misses on a natural 1. Also note that in teh higher OP examples it shows the benefit of using a high int fighter as prof use is one area where there is real optimization potential in 2e whereas less than 18/XX str is mostly overrated (by a lot).

I may be wrong but I don't think that the 5e fighter can beat the 5e Big T in a melee fight in 5 rounds or less on average and certainly cannot touch the more optimized versions in 4-2 round range. I will also keep an eye out on my math but I do think I have it right.

[Kyutaru]

You forgot Haste. Double all your attacks.

Never denounce the fewer HP thing! Power Word Kill could one-shot a full health level 20 wizard because it slew without a saving throw any creature with 60 or fewer hitpoints. Let's see modern PWK do that. Plus you know how Fireball is 1d6 per level up to 10d6 in new editions? It used to be flat 6d6 in an edition where that actually means something. A careless fireball would wipe the party and one-shot the caster himself. Mainly because a 5th level caster only had 5d4 HP. That's a MAXIMUM of 20 hitpoints if your DM allowed you to get max rolls. 6d6 is an average of 21 damage. Fireball was the great all powerful Meteor that wiped clean any room of monsters. And it was STILL useful at high levels! Just not as useful as the even deadlier Delayed Blast Fireball.

[Tonden Ockay]

And you omit the most important one: 2E warrior gets +26 to hit over his career (+19 from level, +5 from magic weapon, +2 from weapon spec; not counting buffs, or other ways to reach the strength cap of 25) whereas the 5E warrior gets a measly +5 (+4 from leveling, +1 from magic weapon, and he's already at the strength cap so that's it). Yep, by comparison the 2E guy gets plus twenty-one to hit.

In the AD&D 2nd Edition Players Handbook (Original) page 52 Melee Weapon Specialization gives you a +1 to hit not a +2

So a level 20 Fighter with no magical weapons or buffs would have a +19 to hit for level +1 for Weapon Specialization and a + 3 for 18/00 (very unlikely to roll) a 2e Dragon which has a -11 (-11 = 31) AC. So they would need to get a 8 to hit

Just using Players Handbook with no buffs or magical items

A 5e Fighter gets a +6 for level 20 (not a +4), a +5 for 20 STR, A 5e Dragon has a 22 AC (22 = -2) So they would need to roll an 11 to hit.

5e Fighters gets a +2 to their stats at 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19 for a total of 14 points to stats so the chances are they will have not only a 20 STR but a really good chance to have a 20 DEX (+5 to AC) and CON (+5 to HP) as well.

Second Wind and gain 1d10+level in HPs back.

Action Surge at level 20 gives you two additional actions on top of your regular actions

Extra Attacks 5 attacks per round vs 2e Fighters 5 ever two rounds

Indomitable at level 20 you can reroll a saving throw that fails up to three times a day.

Superior Critical rolls 18-20 are crit's (remember things in 5e have lower AC like Dragons with only a 22 AC so on a roll of 18 you would only need a +4 to hit)

Survivor at level 18 at the start of each turn you regain 5+CON modifier in HP's as long as you still have more than half your HPs



I love how people that claim to play 2e throw specific magical items around like you just walk in and buy them at the local inn or something. Out of all the years that I played and DMed 2e I NEVER rolled a +5 sword. So it is not a magical item that most will get without someone just handing it to them. I know some people are BIG fans of Supper Hero's. But not everyone players this way. So if you play by the books with random die rolling then you can not plan or count on having the magical items you want to count on when talking about a 2e charater.

[Kurald Galain]

Just using Players Handbook with no buffs or magical items
Why on earth would you not use buffs or magical items? The game is actually played with buffs and magical items, and a high-level character can certainly be expected to have a substantial number of both.

It strikes me that your example is only a hypothetical situation that you made up, not something based on actual gameplay. As Meepos points out, a 2E fighter can solo The Friggin' Tarrasque in three rounds.

[Tonden Ockay]

I know of people who play 2e, 3e, and Pathfinder who use all kinds of different addon books and loads of magical items.

However my group use mostly the core books and we don't have magic running rampant all over the world. We find magical items while questing using the DMG treasure tables. We don't make up what magical items we want to have and hand them out or let players buy them.

We might find our first magical item around level 6 which may be a +1 weapon. We cant walk into a shop and buy positions, scrolls, or magical items. We these things by luck while questing. So unless you have a party member casting buffs on you, then you don't get buffs.

If you want to use all kinds of other books (5e doesn't have yet) and/or have a high magical world, then you can do what ever you want in any edition. Because in the end its all up to the DM and your group how you want to play.

This is why you can't say one edition is better then the other based on the way your group plays. There are all kinds of house rules, homebrewed campaigns, high magic, low magic, or no magic campaigns that people play. So it's easier to comparing editions by use the core books and not thinking everyone is going to us the same books or have as much magic in their world as you do.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I know of people who play 2e, 3e, and Pathfinder who use all kinds of different addon books and loads of magical items.



Not to crap on your post or ignore the rest of your post [Since I hate long multiquoting walls of text] but honestly some of the strongest stuff is always in core. Whether its Weapon spec AD&D Stoneskin and multli-classing in the old days Gate Polymorph Righteous Might/Divine Power and Druids in 3.5 or Forecage in every version of D&D ever

I see some weird perspectives from a few folks that can be kinda off-putting that I feel like addressing

1] AD&D was portrayed as low magic grim and gritty and grity game were old grognards.Yet in reality check published adventures and you see magic gear tossed around alot and almost every pit had dime a dozen +1 weapons before you hit 3rd level.The game has always been high fantasy even when we didnt want to admit it and you needed it too because it wouldnt be long until you fought things immune to normal weapons

2] Magic Walmarts didnt exist in 3.5.Theres actually no guidelines on what the magic item trade actually was in that version they just said you could buy magical gear for the first time with the game designers blessing.Ive actually checked my old posts and explain how this is neither a bad thing isnt improbable and wouldnt be as mundane as buying bread is something ive covered in like 10 different topics

3] 5E has alot of optional rules for no reason other than this fear that too much stuff will scare away children and make them keep playing Pathfinder or WOW.Thats why perfectly good systems like Feats and Magic items are being called optional when they are so integral to D&D its a joke to say they arent supposed to be there. Magical gearis popping up in published adventures just as much as any other era and monsters immune to non-magical gear will still be a thing that your not gonna plink to death with cantrips while the Fighters and Barbarians sit there feeling useless

[Naanomi]

2] Magic Walmarts didnt exist in 3.5.Theres actually no guidelines on what the magic item trade actually was in that version they just said you could buy magical gear for the first time with the game designers blessing
2e's Encyclopedia Magica series had GP values from almost every item in the edition; and was explicitly fluffed as an extra-planar Magic Walmart. Not that any GM I every played under (not myself) used it that way.

[Kyutaru]

There's also the fact that you killed an absurdly larger amount of monsters to level up in 2nd edition. You can calculate the odds of your weapon of choice dropping. Oh it's only a 0.35% chance? Not a problem because you'll definitely be slaying thousands of monsters just to level up again.

One of 2nd edition's most notorious elements is the XP curve. Every class had its own curve. Wizards were the one of slowest and Druids were definitely the strangest. But unlike 3rd/5th edition's steady gains, 2nd takes it to exponential MMO-style leveling. On average you need TWICE as much xp in TOTAL as your previous level required up until level 9, at which point it required the same massive chunk each level. Here's a sample XP chart from the 2E game Baldur's Gate.

http://www.pottsland.com/baulder/create/create_exp_limits.shtml

Not only are these XP charts massive scale compared to modern D&D's chart, but also in rewards. A 5th edition Orc is worth 100 XP. You were lucky to get that as a QUEST completion bonus! A normal 2nd edition Orc was worth only 7 XP! Have fun farming the 300,000 xp you need to level up your paladin *once*.

[Tonden Ockay]

I have played and DMed campaigns where most of the combat was vs other humanoid factions. There for combat vs creatures made up a small percentage of combat in an adventure. Plus there are a lot of creatures that you do not need a magical weapon to hit. Even if you fight creatures that need to have a magic weapon to hit them you don't need a +5 in order to hit them.

I understand there are groups out there that like a lot of magic in there world. All I am say is not everyone does. So don't say one edition is stronger based on magical items they could get. It should be based of the core rules. Because their group may never get those items.

[Tonden Ockay]

There's also the fact that you killed an absurdly larger amount of monsters to level up in 2nd edition. You can calculate the odds of your weapon of choice dropping. Oh it's only a 0.35% chance? Not a problem because you'll definitely be slaying thousands of monsters just to level up again.


Most of the individual loot didn't have a chance at all for a magical item. Most of the chances where Lair Treasure. So your encounters on the road, in the woods, or just out and about would more then likely not have lair treasure. Unless your DM just wants to hand out magical items.

As for Baldur's Gate it was a video game. I knew people who played it that never played an RPG table top game. RPG table top games are more about role playing not power gaming. Role playing games aren't really so much about where your going. They are more about the journey along the way.

[Kyutaru]

Most of the individual loot didn't have a chance at all for a magical item. Most of the chances where Lair Treasure. So your encounters on the road, in the woods, or just out and about would more then likely not have lair treasure. Unless your DM just wants to hand out magical items.\

I know that, but that's what I'm saying. Not talking about killing individual orcs, but the fact that you would need to go on seven or eight adventures just to level up. Yet in 5th edition, play the Rise of Tiamat campaign once and you're at least level 15. Such progress used to take YEARS of dungeoneering with countless rolls on the treasure table.

[Tonden Ockay]

I for one like a lot of what 5e has to offer. I really do. The thing I like the least is how fast the leveling system is. I for one feel that its too fast.

In the 2e DMG claims the average time it takes to level is 3 to 6 adventures. Even as slow as 10 adventures per level. However if your group is impatient it could be as low as 1 adventure per level but a player should never level more than once per adventure.

I my self feel after a player reaches level 6 they should level once every two or three adventures and after level 12 every 3 or 4 adventures. But every DM and group feels differently about this.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Heck im playing a 3.5 group where we have played a couple years and are only 7th level.Alot of that has to do with the DMs AD&D roots but still

[T.G. Oskar]

From what I can read, the only reason the 2e Fighter is better than the 5e Fighter is because it hits better and dealt more damage? Then I presume the 3.5 Fighter, Core alone, should beat the 2e Fighter in a heartbeat, no? I mean, Power Attack and everything...

I'm curious about something, though...what about doing something other than dealing damage? Basic D&D Fighters using the optional Weapon Mastery rules could do some amazing things with their weaponry (IMO, the best form of Weapon Specialization there is, if only because it acknowledges that you can do other stuff than hit and deal a lot of damage). 3.x Fighters could do Bull Rushing, Disarming, Tripping and even Sundering (whether you liked it or not). 4e Fighters could do Marking, and some of their maneuvers managed to make the target suffer some specific conditions. 5e Fighter can choose to Shove, and if you allow the expanded combat options in the DMG, also Disarm, Mark and Shove Aside. I'd personally chalk that up as a strength of 5e Fighters.

Feats are another way to achieve some parity. Great Weapon Fighters get both the cool feat that adds more damage, extra attacks on critical hits or slaying a target, and better minimum damage overall. Archers get more accuracy and the same damage potential as Great Weapon Fighters. Polearm users get the extra attack, and are better at battlefield control. After all, it's strange to mention Weapon Specialization and...ignore feats.

Also...isn't speaking of a +19 to hit due to level somewhat...inaccurate? The way THAC0 works, that determines what you need to roll to hit someone with AC 0 (what the acronym actually means). So, at high levels, the Fighter needs to roll only a 2 or higher to hit someone with AC 0 (which transforms into a 12 or higher to hit someone with AC -10). At high levels, unless you're routinely facing enemies with AC below 0, the extra bonus to attack is wasted (though you can safely assume a sure chance to it). Indeed; if you compare a 1st level Fighter with a 20th level Fighter, you effectively get a +19 to hit, but that depends on the target's AC. Indeed: that is something that appears in ALL Editions. The difference is how it applies between editions.

In 1e (Basic, at least; don't recall about Advanced), based on the target's AC, you could apply the extra bonus as a bonus to damage. Is that still applicable in 2e?
In 3e (and 3.5), AC could reach ridiculous levels the more bonuses you applied (not only that, you could apply other scores to AC, like Constitution, Wisdom or Charisma-as-deflection). There was also Touch AC (ignore armor, shield and natural armor) and ignoring Dexterity (which could sometimes ignore other modifiers), so the chances to hit were extremely volatile.
In 4e, you pretty much had the same chance to hit; then again, someone who knows more about 4e can clarify.
In 5e, to-hit bonuses are smaller, but still exist - magic weapons, the Bless spell, the Archery Fighting Style...and then there's Advantage. While it's easy to block, once attained, it is quite good, though it sorta messes with average results (it really depends on the relationship between your to-hit bonus and your enemy's AC...but then again, so did THAC0). There's also ways to boost Strength - Belts of Giant Strength can net you up to 29 Strength out of a potential 30 (+9 to hit and damage, or a straight +4 increase from Str 20). I think Magic Items are allowed on both sides, no? There's also Ioun Stones of Strength and the tomes, which in both cases allow you to break the limit imposed to races in terms of stats (up to a higher limit, that is; in 2e it's the only way to increase stats, but up to 25; in 5e, it's the only way to increase stats, but up to 30). And, for good or for bad, Bounded Accuracy and the reduced to-hit limits ensure that every to-hit bonus counts, and that you'll always have a chance to hit AC. To be fair, though - the limit of AC for 2e was...what, AC -10? The limit of 5e AC is around 30, and realistically around 32.

So, in short: there's a lot of factors to consider, and it seems like the discussion is focusing greatly towards one particular vision that favors the 2e Fighter over the 5e Fighter since it only values a handful of things. That seems unfair to the 5e Fighter, but that might just be me.

[MeeposFire]

You are doing it wrong you don't compare the 2e fighter directly to other edition fighters because they are different games. You compare how powerful each edition's fighter compares to its competition in its own game and then compare those results.

I have already shown that a 2e fighter could kill the Big T (well HP wise anyway) in 2-5 rounds depending on allowed materials. Can the 5e fighter come even close to that because I don't think it can.

Now the 5e is NOT weak but it is hard to do better than the 2e fighter relative to the monsters it fights.

Note that a 2e fighter at 20th level with no str bonus, no specialization, and no other bonuses outside of his THAC0 hits the Big T with a 4. That is not remotely possible in 5e (not saying this is bad just that it is true).

[Chronos]

Quoth T.G. Oskar:

From what I can read, the only reason the 2e Fighter is better than the 5e Fighter is because it hits better and dealt more damage? Then I presume the 3.5 Fighter, Core alone, should beat the 2e Fighter in a heartbeat, no? I mean, Power Attack and everything...
Why was this in blue? Yes, of course the 3.5 fighter was better than the 2e fighter. I didn't realize this was ever in doubt. They're exactly the same in every way except for the feats.

And no, a +19 to hit won't be necessary vs. all enemies. But the important point is, a high-level 2e fighter misses almost never against any plausible enemy, while a high-level 5e fighter will miss about half the time against plausible enemies. That right there more than wipes out the difference in number of attacks.

[MeeposFire]

Why was this in blue? Yes, of course the 3.5 fighter was better than the 2e fighter. I didn't realize this was ever in doubt. They're exactly the same in every way except for the feats.

And no, a +19 to hit won't be necessary vs. all enemies. But the important point is, a high-level 2e fighter misses almost never against any plausible enemy, while a high-level 5e fighter will miss about half the time against plausible enemies. That right there more than wipes out the difference in number of attacks.

That is so not true it hurts.

2e fighter lose no accuracy for their extra attacks. 3e do.

2e fighters have great saving throws. 3e fighters are relatively weak in saving throws.

2e fighters can move 1/2 their move and make a full attack. 3e fighters need to move only 5 feet.

2e fighters have the 2nd best NWP progression. 3e fighter has the worst.

There are others but the point is that 2e fighters have a bunch of advantages that 3e fighters do not get. Plus there are a LOT of prof options that are very powerful in 2e that correspond with the 3e feat system.

Actually in terms of relative usefulness I think a 2e fighter in a 2e game is far better than a 3e fighter in a 3e game.

[T.G. Oskar]

You are doing it wrong you don't compare the 2e fighter directly to other edition fighters because they are different games. You compare how powerful each edition's fighter compares to its competition in its own game and then compare those results.

I have already shown that a 2e fighter could kill the Big T (well HP wise anyway) in 2-5 rounds depending on allowed materials. Can the 5e fighter come even close to that because I don't think it can.

Now the 5e is NOT weak but it is hard to do better than the 2e fighter relative to the monsters it fights.

Note that a 2e fighter at 20th level with no str bonus, no specialization, and no other bonuses outside of his THAC0 hits the Big T with a 4. That is not remotely possible in 5e (not saying this is bad just that it is true).

Well...the 5e Fighter is most likely going, if optimized in two fronts, with a +3 Greatsword or Maul (+3 attack, 2d6+3 damage), Great Weapon Fighter (reroll 1s or 2s on damage roll; the agreement is that it applies to each damage dice rolled, so if the result of 2d6 is 6 + 1, the 1 gets to be rerolled), Great Weapon Master and 20 Strength.

With 4 attacks, that means you're looking at a +14 to-hit, 2d6+8 damage. That goes without defining its Fighter Archetype, but for purposes of fairness, it's either Champion or Battlemaster (Eldritch Knight does spellcasting in addition to combat, so it'd be closer to Fighter/Mage, and in that case more like Fighter/Mage dual class rather than F/M Multiclass).

Big T's AC is 25, BTW. Going by basics, that means the Fighter must roll 11 or higher. Indeed, the 2e Fighter has advantage as it pretty much doesn't need to roll without specializing. In fact, it shows another thing - the 2e Tarrasque has less AC as well. For relevance - Big T's highest AC in any edition is in 3.5, with a whopping AC 35 (of which 30 points come from natural armor; hence, Touch AC makes even a wizard hit it in comparison).

But, using your parameters...the Fighter gets 4 attacks per round, while the 2e Fighter gets 3 attacks every 2 rounds. Weapon Specialization adds a number of attacks based on the level of specialization, and you went with the best melee option in terms of attacks (Cestus; for comparison, the best melee option for multiple hits is either a Glaive or Polearm). Without advantage and the given traits, a Fighter will, on average, hit two of those four attacks (50% chance to hit), for an average damage of 16.33 ([3.5 x 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6]/3 + 8 -> [25/3] + 8 -> 8.33 + 8). Accounting for the critical hit, which doubles the base weapon damage, you deal 24.66 damage ([3.5 x 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6]x 4/6 + 8 -> [100/6] + 8 -> 16.66 + 8) in 1 out of 20 chances. Weighed damage would be thus:

[16.33 x .45 (from to-hit chances)] + [24.66 x .5 (from critical)] = 7.3485 + 1.233 = 8.5815 per hit. That amounts to about 34 points of damage per turn (actual weighed damage 34.326). That means the Fighter will take about 19 to 20 rounds to beat Big T, which has nearly twice the HP and higher AC.

That doesn't include higher Strength, Action Surge in any of the rounds (of which the Fighter gets at least 2/short rest), the Champion's increased critical threat range, the Battlemaster's maneuvers, or the effect of Advantage. That also doesn't account for one thing - if you land a critical hit, that's an additional source of damage, since you can use your Bonus Action to make an additional attack against Big T (thanks to Great Weapon Mastery), but that's feats. Great Weapon Fighting is a class feature, though. So, let's account for the differences with each.

With Great Weapon Master, the base damage grows only a bit ([24.66 +8.5815] x .5 = 1.662075 extra damage on a critical hit; thus, the base weighed damage increases to 9.010575 and the total damage to 36 (actual 36.0423). That shaves around 1 round of damage to Big T. Now, let's assume that you always sacrifice the to-hit bonus to gain a +10 to damage by using GWM:

To hit chance: 20% (Fighter now needs a 16 or higher to hit)
New base damage: 2d6 + 18; 26.33 on normal hit, 34.66 on critical hit.
New weighed base damage: [26.33 x .15 (from to-hit chances)] + [34.66 x .5 (from critical)] = 3.9495 + 1.733 = 5.6825 per hit.
New weighed base damage (with extra attack from GWM): 3.9495 + 2.017125 = 5.966625 per hit.

That means, for the moment, that Great Weapon Master's extra damage is not viable, since it deals less damage than on average. That may seem like a big disadvantage, but that's when other factors kick in.

Let's add another factor: increased Strength. Fire Giant is a good ballpark, so let's use just a Potion of Fire Giant Strength (lasts for 1 hour). That grants a +2 to hit and damage.

To hit chance: 60% (Fighter now needs a 9 or higher to hit)
New base damage: 2d6 +10: 18.33 on normal hit, 26.66 on critical hit.
New weighed base damage: [18.33 x .55 (from to-hit chances)] + [26.66 x .5 (from critical)] = 10.0815 + 1.33 = 11.4115 per hit.
New weighed base damage (with extra attack from GWM): 10.0815 + 1.903575 = 11.985075 (38.0715 x .05 = 1.903575)

That's a considerable increase to damage from base Fighter build; about 45-48 points of damage per round (an increase of about 11 to 12 points of damage; real averages per round are 45.646 and 47.92143). That means a Fighter with a Potion of Fire Giant Strength can beat Big T in around 14-15 rounds.

Then, we consider one last thing - Advantage. That really changes the game, since you have to consider it on all aspects once again (with 20 Str and 25 Str) and how attack rolls are affected. That said, I'll give you the benefit - even with Advantage, Big T can't be beaten in 5 rounds. That's fair. I'm not even using Action Surge, which only doubles the damage in two turns, so at most it shaves the rounds to kill Big T in one round at most.

There is just a little problem there, though - the competition. 2e's Big T is a chump. No, really. A chump. At least, compared to 3e or 5e, it's a chump. A 5e Fighter might have a challenge with 2e's Big T, but a 3.5 Fighter would probably obliterate 2e's Big T with just Power Attack alone. But then: the constraints of proof demand that you can't compare Fighters between editions, even if the core mechanics are pretty similar. I mean, I give you that argument if you mention, say, two actual different systems, but not different editions of the same system.

But, just for the purpose of fairness...how about showing those options in terms of specialization a 2e Fighter with splats gets? Arguably that means Big T is obliterated in 1 round, but that's the problem of monsters being stronger between one edition and another, despite the mechanics underlying their actions being somewhat similar.

[MeeposFire]

Well...the 5e Fighter is most likely going, if optimized in two fronts, with a +3 Greatsword or Maul (+3 attack, 2d6+3 damage), Great Weapon Fighter (reroll 1s or 2s on damage roll; the agreement is that it applies to each damage dice rolled, so if the result of 2d6 is 6 + 1, the 1 gets to be rerolled), Great Weapon Master and 20 Strength.

With 4 attacks, that means you're looking at a +14 to-hit, 2d6+8 damage. That goes without defining its Fighter Archetype, but for purposes of fairness, it's either Champion or Battlemaster (Eldritch Knight does spellcasting in addition to combat, so it'd be closer to Fighter/Mage, and in that case more like Fighter/Mage dual class rather than F/M Multiclass).

Big T's AC is 25, BTW. Going by basics, that means the Fighter must roll 11 or higher. Indeed, the 2e Fighter has advantage as it pretty much doesn't need to roll without specializing. In fact, it shows another thing - the 2e Tarrasque has less AC as well. For relevance - Big T's highest AC in any edition is in 3.5, with a whopping AC 35 (of which 30 points come from natural armor; hence, Touch AC makes even a wizard hit it in comparison).

But, using your parameters...the Fighter gets 4 attacks per round, while the 2e Fighter gets 3 attacks every 2 rounds. Weapon Specialization adds a number of attacks based on the level of specialization, and you went with the best melee option in terms of attacks (Cestus; for comparison, the best melee option for multiple hits is either a Glaive or Polearm). Without advantage and the given traits, a Fighter will, on average, hit two of those four attacks (50% chance to hit), for an average damage of 16.33 ([3.5 x 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6]/3 + 8 -> [25/3] + 8 -> 8.33 + 8). Accounting for the critical hit, which doubles the base weapon damage, you deal 24.66 damage ([3.5 x 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6]x 4/6 + 8 -> [100/6] + 8 -> 16.66 + 8) in 1 out of 20 chances. Weighed damage would be thus:

[16.33 x .45 (from to-hit chances)] + [24.66 x .5 (from critical)] = 7.3485 + 1.233 = 8.5815 per hit. That amounts to about 34 points of damage per turn (actual weighed damage 34.326). That means the Fighter will take about 19 to 20 rounds to beat Big T, which has nearly twice the HP and higher AC.

That doesn't include higher Strength, Action Surge in any of the rounds (of which the Fighter gets at least 2/short rest), the Champion's increased critical threat range, the Battlemaster's maneuvers, or the effect of Advantage. That also doesn't account for one thing - if you land a critical hit, that's an additional source of damage, since you can use your Bonus Action to make an additional attack against Big T (thanks to Great Weapon Mastery), but that's feats. Great Weapon Fighting is a class feature, though. So, let's account for the differences with each.

With Great Weapon Master, the base damage grows only a bit ([24.66 +8.5815] x .5 = 1.662075 extra damage on a critical hit; thus, the base weighed damage increases to 9.010575 and the total damage to 36 (actual 36.0423). That shaves around 1 round of damage to Big T. Now, let's assume that you always sacrifice the to-hit bonus to gain a +10 to damage by using GWM:

To hit chance: 20% (Fighter now needs a 16 or higher to hit)
New base damage: 2d6 + 18; 26.33 on normal hit, 34.66 on critical hit.
New weighed base damage: [26.33 x .15 (from to-hit chances)] + [34.66 x .5 (from critical)] = 3.9495 + 1.733 = 5.6825 per hit.
New weighed base damage (with extra attack from GWM): 3.9495 + 2.017125 = 5.966625 per hit.

That means, for the moment, that Great Weapon Master's extra damage is not viable, since it deals less damage than on average. That may seem like a big disadvantage, but that's when other factors kick in.

Let's add another factor: increased Strength. Fire Giant is a good ballpark, so let's use just a Potion of Fire Giant Strength (lasts for 1 hour). That grants a +2 to hit and damage.

To hit chance: 60% (Fighter now needs a 9 or higher to hit)
New base damage: 2d6 +10: 18.33 on normal hit, 26.66 on critical hit.
New weighed base damage: [18.33 x .55 (from to-hit chances)] + [26.66 x .5 (from critical)] = 10.0815 + 1.33 = 11.4115 per hit.
New weighed base damage (with extra attack from GWM): 10.0815 + 1.903575 = 11.985075 (38.0715 x .05 = 1.903575)

That's a considerable increase to damage from base Fighter build; about 45-48 points of damage per round (an increase of about 11 to 12 points of damage; real averages per round are 45.646 and 47.92143). That means a Fighter with a Potion of Fire Giant Strength can beat Big T in around 14-15 rounds.

Then, we consider one last thing - Advantage. That really changes the game, since you have to consider it on all aspects once again (with 20 Str and 25 Str) and how attack rolls are affected. That said, I'll give you the benefit - even with Advantage, Big T can't be beaten in 5 rounds. That's fair. I'm not even using Action Surge, which only doubles the damage in two turns, so at most it shaves the rounds to kill Big T in one round at most.

There is just a little problem there, though - the competition. 2e's Big T is a chump. No, really. A chump. At least, compared to 3e or 5e, it's a chump. A 5e Fighter might have a challenge with 2e's Big T, but a 3.5 Fighter would probably obliterate 2e's Big T with just Power Attack alone. But then: the constraints of proof demand that you can't compare Fighters between editions, even if the core mechanics are pretty similar. I mean, I give you that argument if you mention, say, two actual different systems, but not different editions of the same system.

But, just for the purpose of fairness...how about showing those options in terms of specialization a 2e Fighter with splats gets? Arguably that means Big T is obliterated in 1 round, but that's the problem of monsters being stronger between one edition and another, despite the mechanics underlying their actions being somewhat similar.

My very point is that a 2e fighter is the stronger fighter in its own game. The 2e Big T does have smaller numbers but that is because 2e in general has smaller numbers when it come to things like damage and HP. That is the point.

You don't compare the different fighters directly to each other IMO. That is an apples to oranges comparison and is not very interesting to me anyway. What you want to compare is how powerful each fighter is to its own game and see who comes out on top.

That is why I am using the Big T because in every edition the Big T is a melee threat that is intended to be sent out against the highest level characters (yes in every edition you can kill it with lower level characters but we are going by what the rules think it works whereas many other creatures are either valued as different challenges in different editions or are not melee threats). We can therefor see how many rounds it takes for each editions character to kill the beast and that gives us a fair comparison to show how each fighter compares. If it takes the 5e fighter less rounds than the 2e fighter to kill the same creature from their respective editions then we could say that the 5e fighter is the more powerful.

The reason why I don't think directly comparing a 2e fighter fighting a 5e fighter is that the systems are so different that it would color the results. For instance HP is far greater in 5e which is fair since 5e monsters have more hp but does not work with the low 2e HP that works with their lower HP enemies.

As for the optimization of the 2e fighter against the Big T I have done a few examples earlier. The basic core OP killed the Big T in 5 rounds. The moderate OP with access to some books that are not typically considered broken or bent took about 3-4 rounds as I recall. If I went to using more books I got up to 2 rounds but even then I was avoiding using things like haste or titan str with which I could certainly kill the Big T in one round on average.



At least this is how I see being the best methodology to figuring out this question. I think directly comparing who would win in a direct fight between fighter characters does not really answer the question due to system differences. I think using this analysis allows us to remove the system differences as a variable and allows us to compare them doing essentially the same thing (or at least as similar as we are going to get).

[T.G. Oskar]

My very point is that a 2e fighter is the stronger fighter in its own game. The 2e Big T does have smaller numbers but that is because 2e in general has smaller numbers when it come to things like damage and HP. That is the point.

Hit Points, I give you that. Damage? You proved, considerably well, that 2e Fighters deal far, FAR more damage than their 5e counterparts...or at least have more attacks.

Note the focus between editions. 2e relies on making as many attacks as possible with the same damage; hence, why a Cestus or Dart are the best weapons, particularly after Weapon Specialization kicks in. 3.5 relies on damage multipliers, which is why the best method to deal damage is a two-handed weapon (1.5x Strength) using Power Attack (straight damage booster, but with 2x modifier from wielding it in two hands) while charging (Leap Attack, for an extra modifier). Shock Trooper is there to reduce the attack penalty. To achieve what you could do with 2e Fighters, you need a Warblade and very specific tactics, often in a 2-round set-up. 5e lacks those extremes: multipliers don't exist (even critical multipliers only modify base weapon damage), attacks are pretty scarce (only the Fighter gets more attacks than any other class, and you can push at most 2 attacks from your bonus action AND Haste), and damage boosters are also rather scarce (and the fighter doesn't have an innate damage booster like the Barbarian's Rage, the Cleric's Divine Strike, the Rogue's Sneak Attack, the Paladin's Improved Divine Smite or even the Ranger's Foe Slayer and Colossus Strike).

That is a big part of the appreciation. What would have happened if, instead of wielding a Cestus in each hand, you went for a Two-Handed Sword? While the 1d10 base damage is somewhat smaller than the 2d6 a Greatsword in latter editions can deal, the other modifiers provide a solid boost to damage. I mean, you already mentioned 18/00 Strength (+6 damage; 1 more than 20 Str for a 5e Fighter and only 2 less than 20 Str for a 3e Fighter), Weapon Specialization bonuses (which don't exist in 5e, and top to +4 in 3e with 4 feats, or +6 with 5 feats and Melee Weapon Mastery) and weapon enhancement bonuses (+3 in 5e, +5 in both 2e and 3e pre-Epic). 5e has less damage numbers in comparison to 2e.

This may apply in, say, spell-based damage, since spells in 5e deal more damage than their 3e counterparts, which are pretty much similar to their 2e counterparts. The effort to get those numbers, though, can be a bit appalling. But, that's speaking of spells. Weapon damage, to be specific? 2e beats 5e in terms of damage, but 3e damage is just ludicrous.


You don't compare the different fighters directly to each other IMO. That is an apples to oranges comparison and is not very interesting to me anyway. What you want to compare is how powerful each fighter is to its own game and see who comes out on top.

I presume, then, that you don't believe MMA exists, or that it shouldn't exist, judging by that answer. Perhaps not the best allegory, but it works: in the end, both fighters have to adapt to circumstances. But, mostly a tangential point, so...


That is why I am using the Big T because in every edition the Big T is a melee threat that is intended to be sent out against the highest level characters (yes in every edition you can kill it with lower level characters but we are going by what the rules think it works whereas many other creatures are either valued as different challenges in different editions or are not melee threats). We can therefor see how many rounds it takes for each editions character to kill the beast and that gives us a fair comparison to show how each fighter compares. If it takes the 5e fighter less rounds than the 2e fighter to kill the same creature from their respective editions then we could say that the 5e fighter is the more powerful.

The reason why I don't think directly comparing a 2e fighter fighting a 5e fighter is that the systems are so different that it would color the results. For instance HP is far greater in 5e which is fair since 5e monsters have more hp but does not work with the low 2e HP that works with their lower HP enemies.

Not really, I'd say. It depends on adaptation.

Think about 2e's Big T, using the same numbers that matter (HP, AC) against 5e's numbers that matter (attack bonus and damage). The numbers are right there: moderately optimized, a 5e Fighter would still take 9 rounds to beat 2e's Big T. And that's using 5e's weapon damage numbers and properties. To really match, or surpass, 2e Fighter's damage potential, it requires adapting mechanics from one side to another: i.e., using THAC0 instead of proficiency bonus. With a THAC0 of 1, a +5 to hit from items and +3 from the weapon alone, the 5e Fighter would probably no-miss Big T, and then damage comparison would change radically. And yet, even then, it's most likely that the 2e Fighter would be evenly matched if only because of number of attacks. The inverse would also lead to similar results.

Now, that would seem like unfair comparison (mixing and matching rules, rather than using the rules of either edition as presented), but it's still useful because it helps to understand the reasoning. By removing what would color the appreciation of the system by analyzing how a blend of mechanics shifts the numbers of each class, it provides an easy way to understand why one class beats the other: 2e Fighter has a higher number of attacks, better accuracy (to the point of excessive) and higher damage. Comparing those three points, then indeed the 2e Fighter ends up being stronger. It also shows how to reach those higher numbers - there are specific weapons that, when used, provide a greater return than using others. Through weapon specialization, you added two extra attacks that have the same accuracy and the same damage ratio, whereas the 5e Fighter can barely get one more. However, you shift your weapon specialization to another weapon, and the numbers slowly start to change; less attacks means a bunch of less damage. It further shows one of two extremes - optimizing to-hit in 2e ends up with diminishing returns at higher levels (given that you only need...what, 12 levels to achieve grand mastery in one weapon and with that +8 to hit you can easily match Big T's AC?), and optimizing in 5e is necessary, but not difficult, to break even (you NEED that Strength 20 and +3 weapon, but while the latter is "rare", the former is more than achievable before you reach 8th level).

And yet, it still misses a few aspects. There's a reason why I didn't add the effects from the choice of Fighter archetype, or achieving Advantage with every attack - that would be the higher level of optimization, and that can probably add some nice returns. In specific, a Champion with Great Weapon Master can deal quite a bit of damage if it has access to Advantage, since choosing the best of two attack rolls can really change the gameplay. Perhaps not the same with the Battlemaster, owing mostly to the size of Big T, but it has some choices. Which leads to...


As for the optimization of the 2e fighter against the Big T I have done a few examples earlier. The basic core OP killed the Big T in 5 rounds. The moderate OP with access to some books that are not typically considered broken or bent took about 3-4 rounds as I recall. If I went to using more books I got up to 2 rounds but even then I was avoiding using things like haste or titan str with which I could certainly kill the Big T in one round on average.


That's exactly what I want to see: the highest level of optimization of a 2e Fighter, using all benefits. Just Haste alone, judging how it works, would make the Fighter obliterate Big T, but that's because Haste in that edition was just pretty much broken for the Fighter (in 3e, it was broken for the caster, and was one of the main reasons 3.5 exists, if only to address that Haste was a broken spell for all casters) With a Strength limit of 25, what would be the benefit of Titan''s Strength? I was using your examples to provide comparison, but nonetheless it'd bring valid data. I, personally, wouldn't use data from the fully optimized 2e Fighter as a fair comparison to what the 5e Fighter can do at the moment, but if the comparison of a fully optimized 5e Fighter with the current resources could outpace the full breadth of optimization of a 2e or 3e Fighter, then there'd be a huge thing to point out. At most, it's necessary to prove a point: how optimized must a 5e Fighter be to approach the effectiveness of a 2e/3e Fighter, and how would comparable optimization in those editions would result? I mean, the Dungeon Master's Guide of 2nd Edition probably has more than +5 weapons; that the vast majority of them are swords... At least 5e Fighters have the excuse that Frost Brand and Swords of Sharpness can be greatswords, not merely longswords. Or that increases to Critical Threat range are part of the class itself (or at least one of its archetypes), or that Advantage is part of the system. However, if you willingly restrain, you can't make a valid comparison, because optimization is not quantifiable. Sound one, though? Sure - the results so far are sound, but it's hard to agree on how "valid" other than "2e Fighter beats Big T in less rounds" when you can't measure just how much you can optimize.


At least this is how I see being the best methodology to figuring out this question. I think directly comparing who would win in a direct fight between fighter characters does not really answer the question due to system differences. I think using this analysis allows us to remove the system differences as a variable and allows us to compare them doing essentially the same thing (or at least as similar as we are going to get).

And yet, it can be used (as I attempted to show) for valuable analysis. At least, if not direct combat, a dissection of the mechanics and how they influence each version of the Fighter.

[MeeposFire]

I presume, then, that you don't believe MMA exists, or that it shouldn't exist, judging by that answer. Perhaps not the best allegory, but it works: in the end, both fighters have to adapt to circumstances. But, mostly a tangential point, so...





Essentially your position boils down to this analogy and there is a major problem here. Your analogy works as that two different fighting styles but they all operate under the same rules and reality. Your analogy would be a perfect description on how and why you could compare two different classes such as barbarian to fighter for example. However your analogy fails for your stated purpose because while both classes are fighters they operate under two different sets of rules and realities. Just like using two classes from the same edition in MMA two different styles can fight in the ring but they both operate under the same rules in the fight under the same situations.

1 HP in 2e is not worth 1 HP in 5e. 1 AC is not the same in either. +1 to hit is not the same (due to bounded accuracy, advantage, etc versus the THAC0 bonus system).

The analogy that works in my mind is trying to compare who is the best scorer between a hockey player and a basketball player and determining it by directly comparing their point totals. This will not work well as points are not determined in the same way or in the same amount in both games so directly comparing their numbers to each other does not work out. This is the same as with our fighters. The fighters (athletes) both have numbers but they are determined by different systems (sports) with different values attributed to the numbers (points are not determined the same in hockey and basketball).

The better way to determine who is the better scorer between to different sports would probably be to show which one was better in comparison to their peers. This eliminates the problem of trying to compare different systems. So if the hockey player is 2x better than his nearest competition and the basketball player is only 1.5x better than his nearest competition we could make a good case that the hockey player is the better scorer because he is far more dominant in what he does than the basketball player. That basketball player could have more points but that is hard to judge against hockey player points since baskets in that sport can be 1, 2, or 3 points but in hockey you get only 1 point for a goal and 1 point per assist (I don't know if basketball gives points for assist like hockey does or not).

[JAL_1138]

So if the hockey player is 2x better than his nearest competition and the basketball player is only 1.5x better than his nearest competition we could make a good case that the hockey player is the better scorer because he is far more dominant in what he does than the basketball player. That basketball player could have more points but that is hard to judge against hockey player points since baskets in that sport can be 1, 2, or 3 points but in hockey you get only 1 point for a goal and 1 point per assist (I don't know if basketball gives points for assist like hockey does or not).

I agree you'd have to look at them in their respective systems--you don't port enemies over with stats unchanged, after all. It looks like the 5e fighter survives more damage (but is more susceptible to spells), but the 2e fighter can kill bigger and badder beasties in his/her own game system more easily and has better saves against spells--then again, those spells had a higher likelihood of being instant death instead of damage on a failed save...but there's always polymorph+PWK at the highest levels in 5th, but that gives two saves instead of just one...but it's a lot easier in some circumstances to shut down a 2e caster if you win initiative, and...

Basketball tangent: Assists, rebounds, blocks, steals, 2pt field goals (and % made/attempted), 3pt field goals (and % made/attempted, and (1pt) free throws (and % made/attempted), as well as negatives like turnovers and fouls, all show up in an individual player's stat sheet and the team stat sheet, but only the actual basket (be it a 2pt, 3pt, or free throw) counts toward the game score. So if the point guard gets the assist for a lob pass to the center who dunks off it (makes a 2pt field goal), only the dunk adds to the team's score and contributes to who wins or loses, but the assist shows up in the point guard's stat sheet afterward.

[MeeposFire]

I agree you'd have to look at them in their respective systems--you don't port enemies over with stats unchanged, after all. It looks like the 5e fighter survives more damage (but is more susceptible to spells), but the 2e fighter can kill bigger and badder beasties in his/her own game system more easily and has better saves against spells--then again, those spells had a higher likelihood of being instant death instead of damage on a failed save...but there's always polymorph+PWK at the highest levels in 5th, but that gives two saves instead of just one...but it's a lot easier in some circumstances to shut down a 2e caster if you win initiative, and...

Basketball tangent: Assists, rebounds, blocks, steals, 2pt field goals (and % made/attempted), 3pt field goals (and % made/attempted, and (1pt) free throws (and % made/attempted), as well as negatives like turnovers and fouls, all show up in an individual player's stat sheet and the team stat sheet, but only the actual basket (be it a 2pt, 3pt, or free throw) counts toward the game score. So if the point guard gets the assist for a lob pass to the center who dunks off it (makes a 2pt field goal), only the dunk adds to the team's score and contributes to who wins or loses, but the assist shows up in the point guard's stat sheet afterward.

Indeed and survivability is one area where I am having a hard time figuring out especially due to the differences in systems. For instance 2e fighter saves are awesome while 5e is above average but not greatly so in general (potentially better if you use feats on it). On that same token there are a lot of SoD and instant death abilities with no saves in 2e (for instance that 2e Big T has a bite that hits like a sword of sharpness which means it lobs off limbs and heads automatically on certain die rolls no save). Generally speaking monsters in 2e deal less damage per attack but your HP is much lower. Monsters have much better attack bonus but your AC isn't as locked in (unless you use the rules on maximum AC and then it really depends on which maximum you use and I have seen several variants on that) and you are much less vulnerable to lower level threats.

That is a big reason why I stuck with offense as that seems to be easier to quantify between editions and it is an expected job in both.

[TrollCapAmerica]

AD&D loved to throw "Gotcha" monsters at you that were designed around mechanics that countered common PC tactics. Golems demi-Liches rust monsters the big T and a whole bunch of FR monsters from books were like that

[Kyutaru]

Yeah part of the challenge of 2nd edition was coming up against a monster you never even heard of, realizing nothing you do to it is working, and then either figure out its weakness or die horribly.

In the regard, 2nd edition is very much like a Final Fantasy game. In 3rd and beyond, you basically can just beat to death everything you get thrown up against.

[MeeposFire]

AD&D loved to throw "Gotcha" monsters at you that were designed around mechanics that countered common PC tactics. Golems demi-Liches rust monsters the big T and a whole bunch of FR monsters from books were like that

Don't forget the catoblepas with its instant death gaze with no save. ouchies.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Don't forget the catoblepas with its instant death gaze with no save. ouchies.

And level drain combined with massive EXP lose hat set you so far behind your party you might as well roll a new character

[MeeposFire]

And level drain combined with massive EXP lose hat set you so far behind your party you might as well roll a new character

There are times when that is certainly more noticeable than others and it is also a bigger problem if you do not use the variant XP rules that the game really needs as monster XP only would take eons to level in general.

[JAL_1138]

AD&D loved to throw "Gotcha" monsters at you that were designed around mechanics that countered common PC tactics. Golems demi-Liches rust monsters the big T and a whole bunch of FR monsters from books were like that

I didn't play all that much FR but I'm willing to bet my DM used a bunch of the monsters from it. And from 1e books, probably. There were so many "gotcha" monsters...and traps...and at some point I probably lost a character to all of them. We died like flies. Not in every campaign, especially if we started above level one, but whenever the DM dug up a Gygax module to convert from 1st or Basic to 2nd, or brewed something up deliberately along the same lines...yeeesh.

As a result more than a few of my characters since then are paranoid nutcases convinced that everything is out to kill them, even the floors and ceilings. Because back then, they were.

[SharkForce]

I didn't play all that much FR but I'm willing to bet my DM used a bunch of the monsters from it. And from 1e books, probably. There were so many "gotcha" monsters...and traps...and at some point I probably lost a character to all of them. We died like flies. Not in every campaign, especially if we started above level one, but whenever the DM dug up a Gygax module to convert from 1st or Basic to 2nd, or brewed something up deliberately along the same lines...yeeesh.

As a result more than a few of my characters since then are paranoid nutcases convinced that everything is out to kill them, even the floors and ceilings. Because back then, they were.

heh. i still operate under the assumption that every statue in (D&D) existence is out to get me, and i didn't even have to go through any of those early modules to get paranoid about that :P

[Gritmonger]

Earseekers.

So, you want to punish a careful, thoughtful PC who is, within his rights, performing a listen check?

Or is the argument that listening at doors is so common that a parasite has evolved to specifically exploit this behavior. Call the Gelatinous Cube on that one - the only monster ever to meta-evolve from the use of graph paper.

[Kyutaru]

We have the entire Tomb of Horrors thanks to metagaming players. Everything you think you know about RPGs will get you killed.

[JAL_1138]

Earseekers.

So, you want to punish a careful, thoughtful PC who is, within his rights, performing a listen check?

Or is the argument that listening at doors is so common that a parasite has evolved to specifically exploit this behavior. Call the Gelatinous Cube on that one - the only monster ever to meta-evolve from the use of graph paper.

And the Lock Lurker (which looks like a coin), designed to punish thieves for lockpicking (and anybody who picks up stray coins). In itself, usually not fatal (except at low level when you might not survive the first sting or two)--has a paralysis effect (save to be Slowed instead). But when other enemies or environmental hazards are involved, easily deadly.

[Tonden Ockay]

So it seems that a 2e Warrior might be a little stronger in this game vs a 5e Warrior.


Next question. Which is stronger/weaker 2e Wizards in their game world vs 5e Wizards in theirs?

[JAL_1138]

So it seems that a 2e Warrior might be a little stronger in this game vs a 5e Warrior.


Next question. Which is stronger/weaker 2e Wizards in their game world vs 5e Wizards in theirs?

That's an extremely level-dependent question, and also as nuanced as the fighter comparison if not moreso. At first level, a 5e wizard pretty much eats a 2e wizard for breakfast. At 20th, the 2e wizard has more spells (no cantrips though), spells that scale by level automatically, and a slew of save-or-dies or spells with massively more powerful effects--but many of those are very difficult to cast and take longer. Casting is disrupted by any hit whatsoever before the spell goes off; even a particularly lucky squirrel can shut down a spell from a 20th-lvl 2e wizard.

The 2e wizard also levels extremely slowly--slowest progression in the game, at half the speed of thieves and bards.

Also, unless I'm horribly misremembering, there were no to-hit rolls for 2e spells. If you cast successfully, they either just went off or the character being hit got a saving throw (true for many but not nearly all 5e spells).

Further complicating it is how stat-dependent the 2e wizard is. INT gives cap on the maximum spell level they can learn--if you don't have a fantastic Int you'll never learn 9th level spells without some kind of long-lasting buff.

[Tonden Ockay]

I understand that at low level 5e wizards got buffed a lot. Which I do feel they needed it.

However I feel high level 2e Wizards are over powered imo. I just wasn't for sure if the 5e Wizard is weaker or not in their own game worlds.

This is not a 2e vs 5e wizards. Its about how strong a 2e Wizard is in their own 2e world compared to a 5e wizard is in their 5e world.

I really just care about higher levels 12 to 20.

[Alejandro]

I know some people are BIG fans of Supper Hero's. But not everyone players this way.

I used to be a HUGE fan of Supper Heroes, until they nerfed the fork.

[Kyutaru]

2nd edition wizards win flat out. The only way to kill one is by ambushing him on the toilet, and if he's not banned from Divination due to spell school selection, he'll know you were coming.

Wizards had access to the most broken spells in the game. Wish was near limitless in its hayday. Polymorph Any Object could destroy entire planets. Polymorph itself could be abused to give yourself godlike powers. Or even ACTUAL god powers.

But what's really nasty isn't the SLEW of no-save spells they had access to that could shutdown or kill ANY creature in existence, but the fact that they had access to Permanency. It was a spell that made any other spell last forever. All wizards in 2nd edition could fly at will. Which was handy for reaching their CLOUD CASTLE. Because of all the permanent effects they could have, the thing they feared most was Mordenkainen's Disjunction. But then again, so did the fighters... losing all your magic items in an edition where those magic items are seriously OP and required to even harm certain creatures can be devastating. It's only one of the few ways to get past a Prismatic Sphere, which in that edition was a death sentence to even attempt to traverse.

[JAL_1138]

I understand that at low level 5e wizards got buffed a lot. Which I do feel they needed it.

However I feel high level 2e Wizards are over powered imo. I just wasn't for sure if the 5e Wizard is weaker or not in their own game worlds.

This is not a 2e vs 5e wizards. Its about how strong a 2e Wizard is in their own 2e world compared to a 5e wizard is in their 5e world.

I really just care about higher levels 12 to 20.

Within their own game worlds, one is a glass cannon that has a chance to level whole kingdoms when fired but breaks if you look at it funny while the fuse is lit and might never be that strong. The other is a glass cannon that levels walled cities when fired but has to be smacked repeatedly with a warhammer to break. You still have to look at the differences in how they work if you're trying to figure which is more powerful within their own systems.

Short version (don't have any of my books with me) is that the 2e wizard can do more and bigger things before they run out of spells but have a beast of a time actually getting those things done (in combat), and then become useless when/if they run out of spells (not that likely but possible). They also might never get the chance to learn their biggest and baddest spells without hard-to-find stat boosting items, finding the right spell (which they can still fail to successfully learn), or rolling exceptionally well at character creation. Many things give a percent chance of a spell failing aside from damage, such as wearing any armor or doing pretty much anything at all besides standing there and casting it. Things like Polymorph had a percent chance of killing the target. Getting to levels 12-20 takes a very, very long time and in some ways is highly unlikely. In terms of spell slots to damage done or encounters won they're very effective *if* they can get the spell off, but the only cantrip was a first level spell called "cantrip" that took a slot. They have to pick the exact right spells that day or they're screwed; there's no changing them once they've been memorized, and to cast a spell more than once it has to be memorized more than once.

The 5e wizard never runs out of useful things to do, never has to worry about not being able to learn high-level spells because they didn't roll well, only the save DCs and to-hit bonus, and can increase the stat merely by leveling. Said spells are harder to interrupt, but there are significantly fewer "I win" buttons. They can survive a fair amount of damage and while they can't pile buffs on they can cast utility spells as rituals for free and never run out of decently-effective cantrips. They can make magic items without a truly massive effort. At high level they can get some lower-level spell slots back. They know fewer spells and have fewer slots than the highest-Int 2e wizard but they can cast a spell as many times as they have slots of that level or higher, lending far greater flexibility. They can take feats, and cast in armor they're proficient with without penalty. They can't outright kill nearly as many monsters in one or two spells (although the Polymorph+PWK combo will kill anything at all that fails its Polymorph save--but it takes two spells and the only 9th-level spell the wizard gets that day).



I used to be a HUGE fan of Supper Heroes, until they nerfed the fork.

And let's not even talk about when they switched sporks to foons. I quit right there.

[Chronos]

Quoth Kyutara:

Wizards had access to the most broken spells in the game. Wish was near limitless in its hayday.
Back in 2nd edition, Wish could do absolutely anything except whatever you wanted it to do. Every caster in 3rd edition who used Wish limits themselves to the explicitly safe uses, because everyone knows that if you try for one of the unsafe uses, the DM will screw you over. But in 2nd edition, every use of Wish was an unsafe use.

And you couldn't use Permanency on just any spell you chose. Like in 3rd edition, there was a preset list of a couple of dozen spells you could use it on. Except that, instead of costing you XP that you could earn back, every casting of Permanency cost you a point of Constitution that was lost forever.

[JAL_1138]

Back in 2nd edition, Wish could do absolutely anything except whatever you wanted it to do. Every caster in 3rd edition who used Wish limits themselves to the explicitly safe uses, because everyone knows that if you try for one of the unsafe uses, the DM will screw you over. But in 2nd edition, every use of Wish was an unsafe use.

And you couldn't use Permanency on just any spell you chose. Like in 3rd edition, there was a preset list of a couple of dozen spells you could use it on. Except that, instead of costing you XP that you could earn back, every casting of Permanency cost you a point of Constitution that was lost forever.

Both of these are correct as far as I remember. The text of Wish said it would backfire pretty much every time. Plus, if I remember right, (am away from book and haven't played 2e since...2003? 2005? Been at least ten years, so I may be flat wrong) there were zero automatically-learned spells unless you were a specialist, and then it was up to the DM whether s/he chose the spell or let you pick (that was the actual rule--DM decides whether to even let you choose). You got the slots, sure, but other than specialists learning like one spell per spell level, you only got access to the spells if you found them or bought them, period. Chance to Learn Spell rolls were pretty brutal without maxed Int, too.

[charcoalninja]

There are a LOT of little things to look into when thinking abut 2e AD&D. For instance specializing in punching is an effective way to get lots of attacks, accuracy, and damage when you wield cesti. That set up is better than any other melee set up in 2e unless you allow grandmastery (later and slightly more rare splat book though still valid) or if your DM absolutely prevents you from finding magic cesti (possible).

Also you have to consider how different your characters are to the monsters in each edition. For instance monsters in AD&D all use d8 HD, have their thac0 table, and were relatively fragile. Your characters did not need a bunch of attacks or high ability scores to kill these monsters at levels 3+ or so. In fact AD&D is the most attribute independent edition ever. A player wanting to create a fighter actually should not put their highest ability score in strength unless you can get bonus XP or you can get an 18. Combatwise a 17 in str is worth less than it is in con, dex, or even intelligence. Anybody who says int is not great for a fighter in 2e either does not play with the optional prof rules, does not allow for full specialization rules, or has not taken the time to ind out how powerful bonus proficiencies are over a single +1 to hit and damage (or less).

As for those character you are even more fragile in many ways in AD&D except with saving throws. So you have to keep that in mind. Also AD&D has a lot of rules that are even more frequently debated or ignored than 5e. For instance stone skin is really not as good as people say as it prevents damage not hits. This means that your spell casting is disrupted when you are hit while using stoneskin even though you took no damage because the rule on disruption is about getting hit not damage. However many people do not play that way.

Comparing the two editions is actually more complicated than you might think.I will say though that you are less likely to be killed by a mob of low level enemies as a high level character in 2e but that is a corner case really.

The stoneskin comment is incorrect. It specifically calls out ignoring a club attack from an ogre in its text IIRC. It does not negate damage, it allows the caster to ignore attacks thus completely removing any attack based spell inturruption.

[JAL_1138]

The stoneskin comment is incorrect. It specifically calls out ignoring a club attack from an ogre in its text IIRC. It does not negate damage, it allows the caster to ignore attacks thus completely removing any attack based spell inturruption.

Mage who forgot to prepare Stoneskin + Spell failure chance from Heavy Armor + interrupted casting by a sufficient number of otherwise nigh-harmless opponents = how Squirrel Girl beat Doctor Doom.

This post brought to you by sleep deprivation and way too @#$%ing much coffee

[Kyutaru]

The stoneskin comment is incorrect. It specifically calls out ignoring a club attack from an ogre in its text IIRC. It does not negate damage, it allows the caster to ignore attacks thus completely removing any attack based spell inturruption.

Direct from the 2nd edition book:

"When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains a virtual immunity to any attack by cut, blow, projectile, or the like. Even a sword of sharpness cannot affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor can a rock hurled by a giant, a snake's strike, etc. However, magical attacks from such spells as fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth have their normal effects. The spell's effects are not cumulative with multiple castings.

The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of experience the caster has achieved. This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against five to eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage.

The material components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on the recipient's skin."

[JAL_1138]

Direct from the 2nd edition book:

"When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains a virtual immunity to any attack by cut, blow, projectile, or the like. Even a sword of sharpness cannot affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor can a rock hurled by a giant, a snake's strike, etc. However, magical attacks from such spells as fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth have their normal effects. The spell's effects are not cumulative with multiple castings.

The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of experience the caster has achieved. This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against five to eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage.

The material components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on the recipient's skin."

So Doctor Doom might not have forgotten to prepare Stoneskin after all; Squirrel Girl simply used a sufficient number of squirrels.

[Chronos]

And really, what problem can't be solved with a sufficient number of squirrels?

[Naanomi]

How about other classes? 2e Druids leveled up super weird; and rangers had a huge focus on followers... Hard to compare straight over I think

[T.G. Oskar]

And really, what problem can't be solved with a sufficient number of squirrels?

One that requires being underwater. Not enough diving suits might work. But then again...that's what Aquaman is for. Always thought that the scariest thing an arch-villain would see before its complete annihilation is Aquaman and Squirrel Girl high-fiving.

As for the Wizard...5e Wizard being a glass cannon? Well...between Mage Armor and Mirror Image being one of the few spells that doesn't require concentration (Shield stacks like in 3e, but doesn't apply for a long duration as in earlier editions as it works only as a Reaction), and Constitution being somewhat easier to achieve, they're less "glass" and more...say, glass at first and then plastic at last, but nowhere near the armored concrete of the Fighter. Also, with cantrips, they get a few extra all-purpose guns to save ammo on their cannons. 2e/3e Wizards have the same problem - they are weaker than wet paper early on, but after 6th level and having enough spells, they're unbeatable. 5e Wizards are similar, except that their combat potential is somewhat better earlier on (a crossbow does better damage than most cantrips, but those few that deal less damage happen to have good rider effects), and their cannons deal more damage but have less ammo: Fireball deals more initial damage, but by 8th level a 2e/3e Wizard deals more damage with them; 5e Meteor Swarm does incredibly respectable damage but can only be used once, and sacrifices your only 9th level spell which could be used for something else, compared to the bunch of 9th level spells of earlier editions. 5e has an incredibly respectable Evoker, though, which should dispel the idea that Evocation is the weakest school that earlier editions have (between Potent Cantrip and Overchannel, if you judge only by damage...). Not to mention that specialization in 5e is superior to earlier editions (you get actual features), and minion necromancy is somewhat scarier. Can't summon a Solar, though, which was the hallmark of 3e Gate and most likely 2e Gate as well.

That said...good riddance. Anything that restrains Wizard power to an acceptable level is fine, IMO.

[Kyutaru]

Can't summon a Solar, though, which was the hallmark of 3e Gate and most likely 2e Gate as well.

Oh dear no. Casting Gate aged a wizard five years, they would never use it for something so trivial. The might of 2e Gate was that you connect to any plane and announce any plane dweller to step through the gate. If the being wished it could send one of its minions to find out what you want. The power of Gate, effectively, was that it could summon the might of the very gods themselves.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Oh dear no. Casting Gate aged a wizard five years, they would never use it for something so trivial. The might of 2e Gate was that you connect to any plane and announce any plane dweller to step through the gate. If the being wished it could send one of its minions to find out what you want. The power of Gate, effectively, was that it could summon the might of the very gods themselves.

Gate aged you Wish aged you just as much Polymorph had a mathmatically insignificant chance of killing you based on a subsystem used for so little people forgot it existed and Permanacy permanently dropped your Con in a game where stats almost never rise

[Kyutaru]

Gate aged you Wish aged you just as much Polymorph had a mathmatically insignificant chance of killing you based on a subsystem used for so little people forgot it existed and Permanacy permanently dropped your Con in a game where stats almost never rise

Haste also aged you. Also, the rolled starting age for a wizard in 2e was rather high. You had maybe forty years left.

[JAL_1138]

[...] but after 6th level and having enough spells, they're unbeatable.

[...]That said...good riddance. Anything that restrains Wizard power to an acceptable level is fine, IMO.

Like I said earlier the biggest limit on the 2e Wizard was finding those spells. There was no guarantee you'd find them, and the only way you guaranteed learning a spell was the specialist--whose rules said the DM can either let a specialist pick or just DM-fiat the one spell they learn per spell level.

That doesn't mean there weren't a metric @#$%load of brokenly strong spells in comparison to 5th's very small handful, but it did mean it was very possible to never see them--and then if your Int wasn't maxed, never be able to learn them, or fail the roll to learn them. They could be a lot more limited in practice than in theory. Still, ultimately it's better to limit the maximum potential power rather than make the DM be stingy with new spells.

[Chronos]

Quoth T.G. Oskar:

5e has an incredibly respectable Evoker, though, which should dispel the idea that Evocation is the weakest school that earlier editions have (between Potent Cantrip and Overchannel, if you judge only by damage...).
That depends on whether you're judging the specializations or the schools of the spells themselves. Oddly enough, the evoker's Potent Cantrip ability only boosts conjuration spells, not evocations.

[Knaight]

In 2e, Int was essential for a wizard, but did absolutely nothing for anyone else. In 5e, by contrast, Int is essential for a wizard, but does absolutely nothing for anyone else. I'm not seeing the distinction.
The 5e skill system makes having some level of intelligence useful, whereas in 2e it was less likely to come up for non-wizards due to the more emphasized roles. Sure, int to skill points was dropped, but that was always kind of silly to begin with. It makes sense for some skills, but when the dumb fighter can swim, the average fighter can swim and climb, and the smart fighter can swim, climb, and run the stat behind skills seems odd. I'd rather just have the attributes directly add to trained skills that use them as the core attribute.


From what I can read, the only reason the 2e Fighter is better than the 5e Fighter is because it hits better and dealt more damage? Then I presume the 3.5 Fighter, Core alone, should beat the 2e Fighter in a heartbeat, no? I mean, Power Attack and everything...

Saves are the other big thing. In 2e the difficulty of saves was based entirely on the person making the saving throw, there wasn't a variable DC like mechanic. The fighter had the best saves in the game, and quickly got to the point where they had a 50%+ chance of saving on their worst save. By contrast the 3.5 fighter has a decent fortitude save and that's about it, and the 5e save system has saves get harder to make as characters go up in level, with their good saves more or less keeping pace.

Plus, the 2e fighter was generally comparatively stronger once HP differences are accounted for, particularly as they are generally pretty decent in any type of armed combat, and not just their narrow specialization.

[Chronos]

Yes and no... Remember, 2e fighters did not get proficiency with all weapons. They could choose proficiencies from all weapons, but they still only had a limited selection they were actually proficient with. A typical 2e fighter would, at first level, be specialized in one weapon and proficient in two others. If you found a nice weapon that wasn't one of those three, well, maybe you can gain proficiency in it three levels from now. A 3e fighter, by contrast, is automatically proficient with almost all weapons, and unless you have feats like Weapon Focus, you can usually switch off to whatever you find with no decrease in effectiveness.

[Knaight]

Yes and no... Remember, 2e fighters did not get proficiency with all weapons. They could choose proficiencies from all weapons, but they still only had a limited selection they were actually proficient with. A typical 2e fighter would, at first level, be specialized in one weapon and proficient in two others. If you found a nice weapon that wasn't one of those three, well, maybe you can gain proficiency in it three levels from now. A 3e fighter, by contrast, is automatically proficient with almost all weapons, and unless you have feats like Weapon Focus, you can usually switch off to whatever you find with no decrease in effectiveness.

Not really. A 3e fighter is generally proficient with a lot of things, but even without feats like weapon focus there are specializations. Just taking power attack creates specialization towards two handed weapons to some degree, and when it comes to switching between ranged and melee 3e fighters have a lot of problems. While 2e fighters are only proficient in a limited selection, they'll generally at least be able to fight well up close and at range, whereas being absolutely terrible at ranged combat if you focus on melee is just how 3e works.

[T.G. Oskar]

Oh dear no. Casting Gate aged a wizard five years, they would never use it for something so trivial. The might of 2e Gate was that you connect to any plane and announce any plane dweller to step through the gate. If the being wished it could send one of its minions to find out what you want. The power of Gate, effectively, was that it could summon the might of the very gods themselves.

Well, so as long as Solars can't use Gate or Miracle, then it's trivial. If not...remember the reason why Gate in 3e, despite the XP cost, was so insanely powerful was because of Chain-Gating. Why send a minion when you can have a plethora of powerhouses? Otherwise...well, XP loss can hurt, though by that level not so much.


Like I said earlier the biggest limit on the 2e Wizard was finding those spells. There was no guarantee you'd find them, and the only way you guaranteed learning a spell was the specialist--whose rules said the DM can either let a specialist pick or just DM-fiat the one spell they learn per spell level.

That doesn't mean there weren't a metric @#$%load of brokenly strong spells in comparison to 5th's very small handful, but it did mean it was very possible to never see them--and then if your Int wasn't maxed, never be able to learn them, or fail the roll to learn them. They could be a lot more limited in practice than in theory. Still, ultimately it's better to limit the maximum potential power rather than make the DM be stingy with new spells.

Every system save 4e has the same limitation. The difference was that 2e Wizards didn't learn new spells automatically, while 3e Wizards learned only 2 spells each level. Same thing with minimum Int (you can't cast 9th level spells with Int 18, though that could be 1 ability score increase away). Switch to 5e, and scrolls are still necessary to cast spells. 1st or 2nd level spells can be bought, but latter ones have to be found. The degree of the limitation may change, but in the end they have the same limitation.

5e went with a reasonable, though still not strict, way to restrain caster power, though. In 2e, as you mentioned, the main limitations were the right Intelligence (it really depends on whether the DM allowed rerolling or not; Tomes were part of the game, though) and access to scrolls (which can be bought, and are generally a better investment for your money). In 5e, those restrictions are mostly gone (the scrolls remain, the need for Int to be actually able to cast spells doesn't, but you still need Int for a higher DC), but with less slots (even in 2e, Wizards ended up with a fair number of slots) and the concentration mechanic, a Wizard will have to think twice before using some of the traditional battle-enders (like Stinking Cloud). It's a good start, though I'm kinda pissed that they didn't reclaim the 4e conception of Rituals and instead made a hybrid where only Wizards (and Tome Warlocks) can take advantage of them without casting spells. Oh, and Ritual Casters, but it's as optional as feats.


Saves are the other big thing. In 2e the difficulty of saves was based entirely on the person making the saving throw, there wasn't a variable DC like mechanic. The fighter had the best saves in the game, and quickly got to the point where they had a 50%+ chance of saving on their worst save. By contrast the 3.5 fighter has a decent fortitude save and that's about it, and the 5e save system has saves get harder to make as characters go up in level, with their good saves more or less keeping pace.

Plus, the 2e fighter was generally comparatively stronger once HP differences are accounted for, particularly as they are generally pretty decent in any type of armed combat, and not just their narrow specialization.

Note that Meepos' mechanic for comparison deals strictly with damage potential. Ergo, based on that mechanic, the 3e Fighter should surpass the 2e Fighter. Also...am I missing something, or wasn't the Cleric who had better saves in the end, beating the Fighter on stuff like Paralysis/Petrifaction and Poison/Death saves?

Save-wise, though, it depends. 2e Fighters get great saves because they were always made at the same number (barring bonuses/penalties, and there were more bonuses than penalties), whereas 3e saves are progressively worse because of the scaling DC mechanic...but even in Core, saves aren't necessarily that bad. Go out of Core, and you can easily rock saves, as there are several ways to provide bonuses that stack with each other, and that don't necessarily have to deal with feats (i.e. Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will).

Regarding narrow specialization...to be honest, the main difference is that weapon specialization is easier. Take a 2e Fighter that doesn't go beyond Basic proficiency and a 3e Fighter that doesn't take Weapon Focus, and chances are they'll be pretty similar. If anything, it's somewhat easier for a 2e Fighter to specialize and get something decent just from one level of specialization compared to a 3e Fighter taking 2 feats for the same purpose, but the Fighter should have enough feats to, going only by Core, work well with at least two fighting styles. Going outside of Core allows even further specialization at the cost of going even narrower, but the traits you can get from some of those feats are particularly impressive. If anything, the problem is trying to remain within an acceptable range of ability scores, as demanding 5 scores to the Wizard's 3 (Int, Con, Dex) doesn't really seem to cut it. That said, a Lockdown Fighter wielding a nice polearm/Spiked Chain with Imp. Trip and the Combat Focus line is pretty nasty, and hasn't gone into taking a magic item yet (not to mention it covers survivabiity via fast healing and blindsight). But, again, that's outside of Core.

It seems to boil down in that the 2e Fighter is stronger because the competition isn't. 3e buffed monsters, and thus the Fighter couldn't seem to keep up, so it looks weak(er) in comparison.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Yes and no... Remember, 2e fighters did not get proficiency with all weapons. They could choose proficiencies from all weapons, but they still only had a limited selection they were actually proficient with. A typical 2e fighter would, at first level, be specialized in one weapon and proficient in two others. If you found a nice weapon that wasn't one of those three, well, maybe you can gain proficiency in it three levels from now. A 3e fighter, by contrast, is automatically proficient with almost all weapons, and unless you have feats like Weapon Focus, you can usually switch off to whatever you find with no decrease in effectiveness.

Well there was a mechanical problem that there were only a few weapons worth using. Long Sword Long Bow and Darts were just better than everything else. This is made worse with only swords being allied better than +3 enchantment basically locking all fighters as long sword users

In all later editions there's a lot more parity with weapons making a variety of them worth using

[Knaight]

It seems to boil down in that the 2e Fighter is stronger because the competition isn't. 3e buffed monsters, and thus the Fighter couldn't seem to keep up, so it looks weak(er) in comparison.

Relative to 5e, the 2e fighter flat out has higher numbers in a few ways. With that said, it only really makes sense to define them in the context of their own system. A fighter that deals 1d100 damage with every strike and has 800 HP in a system where a rabbit has 100 HP and deals 1d50 damage is significantly weaker than even a low level D&D fighter, even if their raw numbers are substantially higher. In the context of the system they're in, the 2e fighter ends up a powerhouse that routinely shrugs off just about every effect, can cut down the mightiest foes in single combat without even taking all that long, etc. The 5e fighter isn't that, though they're an effective combatant nonetheless. the 3e fighter isn't even an effective combatant unless the player has a solid grip on feat optimization in the system.