What makes 5e Combat longer then AD&D? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-20, 12:34 PM

If your playing 5e with no Feats then what all options do players have?

A caster can hit with a weapon or cast a spell in both editions right? What other options do they have?

A melee can hit with a weapon right? What other options do they have?

I know no matter what edition you play player characters will ask

"Am I close enough to do this?"
"Could I do this?"
"Did I see him do that?"
"Well I am going to do this over hear with my back facing this way"

You get the point. But you will have this in every edition. So the only thing I can think that would slow the game up vs another edition is something mechanically.

So what mechanically would cause 5e combat to take longer.

I can see having more HP's players and creatures having a combat last more rounds. However other people are saying that 5e players are dying in one to three rounds. So it doesn't sound like the higher HP's are making that much of a difference.

Gritmonger

2015-02-20, 12:48 PM

I'd say that's a loaded question. Any GM can extend combat by use of optionals or homebrews, and really any time you have to stop to look something up it is going to take time.

For instance, having played in multiple versions (1 to 5) I think I can say that in 5th, grappling isn't the instant grind to a halt it was in previous versions. Different look-ups, especially early on, can bog down any game.

Typewriter

2015-02-20, 12:56 PM

I'm not that familiar with AD&D but I can say one thing I've noticed in regards to 5e combat being slow at times is to-hit. Bounded accuracy has sort of upped the average low level AC of a lot of players/npcs while keeping low level to-hit fairly low. As a result I feel like the game will sometimes go 2-3 rounds where nobody hits anything.

INDYSTAR188

2015-02-20, 12:58 PM

WickerNipple

2015-02-20, 12:59 PM

However other people are saying that 5e players are dying in one to three rounds. So it doesn't sound like the higher HP's are making that much of a difference.

Those people are talking about level 1-2 5e characters.

NeoSeraphi

2015-02-20, 01:00 PM

Even without feats, in 5e a monk must decide whether to use ki this round or just get the free Martial Arts hit. A rogue has to determine whether to Dash, Disengage or Hide as a bonus action. A wizard/warlock needs to direct their familiar, a ranger has to direct their beast. A sorcerer has to choose their metamagic and then roll on the Wild Magic table.

calebrus

2015-02-20, 01:07 PM

I bet the combat in 2E and 5E is nowhere near as long as it is in 4E. For whatever reason it usually takes ~45 minutes or more to run a combat. When I ran a quick intro game session to 5E the combats were ~15 minutes long which seems like a huge improvement.

That's one of the things (among many) that I despise about 4e.
Combat is ridiculous.
3.x was terrible with combat taking forever as well, but nowhere near as bad as 4e.
5e brings it back in line with what 2e was for the most part, and I love that. It's not quite as quick and dirty as 2e was, but it's close. And it's more fun than it was back then as well, so a little bit slower doesn't bother me.

SiuiS

2015-02-20, 01:13 PM

lol no really?

What mechanic is causing 5e combat to take longer then AD&D?

I have been reading that 5e games have been having players dying a lot and even whole party wipes. So that sounds like players are dying a lot in 5e.

Seriously. A "hit die" was literally how many hits you could take, in average. A fighter with 18 con had at most 14 hp per level. A wizard with 25 con had at most, 6 hp per level. See the difference?

Three chimera would destroy most parties. If not with combined fire breath than with the multiple attack routines, versus armor that generally stuck to a 1-10 scale and did as much damage per swing as most people had hit dice to cover.

Taejang

2015-02-20, 01:23 PM

<DELETED> Not what the OP was looking for and too stinkin' long to scroll past all the time.

some guy

2015-02-20, 01:53 PM

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-20, 02:03 PM

Most of all that the play does not need to ask the DM. Most of all that they can think about while waiting for their turn. I don't care what edition I play but I'm not going to sit there waiting for a player to say " Oh should I do this or should I do that". You better know what your doing unless you need info from the DM and then make a move or get passed over.

I mean come on again I understand mechanics slowing the game down (more die rolling, and or math) and getting needed info from the DM. However other then that the players need to know their character and know what they want to do when its their turn.

After all I played a Halfling Fighter/Mage/Thief in 2nd and I had all kinds of different things I could do each round. However when it was my turn I new what I was doing. I didn't hold the game up saying I have so many different things to do I need to sit here thinking about it.

So I'm just talking about die rolling and math the core mechanics of each edition. Not players who cant make up their mines because they can't deal with having options.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-20, 02:09 PM

Monsters also have more hp in 5e. (in Labyrinth Lord an Ogre has 19 hp and a LL fighter deals 1d10+1 damage with a great sword, 5e Ogre has 59 hp and a 5e fighter deals 2d6+3 damage. In LL, the Ogre can be felled with 3 hits, in 5e it takes about 5 hits)

Now that I can see causing combat to take longer.

If this is the case and most combats in 5e takes almost twice as long as say 2nd edition.

I do like a lot of what I am reading about 5e mechanics but I don't like the idea of combat lasting longer.

I don't want my old 2e 30 minute combat fights taking an hour (6 players and a DM).

After all the more time spent in combat then the less RPG time you get.

Taejang

2015-02-20, 02:11 PM

So I'm just talking about die rolling and math the core mechanics of each edition. Not players who cant make up their mines because they can't deal with having options.
Other answers have already answered your question, then. It takes longer to kill things because HP scaled higher than damage output.

However, I find the first round of combat will often take awhile, as players are still assimilating the situation. They may not need to consult the DM, but it will take longer to process. And again, as a newer edition, more rules will have to be looked up during game time.

As already noted by WickerNipple, because many 5e campaigns start at level 1, a tactical error can easily overwhelm and wipe a party. There isn't much margin of error to play with when a wizard has 6 hit points and a fighter only has 1d20+4 chance to hit and do 1d8+2 damage.

calebrus

2015-02-20, 02:18 PM

I don't want my old 2e 30 minute combat fights taking an hour (6 players and a DM).

I don't know how your 2e combat took half an hour, but OK.
If you're playing on Roll20 or in a chat room then combat is going to take longer.
If you're playing at a table (which I assume you are as a 2e player) then combat is quick and dirty, just like you're used to. Don't worry about it.

I'm a 2e guy. I've always been a 2e guy. It has always been my favorite edition, by far, hands down.
That is, until 5e came along. Now I'm sold.
Trust me, as a 2e guy, you're going to love it once you get your sea legs.

JAL_1138

2015-02-20, 02:22 PM

I know 2e much better than 1e; I'm really fuzzy on 1e. 2e ditched segments and made rounds represent a full minute, plus it altered the surprise and initiative rules.

Mostly though it's the accuracy (harder to hit most things in 5e) and bigger HP totals. It just flat takes more rounds to kill anything, and those rounds take longer because of the tactical positioning, number of options characters have, etc. that get weighed before an action gets taken.

5e still seems like greased lightning compared to 4th.

Edit: I'd say it's faster than 3rd/PF too, leaning towards the 2e side, because of not having as many modifiers to track and different to-hit math. I wouldn't say it's twice as slow as 2e was. It still doesn't take all that long before either you hit death-saves or the monster dies.

ProphetSword

2015-02-20, 02:24 PM

In my experience, the combats in 5e take about as long as they take in 2e. If the players are familiar with their characters and what they can do, combat goes pretty quickly and smoothly most of the time. I think any edition where people don't know what their characters can do will bog things down.

My games use miniatures and battle maps. We can knock out most combats in 15-20 minutes. There are some exceptions where things run longer, but they aren't the norm.

By contrast, at the same level, my Pathfinder combats were lasting two hours for roughly the same number of enemies. So, it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Taejang

2015-02-20, 02:28 PM

By contrast, at the same level, my Pathfinder combats were lasting two hours for roughly the same number of enemies.
Two hours?! Dang. I thought about trying Pathfinder, but that motivation just died.

WickerNipple

2015-02-20, 02:29 PM

I don't want my old 2e 30 minute combat fights taking an hour (6 players and a DM).

Unless they were particularly complex battles I don't really remember many 2e fights taking 30m. You're not going to find the average fight in 5e taking an hour, either.

calebrus

2015-02-20, 02:34 PM

Two hours?! Dang. I thought about trying Pathfinder, but that motivation just died.

3.x was dying and 4e was being birthed.
Pathfinder took 3e's death whimpers and plunged the knife straight into its heart.
PF took everything that was broken about 3e and made it worse. I simply do not understand the love that PF gets from people.
Heck, as much as a despise 4e, at least I can understand why some people like it. I can't even do *that* with PF.

Taejang

2015-02-20, 02:35 PM

Our entire play sessions last four hours. That is long enough to receive a quest, gear up, reach and clear a small dungeon, then return and conclude a mission. The last such occurrence included a party of three fighting six separate battles over the course of four hours and still having time to do other stuff (like roleplay the reactions of a lawful good paladin when his companions start smashing burial urns and stealing their contents).

Can't imagine stretching that out to twelve hours.

JAL_1138

2015-02-20, 02:41 PM

I burned out on 4e really quick. The changes to character mechanics, everything going onto the same AEDU system, were off-putting already...but we were playing a Paragon(?) tier game (lvl 10+) and a combat effectively meant nothing else was going to happen that session, made even worse for being online. There were times I'd fall asleep waiting for my turn to come back around. Several hit the 4-hour mark against homebrewed solo monsters and more than a couple had to stretch into multiple sessions. Against one monster. Yeesh it was like molasses in January. I reiterate: 5th is greased lightning after that. I still say it's a bit slower than 2e, but not much. Maybe they used a little less grease on the lightning, but it's still lightning and it's still greased.

ProphetSword

2015-02-20, 02:49 PM

Two hours?! Dang. I thought about trying Pathfinder, but that motivation just died.

A lot of battles in Pathfinder bogged way, way down for a lot of reasons. I'm not putting the system down, necessarily, but you can have too many rules. And when those rules start getting in the way of running your games smoothly, it becomes a problem.

To be fair, though, we were playing with more than just the core rules. When every supplement is available online from their website for free, everything becomes core.

It was getting to where the wizard in my party could lose 10 minutes just trying to figure out what spells to cast. Too many choices.

In 5e, the party I DM for is all spellcasters (a Cleric, a Warlock, a Wizard and a Bard) and we fly through combats.

So, more choices is not always better choices. I just hope 5e doesn't get as bloated as Pathfinder.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-20, 06:20 PM

My question is if Player's and Creatures do more damage in 5e vs 2e then shouldn't this help offset the higher HP's?

Naanomi

2015-02-20, 07:29 PM

Also many effects didn't have saving throws back in 1e... Stuff just happened a lot of the time. One less roll with many spells speeds things up a little

Tenmujiin

2015-02-20, 07:33 PM

My question is if Player's and Creatures do more damage in 5e vs 2e then shouldn't this help offset the higher HP's?

Damage as a percentage of HP is much lower in 5e

JAL_1138

2015-02-20, 07:49 PM

Damage as a percentage of HP is much lower in 5e

Also many effects didn't have saving throws back in 1e... Stuff just happened a lot of the time. One less roll with many spells speeds things up a little

Yep...same deal with 2e, similar HP to damage ratio and same spells just going off thing (I think maybe a few more things got saves in 2e, not sure? 2e's the one I played).

My question is if Player's and Creatures do more damage in 5e vs 2e then shouldn't this help offset the higher HP's?

You also don't hit as well on average; both you and enemies will miss more often. Add that to the above points from Tenmujiin and Naanomi, and it will take longer.

But while it is slower, it's not that much slower. AD&D was really, really fast, often at the expense of characters being even remotely survivable, and very much at the expense of non-spellcasting options. 5e, your character is harder to kill (yes, even at first level. Especially at first level. You could end up with 1 or 2 HP on a low roll and died at 0, so one hit and it's roll new character). Fights will take a few rounds longer, and those rounds will last slightly longer, but you're more likely to live through it, and you have tactical options to do but without it getting grindy or boardgamey.

It's not the end of the world for 5th to take the silver medal. It adds some tactical depth but not so much it's a slog. It doesn't drag on and on, and the new movement rules especially help to keep things feeling quick, dirty, and frenzied anyway even if it can take a bit longer on a stopwatch. It's fine. It gets you a similar feel, too, especially if you use some of the initiative variants in the DMG that are basically stripped-down versions of 2e initiative.

ProphetSword

2015-02-20, 08:24 PM

You also don't hit as well on average; both you and enemies will miss more often.

This tends to stop once the characters gain a few levels. In the campaign I'm running, the players are up to level 8. By that point, their proficiency bonus is +3. Even if we assume their main attribute is only 14 (+2), that's a +5 to hit most ACs (and most players will be better off than that and may have magical weapons or implementations to help out).

I have noticed that the ACs don't continue to rise like they did in previous versions of D&D. While some high-caliber monsters and legendary beasts will have high ACs, most of them will still fall in the average AC range of 13-17. Even if the player only has a +5 total to hit them, that means they hit on an average range of 8-12, which isn't bad.

In my campaign party, the average to hit is closer to +7 or +8, meaning I see players hit more frequently in the range of 5-9. So, they don't miss that often.

Same is true of monsters. They are frequently fighting monsters that have an average of +9 to hit. Most of the party has an AC of 16, so monsters are seeing hits on a 7 or better (65% of the time). Even the one guy in the party who has an AC of 22 gets hit frequently by these monsters, as they only need a 13 or better. This changes, of course, if the party is fighting lower level monsters. But that's part of what makes lower level monsters a little bit less dangerous.

It's also why 5e monsters and characters have higher hit points. You start to see hits more frequently. It's represents the characters growing in power and the monsters becoming deadly. I think there are more misses in the beginning to give the characters a fighting chance and to make the monsters a bit more challenging.

So, it all kind of evens out.

MeeposFire

2015-02-20, 08:50 PM

Warriors hit less often in 5e but all other classes hit more often and in some cases like the rogues and bards they hit much more often than their counterparts in 2e.

Also magic tends to be more effective in 5e. 2e saves at the higher end of the game tended to be more solid than 5e saves though low levels may benefit 5e (this may take some more research to bear out however).

obryn

2015-02-20, 09:19 PM

This is very much a function of level, and different editions have different curves.

Warriors hit less often in 5e but all other classes hit more often and in some cases like the rogues and bards they hit much more often than their counterparts in 2e.
Hmm? A character in AD&D has - absent any attack modifiers - a 50% chance at best to hit an unarmored opponent with no AC. And it improves really slowly.

ProphetSword

2015-02-20, 09:26 PM

Hmm? A character in AD&D has - absent any attack modifiers - a 50% chance at best to hit an unarmored opponent with no AC. And it improves really slowly.

A character in 5e has - absent any attack modifiers - only a 50% chance to hit an unarmored opponent with no Dexterity modifier. It goes to 40% if they use a proficient weapon. It doesn't change until 5th level, when they pick up a +5% chance...but only with the proficient weapon. It remains at 50% otherwise.

JAL_1138

2015-02-20, 10:07 PM

snip

True, it's not like 5e characters are flailing incompetently. You still hit fine, like you say the ACs not getting much higher tends to help out there too. The 2e Fighter's THAC0 was just plain beastly, though, especially with good stats and/or the right buffs or items, and for spellcasters a lot of their spells just went off if you managed to cast them without interruption or spell failure. I feel like the accuracy difference gets magnified by the relatively low HPs in 2e, too--each hit is worth more in terms of killing something.

That said I don't think it's so much slower it's any kind of problem. If a 10 minute fight takes 15 now but still feels fast and fun and gives a couple more options, combat speed's not an issue.

MeeposFire

2015-02-20, 10:35 PM

This is very much a function of level, and different editions have different curves.

Hmm? A character in AD&D has - absent any attack modifiers - a 50% chance at best to hit an unarmored opponent with no AC. And it improves really slowly.

At higher levels 2e warriors get up to near auto hit territory on their own. Yes at the start you are very weak but they gain a lot over 20 levels in effective attack bonus. 5e characters change less though they granted don't need to as much but still are highly unlikely to hit the relative hit rates of higher level AD&D.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-20, 11:14 PM

Every class in 5e gets a +2 to hit at level 1 that is better then 2e. Plus that is better then most 2e classes at 2nd level.

Plus you can use dex to hit with some melee weapons in 5e

And you get a +1 to hit with a 12 stat and a +3 to hit with only a 16 stat and a +4 with an 18 stat

So at lower levels i would think 5e would have better chances to hit then 2e

Now around level 4 or so a 2nd level Warrior would stat to have a better chance to hit then 5e player characters. However all the other 2e classes would still be trailing.

ProphetSword

2015-02-21, 09:32 AM

Every class in 5e gets a +2 to hit at level 1 that is better then 2e. Plus that is better then most 2e classes at 2nd level.

At low levels, sure. It all starts to even out, though:

2e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 18/25 Strength, +2 Weapon
AC Target: -3 (13 points better than unarmored)
Chance to Hit: 70%
If I did my math right, they would hit on 6 or better (someone can double check it if they like).

5e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 20 Strength, +2 Weapon
AC Target: 23 (13 points better than unarmored)
Chance to Hit: 55%
Less of a chance to hit, even with better strength, as they need a 9 or better.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-21, 10:17 AM

At low levels, sure. It all starts to even out, though:

2e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 18/25 Strength, +2 Weapon
AC Target: -3 (13 points better than unarmored)
Chance to Hit: 70%
If I did my math right, they would hit on 6 or better (someone can double check it if they like).

5e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 20 Strength, +2 Weapon
AC Target: 23 (13 points better than unarmored)
Chance to Hit: 55%
Less of a chance to hit, even with better strength, as they need a 9 or better.

But if a Dragon only has an AC of 22 (22 = -2) then wouldn't it be safe to say most things you will be fighting would have lower AC then that?

While in 2e Dragons had an AC of -11 (-11 = 31)

So even if a 2e character has a higher chance at hitting aren't they also fighting things with better AC

For example the creature that the 2e player is fighting that has an AC of -3 (-3 = 23) what would the AC be on that creature in 5e? Would it be less then 23?

Naanomi

2015-02-21, 10:53 AM

2e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 18/25 Strength, +2 Weapon
AC Target: -3 (13 points better than unarmored)
Chance to Hit: 70%
If I did my math right, they would hit on 6 or better (someone can double check it if they like).

5e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 20 Strength, +2 Weapon
AC Target: 23 (13 points better than unarmored)
Chance to Hit: 55%
Less of a chance to hit, even with better strength, as they need a 9 or better.
A +2 weapon is a little ambitious for 5e I think, I would do the calculations with 2e having a +2/+3 weapon by 15th; but a +1 for 5e. Item relative strength should be part of this calculation too

ProphetSword

2015-02-21, 11:03 AM

But if a Dragon only has an AC of 22 (22 = -2) then wouldn't it be safe to say most things you will be fighting would have lower AC then that?

While in 2e Dragons had an AC of -11 (-11 = 31)

So even if a 2e character has a higher chance at hitting aren't they also fighting things with better AC

For example the creature that the 2e player is fighting that has an AC of -3 (-3 = 23) what would the AC be on that creature in 5e? Would it be less then 23?

That's probably a good point. It's something I didn't take into account in my example. I just picked numbers to show the math. Let's adjust it and say these same fighters are both fighting an Ancient Red Dragon and they're still 15th level.

2e: The dragon has an AC of -11. The fighter has a THAC0 of 6. He gets +1 to hit due to Strength and +2 due to his weapon. So, if I'm doing the math right, it looks like he needs a 15.

5e: The dragon has an AC of 22. The fighter has a +5 proficiency bonus, +5 from strength and +2 from the weapon. So, he needs a 10 to hit.

So yeah, I guess you're right about that. I hadn't accounted for that, and the 5e character will hit more often. But, then again, the hit points are widely different. In 2e, the hit points are around 102, but in 5e they are 546. It's an epic battle though, so I expect the hit points will be high for the dragon...it's not a trivial fight.

But, here's where it gets interesting...let's make these same fighters 1st level, give them no magical weapon and an 18 strength:

2e: Dragon has AC of -11. At 1st level, fighter has THAC0 of 20 (I think, going by memory). He gets +1 for his Strength. He needs a natural 20 to hit the dragon.

5e: Dragon has AC of 22. 1st level fighter has +2 proficiency bonus and +4 from Strength, giving a +6. He hits that same dragon on a 16 or better.

But, that was done for a reason. If a 1st level fighter joins a bunch of villagers in an attempt to drive a dragon off that's attacking the village, he's supposed to have a chance to hit. He won't be a threat to the dragon by himself, but he can be part of a threat in a group of people that will make the dragon think twice. In 2e, that notion is a joke. So, I wouldn't say that 5e characters are more powerful (one hit from the dragon will still kill him), but it's more realistic in the sense that things aren't ridiculously hard to hit.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-21, 11:11 AM

in 2e the fighter would also have a +1 to hit from weapon specialization, however it still wouldn't be enough. I just wanted to point it out before some else did.

And even if the 2e fighter some how got lucky and rolled an 18/00 STR that would only be +2 more to hit if I am remembering it right.

So the two together would be another +3 to hit making is so the level 15 2e fighter only needing an 12 which is still behind the 5e fighter even with a STR of 18/00

JAL_1138

2015-02-21, 11:12 AM

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-21, 11:25 AM

However, a 20th level Fighter with no Str bonus, no specialization, and no magic weapon hits them on a 12 or better. 1-(roll+bonus) = ac you hit, so 1-12 = -11. A Fighter with a Belt of Giant Strength or a good buff spell or three, and a good magic weapon, is gonna do better than that.

First the STR you can have with out spells or magical items 2e vs 5e is a thing you have to really count. Because anyone playing in those editions could get that without any help from the DM. On the other hand counting on a magical item you may never get isn't something everyone will have a good chance to get.

They may be playing in a low to no magical campaign and even if they aren't the chances of randomly rolling up the item you need is very rare. So unless your DM is going to make an item for you and/or hand it to you in an adventure it is very unlikely that you will get it.

I know I for one never made up items for players. I always randomly rolled them up in the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG.

As for buffs not ever DM hands out scrolls and buffs without having player characters in the party for can cast the spell. I know I for one never had item shops where you could buy magical items or scrolls. Nor did I have people standing about in town to just cast what buffs my players would love to have on them.

But then again I do not play RPG's to power game. I play it for the RP and the random chance you might get something really really cool.

JAL_1138

2015-02-21, 11:46 AM

First the STR you can have with out spells or magical items 2e vs 5e is a thing you have to really count. Because anyone playing in those editions could get that without any help from the DM. On the other hand counting on a magical item you may never get isn't something everyone will have a good chance to get.

They may be playing in a low to no magical campaign and even if they aren't the chances of randomly rolling up the item you need is very rare. So unless your DM is going to make an item for you and/or hand it to you in an adventure it is very unlikely that you will get it.

I know I for one never made up items for players. I always randomly rolled them up in the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG.

As for buffs not ever DM hands out scrolls and buffs without having player characters in the party for can cast the spell. I know I for one never had item shops where you could buy magical items or scrolls. Nor did I have people standing about in town to just cast what buffs my players would love to have on them.

But then again I do not play RPG's to power game. I play it for the RP and the random chance you might get something really really cool.

I don't play to powergame either, but those came up a LOT in published modules, or it seemed to me they did. Or Gauntlets of Ogre Power.

18/00, +3. Specialization, +1. +1 weapon or better due to system expectations. Hits -11 on 7 or better, 8 if no magic weapons. On an "Old" Red Dragon, closer to 5e's Ancient than the Great Wyrm (AD&D had 12 age categories to 5e's 3), its AC was -7, which you could hit (no MW) with a 4 or better.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-21, 11:57 AM

I was just trying to use the highest AC creature from each edition. I don't know if there is anything with an higher AC then 22 in 5e because I don't have the books sitting here. That said there may or may not be creatures with higher AC in 2e then the -11 I was using.

I was just trying to show that even though 5e can't hit the same AC as a 2e character can they don't need to because the creatures in 5e has lower AC.

Its really nice that a 2e level 20 fighter can have a 1 Thaco but then again he will be trying to hit things with really low AC so he will need it to be any good. Whats the best AC a 2e Character will ever need to hit out of the MM?

While 5e can't hit as good of an AC but they don't need to because everything in 5e has lower AC. Whats the best AC a 5e Character will ever need to hit out of the MM?

ProphetSword

2015-02-21, 12:06 PM

Whats the best AC a 5e Character will ever need to hit out of the MM?

The Tarrasque has an AC of 25.

TrollCapAmerica

2015-02-21, 01:11 PM

JAL_1138

2015-02-21, 01:28 PM

The Tarrasque has an AC of 25.

Big T's AC was only -3 in 2e, so with the +1 weapon needed to damage him and specialization, which you will have by 20, and no Str bonus, you hit him on anything but a nat 1. And you can tear him up in somewhere like 5-6 rounds, fewer if you're dual wielding, assuming he doesn't one-round-kill you--which he probably will--as a lone fighter. Throw in a full party and he's sort of a chump, though.

JAL_1138

2015-02-21, 01:39 PM

I started with good old AD&D. Combat went quickly because there weren't many options. Fighters tried to touch base with an enemy and sword bot them to death Wizards helped the Fighter do that and maybe helped with the couple damage worth casting. Clerics did a sub par version of what the Wizard did while missing his one attack a round half the time and Thieves missed all the time before being mangled in a trap the had a 2/3 chance of disabling at best

Fights in 5E last long because of both higher HP but also more worthwhile options. Similarly 3.5 had high HP too but battles tended to end fast because PC options were so solid

2e thieves could get a 95% base chance of disabling a trap before level 10. Their THAC0 wasn't great, though, I'll give you that one.

My take is that yeah, 5e fights last longer, but it doesn't actually matter, because they're still fast enough it has something of the AD&D feel--the extra options aren't generally a source of slog and the higher HP isn't so ludicrous compared to damage that it gets out of hand. Unless you're sitting there watching the clock you generally won't care because it doesn't drag, it feels like things are happening, compared to (my experience with) 4e, and you're not having to track so many fiddly bits that it feels like it's not moving (my experience with 3.PF).

TrollCapAmerica

2015-02-21, 01:50 PM

2e thieves could get a 95% base chance of disabling a trap before level 10. Their THAC0 wasn't great, though, I'll give you that one.

My take is that yeah, 5e fights last longer, but it doesn't actually matter, because they're still fast enough it has something of the AD&D feel--the extra options aren't generally a source of slog and the higher HP isn't so ludicrous compared to damage that it gets out of hand. Unless you're sitting there watching the clock you generally won't care because it doesn't drag, it feels like things are happening, compared to (my experience with) 4e, and you're not having to track so many fiddly bits that it feels like it's not moving (my experience with 3.PF).

Yeah I'm having fun and exaggerating a bit but there were always problems with Thieves. Specifically getting over 50% to a skill took some work and the most important skills required two rolls ie Find and Remove traps then Hide and Move silently. Failing either one was often a death sentence

Kurald Galain

2015-02-21, 01:53 PM

2e Fighter at 15th level:
Assumptions: 18/25 Strength, +2 Weapon

It is kind of silly to asume that a 15th level fighter in 2E would have only 18/25 strength (it should be at least 18/00, due to items and buff spells, and can go up to 25), or that he would have only a +2 weapon (at that level, +4 or +5 is plausible). Furthermore, you've skipped weapon specialization, or mastery depending on source books used, which can add up to +3 more.

So he hits on a 2+, really.

T.G. Oskar

2015-02-21, 01:57 PM

3.x was dying and 4e was being birthed.
Pathfinder took 3e's death whimpers and plunged the knife straight into its heart.
PF took everything that was broken about 3e and made it worse. I simply do not understand the love that PF gets from people.
Heck, as much as a despise 4e, at least I can understand why some people like it. I can't even do *that* with PF.

I don't like PF either, but that's something even I wouldn't say. Maybe your issue is with 3e itself, and not with Pathfinder?

I mean, there are things that I simply don't like (the change to feats, where martial characters are cheated from extra feat slots just because the traditionally efficient ones were either nerfed or split) and other trifles (such as the Paladin's mark, which I refuse to consider a smite), but there's other stuff that's actually good (I insist on the Inquisitor and Dazing Assault). There's a lot of really horrible feat design, but 3e also had horrible feat design (particularly on fluffy feats, though it's my impression that PF has more horrible fluff-related feats than 3.x, barring Forgotten Realms' Regional feats which are just horrendous). The way they handle character customization is both good and bad; some archetypes are awesome (Sacred Servant for Paladin, Hungry Ghost and Qinggong for Monk, Lore Warden for Fighter), and some are horrible (Warrior of the Holy Light...eww!), but the mechanic behind archetypes (an all-or-nothing approach) is strictly worse than ACFs or racial substitution levels. Race-wise, though, there's far more options.

I always say PF did horizontal improvement rather than vertical improvement: it offered a lot more options, which can be both good or bad, but it didn't fix many of the stuff from 3e that really needed a fix, so on the overall it's not better than 3.5. YMMV on whether it's worse. However, PF mostly placed the rules of 3e on life support, rather than killing them - many people are still playing PF, and by extension playing 3e rules, which is more than what many OSR-based games can boast.

That's probably a good point. It's something I didn't take into account in my example. I just picked numbers to show the math. Let's adjust it and say these same fighters are both fighting an Ancient Red Dragon and they're still 15th level.

2e: The dragon has an AC of -11. The fighter has a THAC0 of 6. He gets +1 to hit due to Strength and +2 due to his weapon. So, if I'm doing the math right, it looks like he needs a 15.

5e: The dragon has an AC of 22. The fighter has a +5 proficiency bonus, +5 from strength and +2 from the weapon. So, he needs a 10 to hit.

So yeah, I guess you're right about that. I hadn't accounted for that, and the 5e character will hit more often. But, then again, the hit points are widely different. In 2e, the hit points are around 102, but in 5e they are 546. It's an epic battle though, so I expect the hit points will be high for the dragon...it's not a trivial fight.

I feel kinda cheated. All you need is really to distinguish the damage between Big T and an Ancient Red Dragon to determine if 2e's Big T is really a chump. Considering that the metric to determine if the 2e Fighter was stronger than a 5e Fighter was using the Tarrasque of both editions, and now I see that the AC comparison wasn't even fair...

JAL_1138

2015-02-21, 02:30 PM

I feel kinda cheated. All you need is really to distinguish the damage between Big T and an Ancient Red Dragon to determine if 2e's Big T is really a chump. Considering that the metric to determine if the 2e Fighter was stronger than a 5e Fighter was using the Tarrasque of both editions, and now I see that the AC comparison wasn't even fair...

If you don't have a bucketload of protection spells up and a ton of healing available, 2e Big T eats you. You are dead. The end. Roll new character. If you do, 2e Big T is a chump to a 20th-level fighter with good party support and a wizard with Wish available to kill it for good.

calebrus

2015-02-21, 02:46 PM

If you don't have a bucketload of protection spells up and a ton of healing available, 2e Big T eats you. You are dead. The end. Roll new character. If you do, 2e Big T is a chump to a 20th-level fighter with good party support and a wizard with Wish available to kill it for good.

I played 2e for years. And years and years and years.
I never got any character higher than 16th level.
But then again, in our game way back then, when your character died you rolled a new one. And I don't mean a new character of equal or appropriate level to the rest of the party. If you died, you rolled a level 1 character and joined with the rest of the party regardless of their level.
It was a lot more fun than it sounds.

With bounded accuracy, I actually plan on doing that again for 5e once we're done running the current game and my turn behind the screen starts.

JAL_1138

2015-02-21, 03:23 PM

I played 2e for years. And years and years and years.
I never got any character higher than 16th level.
But then again, in our game way back then, when your character died you rolled a new one. And I don't mean a new character of equal or appropriate level to the rest of the party. If you died, you rolled a level 1 character and joined with the rest of the party regardless of their level.
It was a lot more fun than it sounds.

With bounded accuracy, I actually plan on doing that again for 5e once we're done running the current game and my turn behind the screen starts.

I've played 2e that way--we usually brought the new guy in at lower level but not level one, but I've done it. It resulted in a wonderfully hilarious string of horrible deaths to common critters (goat, housecat, dog, squirrel, etc) until I stopped trying to play Wizards. And I'll confess, I never made it to 20 either.

Psikerlord

2015-02-23, 05:55 AM

I bet the combat in 2E and 5E is nowhere near as long as it is in 4E. For whatever reason it usually takes ~45 minutes or more to run a combat. When I ran a quick intro game session to 5E the combats were ~15 minutes long which seems like a huge improvement.

Yes this is my impression too. Most 5e combats are ime between about 10 mins to 1/2 hour. For 2e... it's been a long while... but about the same? Faster perhaps sometimes due to more powerful save or die spells ending combats quicker (eg lucky hold person getting 4 creatures = fight over, or stinking cloud paralysis = fight over). Also didnt have the higher level HP bloat 5e has.

3e the average fight took about an hour from memory. For us our 4e fights took at least an hour, big fights two hours.

Speedy 5e Totm combat is the primary attraction of 5e for me. It means I can do surprise side trek combats at the drop of a hat, and still fit in heaps of exploring/social interaction/etc. Love it.

PS- on the "to hit" chance issue, Ime players hit a lot, most of the time in fact, even from low levels. Monster ACs are generally pretty low. Add in bless, advantage for prone (or flanking, if you use that rule), a +1 weapon or high rolled stats - and you are hitting 70%+ of the time against the mid ACs (the most common, I think?). Of course, fighters in 2e used to hit on 2's after mid levels, but that was cray cray.

Submortimer

2015-02-24, 12:44 PM

The only reason combat takes forever in the games I run/play in is the group size. I game online with some friends where the party size is generally 6 or so, and at a shop where it shifts between 5 - 7 on any given week. both games are in the level 4-5 range, and most characters have a 20 in their primary stat after the first stat bonus.

Hardly anyone misses in combat. The bonded accuracy thing is really nice in keeping the numbers small and easy to compute, but it does lead to huge HP pools for the bad guys if you want the encounter to be any bit challenging.

Galen

2015-02-24, 03:05 PM

Damage as a percentage of HP is much lower in 5e
I disagree with this.

A 2e Orc deals 1d8 with his weapon.
A typical 2e level one Fighter has 11 hit points.
The Orc deals 41% of the fighter's total health per hit.

A 5e Orc deals 1d12+3 with his weapon.
A typical 5e level one Fighter has 12-13 hit points.
The Orc deals 76% of the fighter's total health per hit.

If anything, 5e combat lasts longer because, even on level one, all classes have options beyond "I roll to-hit once and deal X hit points if I hit, nothing if I miss".

obryn

2015-02-24, 03:50 PM

I disagree with this.

A 2e Orc deals 1d8 with his weapon.
A typical 2e level one Fighter has 11 hit points.
The Orc deals 41% of the fighter's total health per hit.

A 5e Orc deals 1d12+3 with his weapon.
A typical 5e level one Fighter has 12-13 hit points.
The Orc deals 76% of the fighter's total health per hit.

If anything, 5e combat lasts longer because, even on level one, all classes have options beyond "I roll to-hit once and deal X hit points if I hit, nothing if I miss".
A typical 1e/2e Fighter - absent fairly common but still unofficial house rules giving max HP at first level - would have an average of 5-6 hit points before constitution modifiers. Those modifiers start at 14, and it's not as important as your Strength.

A lucky 1e/2e Fighter has 11 hit points. :smallbiggrin:

Galen

2015-02-24, 03:59 PM

A typical 1e/2e Fighter - absent fairly common but still unofficial house rules giving max HP at first level - would have an average of 5-6 hit points before constitution modifiers. Those modifiers start at 14, and it's not as important as your Strength.

A lucky 1e/2e Fighter has 11 hit points. :smallbiggrin:
To be honest, I never played 2e without those rules. And I played 2e for over 5 years, with different groups. Not sure if my personal experience is a reflection.

BTW, even if we give the 2e Fighter only 6 hit points, the Orc deals 75% of his total health per hit. Which is still not more than in 5e. So I view "damage ratio" theory as having been disproved regardless.

TrollCapAmerica

2015-02-24, 04:06 PM

There were all sorts of house rules on HP from"Reroll 1/2s" to "Anything below half HD" to starting at max. It's generally assumed that your rolling normally though

obryn

2015-02-24, 04:09 PM

To be honest, I never played 2e without those rules. And I played 2e for over 5 years, with different groups. Not sure if my personal experience is a reflection.

BTW, even if we give the 2e Fighter only 6 hit points, the Orc deals 75% of his total health per hit. Which is still not more than in 5e. So I view "damage ratio" theory as having been disproved regardless.
Sure, if you're cherry-picking orcs. :smallwink:

Now pick Goblins or Kobolds.

Galen

2015-02-24, 04:36 PM

I picked the first monster than seemed like it's level 1 appropriate that came to mind, but it's about the same conclusion with Kobolds or Goblins.

Knaight

2015-02-24, 06:31 PM

A lot of the AD&D rules ended up not seeing all that much use, with the basic rules being used instead. Warrior types pretty much only had one attack spelled out, and they tended to use them a lot (though ability checks were a thing for doing other stuff). Add how a hit or two tended to take out just about any character that wasn't a Fighter*, how bouncing back from the verge of death at 0 hit points wasn't a thing, and AD&D combat tended to be faster.

*Or "Fighting-Man" to use the term at the time.

Baptor

2015-02-25, 11:43 PM

JAL_1138

2015-02-26, 10:49 AM

AD&D combats are shorter? Not the AD&D I played.

In the 2e AD&D I played combats lasted about an hour, and the epic battle lasted 2. We used to always break for food and such afterwards.

Granted, those battles were amazing, but I don't have time for such things today. Our 5e combats take roughly 10-15 minutes unless its just mooks in which case 5-10.

I can't fathom a one-hour combat in 2e unless you were playing very differently and using different rules variants than I was (and there were a bunch of official ones right in the PHB, before getting into official splats, of which there were also many, so that's far more likely than it sounds). Your 5e combat times are more along the lines of what I experienced with 2e; add about 5-10 minutes depending on opponents to those for my 5e experience thus far, slower if you're timing it but I've got no complaint in practice.

Were you using the "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" splatbook? I'm not deeply familiar with it but I think it did something on the order of bringing back segments / 6-second rounds and expanded combat actions and rules significantly. I don't know what all it had in it so I dunno if it made things quicker or slower TBH. Having a large number of hirelings/followers/henchmen versus a large number of monsters could also really stretch it out just from sheer number of participants.

Tonden Ockay

2015-02-26, 11:16 AM

First 5e is the new supported system which can be nice and less work at times.

I for one really like how 5e multiclass works. I think its better then 2e for a few reasons, one is you don't have to keep track of more than one XP chart per player. (Could save time and less things to keep track of/look up)

There seems to be a lot less charts in 5e than 2e. Stat charts, Saving throw charts, Different class XP charts, advantage/disadvantage charts. So there should be less stuff to look up, which should save some time. (Should save time less things to keep track of/look up)

Class balancing seems to be better in 5e. (Could help when creating encounters)

Casters power has been caped a little in 5e vs 2e. They have gave them less spell slots at high level, lessen some of the damage, and have even taken out some spells all together. (Should help when making higher level encounters)

The classes in 5e have a little more flavor and options to them for players without adding more books to keep track of (like 2e class guides). (Could save sometime and less stuff to read/keep track of)

Any race can be any class and go to any level. Gives player more freedom to be and play what they wont. (no more which race can be what class or if they can go x levels higher because of there stats.

There is no Psionic class yet and when there is I believe the will balance them better with the other caster classes then they did in 2e.

Creatures can be more effective longer in 5e without tweaking/cheating (Could save time headaches)

The d20 system is nice but if your group already knows the your older system then that really isn't that big of a deal.

Some older editions there are some gray rules that people can have a different takes on. Some of the wording in the books aren't very clear and has caused bickering in the past. Some books will say one thing another book says something else.

A few other nice things:

Yet in 5e other classes can have the same chance to hit as a Fighter unlike 2e.

Casters in 5e have more options at lower level so they should be more fun to play.

I did get a 5e PHB and frome what I have read so far I feel the rules are a little clear, the core combat mechanic system seems to be a little more streamlined, with balanced classes. DM's shouldn't need to do a lot of buffing, tweaking, to make creatures stronger for my PC's to fight. From what I have heard about 5e creatures so far, instead of trying to buff them up you may need to debuff them.

I haven't got to play it yet but from what I have seen and read I think 5e has the chance to run a little smoother which in return may make for a faster game mechanic.

There was just so much more stuff to keep track of in older editions that 5e doesn't have. This should just make the game mechanics better for everyone.

Baptor

2015-02-26, 12:29 PM

I can't fathom a one-hour combat in 2e unless you were playing very differently and using different rules variants than I was (and there were a bunch of official ones right in the PHB, before getting into official splats, of which there were also many, so that's far more likely than it sounds). Your 5e combat times are more along the lines of what I experienced with 2e; add about 5-10 minutes depending on opponents to those for my 5e experience thus far, slower if you're timing it but I've got no complaint in practice.

Were you using the "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" splatbook? I'm not deeply familiar with it but I think it did something on the order of bringing back segments / 6-second rounds and expanded combat actions and rules significantly. I don't know what all it had in it so I dunno if it made things quicker or slower TBH. Having a large number of hirelings/followers/henchmen versus a large number of monsters could also really stretch it out just from sheer number of participants.

Hmm let me think. Initiative was rolled each round for each character and monster. Initiative was 1d8+Dex modifier. Weapon speed was a thing. Casting time was a thing. We also had large parties of 8 or so, and the DM had a tendency to throw between 10-20 monsters at us.

In my 5e game we have two players, encounters are typically 2-5 monsters, and we do side initiative.

So yeah a lot going into those figures.

JAL_1138

2015-02-26, 01:11 PM

snip

I'll always like 2e better, but 5e is a very solid second-best to me. I can easily see why someone would like it better than 2e, just the same. 5e fixes a lot of things from older editions, but also introduces things I don't like, or leaves out things I did like, or has frustratingly-poor and/or ambiguous wording in spots. Then again, 2e was a hodgepodge of disjointed rules, unintuitive math, and often very poor layout, that frequently looked at the concept of balance as a feat of acrobatics rather than a design goal. Call it a wash, there.

Especially once I got ahold of the DMG and some of the rules variants in it that bring it even closer to the old days, I've been very pleased with it in the end. I'd go so far as to say it feels like AD&D 3e.*

*Yes, I know that technically, the "D&D" line was dropped completely and the "A" was dropped from "AD&D" for 3.0 and the numbering went from there, but 3rd and 4th (especially 4th) felt like completely different games from the TSR days to me; I never liked either one very much. 5e feels like AD&D, in some nebulous and unquantifiable way, that to me had been missing for a long time.