How Powerful Are Classes From OD&D to 5th Edition?

[ArlEammon]

How powerful are the classes, basically from one another, of the oldest Dungeons and Dragons up to 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons? Including Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder. I know few people care about Fantasy Craft but it fascinates me. I need to know because I'm currently preparing to start a Multiversal Role Play where Dungeons and Dragons is involved.

[UrielAwakened]

I had a discussion about this with a friend before. It depends how you want to judge it.

Flavor wise I feel like 4e characters are the strongest, as epic levels as core to the gameplay experience. The highest leveled characters are expected to die once a day or so and they have mechanics to come back at least that often.

Mechanics wise, 3.5 is the strongest.

[Eric Diaz]

It really depends. Do you mena at first level? Level 15? At maximum level, which changes from edition to edition?

Are they fighting against an orc? Or falling from 100 feet height? Are they starving?

Are you comparing their might against a dragon of appropriate CR, or against a 1st level foe when they are level 20? Are you measuring per day, per week, or per encounter?

Anyway, there are innumerable variables. Overall, I feel 5e toned down most classes. In 4e and 3e PCs seem to be more powerful (although 4e has a strange thing where DCs can raise with level, making power level somewhat static). TSR-D&D characters can become powerful, but they heal very slowly, so they are frailer when hurt.

Great comparison between PF (3e) and 5e here (https://screamsheet.wordpress.com/2016/10/11/dd-and-pathfinder-whats-the-difference/).

EDIT: corrected typo.

[UrielAwakened]

PCs in 5e actually seem comparatively weaker than 3.5 and 4e.

A 4e level 30 character is essentially immune to anything weaker than level 25 just with the way accuracy scales, and will have like two ability scores equivalent to that of a god.

And 4e DCs don't work that way. The average DC of things you should be rolling to do scale, but it's sort of assumed that you stop bothering to roll on things like breaking down wooden doors once you hit paragon tier. Those DCs are for things that should be a challenge to you, not all tasks.

In fact, half-level being added to everything means even a Wizard with a Strength of 10 can easily jump 15 feet by 30th level, or a level 30 Fighter knows more about arcana than a 1st-level wizard. Which to me actually makes a ton of sense. You can't adventure that long without picking up a few tricks and knowledge along the way.

[Anonymouswizard]

At the weakest are the OD&D classes. Except for spells you get basically no abilities.

Very slightly higher are the BECM classes. Still relatively weak, but characters start to get slightly more abilities, especially once they hit Name Level.

Then you get the AD&D classes. More abilities and so more power, but less so.

In 3.X classes are at two ends of the spectrum. Martials are arguably worse off than ever, while casters are more powerful.

In 4e classes changed radically, but end up somewhere between 3.X's two extremes. I can't really comment exactly rare.

5e classes are generally better than AD&D classes, without hitting the levels of 3.X's powerhouses.

[Eric Diaz]

PCs in 5e actually seem comparatively weaker than 3.5 and 4e.

A 4e level 30 character is essentially immune to anything weaker than level 25 just with the way accuracy scales, and will have like two ability scores equivalent to that of a god.

And 4e DCs don't work that way. The average DC of things you should be rolling to do scale, but it's sort of assumed that you stop bothering to roll on things like breaking down wooden doors once you hit paragon tier. Those DCs are for things that should be a challenge to you, not all tasks.

In fact, half-level being added to everything means even a Wizard with a Strength of 10 can easily jump 15 feet by 30th level.

Yeah, exactly. 3e/4e characters feel much more powerful.

About page 42, everyone has their own take... IMO the way it is explained makes you think you should scale DCs, but IMMV and all.

If the action is related to a skill... use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere inbetween. A rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10/15/20 for easy/moderate/hard and add half the player's level.

EDIT: just realized I mentioned "4e and 5e" instead of "4e and 3e", above - fixed it! I completely agree with you that 5e PCs seem weaker.

[DeathEatsCurry]

Pretty sure Wizards have always been on top of the pile, with their weakest moment probably being in 4e. Not so much because they were weak, but because the PHB classes were pretty damn balanced.

[Honest Tiefling]

Pretty sure Wizards have always been on top of the pile, with their weakest moment probably being in 4e. Not so much because they were weak, but because the PHB classes were pretty damn balanced.

I'm going to agree with most of this. The problem in 4e wasn't so much class balance, but getting supplemental materials. Wizards got a lot of extra goodies, especially the racial feats and extra powers. Seeker? Not so much.

Given your area of interest, perhaps it would also be important to take into account the setting? I mean, Eberron seems to have a lower level of play for NPCs and PCs, Planescape has the Lady of Blades which is one lady you don't want to mess around with, and Forgotten Realms treats balance the same way a dragon treats a limping dragonslayer covered in BBQ sauce.

[toapat]

Numerically, power is generally a bit varied between editions and what goes where

For casters:
#1: 2e
#2: 3e
#3: 5e
#4: 4e
#5: Odnd

Generally speaking, for how absurdly powerful 3.5 casters are, and their exploits certainly surpass anything in all other editions, the average power of spells in 3.5 is still reduced from 2nd ed, where a lvl 20 caster is omnipotent, while a 3.5 caster is borderline omnipotent

For Mundane
#1: 3.5
#2: 4e
#3: 5e
#4: odnd
#5: 2nd

Due to damage stacking, and then just mechanical refinement, 3.5 is when mundanes were truly their most powerful. with attacks throwing more dice than the highest health enemies with stats have hp, massive damage multipliers, and general exploits, Mundanes were at their strongest in 3.5

4E kept alot of the functional power without making them underpowered, although numbers are more predictable and much higher in 4e when compared to 5e. Odnd and 2nd ed come mostly down to just how terribly more powerful casters are in those editions

[SharkForce]

hmmm... i feel like you're undervaluing 2nd edition warriors. to really reach their pinnacle, they definitely want some support (spells or magic items to increase their abilites), but they get quite scary in their own way.

a high level warrior with good items can face tank a lot of things and while their damage numbers don't get as crazy, they put up very impressive numbers when you compare it to the health pools of targets in that edition.

a level 7 fighter can be fairly easily doing 1d8 + 8 (plus any magical weapon bonus) twice per round and hitting essentially every single time, which is basically 3 hit dice worth of damage per hit. and that's presuming one buff (strength) with a good attribute roll. start mixing in spells like haste, bless, prayer, enlarge, emotion, etc, and you can watch them chew through an adult dragon in 1 round*. now, certainly that is partly due to how other classes work, but a big part of it is that it was well worth it to buff the fighter. you can't just look at the class in isolation, you have to consider the class in comparison to the world.


* the math, if you like, presuming appropriate preparation; haste, prayer, strength spell, good starting strength (won't assume 18/00 after spell, but will presume +5 bonus to damage), +1 weapons, enlarge as a level 7 spell, and some accuracy-boosting spells that don't increase damage, but just be advised, 2nd edition fighters hit the great majority of the time once they get a few levels under their belt.

long sword: 1d12 + 1 * 1.7 (enlarge) = 12.75 damage (average).

add in specialization +2 damage, prayer +1 damage, and +5 from strength, and you have 20.75 average damage per hit.

with haste, this character gets 4 attacks per round.

a 16 HD monster will have an average of 72 hit points. that's around young adult to adult dragon hit dice for most types. looking above, if that fighter hits 4 times, they have just solo'd an adult dragon in one round. if they have a +2 or +3 weapon instead of +1, or some other good bonuses to damage, it can get even scarier (or, alternately, have them specced for damage instead of defense by dual-wielding or using a two-handed sword, which does 3d6 to large creatures, and they can likely afford to miss once). now don't get me wrong, i understand that a 4e fighter was pretty impressive in their own way; they had a lot more abilities, and had a lot more variety in abilities. but i need to be clear on this: a 2nd edition fighter might not do a ton of different things, but they had a heck of a lot of raw power in the one thing they did well.

it is also worth mentioning that their wizard friend, who does indeed get quite impressive especially in the late game, will at level 20 probably be boasting a whopping 55 hit points (presuming good con; without good con, expect only 35 HP). so while the cannon portion of the glass cannon is exaggerated compared to other editions, the glass portion of the glass cannon is also exaggerated.

[toapat]

hmmm... i feel like you're undervaluing 2nd edition warriors. to really reach their pinnacle, they definitely want some support (spells or magic items to increase their abilites), but they get quite scary in their own way.

Ok, your math appears solid, and i kinda agree with it, it has definite merit

But, i will note that i was basing the power of mundanes below that of 5th edition on the differential overpoweredness of spellcasting. Second Edition DnD;s one fact i think people will not deny, is that spellcasting in 2nd Ed was incredibly powerful, outright moreso than the sum total of jank in the subsequent 5 editions combined

and thats saying something because 3.5 DnD has absurdly imbalanced action economy, and spellcasters who become virtual deities.

[Asmotherion]

I would not include 4e in the compareson, since IMO it's mechanically very different. It does not include resource managment/actions/death and resurection the same way other editions of D&D do, so I won't include it in this comparison.

3.5e had a lot of options, and you were expected to optimise in order to survive. A common meleetia would have an NPC class of the PCs level, so the PCs wouldn't feel that special in most cases.

5e does not force that onto you; it's a choice you make. On the other hand, being a leveled character makes you far above any commoner, so in reguards to that, you are more powerful.

2e was not very well balanced, and in favor of casters; I have limited experiance with 2e, but that's the general feeling I got from it by playing in a Dark Sun one-Shot as a Defiler, and feedback I got from other players who played more in that system. "All you had to do is make a caster and you were overpowered" they told me (I am not sure how true it is, I am just cross referencing that to my personal experiance playing a Defiler in 2e Dark Sun, which was indeed very powerfull, and giving a general feedback).

I have no oppinion on 1e as I have never had the chance to play in it, but from what I have heard 5e was looselly based on it, so the "general feeling" should be the same I guess? That's all the information I can provide, sorry for the inconviniance.

[SharkForce]

Ok, your math appears solid, and i kinda agree with it, it has definite merit

But, i will note that i was basing the power of mundanes below that of 5th edition on the differential overpoweredness of spellcasting. Second Edition DnD;s one fact i think people will not deny, is that spellcasting in 2nd Ed was incredibly powerful, outright moreso than the sum total of jank in the subsequent 5 editions combined

and thats saying something because 3.5 DnD has absurdly imbalanced action economy, and spellcasters who become virtual deities.

*shrug* i'm not sold on wizards getting more OP than 3.x wizards. 3.x wizards have a lot of advantages; no limits on numbers of spells known, far more spell slots, massively superior hit points, enemies don't get saves that scale to absurd levels (2nd edition enemies by default use the fighter save table. which starts off terrible, but gets gradually to be the best save table in the game. practically speaking, in 2nd edition, a 20 hit die creature saves on a 6+ for their *worst* save (3 in their best). roughly speaking, they need about 1 higher for every 2 fewer hit dice. in 3.x, a typical high CR creature facing an optimized wizard probably needed to roll a 20 in their worst save, maybe as much as 10 or 12 in their best save.

this is not to say that nothing was more favourable for 2nd edition wizards, but really, 3.x wizards were probably several times more powerful in relative terms. there are 2nd edition enemies that 2nd edition wizards will struggle with if they don't have help, and running out of spell slots was a major concern because you didn't get bonus slots from high attributes. a 3.x wizard can probably deal with most encounters with 1-2 spell slots each, and have a ton of spell slots to spare, without breaking a sweat. and honestly, some of those encounters might be solved with spell slots that were spent long ago.

[Honest Tiefling]

2e was not very well balanced, and in favor of casters; I have limited experiance with 2e, but that's the general feeling I got from it by playing in a Dark Sun one-Shot as a Defiler, and feedback I got from other players who played more in that system. "All you had to do is make a caster and you were overpowered" they told me (I am not sure how true it is, I am just cross referencing that to my personal experiance playing a Defiler in 2e Dark Sun, which was indeed very powerfull, and giving a general feedback).

If certain controversial internet comedians can be trusted, second edition very much has a idea that if you survived as a caster with one spell and made it to higher levels, you earned your OPness. My experience with Baldur's Gate leads me to believe this might be true.

FEAR MY SINGLE SPELL, DOERS OF STUFF I DON'T LIKE!

[SharkForce]

well, no wonder you thought it was OP if you played a defiler. they get the most powerful ability in the game when it comes to spellcasters: a large reduction in XP table (no joke, the group i play 2nd edition with uses custom made classes, and after seeing what it looks like when you don't pick a bunch of abilities to increase the cost of your wizard, nobody ever does anything else). also if you were playing with revised dark sun (which most people who like dark sun despise), i'm pretty sure the person who redid that one hates everything except wizards, because it was so badly balanced it isn't even funny. with high intelligence (and with attribute generation in dark sun being what it was, high intelligence is easy to get), you could wind up with as many as 3 extra spell slots of each spell level. meanwhile everything else got nerfed to oblivion. actually, it was a lot like 3.x that way...

so, if that was the case, well... that isn't a typical experience.

now, eventually, wizards certainly get to become ridiculous in 2nd edition. but we're talking more like how it is in 5e where you still have some limitations, and you probably don't really get ridiculous until mid-teen levels.

by which point, i remind you, a fighter could probably 1v1 an adult dragon and kill it in 1-2 rounds presuming decent magic equipment, so it isn't like they're completely useless chumps either.

[Dimers]

Numerically, power is generally a bit varied between editions and what goes where

For casters:
#1: 2e
#2: 3e
#3: 5e
#4: 4e
#5: Odnd

Generally speaking, for how absurdly powerful 3.5 casters are, and their exploits certainly surpass anything in all other editions, the average power of spells in 3.5 is still reduced from 2nd ed, where a lvl 20 caster is omnipotent, while a 3.5 caster is borderline omnipotent

For Mundane
#1: 3.5
#2: 4e
#3: 5e
#4: odnd
#5: 2nd

Due to damage stacking, and then just mechanical refinement, 3.5 is when mundanes were truly their most powerful. with attacks throwing more dice than the highest health enemies with stats have hp, massive damage multipliers, and general exploits, Mundanes were at their strongest in 3.5

4E kept alot of the functional power without making them underpowered, although numbers are more predictable and much higher in 4e when compared to 5e. Odnd and 2nd ed come mostly down to just how terribly more powerful casters are in those editions

I disagree about casters. Using all of each system's resources as written, 3.X casters are far more potent than 2e, because of

combinations of things that weren't really meant to be combined
non-permission-based item creation
the difference in saving throws and SR between the two editions
many of the best 2e spells having serious drawbacks built-in
bonus spells per day and quicker/easier regaining
clerics getting 9th-level effects :smallwink: ...


But more than anything else, 3.X has the advantage over 2e because of the reduced decision-making role of the DM. Much more is spelled-out (no pun intended), much more has specific and firm game meanings, so much more is within the player's control.

I have no experience with Pathfinder or OD&D, but the rest I'd rank 3e, 2e, 5e, 4e.

With 'mundanes' the answer isn't clear. 4e martial characters had control options and noncombat utility that I would prefer over 3rd-ed's massive damage, and essentially every 4e ability worked regardless of creature size/type, unlike 3rd-ed's control options (tripping and such). Yes you can knock a Gargantuan gelatinous cube prone, no you shouldn't ask why :smallwink: OTOH the Tome of Battle gave some of that nice stuff to 3rd-ed mundanes too. Random wealth favored 2e warriors over other classes, and so did the saving throw chart -- the warrior column was best or second best in every category. But 'mundanes' also includes 2e thieves, which really get the short end of the stick ...

I'd say for combat-type mundanes, 4e has a small edge, with 5e, 2e and 3e approximately tied (though very different from each other). Sneaky skilled types, I'd still put 4e first, then 5e just edging out 3e, with 2e limping along miles behind.

[toapat]

*Snip*

Basically, the problem with comparing 2R casters to 3.5 casters is 3.5 has incredibly powerful exploits, but the spells in second edition just dont care about balance at all. like at 3rd spell level, casters have a combat teleportation circle in 2nd.

the problem with "built in mechanical support" for 4th edition, is the most powerful crowd control effect the opponent or you can utilize is to kill your enemies.

[SharkForce]

Basically, the problem with comparing 2R casters to 3.5 casters is 3.5 has incredibly powerful exploits, but the spells in second edition just dont care about balance at all. like at 3rd spell level, casters have a combat teleportation circle in 2nd.

the problem with "built in mechanical support" for 4th edition, is the most powerful crowd control effect the opponent or you can utilize is to kill your enemies.

mmm... i don't think 2nd has a teleport of any sort until dimension door at level 4, and, well... you can't do anything when you come out of it, so use in teleport (edit: combat) is somewhat limited.

don't get me wrong. 2nd edition has some broken spells. but i'm pretty sure low-level combat teleports are not in that list last i checked.

[MeeposFire]

I do not feel that any AD&D caster is more powerful on the whole than a 3e caster. 3e eliminated many drawbacks (larger XP tables, spells with major drawbacks remember spells like haste had a chance to kill you every time you use it since it aged you and being magically aged meant you had to roll a system shock roll) and really increased your endurance. Not just in basic ways like having more HP (no limit to your con bonus) but in that getting bonuses were easier and expected and you would get a bunch of bonus spells from all sorts of things and easy and expected access to items that could cast spells meaning you did not have to cast spells yourself more often. It was very common to use wands of things like cure light wounds (or lesser vigor if you want to be more efficient) to cheaply pay for long term out of combat healing rather than using spell slots. Creating items is easier and cheaper and expected.

Besides I do not recall anything in 2e that really competes with things like Pun Pun and the dirty tricks stuff. Yea they had broken spells but 3e also has plenty of those too so realizing that I think 3e has the edge in that it is easier to break and more likely heck 3e should win because those early level wizards are far more likely to live to do something powerful where doing that with a 2e wizard can be pretty tough at times.

This is also not taking into consideration things like how saving throws were easier to make eventually for most classes in 2e while in 3e casters are much more likely to succeed using SoD type spells which I would not trust in AD&D at higher levels unless using it on a large group. This is also ignoring that getting the ability scores required to actually cast any of those higher level spells required more luck or effort in 2e since there are no standard ways of permanently raising your int score by default while in 3e every wizard character that had a 14 or better starting int would eventually be able to cast 9th level spells if they so chose to go that route (and if you start with less than a 14 in int you are either not playing a primary wizard or doing something very niche).

[Trey Bright]

How powerful are the classes, basically from one another, of the oldest Dungeons and Dragons up to 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons? Including Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder. I know few people care about Fantasy Craft but it fascinates me. I need to know because I'm currently preparing to start a Multiversal Role Play where Dungeons and Dragons is involved.

I believe that w/o min-maxing, 4e is the most powerful. They're innately made to balance everything, but also make you feel like a super hero. I think that 5e comes in just bellow 4e by a little bit. 5e is also fairly balanced, but to feel more classic d&d and less super. Now, 3e and 3.5. That's a mess. If you have no idea what you're doing, depending on what you're playing, you could have trouble with a group of kobolds, or easily wipe armies off the face of the plane w/o breaking a sweat. 3.5 is soooooo broken that it easily can make the most powerful characters possible, but you have to know what you're doing. I don't know much about 1e and 2e or AD&D, so I can't really comment on them, and I've only played a handful of hours in 4e so I might wrong in my assessment? But to the best of my knowledge right now, that's how things stand I think.

[MeeposFire]

I believe that w/o min-maxing, 4e is the most powerful. They're innately made to balance everything, but also make you feel like a super hero. I think that 5e comes in just bellow 4e by a little bit. 5e is also fairly balanced, but to feel more classic d&d and less super. Now, 3e and 3.5. That's a mess. If you have no idea what you're doing, depending on what you're playing, you could have trouble with a group of kobolds, or easily wipe armies off the face of the plane w/o breaking a sweat. 3.5 is soooooo broken that it easily can make the most powerful characters possible, but you have to know what you're doing. I don't know much about 1e and 2e or AD&D, so I can't really comment on them, and I've only played a handful of hours in 4e so I might wrong in my assessment? But to the best of my knowledge right now, that's how things stand I think.

4e has a very powerful low end of optimization (oddly the essentials classes in particular are good for this) so they feel very solid at normal levels of optimization (as in making sure you have the right ability scores for a class and you take decent powers and feats for that class). This makes the very survivable and usable but while there is differences in levels of eventual power in 4e classes at the high end of power they only get either bigger numbers or more of the better status effects.

3e and even AD&D/older versions of the game had far more potential power to them though they were not always better for the common player.