Things that were true in earlier editions that aren't in 3.5 [Archive]

Seward

2022-04-04, 10:29 AM

So, we all know how editions change and things morph and whatnot, but what was true in previous versions of DnD that just aren't anymore?

1. Skill points.

in AD&D, only rogues, monks and assassins actually got skills, and disguise was limited to assassins only, a class feature rather than a skill.

"We had optional nonweapon proficiencies (like leatherworking or jeweler) from the DMG random table and we liked it! And we walked to the dungeon uphill both ways in snowstorms WITHOUT fripperies like cold weather clothing on the equipment chart!"

2. Time
A combat round was a FULL MINUTE, with spellcasting taking from 6 seconds to 54 seconds on average (1 "segment" per spell level typicall), allowing interruption of anything that took more than one segment to cast. Initiative separated you in segments based on how different the die roll was, so powerful spells were tricky to get off.

And remember, no skills. No mechanic like concentration. Take 1hp damage, spell lost.

They tried to do something similar with weapon speeds to let dagger weilder strike before weapon users but like the "weapon vs armor type" charts and grapple rules, nobody used them (grapple was an entirely different minigame from normal combat. So was psionic combat, which fought a turn worth of actions in a single segment...which leads to)

3. Psionics.
Anybody could be psionic, you just had to roll really lucky at character creation, although high mental stats improved your odds a little.

Being psionic meant the GM could randomly make your head explode before anybody could react (psionic critters sensed you even from the etherial plane, could engage you in combat and the battle would be over before anybody could even react, even assuming the attack isn't coming from the etherial plane, where may of them lived). God help you if you were psionic and encountered a mind flayer.

4. Dual classing/Multiclassing/racial level limits
Explicitly created to make humans a more attractive racial option at higher levels, while multiclass nonhumans more popular in the baby levels. Yup, no elf could do magic item creation (because you had to be level 12, and they capped at level 11 in AD&D).

Unless you were a rogue. Then you could be any race but half-orc (and they could get to max assassin level)

By 2nd edition and in most settings this either went away, or the level caps were in the high teens. The weird dual/class vs multiclass mechanic remained and the way hitpoints worked, dual class humans that started with a martial class were about twice as durable as anybody who multiclassed, or came up as single class arcane or thief type.

5 Weapon proficiency
You bought weapons as individuals from your class list. Wizards had "dagger staff or dart" and that was it. Clerics were restricted to a subset of blunt weapons (which excluded sling for some reason in 1st ed). You got more faster if you were in a martial class, you could never be proficient in any weapon outside your class. 2nd edition introduced weapon specialization for fighters only to give them more attacks/damage beyond the basic advantage any martial got vs nonmartial.

6 Followers and Strongholds and henchmen.
Henchmen - the one use for charisma. 18 could have like 15 cohorts, basically, and 8 could have 1 cohort. You recruited them as firsties, were responsible for their equipment etc and if you leveled them you became a party of one+flunkies. Every class at "name" level could also build a stronghold and fill it with followers of various levels to operate it, although those guys were usually too weak to do much except keep random goblin bands from bothering it.

Yes, everybody got leadership for free, at first level. If you got one score early, you could use cash to build an entire party (indeed Village of Hommlet had a couple NPCs working for the bad guys who explicitly did hire everybody at the bar who wasn't a complete goodie-goodie that the party didn't take along, to ambush you at some point preferably while wounded and carrying hard earned loot).

Folks not personally loyal to you were just hirelings. Again, you could hire any type, any number, with piddling amounts of cash, although they were all 1st level, most what we'd consider "NPC classes" now.

7 Training costs.

You didn't get to level just by getting xp. You needed to wander off for 1-4 weeks and pay most of the gold you found (till about name level, then you couldn't do anything with cash so you built a money-pit stronghold) to actually earn the new level. And yes, you stopped earning xp eventually when you pinned without training.

In higher levels they had mechanics to train yourself at 2x cost because finding a higher level trainer when you are near epic is problematic.

8 Experience for gold

There are 2 kinds of gold. Those that can give you experience (stuff you take from enemies by force) and those that just buy things (any other gold earned any other way, or gold you have already got experience for). Given that magic marts of any kind were frowned upon, if you didn't have a friendly crafting NPC who owed you a million favors that gold was absolutely worthless, very much like being late in a CRPG where the vendor shops have nothing more you want. It wasn't even that useful for crafters, who mostly needed rare components gathered by adventuring to make anything.

I had a player (an elf rogue wizard who couldn't advance as wizard anymore) spend her life savings building a dungeon and stocking it with monsters so her kid (another pc half-elf druid) would have a place to level up and challenge the Great Druid for leadership. "Laundering" the gold to "put back experience". It only worked because her son had no idea she'd built an entire dungeon of level-appropriate challenges just for him.

9 Fighting for your levels.

If you are a monk past baby levels, a druid in the last few levels before you can't advance at all, or an assassin in last couple levels before his advancement stops, you have to fight for your level, not just train. Monks single combat, druids free-for-all but still single combat (but can mix in magic and wildshape), assassins, well, you don't become guildmaster without successfully assassinating your better. Straight combat isn't done. Nobody else had to put up with this nonsense, lost the fight and your xp drops and you had to level up again.

I think 2nd edition did away with most of it, and had some kind of advancement tree past level 15 for druids - at least the Balder's Gate computer game did, although there was this weird experience spike you had to pay to get from L15 to L16.

10 Classes.

Basic D&D nonhumans were a class, not a race. So you played a Halfing or Elf, period. If human, Fighting Man, Cleric, Wizard, Thief I think. It's been a while.

AD&D added paladin and ranger to fighter, druid to cleric, illusionist to wizard, assassin to thief, monk and a weird triple-class fighter/thief/druidlike thing called a bard. Stuff like Barbarian came later, late AD&D and 2nd edition.

11 Cantrips and bonus spells
There were no cantrips until Unearthed Arcana (for AD&D) came out. Then cantrips were a 1st level spell that let you prepare 4 weaker effects.

Only clerics got bonus spells for high wisdom, and it only added to L1-4 slots. There were no domain spells, although later editions would sometimes give minor benefits for following specific deities.

Wizards had to roll % dice to learn a spell and if they blew the roll, they could never learn it unless their intelligence raised. There were no magic items to raise stats in the 3.x sense, there were strength items (that replaced strength like wildshape does for a druid) gloves of dexterity which again, I think set your dex to 18 and books, 1 per attribute that would raise a stat by 1 and then vanish. No headbands of intellect or Fox Cunning spells. So if you screwed up fireball % roll, to bad so sad. Also if not 18+ intelligence there was a maximum number of spells you could learn (also a minimum at any stat level from 9+, more important for those with limited spell lists like illusionists and lower mental stats)

12 Level Drain.
Yeah, that was just permanent. Restoration only worked if you got it cast 1 day/character level (like raise dead in 3.x) and there was no secondary save and even if it DID work, you got your xp reset to minimum for your level. It also restored only 1 level, and mid-level undead could drain 2 per touch.

Also restoration was a 7th level spell that incapacitated the cleric for 2d10 days, so good luck with that, even if your own cleric could cast it.

Basically level drain = the GM wants you to become lower level again because higher level play is harder to manage.

If you were actually high level, you sent your henchmen in to take the hits. Actual PC's were even more terrified of anything that drained levels than rust monsters (which also just worked none of this namby-pamby saving throw stuff, hit one with a sword or get hit and your weapon or armor is poof, gone)

13 Saving Throws
Flat target numbers, which meant high level characters or opposition made all saves on a 2, no matter who is casting. Not many things improved saving throws, but they did have protection items from 1-5 and luckstone, and high level pc's would have all of them. Stats and race modified saves a bit, but you needed very extreme stats, most got a +0.

On the other hand blowing a save would just straight up kill you most of the time. Petrification, death effects and poison were lethal or did nothing. Ditto many traps "a 10' block of stone drops on your party. Save vs Petrification or you are smushed" Mostly you went with immunities (like slow poison) 24x7 or you used your henchmen or summons or something to eat those attacks once you were high enough level to be attached to your character.

Scouting was VERY important to avoid as many such hazards as possible. Although sometimes your halfling thief wouldn't notice a pressure plate trap that the heavy armored human set off later. "oops".

14 Wilderness encounters.

Wandering out of town and not going immediately to the local dungeon could lead to an untiered random encounter. You could experience a giant rat or two, or an entire 800 orc tribe, complete with 7-8th level spellcasters a 10th level chief, 8th level lieutenant and a bunch of other martial leaders in the 3-5 level range.

Needless to say, most parties waited till they could afford mounts and were about level 6 before wandering away from their local area.

15 Morale
All those henchmen, hirelings, followers that you use as bullet-sponges for level drain and save or die effects?

Yeah, you gotta treat them right or they'll cut and run, freeze up, panic, sometimes even attack you.

Be lawful, be good, reward them, have a stronghold, heal them when injured, toss them a bonus minor magic item from time to time and generally if you do about 3 of the above they'll be ok in most situation. Also don't torture or kill them (at least that anybody knows about) and a few other things that give big negatives. If you actually raise them from the dead you can usually do about anything and they'll still be slavishly loyal.

Honestly the morale rules were decent and a significant gap in 3.x. If you have leadership, everybody just does what you say, no backtalk, no chance of losing their loyalty and if you don't have leadership, you get no henchpersons or followers period

16. Fireball and Lightning bolt
Fireball Indoors, it conformed to space, no neat 20' spheres. You got 4/3*pi*R*cubed area, and it filled ALL the corridors. Fireballs killed a lot of parties at L5 when the wizard got excited about his new spell. Outdoors the radius was tripled (in yards, not feet) but still if there were terrain features like a cliff wall or the ground or whatever that confined it, the overall area got filled in.

Lightning bolts could bounce off walls and rebound and do their damage twice (or more if you were dumb enough to fire it at the wall in a 10' wide corridor). The old Gold Box games used this mechanic - lets just say fighting blue dragons was freaking dangerous in confined spaces, but mostly it was a player advantage.
====
there's more, but that's enough for now.

Kurald Galain

2022-04-04, 10:36 AM

So, we all know how editions change and things morph and whatnot, but what was true in previous versions of DnD that just aren't anymore?

Random tables!

Although to my knowledge nobody used them, if you drank two potions in quick succession you had to roll on a random table to see if this made you sick, changed your skin color, made one potion permanent, or posion you! If you attack unarmed, you had to roll on a random table to see if you did a haymaker, an elbow chop, or a sucker punch! If you play a Wild Mage, each time you cast a spell there's a chance you have to roll on a random table with completely arbitrary side effects! Great fun for the GM (for the rest of the party... weeeellll...)

Well ok, some of those tables are still there, e.g. the Reincarnate spell and the Deck of Many Things.

Seward

2022-04-04, 10:42 AM

Random tables!

Although to my knowledge nobody used them, if you drank two potions in quick succession you had to roll on a random table to see if this made you sick, changed your skin color, made one potion permanent, or posion you!

I had a PC wizard/rogue (same one who stocked the dungeon for her druid kid) make her long term retirement project a "potion mixing chart", sending her rogue and wizard and rogue/wizard henchpersons out for all the bizzare components you need to create the potions.

I don't remember who she used to experiment on. I am pretty sure it wasn't herself.

Yeah, we used those rules. The results were occasionally entertaining and discouraged potion-stacking before big fights as is typical in CRPGS and some 3.x tables. We ruled that the result was always the same, at least if the same formula was used (some potions had different options for secret ingredients)

Although...god, the longevity potion "secret sauce".
You could use vampire ichor, lich dust or...elf blood.

How many elves got mugged to extend lifespans of ephemeral races (or haste addicts, it aged you a year with each use) is an unknown but large number.

Elves were the only folk who could use haste with impunity, a rare advantage they had over the damn level-unrestricted dual-class abusing humans. Elves were also the only folk who couldn't be raised, and reincarnation tended to be a bummer as they usually turned into a race with a mayfly lifespan. Or a badger.

Akal Saris

2022-04-04, 10:45 AM

One of the big adjustments was how magic items were treated. In previous editions, crafting magic items was the sort of endeavor that involved one or more side quests to gather materials, both physical (like, uh, gorgon scales) and mystical (like 'a bottle of love's first sigh'). It's explicitly supposed to be a harrowing PITA to craft a +1 flaming longsword. As a result, there was a general tendency for players to treat magic items beyond the absolute minimum (i.e., having a magic weapon) as secondary to a character build, since it was so unlikely to find specific weapons that you'd need. Similarly, I remember a veteran player in 2E advised me to have my fighter specialize in longswords because they were more likely to appear in treasure tables than other weapons.

3.5 introduced structured, clear-cut rules for magic item creation and cut out the sidequest elements for almost everything. The upside was that magic items became way more accessible for players, but the downside is that crafting lost a lot of the romance/fun from previous editions. It also introduced a certain sense of entitlement to 'expected' equipment at higher levels. Continuing this trend, I remember being astounded at 4E when I saw that the introductory module told the DM to have the players submit their 'item wish lists' and distribute those exact items in the adventure.

Kurald Galain

2022-04-04, 10:46 AM

So, we all know how editions change and things morph and whatnot, but what was true in previous versions of DnD that just aren't anymore?

Some spells had really weird exceptions or side effects!

Invisibility lasts 24 hours if you don't attack. That's great in any social or city campaign.
Stoneskin and (mage) Armor last indefinitely if you don't get attacked.
Using the Shout spell twice in one day could permanently deafen you!
Using Stone to Flesh had a random chance of killing you!
And as mentioned above, Haste would age you. Although adventurers rarely live long enough for that to be an issue :smallamused:

Seward

2022-04-04, 10:50 AM

Invisibility lasts 24 hours if you don't attack. That's great in any social or city campaign.

Yeah..an earlier plot point with that same rogue/wizard....she paid for training costs (rogues level so fast they exceed expected earned wealth) by selling invisibility spells to the thieves guild.

And actually in early AD&D invisibility had no duration limits if you didn't attack.

Invisibility (Illusion/Phantasm)
Level: 2 Components: V, S, M Range: Touch Casting Time: 2 segments Duration: Special Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: Creature touched
Explanation/Description: This spell causes the recipient to vanish from sight and not be detectable by normal vision or even infravision. Of course, the invisible creature is not magically silenced with respect to noises normal to it. The spell remains In effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she or it attacks any creature.

A couple assassins working for the bad guys found out about this habit of hers and actually BOUGHT the invisiblity spells FROM HER they used to ambush her later. Fortunately for her the other rogue in the party had been following bad guys around invisibly and overheard them laughing about this plan and was on the scene to rescue her.

You could also cast it on somebody with no saving throw, but the recipient could dismiss it at will, so that wasn't as funny as it sounds.

El Dorado

2022-04-04, 10:53 AM

I remember these from second edition. Some carried over from 1e.

1. THAC0. To Hit Armor Class Zero. Lower numbers are better, I think. Be thankful it's no longer a thing.

2. Nonweapon proficiencies. The precursor to skills. Each class started with a few and gained additional ones as they leveled. Some (like weaponsmithing) required a two or three slot investment in order to acquire them.

3. Wizards did not get bonus spells for high Intelligence. You got what the chart said. Wands and staves were even more coveted because of this.

4. Fighters and percentile strength. With an 18 strength, fighters had a chance to get even higher bonuses, with an 18/00 being the most coveted.

5. Experience point bonuses for high stats. If characters had a high enough score in their "prime requisite" stat, they could receive a 10% XP bonus whenever experience points were awarded.

RexDart

2022-04-04, 11:02 AM

3. Wizards did not get bonus spells for high Intelligence. You got what the chart said. Wands and staves were even more coveted because of this.

Also, a wizard with no spells was even more useless (and fragile) than in 3E, and would mostly be hiding or occasionally throwing a dart or trying to poke someone ineffectually with a dagger.

4. Fighters and percentile strength. With an 18 strength, fighters had a chance to get even higher bonuses, with an 18/00 being the most coveted.

Differences in the fundamental laws of our real-life universe interacted with this rule a lot. Random distribution worked differently back then, causing about 90% of PC fighters with 18 strength to also have 18/00! Imagine the odds!

Seward

2022-04-04, 11:23 AM

Differences in the fundamental laws of our real-life universe interacted with this rule a lot. Random distribution worked differently back then, causing about 90% of PC fighters with 18 strength to also have 18/00! Imagine the odds!

The rest were 16 strength for the XP bonus and expected to get Strength spells to get through baby levels (hour/level, added 1d8 (10% after 18 str) for hours and eventually higher level enlarge spell (5min/lvl) a gauntlet of ogre power or girdle of giant strength to reset their strength to appropriate high level.

Given that we mostly rolled dice for stats, you put the 16 where it would let you level faster and for fighters, some help on the strength front was expected. You really could play a 9-15 str fighter, and the only difference between a 16 and a 9-15 was a single point of damage if unbuffed. The 16 was needed more for the xp bonus and getting you in shouting distance of 18 for the strength spell buff.

I really did roll a character with 2 18s and a 15 once. 18/54 strength, 18 con, 15 dex. Sadly he only lasted till level 2. AD&D could be brutal. Stupid Sahaguin nighttime ambush when he was on watch, in a game with no spot or listen skill......Yes, I was traumatized at age 12 by this event, still crystal clear over 40 years later :yuk:

Jervis

2022-04-04, 11:31 AM

The reason fighters were good is that HP values were lower. Con didn’t add much to HP at the time so player hp was also really low.

liquidformat

2022-04-04, 11:45 AM

I have a system that gives armor DR vs PBS at varying levels depending on the armor. Its also for an E6 variant of the game where that sort of thing is most felt. Frankly I agree that its a good thing to help keep up equipment diversity so we all don't wind up laughing at Half Plate for being terrible.

Could you share that I am always interested in finding fun new stuff for E6!

Lord Torath

2022-04-04, 11:46 AM

Jervis

2022-04-04, 12:27 PM

A couple points: In 2E, spell areas of effect did not change from indoors to outdoors. Whoever did that misread the rules.

THAC0 is the same as BAB when you account for lower ACs being better in pre3.0 - a holdover from the wargaming origins where your AC was the number you needed to roll higher than to negate a hit scored on you by an opponent.

Morale rules applied to the bad guys, too! If you took down their boss or killed some of them with magic, they needed to take a morale check to keep fighting, with penalties for how many you'd already killed, how much one side outnumbered the other, etc. Fights were not generally supposed to be to the death.

I’ve actually considered implementing moral rules in 3.5 before. I generally have enemies retreat once a battle seems pointless to continue anyway (I see defeating a enemy and forcing a retreat as mechanically the same in terms of XP awarded). I don’t see a reason taking up extra time when a fight is obviously won. What’s a good way to do that?

Elder_Basilisk

2022-04-04, 12:35 PM

Seward

2022-04-04, 01:02 PM

Also, a wizard with no spells was even more useless (and fragile) than in 3E, and would mostly be hiding or occasionally throwing a dart or trying to poke someone ineffectually with a dagger.

AD&D Level 1 - one spell, no cantrips, no bonus spells. You cast Sleep or Bless and you were done for the day, although the clerics could at least bonk enemies on the head. I mean you could try to swing your quarterstaff, but a dart was safer and you hit about as well and for as much damage as a kobold, and tended to be lower ac and equal or lower hitpoints than said kobold. There is a reason dual classing with a fighter-type chasse for even 1 level was popular with humans, if you had a 15 str and 17 int, and why multiclasses ruled the lower levels.

Wizards especially lived and died by having consumables for long days. Scrolls and wands were a big deal, even in higher levels. Or they'd control the day length with scry and fry tactics. Or have a bunch of apprentices in later levels to cast the party buffs, freeing more slots for the wizard combat duties.

As for morale rules - if running adventures written by others, I always appreciated tactics sections that got into motivations and or even spelled out which enemies were likely to flee, surrender or were fanatical enough/had reason enough to fight to the death just to slow you down a few rounds or drain your resources. Done well, that tended to get pretty good results, but it is an oddly "story game" approach to what in so much of D&D is done with dice. The 1st edition morale system was entirely mechanical "take enough casualties, make the roll, modified by how the minions were treated by superiors, result of morale failure also random", which worked well on battlefields but were sometimes odd in typical PC vs monster encounters.

A blend of both is probably best if you want a morale system. How enemy troops break is somewhat random, although influenced by training and motivation. An enemy may stand fast against impossible odds due to training+orders, or because their family is right behind them and they are desperate. But even if that is normally what they'd do, this stress might be the one that broke their training or they just fell to unreasoning panic for their own life, and felt guilty and awful later about their slaughtered family etc.

Ideally "what the monsters intend to do" and a bit of randomness for "what they actually do if morale breaks" is in order, in line with "tactics monsters intend to employ" and "what actually happens after scout type rolls are made and initial PC actions and abilities interact with said plan".

Arcanist

2022-04-04, 01:48 PM

I’ve actually considered implementing moral rules in 3.5 before. I generally have enemies retreat once a battle seems pointless to continue anyway (I see defeating a enemy and forcing a retreat as mechanically the same in terms of XP awarded). I don’t see a reason taking up extra time when a fight is obviously won. What’s a good way to do that?

Heroes of Battle have morale rules on page 72. Whenever any of the following, an individual creature needs to make a morale check, which is a will saving throw against fear with a DC 20 (with additional modifiers to your saving throw):

Creature takes 50% of its hit points.
Half of your allies have died or been otherwise disabled. This includes paralysis, dead, unconscious, fleeing, or otherwise out of commission.

You make this check on the first round in which any of them are applied. Furthermore, if a creature is Fatigued, Exhausted, Outnumbered 2:1, or Outnumbered 4:1, they take a varying degree of penalty to this check. Likewise, if they Outnumber their opponents either by 2:1 or 4:1, they gain bonuses. Furthermore, being preemptively rallied by can give you a +1 bonus to this check. Poor commanders with low commander ratings and low charisma got penalties when attempting to make rally checks (which you could very likely do in the morning, or before a battle, or what have you), with the ultimate goal of getting them to Heartened for a +1 bonus to morale checks. I can imagine cults and cult leaders making extensive use of the Rally and Morale rules to keep their flock in line. When their churches get attacked, they make use of Bless to keep their own numbers in line and fighting, as well as Bane to demoralize enemies, as well as extensive use of Intimidate, which you could very well just have ranks invested into for the synergy bonus to making Rally checks.

I highly suggest you make this system symmetrical (works on both PCs and NPCs), and you reward PCs (with XP, but if they manage to get away with SOME treasure? Why not?) who are routed and still manage to successfully escape from whatever encounter they were routed from. Likewise, if enemies escape with treasure, you include them for XP rewards, but remove SOME of the treasure they were supposed to leave behind.

Blackhawk748

2022-04-04, 05:24 PM

A couple points: In 2E, spell areas of effect did not change from indoors to outdoors. Whoever did that misread the rules.

THAC0 is the same as BAB when you account for lower ACs being better in pre3.0 - a holdover from the wargaming origins where your AC was the number you needed to roll higher than to negate a hit scored on you by an opponent.

Morale rules applied to the bad guys, too! If you took down their boss or killed some of them with magic, they needed to take a morale check to keep fighting, with penalties for how many you'd already killed, how much one side outnumbered the other, etc. Fights were not generally supposed to be to the death.

Morale rules are great and Im gonna stuff them back into my E6 system. May or may not look at what Heroes of Battle did as a sort of baseline since its a child system of 3.5.

Could you share that I am always interested in finding fun new stuff for E6!

Sure, take into account I massively shortened the Armor and weapons list for setting reasons and that weapons work differently as I wanted more mechanical difference. I stole some of the ideas from...2e I think?

Link (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643095-3-X-Weapon-and-Armor-rework)

MornShine

2022-04-04, 08:42 PM

I'd just like to mention that potion miscibility rules were added (explicitly optional!) for 3.5 in a web article.

SimonMoon6

2022-04-04, 09:57 PM

12 Level Drain.
Yeah, that was just permanent. Restoration only worked if you got it cast 1 day/character level (like raise dead in 3.x) and there was no secondary save and even if it DID work, you got your xp reset to minimum for your level. It also restored only 1 level, and mid-level undead could drain 2 per touch.

A friend of mine used to joke about how if you found a pile of restoration scrolls in a treasure horde, you knew exactly what you were about to be fighting.

But another truly insane thing in 1st edition was alignment languages. Every lawful good (intelligent) creature spoke the Lawful Good language for example. I mean, alignments are sketchy enough anyway as a game concept, but to have them result in languages? It's just insane. Imagine a British guy (who doesn't know Chinese) and a Chinese guy (who doesn't know English) being able to communicate effortlessly because they happen to be the same alignment.

And you can't teach these languages. Nobody can just start learning a language that's not appropriate for their alignment... for reasons.

Seward

2022-04-04, 11:03 PM

A friend of mine used to joke about how if you found a pile of restoration scrolls in a treasure horde, you knew exactly what you were about to be fighting.

Indeed. If I was close to leveling I'd go out solo to kill some wandering monsters and run off to train while the party faced all that potential experience loss :)

"Sorry guys, gotta train! Don't wanna pin on the next level! See you in a couple weeks!"

But another truly insane thing in 1st edition was alignment languages.

Oh, man, I'd blocked that out of my memory. Still in a universe with actual deities, perhaps everybody is imbued with the ability to communicate with similar ethos divinely, which is why you forget your old language and suddenly know a new one if your alignment drifts.

Or you put on a helm of opposite alignment. Always a fun item for keeping the party dynamic exciting, especially if nobody knows except the guy who is now CE instead of LG.

Jervis

2022-04-05, 03:48 AM

A friend of mine used to joke about how if you found a pile of restoration scrolls in a treasure horde, you knew exactly what you were about to be fighting.

But another truly insane thing in 1st edition was alignment languages. Every lawful good (intelligent) creature spoke the Lawful Good language for example. I mean, alignments are sketchy enough anyway as a game concept, but to have them result in languages? It's just insane. Imagine a British guy (who doesn't know Chinese) and a Chinese guy (who doesn't know English) being able to communicate effortlessly because they happen to be the same alignment.

And you can't teach these languages. Nobody can just start learning a language that's not appropriate for their alignment... for reasons.

They communicate by moral grandstanding, it transcends all languages

Jay R

2022-04-05, 04:14 PM

10 Classes.
...
AD&D added paladin and ranger to fighter, druid to cleric, illusionist to wizard, assassin to thief, monk and a weird triple-class fighter/thief/druidlike thing called a bard. Stuff like Barbarian came later, late AD&D and 2nd edition.

Most of these were introduced in original D&D, before AD&D (1977-1979) or Basic (1977).

The paladin and thief were introduced in the first supplement, Greyhawk, in 1975.
The ranger was introduced in The Strategic Review Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1975 (precursor to The Dragon).
The druid was introduced in the third supplement, Eldritch Wizardry, in 1876
The illusionist was introduced in The Strategic Review Vol. 1, No. 4, Winter 1975.
The assassin and monk were introduced in the second supplement, Blackmoor, in 1975

The weird triple-class bard was indeed new to AD&D. The original bard was introduced in The Strategic Review Vol. 2, No. 1, February 1976, but it was nothing like the bizarre bard class in AD&D.

Scots Dragon

2022-04-05, 05:08 PM

There was no such thing as spontaneous casting or the sorcerer class as modern players would understand it. Closest was something called a channeller in Player's Option: Spells & Magic, but that one was a far more outlier case.

tyckspoon

2022-04-05, 05:08 PM

One of the big adjustments was how magic items were treated. In previous editions, crafting magic items was the sort of endeavor that involved one or more side quests to gather materials, both physical (like, uh, gorgon scales) and mystical (like 'a bottle of love's first sigh'). It's explicitly supposed to be a harrowing PITA to craft a +1 flaming longsword. As a result, there was a general tendency for players to treat magic items beyond the absolute minimum (i.e., having a magic weapon) as secondary to a character build, since it was so unlikely to find specific weapons that you'd need. Similarly, I remember a veteran player in 2E advised me to have my fighter specialize in longswords because they were more likely to appear in treasure tables than other weapons...

Which was always rather at odds with the piles and piles of wands, scrolls, and low-level magic items you would find in pretty much every published adventure module. One got the feeling there were NPCs out there that knew the -real- way to make magic items economically and the stuff in the books was just there to keep player characters out and engaged in the business of adventuring rather than trying to set up shop and play merchant.

Scots Dragon

2022-04-05, 05:10 PM

Which was always rather at odds with the piles and piles of wands, scrolls, and low-level magic items you would find in pretty much every published adventure module. One got the feeling there were NPCs out there that knew the -real- way to make magic items economically and the stuff in the books was just there to keep player characters out and engaged in the business of adventuring rather than trying to set up shop and play merchant.

Alternatively it hints that these items are very old, having been produced by generations upon generations of spellcasters.

Blackhawk748

2022-04-05, 05:32 PM

Which was always rather at odds with the piles and piles of wands, scrolls, and low-level magic items you would find in pretty much every published adventure module. One got the feeling there were NPCs out there that knew the -real- way to make magic items economically and the stuff in the books was just there to keep player characters out and engaged in the business of adventuring rather than trying to set up shop and play merchant.

I don't really have an issue with this supposition. I mean, you're playing an Adventurer, obviously you're skills are oriented in that direction, not efficient manufacturing of magical doohickies.

Seward

2022-04-05, 11:28 PM

Most of these were introduced in original D&D, before AD&D (1977-1979) or Basic (1977).
.

My introduction to D&D was the 3 level maximum basic set I think. I did read chainmail and whatnot later (I remember a Conan the Barbarian writeup in one of those pamphlets, a rare one that understood he was a dual class thief/warrior-type not just a straight up "kill em all" martial type).

So yeah, I might have the origins of certain classes wrong.

Alternatively it hints that these items are very old, having been produced by generations upon generations of spellcasters.

With this theory, all of those spellcasters created the consumables "just in case" and then died of old age, never using them. Kind of like how my wife plays CRPGs. I'm an "empty pack at the end means I've used everything and feel good" kinda person, she's a "I fight the final boss with my pack full of stacks of consumables that I bought/found and never used".

Although that tendency did serve her in the one big AD&D campaign I ran that involved her. She was the rogue/thief that saved the party with a moldy scroll of wizard lock that she saved in case it would be useful someday. She did end the campaign with a pack full of random scrolls, but the few she pulled out of the stack always had a big impact. She was more aggressive about using the wands, she was never down to her last wand so probably figured as long as she had a charge left "just in case" was covered.

inuyasha

2022-04-11, 07:22 AM

Oh how could I forget another big one. Barbarians weren't berserkers with rage and whatnot, and were instead rugged tribesmen who were inherently superstitious of magic and who were incredibly resilient and could call up hordes of local barbarians with prep time, at the cost of leveling super slowly. It's a very different kind of playstyle from the modern Barbarian, and one that deserves its own modern equivalent. I think that's kinda cool.

Seward

2022-04-11, 08:58 AM

Barbarians weren't berserkers with rage and whatnot, and were instead rugged tribesmen who were inherently superstitious of magic and who were incredibly resilient and could call up hordes of local barbarians with prep time, at the cost of leveling super slowly.

You could kind of create this, especially if willing to blend Pathfinder 1e and 3.5.

The superstitious archetype in Pathfinder gave strong saving bonuses when raging that scaled as you leveled but made you save against or otherwise resist any spell, friendly or otherwise when raging. Savage Barbarian gave you dodge and natural armor bonuses instead of trapfinding and Dr when not wearing armor (shields are ok). From 3.5 add Vow of Poverty and Leadership plus maybe some leadership enhancers for more followers and you're pretty close, although the parallel isn't exact. Unlike the 1e Unearthed Arcana barbarian you can accept friendly buffs (including mage armor) when not raging, but the feel is pretty good. Given that unearthed arcana barbarians eventually got over their restrictions on using beneficial magic this seems ok.

One interesting thing about the original barbarian is multiclassing/dual classing was strictly forbidden. So probably also any mutting to PRC or otherwise violates the "code of conduct".

Quertus

2022-04-11, 01:43 PM

Here's a few things that stuck out for me:

(Remember, blue text is... uh... "snarky" or something, not meant to be taken seriously)

The game was fun.

Or, rather, the game was more "built for fun", where as 3e was "built for balance".

You didn't think so much about penny copper-pinching. (Most) Wands and such recharged for free (6th level spell and some assembly required, see individual item for details), there was no "magic item shop" economy to worry about, you just got your treasure and figured out what to do with it.

Unlike 3e "Wild" Mages, 2e Wild Surges would do fun things like drop anvils on your target (friend or foe), or create permanent magical items.

And while we're talking about fun fluff, strong callout here to item creation, where things like "butterfly dreams" might be required to craft an item in 2e, whereas 3e's rules are so bland, Milo just crafts items out of salt. :smallamused:

The game was well thought-out.

This... isn't as crazy as it sounds. Compare these two ideas: different XP tables vs "Fighter vs Wizard".

Different XP Tables

Everyone leveled at different times due to different classes using different XP tables (even before dealing with multi- or duel-class timing shenanigans, dividing effective XP gained by 2, 3, 4, or maybe even 6, or reducing effective XP total by an arbitrary amount, respectively).

Those of you who think elegance of design always equates to the simplest solution are likely scratching your heads, trying to figure out how I could possibly be calling this well thought through design.

But you have to picture the scenario: there's no internet, no digital character sheets, and probably only one copy of the books. You get together to play, and...

one player grabs the books, levels their character, and starts the session on an up-beat.

or

everyone waits for their turn for the books. After everyone levels, you check and see if you've got enough time left, if it's worth it to pull out the dice and minis.

Fighter vs. Wizard

It's kinda a meme that (despite the attempted focus on balance) the tier 1 caster classes aren't even remotely balanced with their muggle counterparts in 3e. 'Nuff said?

Even just looking at "balance", older editions had "everyone gets their turn in the spotlight", whereas 3e (purportedly) has "the Wizard always wins".

But, fine, THAC0 vs BAB shows that not everything was all that well thought out in older editions (except for how older THAC0 wasn't just a dumber version of BAB).

There wasn't BadWrongFun "cookie cutter party" requirements.

Yeah, "who's playing the Cleric?" kinda gives voice to that lie.

But still, the mindset was very different when you rolled your stats, and had to deal with prerequisites that those random stats might not meet - you couldn't go in knowing what you were going to play.

Fighter was king, Wizard was hard mode

OK, sure, you could have a Fighter with 9 Strength and only 1 HP, but, in general, the Fighter was given all the advantages (good HD, all weapons, all armor, most treasure exclusive to them, other class abilities in treasure form, etc), whereas the Wizard was given all the disadvantages (spells took time to cast, any disruption automatically ended the spell, chance to learn spells, maximum spells known, "bonus spells"? What newfangled shenanigans is this?, etc) that 3e removed.

Also, a) before "HP bloat", beating things to death with a pointy stick was a really viable option; b) before "skills", players tended to use "player skills" more.

OK, I'm not actually sure what's up with "b", but it does feel like a lot of player don't really conceptualize there being options outside their character sheet anymore. Whereas that used to be the game.

There's gems at the bottom of the pool? I take my 10' pole and carefully poke the edge of the pool. It's acid? Destroys my 10' pole too fast to use it to fish the gems out? OK... it's a small pool, right? Can we dig a bigger pool, and then connect them, to siphon off the acid? We'll need a shovel... <looks around battlefield> how about the breastplate from that goblin knight for the head, and an ogre bone for the shaft? While I get started making that shovel, how about someone else see if there's anything (other than gems) that the acid doesn't burn.

vs

Gems at the bottom of a small pool? I make Perception, Knowledge: Nature, and Alchemy checks to comprehend this. Acid? Uh... what does Alchemy tell me I should do about Acid? Don't add water, neutralize it with a base? Uh... Perception, Knowledge: Nature, and Alchemy: Do I see any bases?

There was a meaningful distinction between the DMG and the PH.

Only the DM may read the DMG! All others must be punished!

Yeah, I'm still a bit sketchy on the value of different books, in any edition. Even 3.0 to 3.5 moved some things around between books (Diplomacy DCs, for one), so I'm not sure anyone ever developed a proper "chicken / not chicken" litmus test for which content belongs in which book, and why.

They tried to do something similar with weapon speeds to let dagger weilder strike before weapon users but like the "weapon vs armor type" charts and grapple rules, nobody used them

Random tables!

Although to my knowledge nobody used them, if you drank two potions in quick succession you had to roll on a random table to see if this made you sick, changed your skin color, made one potion permanent, or posion you! If you attack unarmed, you had to roll on a random table to see if you did a haymaker, an elbow chop, or a sucker punch! If you play a Wild Mage, each time you cast a spell there's a chance you have to roll on a random table with completely arbitrary side effects! Great fun for the GM (for the rest of the party... weeeellll...)

Well ok, some of those tables are still there, e.g. the Reincarnate spell and the Deck of Many Things.

Huh. Offhand, I don't remember a group that didn't use weapon speed (although I'm sure there were some).

Many DMs let players (and NPCs, and monsters) chug potions like they were college students, but not all. Good thing, too - due to mixing potions, I had a permanently... Enlarged character, who took possession of an artifact that shrunk them 1" with each use.

Although, like in 3e, most avoided the (unarmed and) grapple rules, they were occasionally used, tables and all. And there were "better" tables that some classes / kits got access to? (not my character, not sure about this)

Reincarnate? Oh, such fun. However, one time, I was running the game, and the player rolled "DM's Choice". And... I drew a blank. So I asked the table. They threw out ideas. I liked them all. So I pondered, and decided that they were all true. A really mixed breed character! Good times.

But Wild Magic, Deck of Many Things? Oh, yeah, that was the good stuff! (Of course, a Wild Mage with a Deck of Many Things was pretty apocalyptic...)

13 Saving Throws
Flat target numbers, which meant high level characters or opposition made all saves on a 2, no matter who is casting. Not many things improved saving throws, but they did have protection items from 1-5 and luckstone, and high level pc's would have all of them.

That is indeed a huge change between editions - one I'm rather sad about.

However, there definitely was an optimization minigame to be played, even in 2e - some spells and effects offered penalties to saving throws, effects on failed saves, or bypassed saves entirely (often, likely, due to bad writing).

So an optimized 2e caster could still be a threat to high-level characters... even if they had to pick comparatively suboptimal spells, at times.

But, yeah, generally, lucky / optimized high level characters made 95% of all saves. As long as they weren't facing an optimized opponent.

16. Fireball and Lightning bolt
Fireball Indoors, it conformed to space, no neat 20' spheres. You got 4/3*pi*R*cubed area, and it filled ALL the corridors. Fireballs killed a lot of parties at L5 when the wizard got excited about his new spell. Outdoors the radius was tripled (in yards, not feet) but still if there were terrain features like a cliff wall or the ground or whatever that confined it, the overall area got filled in.

Lightning bolts could bounce off walls and rebound and do their damage twice (or more if you were dumb enough to fire it at the wall in a 10' wide corridor). The old Gold Box games used this mechanic - lets just say fighting blue dragons was freaking dangerous in confined spaces, but mostly it was a player advantage.

Gold Box didn't resolve Fireball "correctly" (thank Fizban!), but, yeah, bouncing Lightning Bolts for fun and profit was a great minigame, one I was saddened to see disappear in 3e.

AD&D Level 1 - one spell, no cantrips, no bonus spells. You cast Sleep or Bless and you were done for the day, although the clerics could at least bonk enemies on the head.

Wizards especially lived and died by having consumables for long days. Scrolls and wands were a big deal, even in higher levels. Or they'd control the day length with scry and fry tactics. Or have a bunch of apprentices in later levels to cast the party buffs, freeing more slots for the wizard combat duties.

Clerics did get bonus spells - 2/2/1/1 at 18 Wis, IIRC. So 2 bonus 1st level spells at 14 Wis? That was a nice cookie for playing a walking box of band-aids, I guess.

But stamina was a huge issue for Wizards. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, like many adventuring Wizards from that era, resolved the problem by not casting spells. At least, not unless they were necessary. Thus, Quertus would iconically wander through battle reading a book, asking the muggles, "You got this? Good."

Once, a shadow fell over his page as he was asking, "You got this?". He looked up to see an Ogre, moments before it pounded him into the ground (Hooray Stone Skin, lasts forever, 1 charge turned ouch! into 0 damage; GM humorously had Quertus driven 1' into the ground, like hammering a stake, although it prevented his standard "run away!" tactic). Quertus looked up. "Huh, guess you don't 'got this'." And, staring up at that Ogre, his allies trying to stab it in the back before it turned my embarrassed Wizard into a red-faced red-robed red paste, was when he learned to think in 3 dimensions when casting his spells, as he sent a Lightning Bolt up into the Ogre, over the heads of his allies on the other side of the Ogre.

Good thing we were outdoors, so it didn't bounce back down! :smallamused:

Wintermoot

2022-04-11, 01:49 PM

I seem to remember one of the basic sets introducing two classes - the forester and the rake - I want to say it was Thyatis? Anyone remember those?

RandomPeasant

2022-04-11, 02:21 PM

The biggest thing that was lost from AD&D to 3e was the transition of gods from "dudes you can stab" to "implacable cosmic forces". Grognards will complain about various things and insist that if we just went back to variable XP progressions or THAC0 or weapon speed everything would be good again, but that's not really true. Pretty much the only direct mechanical issue in 3e relative to AD&D is HP bloat.

But still, the mindset was very different when you rolled your stats, and had to deal with prerequisites that those random stats might not meet - you couldn't go in knowing what you were going to play.

That doesn't seem like it's connected to the thing you're complaining about at all. People getting to pick their class doesn't lead to "cookie cutter party" situations. It's the requirements to have specific abilities that do that, and those were stronger in 2e because there was a much narrower range of classes and much less character customization.

OK, I'm not actually sure what's up with "b", but it does feel like a lot of player don't really conceptualize there being options outside their character sheet anymore. Whereas that used to be the game.

This is mostly rose-tinted glasses. People are plenty creative now, and on balance you get more "I can do this by rolling $Skill" than "you can't do this unless you roll $Skill".

Yeah, I'm still a bit sketchy on the value of different books, in any edition.

The DMG has always been the "extra stuff" book. The PHB has the basic rules you need for the game to function (e.g. how do you make a character, how does combat work, how do skills work), the MM is the monsters you need to have stuff to fight, and the DMG has whatever other stuff you want to put in the game but not enough to put it in the PHB.

However, there definitely was an optimization minigame to be played, even in 2e - some spells and effects offered penalties to saving throws, effects on failed saves, or bypassed saves entirely (often, likely, due to bad writing).

The big difference between 2e and 3e isn't really that 3e is easier to optimize. It's that A) there wasn't internet CharOp culture for 2e and B) 2e encouraged DMs to smack players down more.

Blackhawk748

2022-04-11, 04:53 PM

There's so many interesting things from the early editions that I just don't get why they dropped. Bouncing Lightning Bolt is such a fun thing to do and makes an otherwise very meh spell actually good to use again, because you can bounce the sucker off a wall and around a corner.

May have to look up the mechanics of that.

Oh how could I forget another big one. Barbarians weren't berserkers with rage and whatnot, and were instead rugged tribesmen who were inherently superstitious of magic and who were incredibly resilient and could call up hordes of local barbarians with prep time, at the cost of leveling super slowly. It's a very different kind of playstyle from the modern Barbarian, and one that deserves its own modern equivalent. I think that's kinda cool.

Ya, this sort of archetype very much went the way of the Dodo with 3e and all the subsequent versions of the game, and its offspring. Im totally bringing back the Support Martials and followers.

If you don't want them just don't use the rule.

inuyasha

2022-04-11, 05:11 PM

El Dorado

2022-04-11, 05:33 PM

Blackhawk748

2022-04-11, 05:53 PM

I bring back things like bouncing lightning bolts and the space rules for fireball, where using a fireball in a small space means it's gonna go out doors and into hallways and stuff.

Part of me wants to do the spacing rules with all Spread spells. Not even terribly difficult, just a note that if the room is too small to contain all the squares they spill out equally from all exits to the room.

Cuz its an explosion and that's how those work.

ShurikVch

2022-04-11, 06:12 PM

16. Fireball and Lightning bolt
Fireball Indoors, it conformed to space, no neat 20' spheres. You got 4/3*pi*R*cubed area, and it filled ALL the corridors. Fireballs killed a lot of parties at L5 when the wizard got excited about his new spell. Outdoors the radius was tripled (in yards, not feet) but still if there were terrain features like a cliff wall or the ground or whatever that confined it, the overall area got filled in.
What happened when a part of the area spilled outdoors (or indoors - if the Fireball detonated outdoors)?

Fighter was king, Wizard was hard mode

OK, sure, you could have a Fighter with 9 Strength and only 1 HP, but, in general, the Fighter was given all the advantages (good HD, all weapons, all armor, most treasure exclusive to them, other class abilities in treasure form, etc), whereas the Wizard was given all the disadvantages (spells took time to cast, any disruption automatically ended the spell, chance to learn spells, maximum spells known, "bonus spells"? What newfangled shenanigans is this?, etc) that 3e removed.

Also, a) before "HP bloat", beating things to death with a pointy stick was a really viable option; b) before "skills", players tended to use "player skills" more.
Could Fighter fly back then?.. :smallamused:

Seward

2022-04-11, 07:08 PM

What happened when a part of the area spilled outdoors (or indoors - if the Fireball detonated outdoors)?

Probably depended on the GM. Where we played, it would usually depend where the fireball detonated. If the center was indoors, we used indoor blast radius. Outdoors, the blast radius was so huge that any entrance of most structures would also be included but, while I don't think any of us really had that situation come up, if I'd been GMing I'd probably shrink it down to feet again for the purpose of being able to turn corners and such (like it might be yards if the entrance was one long corridor, but for how far it penetrated on spur corridors might be feet). From the spell description, the larger area outdoors was due to lack of any pressure constraining it, and indoor portions would have said pressure, but it was absolutely a grey area.

I'm sure they took away bouncing lightning bolts in 3.x for balance reasons. You could double or triple your damage with that spell if you timed it right, and with electrical resistance no longer being a druid-only thing in 3.x, and on the wizard spell list, that would be problematic. (clerics could only do resist cold and resist energy, druids and rangers had the much more powerful prot fire and prot lightning but couldn't protect you from cold. There was no way to protect against acid but it was very rare) That said, both fireballs and lightning bolts were the sort of thing that made your wizard cast minor globe of invulnerability and your party members curse you if they weren't also protected before you let loose.

I do know that while Gold Box games got lightning bolt right, as noted above, fireball was just a big circular (to limit of a square grid pattern) blast with no variation inside or outside, and the Baldur's Gate chain did both spells pretty much exactly like 3.x, even though based on 2e rules (although I don't actually know if those spells changed between AD&D and 2e, as the only 2e I ever played was CRPG adaptions, mostly using the Baldur Gate infinity engine in some stage of its evolution)

could fighter fly back then?

Sure. Same way they do now.

Get a flying mount, get a magic item, get a potion, have a wizard cast the spell on you.

Fighters and its subclasses (although slower) were the only classes to get more than one attack per round with main hand (anybody could try to use a dagger or handaxe as offhand in AD&D but only those weapons, and fighters could just suck up the penalties after mid levels so most would get 2.5 attacks by L7 and 3.5 by L12 if not using a shield. The only advantage of a 2H weapon of any kind was high base damage, so typically a fighter would start his career with 16str+greatsword and then when they got a str enhancing item and/or long term strength buffs and a better attack table L7-9ish would swap over to dagger/hand axe in offhand and a 1h weapon in main hand. That plus the way bows worked meant shields where I played were mostly the provence of clerics, who in AD&D had only the warhammer as a possible missile weapon and all their other weapons except staff were 1handed.

Actual TWF mechanics other than that were a 2e thing, I think ranger twf started there (in AD&D they were just high-xp-to-level fighter whose extra attacks were delayed but had a little druid spellcasting, had tracking and a MASSIVE advantage against humanoid monsters - "Giant Class" monsters" gave +1 damage/level and were anything we'd consider "humanoid" or "giant" in 3.x if it was not a PC race or subrace (such as drow elf or deep gnome). The combination of slower attack advancement and this massive "per attack" bonus on common enemies made archery very popular among rangers but it was an emergent property, something players just chose to do, they had no other bonuses to archery that a fighter or paladin didn't also have.

This "many attacks per round" of fighter and its subclasses mechanic made them ideal candidates for other buffs. Enlarge was the cheapest and one of the most effective, getting you all the way to storm giant strength eventually, but didn't last as long. Strength capped at 18/00 (for humans males. for anybody else, racial+sex max pinned you lower) but usually was the bridge that got fighters from 16ish to over 18 and lasted hours/day. If you could get to the target you could full attack, so haste was amazing, but it also aged you.

Because of these dynamics, clerics and thieves kinda sucked at being fighters past level 7 and dual-classing humans as fighters till L7 before starting another career was pretty much the way to go if you didn't have a reason not to (like a CRPG that capped spellcasting levels below level 8 or the more usual "don't have both 15 str and a 17 in all prime requisites of my spellcasting class). Taking 1 level of fighter and dual-classing was also popular. High level parties would mostly be humans, and for any encounter that wasn't challenging the fighter(s) would do the lion share of the work. If properly supported with buff spells, they'd also do much of the work in hard encounters too, being a primary source of damage/round on anything but swarms of weak stuff (that was where wizards were king)

Kurald Galain

2022-04-11, 08:01 PM

The only advantage of a 2H weapon of any kind was high base damage, so typically a fighter would start his career with 16str+greatsword and then when they got a str enhancing item and/or long term strength buffs and a better attack table L7-9ish would swap over to dagger/hand axe in offhand and a 1h weapon in main hand.

Or longswords. As I recall, dual-wielding longswords was considered the "holy grail" of melee fighting in 1E and 2E, although I don't recall exactly what you needed to do to get there. Be a ranger or half-giant, probably.

RandomPeasant

2022-04-11, 08:16 PM

There's so many interesting things from the early editions that I just don't get why they dropped. Bouncing Lightning Bolt is such a fun thing to do and makes an otherwise very meh spell actually good to use again, because you can bounce the sucker off a wall and around a corner.

It also makes it really annoying to adjudicate. Do you want to pause the game while the guy casting lightning bolt asks you questions like "exactly how tall is that orc" or "what angle are the walls sloped at"? Because that's the end result of using the "reflecting bolt" rules. Just using the basic "it bounces back" is simpler, but runs the risk of making the spell worse when it rebounds directly into your face.

Incidentally, while looking up exactly how lightning bolt worked, I realized that spells in the 2e PHB are organized by level and then alphabetically, instead of just alphabetically. That seems easier to use than what 3e did, though it does cause issues if you want to do things like putting one spell on multiple lists at different levels (though, to be honest, you should probably just not do that).

Blackhawk748

2022-04-11, 08:32 PM

It also makes it really annoying to adjudicate. Do you want to pause the game while the guy casting lightning bolt asks you questions like "exactly how tall is that orc" or "what angle are the walls sloped at"? Because that's the end result of using the "reflecting bolt" rules. Just using the basic "it bounces back" is simpler, but runs the risk of making the spell worse when it rebounds directly into your face.

Incidentally, while looking up exactly how lightning bolt worked, I realized that spells in the 2e PHB are organized by level and then alphabetically, instead of just alphabetically. That seems easier to use than what 3e did, though it does cause issues if you want to do things like putting one spell on multiple lists at different levels (though, to be honest, you should probably just not do that).

May have to rethink the bouncing bolts, that or just make it easier like 45 degree angle or nothing or something like that. Thoughts for later.

And that does sound nice. Much more intuitive.

Seward

2022-04-11, 08:42 PM

Or longswords. As I recall, dual-wielding longswords was considered the "holy grail" of melee fighting in 1E and 2E, although I don't recall exactly what you needed to do to get there. Be a ranger or half-giant, probably.

In AD&D at least before Unearthed Arcana the only legal offhand weapon was dagger or handaxe. That might have been expanded in later splatbooks but Unearthed Arcana was the last book I bought before I took a 10 year hiatus from D&D to mostly play Hero Games plus a variety of other random systems (Palladium-derived, Runequest-Derived, a little Gurps, Amber, Ars Magica, a bit of White Wolf stuff, mostly the Mage book), and when I did a retro D&D campaign in the mid 90s, it was based on the 1st edition books I still had.

In 2e, at least based on my Infinity Engine experience it was more like 3.x If you could dual-wield (mostly rangers and some thief variants) it was usually beneficial to suck up the extra attack penalty to get a better offhand weapon. If you were actually a fighter with weapon specialization it applied to both weapons and would more than make up for the penalties.

And longswords in both editions were pretty much the best 1h weapon - 1d8 vs medium 1d12 vs large and by far the most common weapon found as magical loot on the random tables. If you used the weapon vs armor type rules or the weapon speed rules it scored pretty decently on those tables too.

This could vary in a CRPG based on itemization. If you could put a "speed" weapon in both hands you could get the maximum # of attacks per round if a fighter type, and if a rogue-type you could get to a quite respectable 4 attacks/round, which was good enough to fake it as a martial protagonist until you could craft epic traps. In Baldur's gate it was scimitar that could get you two "speed weapons" that a rogue-type could use, so a dot in scimitar proficiency was a very popular pick. The infinity engine made an offhand "speed" weapon actually give your main weapon an extra whack, so in epic levels you often saw a +5 blah blah uber main weapon and a +1 scimitar of speed in the offhand. But in tabletop it wouldn't work that way.

OracleofWuffing

2022-04-12, 12:12 AM

With all the pointing out about how Wizards had it rough, I'm under the impression spell component bookkeeping was a thing previous to 3.0. That'd be before my time, so would anyone be able to clarify how that worked? Was it just "tedious bookkeeping," or just another way that wizard spells could go wrong if a town didn't roll well enough on the random table, they couldn't even cast the spell that they almost didn't learn?

Kurald Galain

2022-04-12, 12:30 AM

With all the pointing out about how Wizards had it rough, I'm under the impression spell component bookkeeping was a thing previous to 3.0.

It was not, though. I've never met any DM interested in dealing with that, and that includes conventions and organized play. You just wrote "spell components" down on your inventory list and that's it, except with the rare spells that require expensive gems or asomething. Kind of exactly like how 3E works.

Because let's face it, spell components are outrageously stupid jokes that aren't even funny when you're twelve or drunk. Ooooh, the Sending spell requires tin cans and a string! Yeah that's a kneeslapper! Fireball uses the ingredients to gunpowder because wizards are chemists! How hilarious! I'm frankly amazed that these keep coming back in later editions.

(edit) Components are an optional rule in 2E; and only "rare" components need to be tracked in 1E. No word on what, exactly, counts as rare though.

goodpeople25

2022-04-12, 01:27 AM

It was not, though. I've never met any DM interested in dealing with that, and that includes conventions and organized play. You just wrote "spell components" down on your inventory list and that's it, except with the rare spells that require expensive gems or asomething. Kind of exactly like how 3E works.

Because let's face it, spell components are outrageously stupid jokes that aren't even funny when you're twelve or drunk. Ooooh, the Sending spell requires tin cans and a string! Yeah that's a kneeslapper! Fireball uses the ingredients to gunpowder because wizards are chemists! How hilarious! I'm frankly amazed that these keep coming back in later editions.
Just because material components can easily allow for "jokes" doesn't mean they all are or that it is the only component :smallwink: to them.

Frankly I have a soft spot for spell components stemming from seeing them in various myths and legends when I was a kid, and material components are no exception.

loky1109

2022-04-12, 04:33 AM

What happened when a part of the area spilled outdoors (or indoors - if the Fireball detonated outdoors)?
I think it's impossible scenario. You don't have place on the table to place there two playing terrains. Never.

ShurikVch

2022-04-12, 05:50 AM

I think it's impossible scenario. You don't have place on the table to place there two playing terrains. Never.
Say, our party relaxed in a tavern in-between their adventures
Then - tavern attacked by a mob of orcs(/undead/.../whoever)
Party's warrior holding the entrance, ranger or/and rogue sniping from the window
Then party's mage decided to took out the biggest pocket of enemies and fireballed area in front of the entrance
Or, maybe, mob has their own mage, and they threw fireball to a door or window
Anyway, fireball detonated either outside - but close enough to spill in; or inside - but very very close to a door or window...
Is it impossible?

Telonius

2022-04-12, 09:31 AM

Could Fighter fly back then?.. :smallamused:

Yes, but it was a real pain to get enough pixie dust.

Jervis

2022-04-12, 10:13 AM

-snip-

Because as we all know playing a character in a high fantasy adventure setting who’s more fragile than a Call of Cthulhu PC is the epitome of fun.

In all seriousness, and I will admit that I am heavily bias towards hating anything and everything OSR and ADnD related, the design theory is a absolute mess prior to 3rd. The game feels like it was precision designed to let Gygax screw over his players as much as humanly possible, with the classes he didn’t personally like getting the shortest end of the shaft. He didn’t like monks so he made the class impossible for mortal men to get into and made them terrible until level 5, which no one in any ADnD game survives too anyway. He didn’t like wizards so he he made them frailer than a non-classed human. The “your Paladin falls by accident” meme was intentional game design in that edition. And the magikarp XP curve was more or less just a way to punish anyone who didn’t want to play a human fighter or a thief, oh and thieves existing made everyone weaker from the moment they were printed by making everything they did a class feature instead of something people could just do, and they also happened to be terrible at it until the level where no one reaches because every dungeon is a meat grinder even if the DM doesn’t want it to be so no one can be good at that anymore. Oh and for whatever reason they decided to lower exceptional strength cap for women too so in the monumentally unlikely situation where you 3d6 down the line for a human female fighter and get a 18 and roll 100, to bad, it’s 96. Yes I’ve seen that screw over a player exactly once and I will never stop ranting about it.

The entire system is built on DM vs Player mentality and I hate it with all my being. I had the misfortune of playing adnd for a year in college and honestly I’d rather have my teeth pulled than play another session of that poorly formatted hot mess. I don’t have anything against OSR fans but it is physically impossible for me to not go into this rant whenever I see people praising it. The inevitable follow up to this is “if you don’t like the rules, change them”. But by that logic Fatal is also a good game

loky1109

2022-04-12, 11:07 AM

Elder_Basilisk

2022-04-12, 01:13 PM

Say, our party relaxed in a tavern in-between their adventures
Then - tavern attacked by a mob of orcs(/undead/.../whoever)
Party's warrior holding the entrance, ranger or/and rogue sniping from the window
Then party's mage decided to took out the biggest pocket of enemies and fireballed area in front of the entrance
Or, maybe, mob has their own mage, and they threw fireball to a door or window
Anyway, fireball detonated either outside - but close enough to spill in; or inside - but very very close to a door or window...
Is it impossible?

It's actually RAW in 3.x and Pathfinder. A spread goes around corners and through windows--that is what distinguishes a spread like fireball from a burst. Now practically you don't see the same impact as you did with 2e's volume based fireballs because a 20 foot spread isn't going to go very far around corners. In your window example, assuming that the fireball detonated outside, if the origin point was five feet away from the window, it has to go five feet to get to the window and then will only spread to points with 15 feet of the window.

Specifically with fireball as well, there is the possibility of a miss since RAW you may have to make a ranged touch attack in order to fit the fireball through very narrow spaces. I've always interpreted that as an additional allowance for targeting where a small gap (such as a typical arrow slit) does not provide line of effect but I suppose that would also apply to certain narrow line of sight situations (such as for example where there is no unblocked corner to corner line between two squares but there is a line between two points within the squares--a rule that seems like a vanishingly rare corner case but comes up more often than you think--at one point, it landed me a round 1 attack on a mini my opponent thought was hidden in his start area in a DDM finals match) it could be interpreted as an additional limitation on fireball instead.

Thane of Fife

2022-04-12, 04:24 PM

Seward

2022-04-12, 07:12 PM

Seward might be looking at something I'm not, but 1e AD&D and the Expert set are actually both very explicit, to the extent of writing it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, that areas of effect are not tripled, only ranges are.

Fireball is the exception to that rule. It is the only spell whose area is done in yards outdoors. There are many reasons why Fireball was one off the kings of the spell list in 3.5 where you could cast it safely (or were immune to it by one means or another). The stupidly huge outdoor area was one of those things.

The burst of the Fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the Fireball is a total volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)].

There isn't really any way to interpret that bolded text to mean anything but the 2" radius sphere area was an "outdoor inch" outdoors, as you don't get 33,000 cu yards any other way.

Here's another difference between 1e fireball and 3.x

Exception: magic Fireball wands deliver 6 die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die Fireballs, and scroll spells of this type deliver a Fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6 + 4) of damage

OracleofWuffing

2022-04-14, 06:05 PM

It was not, though. I've never met any DM interested in dealing with that, and that includes conventions and organized play. You just wrote "spell components" down on your inventory list and that's it, except with the rare spells that require expensive gems or asomething. Kind of exactly like how 3E works.

Because let's face it, spell components are outrageously stupid jokes that aren't even funny when you're twelve or drunk. Ooooh, the Sending spell requires tin cans and a string! Yeah that's a kneeslapper! Fireball uses the ingredients to gunpowder because wizards are chemists! How hilarious! I'm frankly amazed that these keep coming back in later editions.

(edit) Components are an optional rule in 2E; and only "rare" components need to be tracked in 1E. No word on what, exactly, counts as rare though.
Well, darn. Too many dang years ago I remember my brother's friend having these punch-out cardstock thingsfor tracking spell components that were like herbs and stuff, and I wanted to have them because they were collectable punch-out cardstock things. In hindsight, could have just been from some other game's resources.

I take it anecdotes I've heard about becoming immune to poison/fire/magic by taking repeated damage and somehow surviving are similarly exaggerated?

Quertus

2022-04-14, 09:43 PM

It also makes it really annoying to adjudicate. Do you want to pause the game while the guy casting lightning bolt asks you questions like "exactly how tall is that orc" or "what angle are the walls sloped at"?

Um... yes? The looks on people's faces as they realize just what **** they're in as the lightning bolts start flying (in slow motion) is absolutely worth.

With all the pointing out about how Wizards had it rough, I'm under the impression spell component bookkeeping was a thing previous to 3.0. That'd be before my time, so would anyone be able to clarify how that worked? Was it just "tedious bookkeeping," or just another way that wizard spells could go wrong if a town didn't roll well enough on the random table, they couldn't even cast the spell that they almost didn't learn?

Eh, less "way it could fail" and more "and now we spend 2 hours listening to the wizard player scramble to figure out how to go about collecting spiders and bat droppings. Next, we'll have a gentle rain, and listen to the Fighter spend 2 hours talking about how he oils his armor, checks his bowstring, sharpens his sword..."

Yeah, excruciating minutia. Or perhaps just a way for the GM to stall when they haven't prepped for the adventure this week. Just the way Gygax intended.

Because as we all know playing a character in a high fantasy adventure setting who’s more fragile than a Call of Cthulhu PC is the epitome of fun.

In all seriousness, and I will admit that I am heavily bias towards hating anything and everything OSR and ADnD related, the design theory is a absolute mess prior to 3rd. The game feels like it was precision designed to let Gygax screw over his players as much as humanly possible

The entire system is built on DM vs Player mentality and I hate it with all my being.

“if you don’t like the rules, change them”. But by that logic Fatal is also a good game

Lol. I'll not deny the bad writing, or that there's a lot of horrible advice - which implies a lot of horrible thought processes - in D&D source books. However, one needn't change the rules (at least not most of them - one Spelljammer rule springs to mind) to play the game well with a good mindset.

So not really Fatal territory here. :smallwink:

Beni-Kujaku

2022-04-15, 01:44 AM

However, one needn't change the rules (at least not most of them - one Spelljammer rule springs to mind) to play the game well with a good mindset.

I'd like to know about that Spelljammer rule.

Kurald Galain

2022-04-15, 02:23 AM

I take it anecdotes I've heard about becoming immune to poison/fire/magic by taking repeated damage and somehow surviving are similarly exaggerated?
I've never heard of that rule in any edition of D&D, although it sounds plausible enough to exists in some RPG, like maybe Warhammer Fantasy or Hackmaster. Spell component tokens sound like more of a boardgame thing.

SimonMoon6

2022-04-15, 12:42 PM

I've never heard of that rule in any edition of D&D, although it sounds plausible enough to exists in some RPG, like maybe Warhammer Fantasy or Hackmaster. Spell component tokens sound like more of a boardgame thing.

The closest thing I can recall is the rule in Call of Cthulhu, where a PC who succeeds at a sanity check against the same type of monster over and over again will eventually not need to make sanity checks against that kind of monster anymore. So, if you're encountering Deep Ones all the time, you'll eventually get used to them. But good luck succeeding at 100 sanity checks against, say, Yog-Sothoth. And it's mostly irrelevant since most CoC games don't have PCs encountering (and surviving) the same monsters over and over again.

Seward

2022-04-15, 12:52 PM

Eh, less "way it could fail" and more "and now we spend 2 hours listening to the wizard player scramble to figure out how to go about collecting spiders and bat droppings.

Spell components were there for things like capture scenarios - yeah, you don't have your spellbook but you do have some spells in your head. I remember a case like that when the druid turned into a sheep so the illusionist could harvest some fleece (many of the illusion spells have that as a component).

Meanwhile the halfling thief was making a sling out of his loincloth...and...you get the idea. Everybody had to scramble a bit, and we upgraded to things like thighbones for the warriors and cobwebs for the mage as we explored our prison and killed other things dumped there.

The worst part was we were in a place with no light and no mapping materials. Turns out mazes are really confusing under those circumstances.

Jervis

2022-04-15, 06:30 PM

I'd like to know about that Spelljammer rule.

Spelljammer has a lot of bad rules. I think he’s referring to the rule that Clerics can’t prepare spells above a certain level between spheres and IIRC can’t prepare them in spheres where their deity isn’t worshiped. Though you can do literally anything you want between spheres without the gods knowing because they can’t see anything there, so that’s a plus I guess. I dont like 2E but spelljammer is actually pretty cool so I’ve read up on that quite a bit.

I won’t do quotes because I already started typing but i’m not gonna start edition waring. I’m very much of the opinion that most of early dnd before 3E is horribly written and as a result a lot of OSR games carry some of its worst aspects with them. But I won’t say much more than what I have because the stuff I hate about it is what it’s fans like and vice versa. I just don’t think you can really hold anything it does up as the paragon of game design.

Blackhawk748

2022-04-15, 08:04 PM

Spelljammer has a lot of bad rules. I think he’s referring to the rule that Clerics can’t prepare spells above a certain level between spheres and IIRC can’t prepare them in spheres where their deity isn’t worshiped. Though you can do literally anything you want between spheres without the gods knowing because they can’t see anything there, so that’s a plus I guess. I dont like 2E but spelljammer is actually pretty cool so I’ve read up on that quite a bit.

I won’t do quotes because I already started typing but i’m not gonna start edition waring. I’m very much of the opinion that most of early dnd before 3E is horribly written and as a result a lot of OSR games carry some of its worst aspects with them. But I won’t say much more than what I have because the stuff I hate about it is what it’s fans like and vice versa. I just don’t think you can really hold anything it does up as the paragon of game design.

Early DnD is like a very, very particularly seasoned meal. You either like it that way or you do not.

Its made in a very particular fashion, to do a very particular thing and to, roughly, follow very particular tropes. Its why Lore stuff is baked into it. The fact that its a modified wargame at its earliest roots also explains a lot of weirdness and strange specificity.

Its a weird game, but its also what got us to where we are today. Granted mostly from 8 billion houserules but eh.

OracleofWuffing

2022-04-16, 02:28 AM

I've never heard of that rule in any edition of D&D, although it sounds plausible enough to exists in some RPG, like maybe Warhammer Fantasy or Hackmaster. Spell component tokens sound like more of a boardgame thing.
Thanks. If you'll honor another adjacent question, how did poison and disease measure up in previous editions? I imagine there's going to be a lot less saves and a lot more deaths, but somehow always weighted against the players. Don't know if it was considered dishonorable for paladins back then, either.

Seward

2022-04-16, 07:22 AM

Most Poisons straight up killed you if you failed a save, did nothing if you saved.

Ingested poisons would do damage even if you saved, killed you if you failed.

Diseases - not as automatically lethal but still pretty bad. Only Mummy Rot is similarly bad as earlier editions. This is the equivalent of cause disease (from the "reversable" cure disease spell). Without a cure disease spell or a heal you wouldn't recover for a long, long time, if ever.

The reverse of the Cure Disease spell is Cause Disease. To be effective. the cleric must touch the intended victim, and the victim must fail the saving throw. The disease caused will begin to affect the victim in 16 turns, causing the afflicted creature to lose 1 hit point per turn, and 1 point of strength per hour, until the creature is at 10% of original hit points and strength, at which time the afflicted is weak and virtually helpless.

IIRC the "reversed" Heal spell didn't just drop you to 1d4hp, it also inflicted a disease but no details given. We tended to use the cause disease spell, although any victim of reversed Heal didn't tend to live long enough for it to matter. Neither Heal nor its reverse allowed a saving throw, it just worked if you could touch your enemy. OTOH, quicken spell didn't exist so you needed an ally to follow up and finish the kill.

Paladins were not allowed to use poison (neither was anybody else, except assassins, except via a reversed neutralize poison spell or something like a wyvern mount).

Here's another oddity. Among their other restrictions, Monks were not allowed to use flaming oil (namby pamby newfangled stuff like alchemists fire and acid flasks didn't exist yet). They were allowed to use holy/unholy water though.

SimonMoon6

2022-04-16, 09:35 AM

Most Poisons straight up killed you if you failed a save, did nothing if you saved.

Paladins were not allowed to use poison (neither was anybody else, except assassins, except via a reversed neutralize poison spell or something like a wyvern mount).

Yeah, I think that poison being an insta-kill attack meant that the rules had to keep it out of the players' hands. Personally, I think this is why later editions still say that using poison is <Mermaid Man voice> EEEEEEVIL!</voice> even though in later editions, it barely does anything, while outright murdering people because of their race is considered to be perfectly fine as long as you're using weapons and not poison.

And that 1st edition poison was really weird because you'd get creatures like Giant Centipedes which were very low HD enemies who you might fight at 1st level, so their poison was really weak (like you got a +4 to your save or something), but still, they could instantly kill you if you rolled poorly. No matter how high level you were, you could still roll a 1 and die from these pathetically weak monsters (if they hit you). So, if you run into a pack of 10 of these (maybe 1/2 HD monsters? I don't remember), there's a good chance that you're going to die if you don't kill them before they can attack.

RandomPeasant

2022-04-16, 10:23 AM

Yeah, I think that poison being an insta-kill attack meant that the rules had to keep it out of the players' hands. Personally, I think this is why later editions still say that using poison is <Mermaid Man voice> EEEEEEVIL!</voice> even though in later editions, it barely does anything, while outright murdering people because of their race is considered to be perfectly fine as long as you're using weapons and not poison.

Well, that's more because D&D alignment has always been bonkers nonsense. As far as poison goes, it's still potentially pretty deadly because of how ability damage works, though the save DCs make it a lot less of a problem than shivering touch and ray of stupidity.

Seward

2022-04-16, 08:51 PM

Ah, one more thing. The precursor of the cleave line of feats.

Fighter and fighter subclasses got one attack PER LEVEL versus any creature that had less than one hit die. This fact made human "zero level" warriors (1d6) and goblin warriors(1d8-1) MUCH easier to kill than orcs (full 1d8 hit die).

Creatures with character classes counted as a full hit die, even if they were 1d4 L1 wizards.

Ramza00

2022-04-16, 09:30 PM

Because as we all know playing a character in a high fantasy adventure setting who’s more fragile than a Call of Cthulhu PC is the epitome of fun.

In all seriousness, and I will admit that I am heavily bias towards hating anything and everything OSR and ADnD related, the design theory is a absolute mess prior to 3rd. The game feels like it was precision designed to let Gygax screw over his players as much as humanly possible, with the classes he didn’t personally like getting the shortest end of the shaft. He didn’t like monks so he made the class impossible for mortal men to get into and made them terrible until level 5, which no one in any ADnD game survives too anyway. He didn’t like wizards so he he made them frailer than a non-classed human. The “your Paladin falls by accident” meme was intentional game design in that edition. And the magikarp XP curve was more or less just a way to punish anyone who didn’t want to play a human fighter or a thief, oh and thieves existing made everyone weaker from the moment they were printed by making everything they did a class feature instead of something people could just do, and they also happened to be terrible at it until the level where no one reaches because every dungeon is a meat grinder even if the DM doesn’t want it to be so no one can be good at that anymore. Oh and for whatever reason they decided to lower exceptional strength cap for women too so in the monumentally unlikely situation where you 3d6 down the line for a human female fighter and get a 18 and roll 100, to bad, it’s 96. Yes I’ve seen that screw over a player exactly once and I will never stop ranting about it.

The entire system is built on DM vs Player mentality and I hate it with all my being. I had the misfortune of playing adnd for a year in college and honestly I’d rather have my teeth pulled than play another session of that poorly formatted hot mess. I don’t have anything against OSR fans but it is physically impossible for me to not go into this rant whenever I see people praising it. The inevitable follow up to this is “if you don’t like the rules, change them”. But by that logic Fatal is also a good game

Thanks for saying this.

I will not say anymore for I do not want to talk about how specific types of personalities as DMs may like one system vs another and what it says about the DMs and the players.

Seward

2022-04-16, 10:48 PM

To be fair to Gygax, when you learn how his players behave, you realize it was all just a multifaceted PVP type of thing. The folks whose names adorn spells and their rivals were as dangerous to each other as the monsters. The tone was much more CN-everybody-for-themselves with GM presiding over the madness than the Fellowship of the Ring (although that "adventure" also involved a party betrayal, rivalries within the party and the party shattering into smaller bits....)

Remember also this came out of miniatures gaming, where one side always dies. Death wasn't that big a deal unless the character was a rare one who survived past level 5, but by then you started to have resources/favors/etc so that death wasn't that much of a setback.

Speaking as somebody who did get a Monk into the teens "Master of Winter" - you were there to do the scouting side of thief without the tendency to chaos and stealing-from-party and to provide weird abilities. Fighting was a secondary thing, a lot of how rogues tend to be played in 3.5. I got in some asskicking but as 4 of 7 of our party died at level 4 (ok one was a vampire spawn after death, but retired anyway) and the remainder was a cleric and a wizard, most of our battle plans involved "figure out what the opposition is without getting into a fight beyond whatever is needed to escape, then figure out a way for the wizard to kill most of it, with the cleric taking the hits and me opportunistically finishing things off". But most of the "figure **** out" involved the monk on point using his strange abilities, buffed with appropriate spells from the other 2.

And I'll have you know that Speak with Animals at will is a GREAT power. All dungeons have rats and bats and stuff. Although Feign Death was kind of a dud. I don't think I ever found a use for that.

AD&D tournament play and the way Gygax seemed to write his modules assumed that if you didn't scout, you died. If you didn't plan escape routes, you died. If you didn't keep party cohesion, you died. Basically there were a lot of failure paths, and everything was untiered. When you finally got a party out of the fragile levels to where they could actually take a mid-strength wilderness encounter instead of running and hiding from it, you tended to evolve a style that worked with the game your GM was running.

Some environments were kinda like E6 - they were pickup games in wargame stores and because nobody really got any wealth, it was extremely rare to get anybody past level 3 (they allowed first level training for free, but you had to have cash to get to L3). Character death was very high, because the wealth was in places usually a bit beyond our grasp (my most successful character there was a dwarf who died locking himself into a secret door that skeletons came out of...the leader had a magic sword, and my dwarf managed to kill it and grab the sword as the party died around us, then spiked himself into a skeleton secred door alcove. He was ALMOST rescued by a followup party before his air ran out. Those guys only had 2 survivors but they were a rare two who were able to afford L3 training when they sold the sword.)

All of that is pretty different from most modern RPGs where you are expected to play a character and that character is expected to survive a whole campaign, D&D or otherwise. It was much more of a "low k" strategy where you played a bunch of scrubs but the rare success became a legend ("name" level, followers, stronghold, all that stuff) and could form up with others to attempt the harder published modules. (of which we usually had a couple permadeaths before the end, in spite of higher levels. Taking out Lolth on her home plane after fighting through 7 modules isn't for the faint of heart...)

===
I ran Temple of Elemental Evil in the mid 90s as a "by the book" 1st edition campaign for 6 people highly skeptical of D&D and one old D&D pro. It went great. Everybody did make it to the end, although nearly every character died once and was raised along the way. You don't have to play it the way Gygax's crew did. It was a flexible system that way, and that party was a bunch of folks used to tactics, cooperation etc from other games that translated well into old-school 1st edition. That campaign was much more like a d20 campaign than most of the AD&D I actually played back when the system was new.

There was a much more adversarial relationship. The GM was supposed to set up the challenge and play it straight, no fudging, but fair (both sides could use the same tricks, learn from each other etc. GM was expected to flatten the party if they didn't detect a lethal threat and either didn't try to escape it or couldn't, but also didn't make plans fail just because the GM was told about it). The playing without a safety net of tiered x/day encounters is fun for some people, but it isn't for everybody.

Ramza00

2022-04-17, 09:08 AM

I understand the energy and a different type of genre that older DND was and it is not what DND evolved into. To add to what you wrote Seward part of the fun / pain / restriction was an "escape room feel."

Still do not like it and there is a reason DND shifted to a different type of gaming genre.

Quertus

2022-04-18, 06:41 PM

I'd like to know about that Spelljammer rule.

Ah, it was a bit of spite where, if the PCs managed to make their vessel immune to the "a fire starts" critical result (including the snarky line about wearing clothing made of stone, because we all know that LotR was so unrealistic for not having the clothed Orcs spontaneously combust when Gondor's siege engines hit them :smallamused:), the GM was instructed to bump the crit up to the next higher crit, which was much worse. So the reward for intelligent thought... is to be punished harder. I really want to take a clue-by-four to any places where such mindsets fester.

Otherwise, most rules could be played as-is without invoking such a toxic mindset.

Most Poisons straight up killed you if you failed a save, did nothing if you saved.

Most. And "Save or Die" appearing numerous times per module made for a lot of death.

However... some poisons dealt damage; some even on a successful save. Those were, IME, often even more dangerous, given how few HP early D&D characters had.

Also, IIRC, there was a magical item that gave a save vs poisons that offered no save, implying that not all poisons granted a saving throw?

Seward

2022-04-18, 09:09 PM

My memory is only ingested potions did things even if you saved, but that's the basic DMG list and original monster manual. There was enough published material that no-save poison was probably possible, or it might have been intended to defend against ingested poisons and their "even if you save" effects. It's been a long time since I thought about AD&D poison :)

Mostly you just kept Slow Poison up 24x7 once you'd gained a few levels, similar to how Hero's feast makes poison a nonissue in the teens for many parties. If you didn't have that option, you cast it on one person whose job was to engage all the poisoned things. Failing even one slow poison spell you put a heavy armor cleric in front, they had the best save vs poison.

Or if you were a Knights of the Dinner Table kind of party, you sent hirelings in to engage the poison critters while you sniped at range.

ShurikVch

2022-05-09, 06:20 PM

Carrying Capacity was measured in gold pieces rather than pounds

redking

2022-05-09, 06:50 PM

The clone spell in 2E created a literal, biological clone. Once created, it wanted to kill and replace it's original.

Maat Mons

2022-05-09, 09:23 PM

Orcs were real orcs, elves were real elves, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Beni-Kujaku

2022-05-10, 03:58 AM

Orcs were real orcs, elves were real elves, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the fact that orcs and elves didn't have classes and were just "a level 12 elf"? Or do you mean "real" as in "more faithful to the LotR inspiration"?

Tzardok

2022-05-10, 04:02 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the fact that orcs and elves didn't have classes and were just "a level 12 elf"? Or do you mean "real" as in "more faithful to the LotR inspiration"?

I think it's a riff on that typical nostalgia talk of old people. "Back in my youth the men were real men, and the women were real women!" Y'know?

Beni-Kujaku

2022-05-10, 04:19 AM

I think it's a riff on that typical nostalgia talk of old people. "Back in my youth the men were real men, and the women were real women!" Y'know?

Oh, right! Then definitely. And I'm pretty sure the small furry creatures from space are called Miniature Giant Space Hamsters

Tzardok

2022-05-10, 04:49 AM

Oh, right! Then definitely. And I'm pretty sure the small furry creatures from space are called Miniature Giant Space Hamsters

Not to be confused with the really giant furry creatures from space; those are called Hamsterosaurus Rex.

Maat Mons

2022-05-10, 05:35 AM

Yeah, it was a play on "Back when men were real men," etc. by way of the Douglas Adams quote "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."

Also, I guess references to radio programs from the 1970's are no longer hip.

Remuko

2022-05-10, 11:18 AM

Tzardok

2022-05-10, 11:32 AM

The only thing that was ever hip are pelvic bones.

Metastachydium

2022-05-10, 12:47 PM

I'd argue that the non-osseous bits of the general area are also hip, but, of course, de gustibus…

Saint-Just

2022-05-11, 10:53 AM

I'd argue that the non-osseous bits of the general area are also hip, but, of course, de gustibus…

So what's the tastiest hip?

Metastachydium

2022-05-11, 02:08 PM

So what's the tastiest hip?

Well, I'm partial to bone meal, but word is the meaty parts aren't that bad either.

ShurikVch

2022-05-11, 02:20 PM

Lord Torath

2022-05-11, 03:36 PM

In the earlier editions, "damage reduction" was "damage immunity": creatures who had DR/+something in 3.0, in those edition couldn't be physically harmed by non-magical hits. Seriously, they could survive planetary collision without a scratch - unless at least one of the planets was magical enough (sufficiently high weapon +enhancement). Build a wall of them with AMF generators - it would be indestructible!..Not quite. Monsters with 4+1 HD counted as +1 weapons for determining what monsters they could hurt, and higher HD beasties counted as higher "plus" weapons (which reminds me, I need to see what my pair of 8+4 HD mounts can hit - Edit: Sweet! Counts as a +3 weapon!).

Similarly, being immune to non-magical weapons didn't mean you could ignore a 50-ton block of stone falling on you.

ShurikVch

2022-05-11, 04:05 PM

Not quite. Monsters with 4+1 HD counted as +1 weapons for determining what monsters they could hurt, and higher HD beasties counted as higher "plus" weapons (which reminds me, I need to see what my pair of 8+4 HD mounts can hit - Edit: Sweet! Counts as a +3 weapon!).
Please, don't be offended by my inquiry, but - from which book are such rules?

The greater devils (malebranche, ice devils, and pit fiends) can be struck by magical weapons, or weapons of silver, but ordinary arms do them no harm.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me: "do no harm" means "inflict no damage"

Similarly, being immune to non-magical weapons didn't mean you could ignore a 50-ton block of stone falling on you.
But why? (Presuming the block in question isn't magical)

Thane of Fife

2022-05-11, 04:34 PM

Please, don't be offended by my inquiry, but - from which book are such rules?

Both the 1e and 2e Dungeon Master's Guides contain those rules.

Raxxius

2022-05-11, 04:41 PM

In the earlier editions, "damage reduction" was "damage immunity": creatures who had DR/+something in 3.0, in those edition couldn't be physically harmed by non-magical hits. Seriously, they could survive planetary collision without a scratch - unless at least one of the planets was magical enough (sufficiently high weapon +enhancement). Build a wall of them with AMF generators - it would be indestructible!..

Specifically not true.

The didn't take damage from weapons, but they could be crushed, suffocated etc. If they fall they take damage, and a planetary collision is falling, of a sort.

It's weapon damage immunity, not damage immunity.

ShurikVch

2022-05-11, 04:56 PM

Both the 1e and 2e Dungeon Master's Guides contain those rules.
OK, found it - although it worked only for monsters - not for characters
Still, don't explains about 50-ton block - or, for that matter, a planet (neither is a monster...)

SimonMoon6

2022-05-11, 06:49 PM

And as I recall, in 1st edition at least, if you didn't have a +1 weapon, it wasn't that you couldn't "hurt" the monster. Instead, you couldn't "hit" the monster.

I recall this because after one adventure during which a cleric kept trying to hit a lich and kept missing, the party eventually wrapped up the lich in a magical rug. The cleric then kept trying to hit the immobilized lich over and over again until he rolled a 20 and I simply told him that he missed.

Lord Torath

2022-05-12, 08:25 AM

OK, found it - although it worked only for monsters - not for characters
Still, don't explains about 50-ton block - or, for that matter, a planet (neither is a monster...)As Raxxius said, it's immunity to weapon damage, not to damage in general.

Regarding hitting/missing, I recall an example in one of the rulebooks of a vampire being hit by non-magical arrows, and grinning as he rips them out. So you could hit, but there'd be no visible damage. Ruling they simply miss is another interpretation.

Seward

2022-05-12, 10:54 AM

And as I recall, in 1st edition at least, if you didn't have a +1 weapon, it wasn't that you couldn't "hurt" the monster. Instead, you couldn't "hit" the monster.

As weapons had to hit to do damage, for PCs it amounted to the same thing.

For monsters though, you could overcome those limits if you had enough hit dice. A big enough monster could hit anything.

I think other stuff was a grey area. First step was common sense - a wraith and wight both need magic weapons, but a 50 ton block dropped on a wraith does nothing, on a wight will at least pin it. For a wraith, needing a magic weapon was part of hitting its incorporeal form. For a wight, you get more the "arrow sticks out of it but doesn't hurt it". For an iron golem, the arrow bounces off.

Beyond that, is a "50 ton block" enough to count as a "big enough monster" to hurt it. For a wight sure, at most tables for an iron golem? Maybe not, although it will likely pin the golem. Said golem will probably free itself eventually by damaging the rock, if slowly.

Learn34

2022-05-12, 10:51 PM

OK, found it - although it worked only for monsters - not for characters
Still, don't explains about 50-ton block - or, for that matter, a planet (neither is a monster...)

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.

Admittedly this is from the 3.5PBH/SRD Glossary, but I'm guessing (hoping) the older edition's respective glossaries include this description, and the general understanding that unless the rules explicitly state otherwise, the universe works the same way as in real life. So DR matters for weapon damage (natural or manufactured) but not fall damage, the heat of two celestial bodies crashing together, or getting put through a meat grinder.

Saint-Just

2022-05-12, 11:49 PM

Admittedly this is from the 3.5PBH/SRD Glossary, but I'm guessing (hoping) the older edition's respective glossaries include this description, and the general understanding that unless the rules explicitly state otherwise, the universe works the same way as in real life. So DR matters for weapon damage (natural or manufactured) but not fall damage, the heat of two celestial bodies crashing together, or getting put through a meat grinder.

I believe meat grinder doesn't belong on the list - it is a case of a manufactured tool, relying on sharp blades. I get the idea that "nobody will survive being put through the meat grinder", but not only sponges beg to differ, but something sturdy enough (no need for fantasy monsters, just look at the turtles) will just jam the blades.

Raxxius

2022-05-13, 05:18 AM

As weapons had to hit to do damage, for PCs it amounted to the same thing.

For monsters though, you could overcome those limits if you had enough hit dice. A big enough monster could hit anything.

I think other stuff was a grey area. First step was common sense - a wraith and wight both need magic weapons, but a 50 ton block dropped on a wraith does nothing, on a wight will at least pin it. For a wraith, needing a magic weapon was part of hitting its incorporeal form. For a wight, you get more the "arrow sticks out of it but doesn't hurt it". For an iron golem, the arrow bounces off.

Beyond that, is a "50 ton block" enough to count as a "big enough monster" to hurt it. For a wight sure, at most tables for an iron golem? Maybe not, although it will likely pin the golem. Said golem will probably free itself eventually by damaging the rock, if slowly.

Tanari and lycanthropes are described as instally healing, closing the wound almost as quickly as it's caused. This is why 'massive' damage works, because turning the creature to a puddle gives it nothing to close the wound around.

In many ways 3.0 tried to model it better with DR. However because damage in 3.0+ can jump to absurd levels with proper optimisation, the DR numbers are too low.

thorr-kan

2022-05-13, 09:22 AM

In 2E, non-deities could grant spells, though they might be limited in the spell levels they could grant.

In 3E and more recent, non-deities cannot grant spells.

Boo. Boo, I say.

Kurald Galain

2022-05-13, 10:03 AM

In 2E, non-deities could grant spells, though they might be limited in the spell levels they could grant.

In 3E and more recent, non-deities cannot grant spells.

Is that why Vecna wanted to become a deity so badly?

Tzardok

2022-05-13, 11:36 AM

Is that why Vecna wanted to become a deity so badly?

He already was one in 2e. He just wanted to be bigger.

ShurikVch

2022-05-13, 06:30 PM

In 2E, non-deities could grant spells, though they might be limited in the spell levels they could grant.

In 3E and more recent, non-deities cannot grant spells.

Boo. Boo, I say.
Hey, what's about the Lord of Blades? He isn't a deity, right?
Fiend of Blasphemy PrC got the Sponsor Worshiper class feature...

One more thing from earlier editions: characters with Con 20+ are all got regeneration (fire or acid) - Con 25 gave regeneration 1, Con 20-24 restored 1 hp in 6-2 turns

Saint-Just

2022-05-14, 01:59 AM

In 2E, non-deities could grant spells, though they might be limited in the spell levels they could grant.

In 3E and more recent, non-deities cannot grant spells.

Boo. Boo, I say.

Gameplay-wise nothing has changed: clerics of Demogorgon remained clerics of Demogorgon, they wouldn't need to note someone else they worship.

Lore-wise it was an expanded case of "cleric of philosophy/idea": A lot of entities cannot grant you spells but serve as a focus for pulling spells out of cosmic ass.

thorr-kan

2022-05-14, 09:12 AM

Gameplay-wise nothing has changed: clerics of Demogorgon remained clerics of Demogorgon, they wouldn't need to note someone else they worship.

Lore-wise it was an expanded case of "cleric of philosophy/idea": A lot of entities cannot grant you spells but serve as a focus for pulling spells out of cosmic ass.
Not so.

In the first place, non-deity clerics could be limited in their spell levels. That was a campaign-specific limitation and varied by setting.

For the second point, from a metaphysical standpoint, it makes *all* the difference. Force/Idea/Philosophy is a valid divine source, too (which also intrigues me, but that's a different post) as discussed in Complete Priest's Handbook. But the whole point of a divine source is "I server X, for Power!"

Seward

2022-05-14, 10:54 AM

In the first place, non-deity clerics could be limited in their spell levels. That was a campaign-specific limitation and varied by setting.

Deity clerics could be too.

in 1st edition Greyhawk setting, dunno about other settings.

If your god was dead, or maybe didn't exist, you could get a maximum of L2 cleric spells (this would come up mostly if you plane-traveled and the new prime material plane lacked your deity, but some cultists would worship dead gods, and Lolth was killable on her home plane in a tournament module)

Greater Gods were the only ones who could grant L7 spells, so if you thought you'd make it that far you should pick one of the major pantheon deities. Note that this caused their "greater" status to be self-reinforcing. Note that there were no L8 or L9 spells for clerics, that was a wizard-only thing (even Illusionists didn't get L8-9 spells)

I forget the cutoff on demigods vs lesser gods, it was probably L4 for demigod, L6 for lesser god.

Also deity status could be fluid. Several demigods ascended from mortals (including Iuz, among others) and Temple of Elemental Evil - those "elemental evil" gods were actually powerful elementals that had ascended to demigod status because their basically fake cults were created whole cloth by the actual big-bad(s) of the dungeon as a concealment measure, but it went on long enough that the objects of the fake cults did enough worshiping etc to get actual power for themselves and their clerics.

It was probably possible to lose status short of dying too, at least in Greyhawk.

gadren

2022-05-14, 12:55 PM

Man, everyone here is talking about AD&D but I've only seen pre-3e D&D, just D&D briefly mentioned like twice.
That's right, while 1e and 2e AD&D existed, there was also D&D (minus the "Advanced") being published from 1977 up through the mid 1990's.
It was officially just called "Dungeons and Dragons" without an edition assigned to it, but over time was marketed as "Basic, B/X, Expert, Classic" and more. Modern fans refer to it as BECMI, for the five level-based rulebooks (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal) that were put out before it was all mostly consolidated in the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia.

BECMI D&D went up to level 36, though not every class went up to level 36 (demihumans typically stopped in the teens and just gained attack ranks after that).
There wasn't any true multiclassing, though some classes clearly just mashed two other classes together, and later came the option of secondary classes.
There was no good or evil alignment. You were lawful, neutral, or chaotic.
You rolled your ability scores in order, and some classes required certain ability scores to play them. If you rolled low on con, you just couldn't be a dwarf. Ability scores did not go above 18, period.
Race and class were not separated. Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were their own classes, with fighter, cleric, thief (rogue), and magic-user (wizard) assumed to be human.
Elf was literally just a fighter/magic user in one class. There was no such thing as an elf that couldn't cast spells.
Dwarf was just a fighter with wayyyyy better saving throws.
Halfling just sucked.
Elf and Dwarf has "infravision" instead of darkvision/low-light vision. Infravision worked off of seeing heat thematically, though this lead to a lot of argument about what you could and could not see with infravision.
Druid, Paladin, and Avenger were effectively prestige classes that could only be chosen at level 9 if you met the requirements. For example, if you wanted to be a paladin, you had to be a fighter until level 9, at which point if you were lawful you could swear fealty to a lawful cleric order to change all your class levels to paladin.
Clerics didn't get any spells until level 2. At level 1 they were just a ****ty fighter that could turn undead.
Like AD&D, everyone leveled up at different speeds, with thief leveling up the fastest, and elf leveling up the slowest (not counting monster classes introduced later, I'll get to those.)
You got xp not just from slaying monsters, but also from finding treasure (Find 1 gp, gain 1 xp) and completing goals.
BECMI actually came up with the weird money conversion that 2e also adopted (1e had a different weird money conversion.) 500 copper = 50 silver = 10 electrum = 5 gold = 1 platinum. How intuitive!
There is an optional weapon mastery system to make non-casters not suck. It kind of over-compensates, though. In addition to massive increases to weapon damage, some mastered weapons can also stun lock while others can parry so well that basically the first attack or two each round against the weapon master just isn't going to hit unless the master rolls a nat 1 on the d20.

Most BECMI content was set in the Mystara campaign setting, which in turn introduced a lot more content for the system through the time honored tradition of splat books.
New classes and subclasses were introduced. Subclasses were just tweaks made to the normal classes. For example, the Forester was literally just the elf class, except you were human and didn't have infravision. My group refers to it as the "elf poser class." Rake was just a thief that didn't get backstab nor pick pockets, but were lawful and thus trusted more.
Actually useful new classes included the Ethengar shaman (which very clearly inspired the 3e Spirit Shaman) and the hakomon (basically an early version of the Wu Jen class). Elves also got the option to train with Treekeepers to basically be a druid/wizard instead of a fighter/wizard, while dwarves got an option to basically be a fighter/cleric instead of just a fighter.
Secondary classes also got introduced, which was the only kind of multiclassing you could do, but it was more like taking levels of a prestige class. You could take a secondary class levels if you met the requirement. Wokani was basically a crude mage and shaman were crude cleric/druids (not to be confused with the ethengar shaman), and you have to succeed at int/wis checks to level up or lose all the xp you had saved for that secondary class. But it was a way to splash in magic-using abilities if you weren't a magic-user, cleric, etc. There was also the merchant prince class which also gave you spellcasting abilities and you leveled up by making money through trade.
Late in the run, it introduced the Creature Crucible series which basically did a protoversion of Savage species but worked better because your-race-is-your-class was already a thing. So no level adjustment or anything, if you wanted to be a sphinx you would just choose Sphinx as your class. The best of these were the fey who had some really interesting options like the Hsiao (you're just a big talking owl that can cast cleric magic. Not an owl-person. An owl.) and the Woodrake (Are you a medium-sized dragon? A halfling? An elf? Yes.)

There's a lot more I could say, but I really should get to work.

I know it doesn't sound like fun because I'm kind of roasting it, but it actually can be a blast. I'm actually currently running a BECMI campaign. I feel like consolidating race and class allowed them to make some playable options that just didn't work as well with the separation, and a lot of the systems are faster and simpler.