Um, the first of the DL novels was Autumn Twilight in 1984.
That's 1e Era, for those keeping score.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That would be extremely early years of D&D like an original box set early. D&D adventures by the time 1st edition was middle-aged varied wildly from classic dungeon crawls, hex crawls, campaign adventures, dominion management adventures, even crazy stuff like linear railroads stuff where you would literally play through the Dragonlance novels using the Dragonlance novel characters and essentially following alone a pre-determined story. I don't think I could think of anything that wasn't tried during the 1e era, they did everything twice over.
The first of the Dragonlance novels was published in 2007. That is well beyond `Extremely Early` but rather in the late 3.5 era, just before 4e was published.
Say what?
1987 is closer, and I'm pretty sure it was a few years before that. Still not 'extremely early', but he didn't say they were.
The first of the novels came out in 1984. I just cracked open my AD&D Dragonlance Adventures book. It was published in 1987.
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e.
No it isn't. 1e is essentially impossible to play correctly. The thing is, the rules are so badly edited that you probably don't know you aren't playing correctly.
It was a presentation error at first, along with a problem on clarification. I suggested that it be given a better heading and, rather than being presented as to what constitutes one (spelling it out explicitly "this is a bonus action" per each instance that something is a bonus action, having at least one or two things that are simply given as bonus actions so that people are familiar with them and not asking "oh, what are my bonus actions? do I have any?"
Which has been a constant question that I have to ask my players as they forget. Then they get them confused because the rogue gets the disengage and dash and hide as bonus actions so my cleric tries to do them as well, because they don't get that it's class specific. My fighter tries to do an unarmed attack as a onus action because they aren't clear on it and they feel like they have jack shit to do and the try using an unarmed attack as a bonus action, and after searching for it, I just give up and tell him he can do so, mostly because I'm tired at that point and I want to have the game progress, the dude wants to do more than swing a sword once and be done, and I really have no argument as to why he can't punch or head butt a guy with a second action.
And it's not the first instance of having something that requires searching because it's just something they didn't think to come up with. Like unarmed fighting to begin with. And does an unarmed strike count as a simple weapon, which would allow two weapon fighting? Oh yeah, they changed the type to LIGHT and not SIMPLE. When that change happened? IDK...
Here's my search results from "unarmed combat" (if it shows)
1) You're using the D&D Beyond search function to look up rules, and it's bad. This is a real issue, but it's not an issue with the rulebook.
(On the one hand, good search is hard. On the other hand, DDB's doesn't even reach adequate. As a sometimes software developer, I'm a lot more forgiving of some of DDB's failings than most, but they should've done better.)
2) You don't have that firm a grasp of the combat rules, which means that your players have an even weaker one.
Pretty much every time in this thread you've said "we couldn't find X", X is in PHB Chapter 9, under a fairly obvious heading. Bonus actions? They're under "The Order of Combat"->"Your Turn". Is an unarmed attack a weapon? "Making an Attack"->"Melee attacks"
Is it possible you just don't mesh with the way they organized the rules? Sure. Exception-based games (where you have a basic set of rules, and various game elements give you additions to what you can do, or let you diverge from the normal mechanics) are not everyone's cup of tea, but it's very much a sensible way to organize D&D.
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e.
No it isn't. 1e is essentially impossible to play correctly. The thing is, the rules are so badly edited that you probably don't know you aren't playing correctly.
You're correct, but also sort of wrong.
5e has much cleaner, simpler mechanics, but it also has more _stuff_. A 1st edition D&D character has far fewer options than a 5e character of the same level, both to build, and to use in combat. In some ways it really is easier to learn 1e, because "hit orc with sword" is all you've got. (I am being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much.)
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e.
No it isn't. 1e is essentially impossible to play correctly. The thing is, the rules are so badly edited that you probably don't know you aren't playing correctly.
You're correct, but also sort of wrong.
5e has much cleaner, simpler mechanics, but it also has more _stuff_. A 1st edition D&D character has far fewer options than a 5e character of the same level, both to build, and to use in combat. In some ways it really is easier to learn 1e, because "hit orc with sword" is all you've got. (I am being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much.)
I would classify this as Accurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
5e has much cleaner, simpler mechanics, but it also has more _stuff_. A 1st edition D&D character has far fewer options than a 5e character of the same level, both to build, and to use in combat. In some ways it really is easier to learn 1e, because "hit orc with sword" is all you've got. (I am being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much.)
It is until that 1st edition character tries to, say, grapple something. Which there are (completely dysfunctional) rules for. Oh, and did you remember to roll for psionics?
Absolutely everyone is playing their own variation based off their interpretation of rules as written as well as rules as intended and every single table varies from every other one.
This is wildly exaggerated
I DM one mostly homebrewed 5e game, and have played with many other different DMs with a wide variety of styles and campaigns -- a classic dungeon crawl/ToA game that has now gone Spelljammer at higher levels, a CoS campaign, a very CR-influenced Tal'Dorei campaign, a homebrew where we (DM and players together) created the world from scratch, a Wild West/Oregon Trail-styled campaign, etc etc etc
We all play what is instantly recognizable as the same set of rules. There may be minor differences in how the different DMs handle different edge cases in those rules, but they're just that - edge cases
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
5e has much cleaner, simpler mechanics, but it also has more _stuff_. A 1st edition D&D character has far fewer options than a 5e character of the same level, both to build, and to use in combat. In some ways it really is easier to learn 1e, because "hit orc with sword" is all you've got. (I am being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much.)
It is until that 1st edition character tries to, say, grapple something. Which there are (completely dysfunctional) rules for. Oh, and did you remember to roll for psionics?
*arranges face in a complete absence of emotion*
No Comment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e.
No it isn't. 1e is essentially impossible to play correctly. The thing is, the rules are so badly edited that you probably don't know you aren't playing correctly.
You don't know me. You don't have a clue how I play 1e. But I do know, from direct experience, that 1e is an order of magnitude easier to teach a player.
That would be extremely early years of D&D like an original box set early. D&D adventures by the time 1st edition was middle-aged varied wildly from classic dungeon crawls, hex crawls, campaign adventures, dominion management adventures, even crazy stuff like linear railroads stuff where you would literally play through the Dragonlance novels using the Dragonlance novel characters and essentially following alone a pre-determined story. I don't think I could think of anything that wasn't tried during the 1e era, they did everything twice over.
The first of the Dragonlance novels was published in 2007. That is well beyond `Extremely Early` but rather in the late 3.5 era, just before 4e was published.
Say what?
1987 is closer, and I'm pretty sure it was a few years before that. Still not 'extremely early', but he didn't say they were.
Yeah, I missed that too. I was reading dragons of spring dawn or something in the (very) early 90's. I also read of the brother's books before even starting HS as well ... (90's)
Within reach, I have the 1e DMG. My original, in fact. Within five steps, I have my original PHB, and then a bunch of other odds and ends. wtf is the manual of the planes doing here?
I haven't' picked up the old PHB, but I should note that I never did the B/X sets. The reason that I have this all in reach is that I am converting stuff -- so I have been staring at the style.
That is absolutely the old B/X. 5e is not descended from B/X. It is descended from AD&D. To those that came after the end of BECMI during the 3/3.5 era, and later folks, that distinction is pretty meaningless.
Tom Moldvay did the stuff you are thinking of for Basic (the 76/77 era issue). Schick did the mechanical stuff. Cook's Expert set took that and moved forward. Dave Cook is the one that handles the really complicated stuff fairly well, because he created really complicated stuff.
BECMI was Mentzer. He was really good about that kind of thing as well.
Gygax was... ...not.
Now, this matters to us long term players (which sounds way better than old farts) because during that era, it was two completely different games that claimed familial similarity and led to a lot of infighting (especially over space to play) and crap like my own lingering bias. It really is two very different ways of looking at the games.
Moldvay and Schick were the Mystara folks, and it was a much, much simpler version of the ideas around AD&D, and slanted for Mystara, a world influenced by ERB, Howard, and Verne.
AD&D was the (then) more recent stuff inspired, Greyhawk setting. Flavor, profile, even the understanding of what fantasy was different. Cook's work on Oriental Adventures is pretty close, but that's because it was essentially a brand new Player's Handbook, for what was really a different world entirely at the time.
All of which is in my head because some of the folks I have talked to, and I have been using the old 1e/2e era books for a point of reference. That DMG? I have bookmarks for certain materials for a crafting system marked. (1e did not have a real crafting system, either).
5e is a "soft" game. On purpose. We like "crunch" -- but not a ton of it. A bit more resource monitoring, a bit more risk/reward stuff that gives us a feel of actually being in a story. I said this elsewhere, but I had to really work hard to find ways to do things because I wasn't allowed to use anything written between 1920 and 1980 as a basis for anything in my world -- and D&D is built on stuff that came about in that era.
IT probably was Basic, which I LIKED for that....
The DMG for AD&D, was.... How to put it? It showed you a lot more "under the hood" of the game, which is just lacking.
Hell, i designed my own DM screen. The official one is nice and handy, but it doesn't have all the stuff I like to have at my fingertips.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
Depends on the critters and the circumstances, lol.
You could freely hand out a +5 magical sword to characters if they were up against a creature immune to magical weapons. Or that rusted them. Or that sucked the magic from them.
You could be up a creek without a paddle if you wanted to use the red dragon against the same folks, though.
Simultaneously no effect and huge effect.
This is not a product of the system. You can do that in any edition. I also don’t suspect this is what OSR4ever was referring to when they mention games where you can have way more fun because you get a +3 flametongue at first level but it makes no difference to the game if you a +3 flametongue at first level. I must admit though, I’m not entirely sure what the hell OSR4ever is saying because that claim still makes no sense. In order to create a condition that alters the level of fun in a game, the +3 flametongue logically MUST have some effect on the game. We are believe that it does without articulating how or why and without explaining how that is different between the editions. Just like a mountain of other complaints that people have compiled here. Trust them. They know. They’ve been playing for a long time.
So, an interesting thing happened with my group. I run games at a local hobby store, which i have been doing for about 6 years now. Recently, my group wanted to run a Dark Sun game, so I dusted off my old ADnD 2e books and ran the starting adventure for them. Then i decided to run the Audio adventure, Light in the Belfry for Ravenloft (they seriously need to bring back audio adventures), also using 2e rules.
So now I plan to return to some old Ravenloft modules and I asked my group if they wanted to use 5e characters and all 5 of them said, no. I believe the reason why is because they are truly invested in their 2e characters like they have never been in 5e and I feel a lot of satisfaction being there with them in their journey.
5e characters are basically Avengers. Every level comes with new super powers, no one really earns anything. Very little comes with questing. The result is that my players in 5e are constantly switching characters when they get bored. In my 2e game, they earn every power, every ability and every level. When a character dies in 1e or 2e, it usually takes few hours of counselling to get over it. I have had 5e players go out of their way to kill their character just to play something else. In 2e, when they level, they get better at what they do. Fighters are hitting more, rogues get better at thief skills, and Wizards and Priests get better at casting their spells. In 5e the skills are all shared, including thief skills, all classes have the same combat bonuses, spells are locked in at their level, unless you spend a higher spell slot, and they are limited to 3 magic items, which means getting loot is typically meaningless by level 6.
As a DM, i can't reward them with magic items, if its not better than the 3 they have. They just want to level, and only quest for the purpose of the level to get a new super power, which comes automatically. Not only that, concentration on spells prevents my casters from being creative with spells and spell combinations. Every combat, they cast fireball, and why not, its more effective than casting a buff that will be lost when they take damage.
I was wondering if any DMs have dealt with similar issues, and how they deal with it?
I am sincerely hoping with the new edition, we see some advanced rules in the DMG that brings more earned advancement, and raises the stakes, but I have a feeling the game will remain on easy mode. I like 5e a lot. Its simpler system, that is easy to follow, but I really want my players to get that feeling of ownership we had in 1e and 2e. I want to see real tears of joy when they get that magic item, or tears of sorrow when their characters die.
Thoughts?
I haven’t read everyone’s responses but I’m sure there is some good advice there. One option, if you want to play 5E without feeling like players are Avengers or doesn’t have the 2E feel you like is make some changes. Homebrew or houserule things. Slow down the advancement pace. Make them work for it and maybe change how death and dying works.
Maybe take a look at Dungeoncraft YouTube channel. Some of his videos like this one shows how he changes his 5E game to make it enjoyable for his players.
I haven’t read everyone’s responses but I’m sure there is some good advice there. One option, if you want to play 5E without feeling like players are Avengers or doesn’t have the 2E feel you like is make some changes. Homebrew or houserule things. Slow down the advancement pace. Make them work for it and maybe change how death and dying works.
Maybe take a look at Dungeoncraft YouTube channel. Some of his videos like this one shows how he changes his 5E game to make it enjoyable for his players.
Mostly a complaint fest.
Honestly, a huge fan of web dm. Surprised there isn't a topic asking who everyone's favorite d&d youtube channel is...
How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
Depends on the critters and the circumstances, lol.
You could freely hand out a +5 magical sword to characters if they were up against a creature immune to magical weapons. Or that rusted them. Or that sucked the magic from them.
You could be up a creek without a paddle if you wanted to use the red dragon against the same folks, though.
Simultaneously no effect and huge effect.
This is not a product of the system. You can do that in any edition. I also don’t suspect this is what OSR4ever was referring to when they mention games where you can have way more fun because you get a +3 flametongue at first level but it makes no difference to the game if you a +3 flametongue at first level. I must admit though, I’m not entirely sure what the hell OSR4ever is saying because that claim still makes no sense. In order to create a condition that alters the level of fun in a game, the +3 flametongue logically MUST have some effect on the game. We are believe that it does without articulating how or why and without explaining how that is different between the editions. Just like a mountain of other complaints that people have compiled here. Trust them. They know. They’ve been playing for a long time.
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Ok one more time and maybe this time we can do it without miss quoting me, lets just read what I say and use the assumption its what I meant.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
Now comes the damage. A Long Sword is a d8 + Strength. An orc on average has 4 hit points. This means whether you are rolling a 1d8+1 with 1d6 fire damage or just a clean 1d8 chances are you are probably going to kill the Orc either way. Sure your odds are better but the point here is not whether or not you auto-kill the orc or not, the point is that this doesn't help you a whole lot against the other 2 Orcs.
Whatever tactics you are using, whatever approach you take to the fight, whether you kill 1 Orc in a combat or not, this does not have that much of an impact on the overall fight. Odds are you are probably going to kill the 1 Orc anyway. Its a minor and mostly irrelevant statistical difference, but as a whole the impact is pretty minimal. You are not really in any less danger, it doesn't allow you to be brazen and just charge into battle like some sort of superhero... the fight, for the most part is the same.
It's as a whole a minor thing, it's not some balancing destroying super weapon. In short, its not a big deal. The game stay mostly the same. The results are likely to be about the same.
It stems from how tight the math is in 1e. Monsters have very few hit points, when it comes to the fighter, especially at 1st level 1 hit is 1 kill.
Its quite different in 1e. 1d8 +1 + strength + 1d6 for the flame tongue means that you are likely to kill an Orc in one blow (average HP 15) and that is a big deal because with a normal weapon (1d8) its not going to happen. Such a weapon has a considerable impact in a game where monsters have lots of hit points.
Its not a big deal Im just saying that in 1e, having a more powerful than average weapon in the hands of a fighter is really not going to change a whole lot about the outcome of a fight.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
A level 1 fighter (assuming strength < 17) normally needs a 14 to hit AC 6 (35%). Against a 4 hp orc, it takes an average of 1.42 hits to kill. Average attacks required: 4.07
With a flame tongue, that becomes 40% to hit, 1.125 hits to kill, average attacks required: 2.81. That's a 42% increase. That is, in fact, a big deal. And that's vs generic targets -- if you are going up against undead it's an enormous power multiplier.
Now, there's the separate issue that a flame tongue in 5e is a more powerful general purpose weapon than in 1e, because it does significant extra damage to all targets instead of just to certain particular classes of monster, but you originally talked about a "+3" flame tongue, which if it existed would certainly be highly disruptive in general.
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Ok one more time and maybe this time we can do it without miss quoting me, lets just read what I say and use the assumption its what I meant.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
Now comes the damage. A Long Sword is a d8 + Strength. An orc on average has 4 hit points. This means whether you are rolling a 1d8+1 with 1d6 fire damage or just a clean 1d8 chances are you are probably going to kill the Orc either way. Sure your odds are better but the point here is not whether or not you auto-kill the orc or not, the point is that this doesn't help you a whole lot against the other 2 Orcs.
Whatever tactics you are using, whatever approach you take to the fight, whether you kill 1 Orc in a combat or not, this does not have that much of an impact on the overall fight. Odds are you are probably going to kill the 1 Orc anyway. Its a minor and mostly irrelevant statistical difference, but as a whole the impact is pretty minimal. You are not really in any less danger, it doesn't allow you to be brazen and just charge into battle like some sort of superhero... the fight, for the most part is the same.
It's as a whole a minor thing, it's not some balancing destroying super weapon. In short, its not a big deal. The game stay mostly the same. The results are likely to be about the same.
It stems from how tight the math is in 1e. Monsters have very few hit points, when it comes to the fighter, especially at 1st level 1 hit is 1 kill.
Its quite different in 1e. 1d8 +1 + strength + 1d6 for the flame tongue means that you are likely to kill an Orc in one blow (average HP 15) and that is a big deal because with a normal weapon (1d8) its not going to happen. Such a weapon has a considerable impact in a game where monsters have lots of hit points.
Its not a big deal Im just saying that in 1e, having a more powerful than average weapon in the hands of a fighter is really not going to change a whole lot about the outcome of a fight.
Your claim is that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 makes the game more fun. While simultaneously claiming that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 doesn’t really change the outcome of the fight. If having powerful magic weapons doesn’t change the outcome of the fight, how is the game made more or less fun by their inclusion or exclusion? Because you are excited by the idea of having powerful magic weapons but fail to understand that if they don’t do anything, they are not powerful at all, they just have cool names?? This is not a design flaw of 5e nor a perk older editions, it’s something you have to reconcile within yourself by examining your relationship with the English language, first, and the purpose of things as a philosophical notion, second.
Um, the first of the DL novels was Autumn Twilight in 1984.
That's 1e Era, for those keeping score.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The first of the novels came out in 1984. I just cracked open my AD&D Dragonlance Adventures book. It was published in 1987.
No it isn't. 1e is essentially impossible to play correctly. The thing is, the rules are so badly edited that you probably don't know you aren't playing correctly.
The way I see it, you have two problems:
1) You're using the D&D Beyond search function to look up rules, and it's bad. This is a real issue, but it's not an issue with the rulebook.
(On the one hand, good search is hard. On the other hand, DDB's doesn't even reach adequate. As a sometimes software developer, I'm a lot more forgiving of some of DDB's failings than most, but they should've done better.)
2) You don't have that firm a grasp of the combat rules, which means that your players have an even weaker one.
Pretty much every time in this thread you've said "we couldn't find X", X is in PHB Chapter 9, under a fairly obvious heading. Bonus actions? They're under "The Order of Combat"->"Your Turn". Is an unarmed attack a weapon? "Making an Attack"->"Melee attacks"
Is it possible you just don't mesh with the way they organized the rules? Sure. Exception-based games (where you have a basic set of rules, and various game elements give you additions to what you can do, or let you diverge from the normal mechanics) are not everyone's cup of tea, but it's very much a sensible way to organize D&D.
You're correct, but also sort of wrong.
5e has much cleaner, simpler mechanics, but it also has more _stuff_. A 1st edition D&D character has far fewer options than a 5e character of the same level, both to build, and to use in combat. In some ways it really is easier to learn 1e, because "hit orc with sword" is all you've got. (I am being slightly hyperbolic, but not by much.)
I would classify this as Accurate.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It is until that 1st edition character tries to, say, grapple something. Which there are (completely dysfunctional) rules for. Oh, and did you remember to roll for psionics?
This is wildly exaggerated
I DM one mostly homebrewed 5e game, and have played with many other different DMs with a wide variety of styles and campaigns -- a classic dungeon crawl/ToA game that has now gone Spelljammer at higher levels, a CoS campaign, a very CR-influenced Tal'Dorei campaign, a homebrew where we (DM and players together) created the world from scratch, a Wild West/Oregon Trail-styled campaign, etc etc etc
We all play what is instantly recognizable as the same set of rules. There may be minor differences in how the different DMs handle different edge cases in those rules, but they're just that - edge cases
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
*arranges face in a complete absence of emotion*
No Comment.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You don't know me. You don't have a clue how I play 1e. But I do know, from direct experience, that 1e is an order of magnitude easier to teach a player.
Yeah, I missed that too. I was reading dragons of spring dawn or something in the (very) early 90's. I also read of the brother's books before even starting HS as well ... (90's)
IT probably was Basic, which I LIKED for that....
The DMG for AD&D, was.... How to put it? It showed you a lot more "under the hood" of the game, which is just lacking.
I may just have to design my own crib notes.
I did design my own crib notes! lol.
Hell, i designed my own DM screen. The official one is nice and handy, but it doesn't have all the stuff I like to have at my fingertips.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This is not a product of the system. You can do that in any edition. I also don’t suspect this is what OSR4ever was referring to when they mention games where you can have way more fun because you get a +3 flametongue at first level but it makes no difference to the game if you a +3 flametongue at first level. I must admit though, I’m not entirely sure what the hell OSR4ever is saying because that claim still makes no sense. In order to create a condition that alters the level of fun in a game, the +3 flametongue logically MUST have some effect on the game. We are believe that it does without articulating how or why and without explaining how that is different between the editions. Just like a mountain of other complaints that people have compiled here. Trust them. They know. They’ve been playing for a long time.
I haven’t read everyone’s responses but I’m sure there is some good advice there. One option, if you want to play 5E without feeling like players are Avengers or doesn’t have the 2E feel you like is make some changes. Homebrew or houserule things. Slow down the advancement pace. Make them work for it and maybe change how death and dying works.
Maybe take a look at Dungeoncraft YouTube channel. Some of his videos like this one shows how he changes his 5E game to make it enjoyable for his players.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Mostly a complaint fest.
Honestly, a huge fan of web dm. Surprised there isn't a topic asking who everyone's favorite d&d youtube channel is...
Hey now, trust me on this, I know, I've been playing a long time: totally different between 1e and 5e.
(slaps thigh)
As we later established with poor OSR, lol, the basis of a lot of that was opinion and "feel" -- and in 1e when you got a +3 Flametongue you felt like you had just gone up and gained your third attack as a fighter in 5e, or you got access to a new set of invocations. Or pick your special ability from your subclass of choice that really makes a difference in the strategy, tactics, and sense of power that you get.
The primary differences referenced were that you often felt like you had just completed an entire dungeon to get it in 1e, and in 5e you just have to level up (where "just" is doing an awful lot of work there).
5e was intentionally designed to give special abilities that replace what magic items used to do. Instead of spending hours figuring out how to make a special magical item that would do incredible things for you in 1e, you now spend time figuring out what special ability you are going to have.
So there is, logically, an impact on the game. It just isn't a mechanical impact -- which you pointed out by saying you can do it any game. The limiting factor in that case becomes some flimsy whatchamacallit called Balance, which hasn't existed in 5e since at least 2018, and was given lip service in 1e, lol. Balance is a factor of style of play and game focus -- DM's realm stuff.
Trust me on this. Really. I know. I've played for a long time.
(covers mouth to hide grin, runs for the exit)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Ok one more time and maybe this time we can do it without miss quoting me, lets just read what I say and use the assumption its what I meant.
In 1e when you find say a +1 Flamtongue it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference... not an opinion or feeling, an objective mathematical fact. The question is how. The answer is fairly straightforward.
When your a 1st level character and say your fighting 3 Orcs. You are going to get 1 attack. Whether you are using a +1 Sword on a regular sword marginally improves your chances of hitting which are already pretty good (Orcs have an AC 6, equivalent to an AC 13). Hence you are probably going to hit +1 Longsword or not.
Now comes the damage. A Long Sword is a d8 + Strength. An orc on average has 4 hit points. This means whether you are rolling a 1d8+1 with 1d6 fire damage or just a clean 1d8 chances are you are probably going to kill the Orc either way. Sure your odds are better but the point here is not whether or not you auto-kill the orc or not, the point is that this doesn't help you a whole lot against the other 2 Orcs.
Whatever tactics you are using, whatever approach you take to the fight, whether you kill 1 Orc in a combat or not, this does not have that much of an impact on the overall fight. Odds are you are probably going to kill the 1 Orc anyway. Its a minor and mostly irrelevant statistical difference, but as a whole the impact is pretty minimal. You are not really in any less danger, it doesn't allow you to be brazen and just charge into battle like some sort of superhero... the fight, for the most part is the same.
It's as a whole a minor thing, it's not some balancing destroying super weapon. In short, its not a big deal. The game stay mostly the same. The results are likely to be about the same.
It stems from how tight the math is in 1e. Monsters have very few hit points, when it comes to the fighter, especially at 1st level 1 hit is 1 kill.
Its quite different in 1e. 1d8 +1 + strength + 1d6 for the flame tongue means that you are likely to kill an Orc in one blow (average HP 15) and that is a big deal because with a normal weapon (1d8) its not going to happen. Such a weapon has a considerable impact in a game where monsters have lots of hit points.
Its not a big deal Im just saying that in 1e, having a more powerful than average weapon in the hands of a fighter is really not going to change a whole lot about the outcome of a fight.
A level 1 fighter (assuming strength < 17) normally needs a 14 to hit AC 6 (35%). Against a 4 hp orc, it takes an average of 1.42 hits to kill. Average attacks required: 4.07
With a flame tongue, that becomes 40% to hit, 1.125 hits to kill, average attacks required: 2.81. That's a 42% increase. That is, in fact, a big deal. And that's vs generic targets -- if you are going up against undead it's an enormous power multiplier.
Now, there's the separate issue that a flame tongue in 5e is a more powerful general purpose weapon than in 1e, because it does significant extra damage to all targets instead of just to certain particular classes of monster, but you originally talked about a "+3" flame tongue, which if it existed would certainly be highly disruptive in general.
Your claim is that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 makes the game more fun. While simultaneously claiming that the possession of powerful magic weapons in older editions at level 1 doesn’t really change the outcome of the fight. If having powerful magic weapons doesn’t change the outcome of the fight, how is the game made more or less fun by their inclusion or exclusion? Because you are excited by the idea of having powerful magic weapons but fail to understand that if they don’t do anything, they are not powerful at all, they just have cool names?? This is not a design flaw of 5e nor a perk older editions, it’s something you have to reconcile within yourself by examining your relationship with the English language, first, and the purpose of things as a philosophical notion, second.