Billiard, what are the major differences between 1e and 5e?
If we are talking about 1e B/X and 5e. Far fewer than you would think in particular if you use modern versions of B/X like old-school essentials.
Characters die at 0 HP in 1e, there are no death saves hence the game is quite lethal.
B/X doesn't have sub-classes, but there are more core classes and class combinations.
The skill system in B/X is more focused on representing a profession covering a multitude of assumed skills, while the skill system in 5e is more focused on specific tasks. So for example in B/X you have skills like Seafarer, Animal Trainer, Huntsman, while in 5e you have skills like Animal Handling, Survival, Medicine. There is also a sub-system for adventuring skills like moving silently, finding traps, tracking that certain classes have as a class ability.
B/X Combat System is based on group actions as opposed to breaking things down to individual character actions. So in B/X combat execution is sort like everyone moves, everyone shoot ranged weapons, everyone casts spells and then everyone makes melee attacks, as opposed to a sort of one character at a time doing all the stuff they can.
Saving Throws are setup quite differently and are connected to the class and class level rather then a particular ability score. Essentially the quality of your saving throws is a class ability and improves with level.
Those are some of the more core mechanic differences, there are other things too of course but generally, the mechanics either mimic each other or work similar enough that while different really aren't.
There are some conceptual differences as well.
1e is designed around the concept of danger avoidance and the absence of "balance" of danger. For example, monsters are really not worth much XP and fighting monsters, in general, is extremely dangerous and battles aren't designed to be balanced, hence you are encouraged to avoid fighting if you can and its always brave to get into a fight because anyone can die at any time. The games core is more built around role-playing, exploring, treasure hunting and after 9th level empire building. Also there is less of a focus on "fight to the death", monsters have morales and will turn and run, so fighting is very fast, violent and deadly.
1e combat resolution is quite different logically. There is a relatively low hit point count, but high AC so most standard weapons can kill most monsters with one clean shot, but attacks often miss. A normal human has 4 hit points and that is kind of the measure from which other things are designed. So for example a Dragon, a very powerful creature has a 30-40 hit points. AC is a big factor as attack bonuses are equally low, magic resistance is also a big thing. There is generally less attrition and very few fight last more than 4-5 rounds, its a big fight that goes 7-10 rounds but a long epic fight is like 20-30 minutes, most fights resolve in 5-10 minutes.
I think the big one is evolving gameplay. What the game is about changes over time. From like 1st to 4th level your sort of treasure hunters and adventurers. By 5th-7th level, you are doing kind of epic quests for important people. By the time you hit 9th level you are typically an important person in the world getting involved in politics and dominion management. At later levels your raising armies and involved in realm vs. realm political and literal war. These things are also possible to do in 5e, in particular with great 3rd party supplements but in 1e its kind of built into the design of the game if you understand what I mean. Like you gain class benefits that help you with these higher level things.
Im sure there are lots of detailed things that we could make long lists, but like in the big scheme of things, I think those are sort of the big things most players who never played 1e before notice.
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation! I also curse my autocorrect. It only only ever seems to "correct" what I intend to be as I've written and never the mistakes...
Another big difference between 1E and 5E was how spellcasting worked.
In 1E, there were three main spellcasting classes: wizards, priests (what we now call clerics), and druids. Paladins and rangers could cast spells, but they were very limited in what they could do and used the priest and druid spell lists, respectively.
You had to prepare spells, but it worked differently. To prepare spells in 1E, you looked at how many spell slots you had, then chose spells from your spellbook (wizard) or list of spells known (priests and druids) of the appropriate spell level to fill those slots.
For example, a wizard with two 1st level spell slots could select Magic Missile and Sleep, or Sleep and Grease, or Grease and Magic Missile. Or he could select any one of those spells twice. That day, if he'd chosen Sleep and Magic Missile, he could cast Sleep once and Magic Missile once and that was it. He couldn't cast either twice, because each was assigned to a specific spell slot.
I don't remember if 1E allowed you to prepare spells using spell slots that were higher level than the spell itself was, but even if it did, that didn't do anything besides let you cast the spell again. A 10th level wizard casting fireball from a 3rd level slot would do exactly the same amount of damage as from a 5th level slot. Instead, your character's spells improved in power as you got higher in level: at 5th level, a fireball would deal 5d6 damage, and you'd gain an extra 1d6 damage to your fireball every time you went up in level. Later editions would cap the upper limit to how much bonus damage spells got, but IIRC 1E did not.
Finally, the maximum spell slot level you could attain depended on your class: wizards could eventually cast spells of up to 9th level, druids and priests were limited to spells of 7th level, rangers were tapped at 4th level, and paladins at 3rd level. However, a spell's level depended on which class was casting it: a priest got Hold Person as a 2nd level spell while a wizard got it as a 3rd level spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I realize this is an old thread, and as such, this probably will not be read, but I would be a 1E Puritan. One thing about 1E was the DM was EVERYTHING!!!! There was no RAW, the DMG stated "there are just guidelines, if you don't like it, don't use it" This made the DM ultra important and a great DM made the game memorable. A good DM would keep the balance. Yes, a 1st level magic user would basically suck with his 1 light spell and 2 HP, but a good DM would find a way to keep him relevant. It was like that for any character though. It was so easy to die that if you made it to level 10, you accomplished something. Made combat less important and characters worked together to each others strengths. I have tried other versions, but I did not like 3 or 3.5 or 4 at all as it became too much "the book says I can do it," took the fun out of it for me. Probably just me, but that is who I am. Other thing which I am sure is just a me thing, was that the stats and damage became ridiculous for someone who started out in 1e. In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round. Personally I could not get my head around why characters could do so much damage per round. It seemed more about 'nerfing' your character to do the most damage possible. (side note 1e Unearthed Arcana is an abomination...strength bonuses *should not* apply to thrown weapons so darts are not a feasible approach to a dragon or any large monster) Anyway, enough rambling, back to my original point, the thing I feel set 1E apart was the lackadaisical approach to rules and it was up to the DM to make it interesting. A good DM understood his players and the experience great for them.
In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round. Personally I could not get my head around why characters could do so much damage per round. It seemed more about 'nerfing' your character to do the most damage possible.
A 5th level elf fighter in 3.5 could theoretically make 4 attacks per round with a longbow, provided they had the right feats and spells cast on them. They could do a whopping 1d8+3 damage if they had a magic longbow and the Weapon Specialization feat. Also, dealing more damage is not nerfing. It's the exact opposite of nerfing. "Nerfing" means to render something less powerful or dangerous that it was before, as if a weapon were replaced by a NERF version of itself. For example, high level spellcasters in 5th Edition got nerfed compared to 1E or 3.5 because they get less spell slots, the duration of most spells in 5E is much shorter, and the Concentration mechanic means that they can't layer on a bunch of different protective effects simultaneously.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I realize this is an old thread, and as such, this probably will not be read, but I would be a 1E Puritan. One thing about 1E was the DM was EVERYTHING!!!! There was no RAW, the DMG stated "there are just guidelines, if you don't like it, don't use it" This made the DM ultra important and a great DM made the game memorable. A good DM would keep the balance. Yes, a 1st level magic user would basically suck with his 1 light spell and 2 HP, but a good DM would find a way to keep him relevant. It was like that for any character though. It was so easy to die that if you made it to level 10, you accomplished something. Made combat less important and characters worked together to each others strengths. I have tried other versions, but I did not like 3 or 3.5 or 4 at all as it became too much "the book says I can do it," took the fun out of it for me. Probably just me, but that is who I am. Other thing which I am sure is just a me thing, was that the stats and damage became ridiculous for someone who started out in 1e. In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round. Personally I could not get my head around why characters could do so much damage per round. It seemed more about 'nerfing' your character to do the most damage possible. (side note 1e Unearthed Arcana is an abomination...strength bonuses *should not* apply to thrown weapons so darts are not a feasible approach to a dragon or any large monster) Anyway, enough rambling, back to my original point, the thing I feel set 1E apart was the lackadaisical approach to rules and it was up to the DM to make it interesting. A good DM understood his players and the experience great for them.
I would argue that the concept of RAW hasn't changed from the 1E days, the DMG, Players Handbook and every sourcebook states that it is up to the DM what rules they use or don't use. What has changed is the Internet and the size of the audience, where as for 1E there where not vast forums and boards with thousands and thousands of voices now society has changed. Arguments about RAW and it's application are not indicative of 5E they are indicative of society in 2020.
I would argue that the concept of RAW hasn't changed from the 1E days, the DMG, Players Handbook and every sourcebook states that it is up to the DM what rules they use or don't use. What has changed is the Internet and the size of the audience, where as for 1E there where not vast forums and boards with thousands and thousands of voices now society has changed. Arguments about RAW and it's application are not indicative of 5E they are indicative of society in 2020.
Yeah, we now expect that rulebooks will be coherent and functional from the start and that the GM won't have to interpret a whole bunch of sections.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round. Personally I could not get my head around why characters could do so much damage per round. It seemed more about 'nerfing' your character to do the most damage possible.
A 5th level elf fighter in 3.5 could theoretically make 4 attacks per round with a longbow, provided they had the right feats and spells cast on them. They could do a whopping 1d8+3 damage if they had a magic longbow and the Weapon Specialization feat. Also, dealing more damage is not nerfing. It's the exact opposite of nerfing. "Nerfing" means to render something less powerful or dangerous that it was before, as if a weapon were replaced by a NERF version of itself. For example, high level spellcasters in 5th Edition got nerfed compared to 1E or 3.5 because they get less spell slots, the duration of most spells in 5E is much shorter, and the Concentration mechanic means that they can't layer on a bunch of different protective effects simultaneously.
There were strength adjusted bows, too, although just as an optional rule, I think? That would let the person get their str bonus on every shot too.
Oh yeah, forgot those existed. They weren't an optional rule, but they were expensive and if you had a high strength score it usually meant that you weren't going to be too invested in archery- you probably didn't have a great dex score, nor would you take a lot of the ranged-combat feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As one of those old folks that started with the B/x booklets then transitioned to AD&D, to 3.0 to 3.5, to 4.0 and now 5.0 it was easy - it was never the rules per se that mattered it was the actual playing of the game and the folks you played with. All the versions were fun to play so why worry about which was the “pure” game? Where it was Gygax or TSR or Hasbro/WOtC they listened to the players fairly well and tried to make changes that folks wanted. We’re the perfect at it? Of course not but we appreciated the fact that they tried.
With the undisputed spread of D&D to a wider consumer base through 5e, and being one of those newbs, I’ve noticed there don’t seem to be any 1e puritans out there proclaiming a need to show these kids how real D&D is played, let alone unwilling to move on to using the new rulesets. I see a lot more about 3.5, and to a lesser degree AD&D (which I assume is the historical name of 2e) than anything else. You can find games on Roll20 of older editions, but it doesn’t seem to be like other vintage experiences where maybe an old guy will say old songs should only be played on vinyl, or colorized versions of classic films are blasphemy. Even video games have their vintage throwback consoles and downloads, and if Oregon Trail didn’t hate everyone, we’d have a classic version we’d all download and play with our kids.
So I guess what I’m saying is, is this there, but I just don’t see it? Was the original player base so small that no one is really left to defend its honor? I see a lot of you talking about cutting your D&D teeth on “The Red Box” so I know that can’t really be it. Was the original ruleset so unrefined that to go back to it would just reopen thousands of cases of rules law mercifully settled by subsequent editions?
Have any of you had similar thoughts about this game with 45 years of evolution, but no one really defending a “purest form”?
I'm a 1e Puritan.
I think the main thing for me is that I don't consider the release or existence of 5th edition as some sort of attack on me or the honor 1e, so I don't really see what I need to defend. I mean there are lots of D&D variants, why would an officially published one from Wizards of the Coast bother me any more than say the existence of Castles and Crusades or Pathfinder? They are just different takes on the original, it just so happens, I preferred the original 40 years ago and I still prefer it today.
More importantly there is more material in print and being generated for classic D&D editions today then there ever was back in the 80's and 90's and certainly far more than what is being published for 5e today. I mean, its the golden age of classic 1st edition D&D right now, we just got a new edition of the game last year (Old School Essentials) which is by far the best edition of the game yet. I have had multiple campaigns running for the past 4 years and I play at least as much if not more than I did when I was 14.
As far as I can tell the community is bigger and healthier today than I ever remember it being so I'm a happy D&D player.
Besides, I think the main reason 5e is as successful as it is, is because classic D&D fans find the game tolerable, some even like it. Like 3e and 4e were largely just outright rejected by old school D&D players, it was seen as garbage and WotC was considered to have "ruined D&D", the war back then was real. But I know lots of hardened neck beards who bought 4e books just to have extra toilet paper that play 5e because .. well frankly it's really not that different than 1e and its kind of fun. I mean, there is a bit of fussing about with the rules, but in practice, most of the core concepts, ideology, and logic of 5e are pretty close replica's of good old classic basic 1e.
In fact I don't know if your aware of this, but 5e mechanics are totally compatible with 1st edition B/X. Like, you can take spells, magic items, systems right out of 5e and use them in 1e as written and it works perfect. I do it all the time, never ran into a balance issue that wasn't already there in 5e, by which I mean, its unbalanced, but not because I added something to 1e, but because it was already unbalanced in 5e.
Its the same with adventures, like you can take Ghost of Saltmarshes 5e version and run it as is in 1e.. works perfect.
So.. no complaints out of me, I mean I still preferer running 1e over 5e because the whole sub-class thing annoys me and I find the game to be too fiddly and slow, but I use a lot of 5e stuff in my games.
I started playing with basic and moved to AD&D. I quit playing about 31 years ago. I never got into the other editions and started playing 5e about 3 years ago with my wife and kids. I have to agree that 5e is very similar to1e. I can see how the material could work well with each other. It did take a little time to get use to the sub-class concept as well. But after a 30 year hiatus it all took a little time anyway. I have no complaints as well.
If I was wrong, I blame the mead. Strange tavern and all. Anyway, I said it was definitely a 'me thing" I just did not care for version 3.5 or 4 at all. Perhaps it is just me being over 50 now and longing for simpler times when there was a table for city encounter which broke down saucy tart vs a wanton wench. I have not tried 5E yet. I have perused the books at Barnes and Noble, did some looking at WoTC website. Have not found a game to join, so I cannot tell how it is though it seems more my style. Reading is one thing, playing is another. It does seem like they (WoTC) got away from power gaming which as I said, I did not like. Others do, I understand, just not for me. Maybe I misread or miss recall, but I thought the other versions mentioned the GM talking to the players and basically all agreeing on rules. That is where I disagree with RAW. The GM is the boss. A good GM makes you want to come back even if he /she is an overlord and tyrant. And besides 1E rules were so freaking arbitrary and incoherent you need a good GM to play. Maybe to me anyway. I realize I misused 'nerfed', again, I blame the mead.
Honestly man I am surprised there isn't more people defending 1e Ad&d. I am still a very new player to dnd. And I only play 1e AD&D. Im the youngest of my group by about 30 years and I have no problem with that. I went from playing a game here and there. to one year having spent over $500 on all but two of the original 1e books. I could never get myself to buy 5e. The reason being is because I'm looking for a truly fantasy experience. Like raw fantasy. And to me. 5e just can't deliver that for me. Although I think it is great that 5e is more approachable for more people which then interns brings more people to the wonderful world that is dnd. Trust me when I say 1e is difficult. There is a huge learning curve. I've been consistently playing for over a year now and I am still pretty bad at the game. The main reason while I'll pry only play 1e mainly is because I want the challenge. Don't take the wrong way though 5e can be challenging. But from what I've read and listened to 5e is a generally easier game to play and succeed. But this is all coming from a young and new player who has only played 1e so take what I say with a grain of salt.
To come back to what you were claiming about 1e puritans. That claim could not be further from the truth. Many 1e players that I have met are very open to new players wanting to play with the original systems. What I've found is quite the opposite actually. I have noticed from reading forums and talking to people in general that 5e players will often talk down on 1e due to it being too difficult. Or they will talk up 5e as being the one and only edition that should be played. But once again I wouldn't take what I say too seriously as though I don't want to start an edition war. All I'm doing is stating what I've noticed. All in all I believe people should be able to play what they want for the reasons they want. I know no one will pry ever see this but oh whale.:/
Well, I can't speak for the Old-Corps guys (and ladies). I can only speak for myself.
From my point of view, AD&D is 1e, and like it was said on p.1 you don't have version numbers when there is only one version. BUT ... That isn't entirely accurate because there were earlier "versions" before there was AD&D. When AD&D came out, TSR made it clear you can't mix and match AD&D with Red-Box D&D or any of the earlier stuff. You see, before AD&D the system looked very different. An Elf was a race and a class. A Dwarf was a race and a class. If you wanted to be a "fighter", you were a human. If you wanted to be a "Cleric", you were a human. The whole Race - Class system started in AD&D. So AD&D most resembles the later game and in my opinion and that of many others, AD&D is 1e.
For myself, 5e is a better system because it recognized and corrected some poor choices in the original game. You will always hear about THAC0 as a pejorative term to describe the 1e players, which a is pretty poor attack on their appreciation of the early days. We didn't invent THAC0, we just used it because that is how the rules were written. I always said if I were going to play more frequently, I would work out a conversion so we could use the d20 system like today instead of THAC0. But, I didn't play it enough to warrant the effort.
Also mentioned above, the feel of the game was much more about avoiding the risk of combat because your PC could die much more easily and if you had invested in your character by drawing a cool picture of him, well, he's gone now. By the rules, you rolled a new character. You rolled the stats in order and you took what you got. Of course, a DM wouldn't expect you to take a PC with all 8s, but it wasn't like the present day where standard array and stuff made sure your character was going to be OK. After getting your stats, you selected your class and race. Your DM could bar some classes or races, but that is just like today. There were fewer choices to make as well. BUT ... there were stat minimums for many classes or races. If you wanted to be a Paladin, you had to roll real well, because there were three stat minimums you had to meet. But I digress ... it was a different game.
The mechanics in the 5e rules just work better. They are easier to digest once you understand skill checks, ability modifiers and proficiency. You also have to learn the rules about action economy to get comfortable with 5e if all you had before was AD&D. The advantage and disadvantage system works nicely to create a feel for some situations where your are prepared or caught flat-footed. And the experience point and HP thing works a lot better than it did in AD&D where each class had their own advancement chart.
Some of us miss the "close to death" feeling of AD&D. We might not want it to be exactly like AD&D, but something a little closer. It seems many contemporary players expect to be a "Hero" right out of the gate. It seems many don't want to be put off by some Store Owner and would just assume slash his throat than spend 5gp for a dagger. I'm not into that. I appreciate becoming a local hero before I become a regional hero, before ... I find that to be a better story. But these things don't have to do with AD&D instead of 5e. They have more to do with the kind of game the DM wants to run and the kind of game the table enjoys.
Happy gaming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round.
Not sure how you expect a 5th level elf to do that, but an AD&D fighter with high strength (or gauntlets of ogre power), a magic weapon, and weapon specialization would have damage output that's perfectly respectable by 5th edition standards.
In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round.
Not sure how you expect a 5th level elf to do that, but an AD&D fighter with high strength (or gauntlets of ogre power), a magic weapon, and weapon specialization would have damage output that's perfectly respectable by 5th edition standards.
Depending on the fighter's kit, magic items, specialization, and spells, a 2nd Edition fighter could be making seven or eight attacks per round for considerably better damage than a 5E fighter could do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Depending on the fighter's kit, magic items, specialization, and spells, a 2nd Edition fighter could be making seven or eight attacks per round for considerably better damage than a 5E fighter could do.
I don't have anywhere near as much practice optimizing AD&D as later editions, but I'm pretty sure 5e has the flattest power curve of any edition of D&D (every prior edition scaled to hit faster, all but 4e also scaled damage faster).
Depending on the fighter's kit, magic items, specialization, and spells, a 2nd Edition fighter could be making seven or eight attacks per round for considerably better damage than a 5E fighter could do.
I don't have anywhere near as much practice optimizing AD&D as later editions, but I'm pretty sure 5e has the flattest power curve of any edition of D&D (every prior edition scaled to hit faster, all but 4e also scaled damage faster).
Bounded accuracy, capping magic weapon and armor bonuses at +3 instead of +5, and putting major limits on things like spells per day for casters along with spells (aside from cantrips) no longer gaining in power based on the caster's level really flattened the curve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Depending on the fighter's kit, magic items, specialization, and spells, a 2nd Edition fighter could be making seven or eight attacks per round for considerably better damage than a 5E fighter could do.
I don't have anywhere near as much practice optimizing AD&D as later editions, but I'm pretty sure 5e has the flattest power curve of any edition of D&D (every prior edition scaled to hit faster, all but 4e also scaled damage faster).
Bounded accuracy, capping magic weapon and armor bonuses at +3 instead of +5, and putting major limits on things like spells per day for casters along with spells (aside from cantrips) no longer gaining in power based on the caster's level really flattened the curve.
Casters do have much more power up front in 5e, though. They were much more limited at low levels in 1e.
That is true, but that's just another way the curve has been flattened because in 3rd Edition wizards had quadratic power growth. It was painful until 3rd or 5th level and then just took off at a rate that other classes besides druids and clerics just couldn't compete with.
I don't believe the systems could be compared mathematically. I mean every mechanic, every property has a different meaning in every edition. For example, taking 8 damage at 1st level in 1e is instant death for most characters, in 4e it's barely a scratch, in 5e it's significant, might knock some characters out.
You don't need to know any of that to compare how the power curves look, you just look at ratios.
Like for me personally, I look for a system that has very fast and deadly combat, a game where a character can be made in 2-3 minutes, a game that has rules so light that I can explain how to play the game on the fly.
So no actually published edition of D&D? Unless you are being very generous with your definition of 'explain how to play the game'.
A little higher than that, I would say. Fireballs scaled with level directly, but started only at 5d6, vs 8d6 in 5e. And specialization in 1e was not as powerful as 5e's subclasses are. I would thus put the break-even point at around 8 or possibly even 9th.
For a fighter of modest stats (say, 16 Str), weapon specialization (+1 to hit, +2 to damage, +1/2 attack per round) more than doubled damage output at low levels. We won't get into multiple specializations...
Man I seemed to have revived this thread lol. Anyways, to sum up my original statement . Me being such a new player I guess I haven't really experienced the edition wars. I mean sure, the older guys in my group will trash talk 5e just for fun. But all except one of the guys play 5e too. I guess me being born after the 90s most of the edition wars was over by now. I am also not saying I wouldn't try 5e, but I can't get myself to pay money for the books and then have to learn an entirely new system of play on top of that. Like most of you said, 1e AD&D is hard. Like really hard to learn. Trust me when I say there was a learning curve, and there still is a steep learning curve. As I said previously, I have only been playing for a little over a year and I still don't have much of the basics down. That being said though. I like the challenge that is 1e AD&D, and that old school vibe. Another partial reason I can't get myself to play 5e is all the races. Like there is far too many for me in 5e. I am much happier with 1e AD&D, which only has the basic races that to me belong in a fantasy game. And to address the old school vibe I mentioned. I am quite young compared to the typical age group of players that still play 1e AD&D. As I said before, I was born after the 90s. (I say "after the 90s" to not give out my exact age, sorry if that confuses anyone lol) However, I grew up playing video games on an SNES, N64, and a PS2. I think because of that I gained a large appreciation of "old school" entertainment. And that appreciation plays into why I like 1e AD&D so much. Sure it can be clunky, but it shines through as being a pioneer to modern table top rpg. What I claimed in my last post was that I have noticed more 5e players dissing 1e AD&D players and being genuine about it. Once again though I have barely experienced any "edition wars" myself. Although I do not doubt they are there. Growing up on a Playstation while some of my friends were on Xbox taught me just how heated these "wars" can get lol. Anyways no matter what edition people play, as long as they are having fun who really cares. Hope everyone has a fantastic day and fantastic rolls.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Another big difference between 1E and 5E was how spellcasting worked.
In 1E, there were three main spellcasting classes: wizards, priests (what we now call clerics), and druids. Paladins and rangers could cast spells, but they were very limited in what they could do and used the priest and druid spell lists, respectively.
You had to prepare spells, but it worked differently. To prepare spells in 1E, you looked at how many spell slots you had, then chose spells from your spellbook (wizard) or list of spells known (priests and druids) of the appropriate spell level to fill those slots.
For example, a wizard with two 1st level spell slots could select Magic Missile and Sleep, or Sleep and Grease, or Grease and Magic Missile. Or he could select any one of those spells twice. That day, if he'd chosen Sleep and Magic Missile, he could cast Sleep once and Magic Missile once and that was it. He couldn't cast either twice, because each was assigned to a specific spell slot.
I don't remember if 1E allowed you to prepare spells using spell slots that were higher level than the spell itself was, but even if it did, that didn't do anything besides let you cast the spell again. A 10th level wizard casting fireball from a 3rd level slot would do exactly the same amount of damage as from a 5th level slot. Instead, your character's spells improved in power as you got higher in level: at 5th level, a fireball would deal 5d6 damage, and you'd gain an extra 1d6 damage to your fireball every time you went up in level. Later editions would cap the upper limit to how much bonus damage spells got, but IIRC 1E did not.
Finally, the maximum spell slot level you could attain depended on your class: wizards could eventually cast spells of up to 9th level, druids and priests were limited to spells of 7th level, rangers were tapped at 4th level, and paladins at 3rd level. However, a spell's level depended on which class was casting it: a priest got Hold Person as a 2nd level spell while a wizard got it as a 3rd level spell.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I realize this is an old thread, and as such, this probably will not be read, but I would be a 1E Puritan. One thing about 1E was the DM was EVERYTHING!!!! There was no RAW, the DMG stated "there are just guidelines, if you don't like it, don't use it" This made the DM ultra important and a great DM made the game memorable. A good DM would keep the balance. Yes, a 1st level magic user would basically suck with his 1 light spell and 2 HP, but a good DM would find a way to keep him relevant. It was like that for any character though. It was so easy to die that if you made it to level 10, you accomplished something. Made combat less important and characters worked together to each others strengths. I have tried other versions, but I did not like 3 or 3.5 or 4 at all as it became too much "the book says I can do it," took the fun out of it for me. Probably just me, but that is who I am. Other thing which I am sure is just a me thing, was that the stats and damage became ridiculous for someone who started out in 1e. In 1E Asmodeus had *only* 199 HP. By version 3.5 a 5th level elf with a bow proficiency causes more damage than that in 1 round. Personally I could not get my head around why characters could do so much damage per round. It seemed more about 'nerfing' your character to do the most damage possible. (side note 1e Unearthed Arcana is an abomination...strength bonuses *should not* apply to thrown weapons so darts are not a feasible approach to a dragon or any large monster) Anyway, enough rambling, back to my original point, the thing I feel set 1E apart was the lackadaisical approach to rules and it was up to the DM to make it interesting. A good DM understood his players and the experience great for them.
A 5th level elf fighter in 3.5 could theoretically make 4 attacks per round with a longbow, provided they had the right feats and spells cast on them. They could do a whopping 1d8+3 damage if they had a magic longbow and the Weapon Specialization feat. Also, dealing more damage is not nerfing. It's the exact opposite of nerfing. "Nerfing" means to render something less powerful or dangerous that it was before, as if a weapon were replaced by a NERF version of itself. For example, high level spellcasters in 5th Edition got nerfed compared to 1E or 3.5 because they get less spell slots, the duration of most spells in 5E is much shorter, and the Concentration mechanic means that they can't layer on a bunch of different protective effects simultaneously.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would argue that the concept of RAW hasn't changed from the 1E days, the DMG, Players Handbook and every sourcebook states that it is up to the DM what rules they use or don't use. What has changed is the Internet and the size of the audience, where as for 1E there where not vast forums and boards with thousands and thousands of voices now society has changed. Arguments about RAW and it's application are not indicative of 5E they are indicative of society in 2020.
Yeah, we now expect that rulebooks will be coherent and functional from the start and that the GM won't have to interpret a whole bunch of sections.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Oh yeah, forgot those existed. They weren't an optional rule, but they were expensive and if you had a high strength score it usually meant that you weren't going to be too invested in archery- you probably didn't have a great dex score, nor would you take a lot of the ranged-combat feats.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As one of those old folks that started with the B/x booklets then transitioned to AD&D, to 3.0 to 3.5, to 4.0 and now 5.0 it was easy - it was never the rules per se that mattered it was the actual playing of the game and the folks you played with. All the versions were fun to play so why worry about which was the “pure” game? Where it was Gygax or TSR or Hasbro/WOtC they listened to the players fairly well and tried to make changes that folks wanted. We’re the perfect at it? Of course not but we appreciated the fact that they tried.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I started playing with basic and moved to AD&D. I quit playing about 31 years ago. I never got into the other editions and started playing 5e about 3 years ago with my wife and kids. I have to agree that 5e is very similar to1e. I can see how the material could work well with each other. It did take a little time to get use to the sub-class concept as well. But after a 30 year hiatus it all took a little time anyway. I have no complaints as well.
If I was wrong, I blame the mead. Strange tavern and all. Anyway, I said it was definitely a 'me thing" I just did not care for version 3.5 or 4 at all. Perhaps it is just me being over 50 now and longing for simpler times when there was a table for city encounter which broke down saucy tart vs a wanton wench. I have not tried 5E yet. I have perused the books at Barnes and Noble, did some looking at WoTC website. Have not found a game to join, so I cannot tell how it is though it seems more my style. Reading is one thing, playing is another. It does seem like they (WoTC) got away from power gaming which as I said, I did not like. Others do, I understand, just not for me. Maybe I misread or miss recall, but I thought the other versions mentioned the GM talking to the players and basically all agreeing on rules. That is where I disagree with RAW. The GM is the boss. A good GM makes you want to come back even if he /she is an overlord and tyrant. And besides 1E rules were so freaking arbitrary and incoherent you need a good GM to play. Maybe to me anyway. I realize I misused 'nerfed', again, I blame the mead.
Honestly man I am surprised there isn't more people defending 1e Ad&d. I am still a very new player to dnd. And I only play 1e AD&D. Im the youngest of my group by about 30 years and I have no problem with that. I went from playing a game here and there. to one year having spent over $500 on all but two of the original 1e books. I could never get myself to buy 5e. The reason being is because I'm looking for a truly fantasy experience. Like raw fantasy. And to me. 5e just can't deliver that for me. Although I think it is great that 5e is more approachable for more people which then interns brings more people to the wonderful world that is dnd. Trust me when I say 1e is difficult. There is a huge learning curve. I've been consistently playing for over a year now and I am still pretty bad at the game. The main reason while I'll pry only play 1e mainly is because I want the challenge. Don't take the wrong way though 5e can be challenging. But from what I've read and listened to 5e is a generally easier game to play and succeed. But this is all coming from a young and new player who has only played 1e so take what I say with a grain of salt.
To come back to what you were claiming about 1e puritans. That claim could not be further from the truth. Many 1e players that I have met are very open to new players wanting to play with the original systems. What I've found is quite the opposite actually. I have noticed from reading forums and talking to people in general that 5e players will often talk down on 1e due to it being too difficult. Or they will talk up 5e as being the one and only edition that should be played. But once again I wouldn't take what I say too seriously as though I don't want to start an edition war. All I'm doing is stating what I've noticed. All in all I believe people should be able to play what they want for the reasons they want. I know no one will pry ever see this but oh whale.:/
Well, I can't speak for the Old-Corps guys (and ladies). I can only speak for myself.
From my point of view, AD&D is 1e, and like it was said on p.1 you don't have version numbers when there is only one version. BUT ... That isn't entirely accurate because there were earlier "versions" before there was AD&D. When AD&D came out, TSR made it clear you can't mix and match AD&D with Red-Box D&D or any of the earlier stuff. You see, before AD&D the system looked very different. An Elf was a race and a class. A Dwarf was a race and a class. If you wanted to be a "fighter", you were a human. If you wanted to be a "Cleric", you were a human. The whole Race - Class system started in AD&D. So AD&D most resembles the later game and in my opinion and that of many others, AD&D is 1e.
For myself, 5e is a better system because it recognized and corrected some poor choices in the original game. You will always hear about THAC0 as a pejorative term to describe the 1e players, which a is pretty poor attack on their appreciation of the early days. We didn't invent THAC0, we just used it because that is how the rules were written. I always said if I were going to play more frequently, I would work out a conversion so we could use the d20 system like today instead of THAC0. But, I didn't play it enough to warrant the effort.
Also mentioned above, the feel of the game was much more about avoiding the risk of combat because your PC could die much more easily and if you had invested in your character by drawing a cool picture of him, well, he's gone now. By the rules, you rolled a new character. You rolled the stats in order and you took what you got. Of course, a DM wouldn't expect you to take a PC with all 8s, but it wasn't like the present day where standard array and stuff made sure your character was going to be OK. After getting your stats, you selected your class and race. Your DM could bar some classes or races, but that is just like today. There were fewer choices to make as well. BUT ... there were stat minimums for many classes or races. If you wanted to be a Paladin, you had to roll real well, because there were three stat minimums you had to meet. But I digress ... it was a different game.
The mechanics in the 5e rules just work better. They are easier to digest once you understand skill checks, ability modifiers and proficiency. You also have to learn the rules about action economy to get comfortable with 5e if all you had before was AD&D. The advantage and disadvantage system works nicely to create a feel for some situations where your are prepared or caught flat-footed. And the experience point and HP thing works a lot better than it did in AD&D where each class had their own advancement chart.
Some of us miss the "close to death" feeling of AD&D. We might not want it to be exactly like AD&D, but something a little closer. It seems many contemporary players expect to be a "Hero" right out of the gate. It seems many don't want to be put off by some Store Owner and would just assume slash his throat than spend 5gp for a dagger. I'm not into that. I appreciate becoming a local hero before I become a regional hero, before ... I find that to be a better story. But these things don't have to do with AD&D instead of 5e. They have more to do with the kind of game the DM wants to run and the kind of game the table enjoys.
Happy gaming.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I've been playing since 1982 or so.
4th edition was my favourite.
Fight me!
:)
Not sure how you expect a 5th level elf to do that, but an AD&D fighter with high strength (or gauntlets of ogre power), a magic weapon, and weapon specialization would have damage output that's perfectly respectable by 5th edition standards.
Depending on the fighter's kit, magic items, specialization, and spells, a 2nd Edition fighter could be making seven or eight attacks per round for considerably better damage than a 5E fighter could do.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't have anywhere near as much practice optimizing AD&D as later editions, but I'm pretty sure 5e has the flattest power curve of any edition of D&D (every prior edition scaled to hit faster, all but 4e also scaled damage faster).
Bounded accuracy, capping magic weapon and armor bonuses at +3 instead of +5, and putting major limits on things like spells per day for casters along with spells (aside from cantrips) no longer gaining in power based on the caster's level really flattened the curve.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That is true, but that's just another way the curve has been flattened because in 3rd Edition wizards had quadratic power growth. It was painful until 3rd or 5th level and then just took off at a rate that other classes besides druids and clerics just couldn't compete with.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You don't need to know any of that to compare how the power curves look, you just look at ratios.
So no actually published edition of D&D? Unless you are being very generous with your definition of 'explain how to play the game'.
For a fighter of modest stats (say, 16 Str), weapon specialization (+1 to hit, +2 to damage, +1/2 attack per round) more than doubled damage output at low levels. We won't get into multiple specializations...
Man I seemed to have revived this thread lol. Anyways, to sum up my original statement . Me being such a new player I guess I haven't really experienced the edition wars. I mean sure, the older guys in my group will trash talk 5e just for fun. But all except one of the guys play 5e too. I guess me being born after the 90s most of the edition wars was over by now. I am also not saying I wouldn't try 5e, but I can't get myself to pay money for the books and then have to learn an entirely new system of play on top of that. Like most of you said, 1e AD&D is hard. Like really hard to learn. Trust me when I say there was a learning curve, and there still is a steep learning curve. As I said previously, I have only been playing for a little over a year and I still don't have much of the basics down. That being said though. I like the challenge that is 1e AD&D, and that old school vibe. Another partial reason I can't get myself to play 5e is all the races. Like there is far too many for me in 5e. I am much happier with 1e AD&D, which only has the basic races that to me belong in a fantasy game. And to address the old school vibe I mentioned. I am quite young compared to the typical age group of players that still play 1e AD&D. As I said before, I was born after the 90s. (I say "after the 90s" to not give out my exact age, sorry if that confuses anyone lol) However, I grew up playing video games on an SNES, N64, and a PS2. I think because of that I gained a large appreciation of "old school" entertainment. And that appreciation plays into why I like 1e AD&D so much. Sure it can be clunky, but it shines through as being a pioneer to modern table top rpg. What I claimed in my last post was that I have noticed more 5e players dissing 1e AD&D players and being genuine about it. Once again though I have barely experienced any "edition wars" myself. Although I do not doubt they are there. Growing up on a Playstation while some of my friends were on Xbox taught me just how heated these "wars" can get lol. Anyways no matter what edition people play, as long as they are having fun who really cares. Hope everyone has a fantastic day and fantastic rolls.