D&D 2E 2e, the most lethal edition?

[Zardnaar]

One of the biggest issues for casters is that at higher levels,saving throws improve on the side of the target, in general, there was nothing on the spellcaster's side that really improved the odds that their spells would succeed (at least not in core, I think some options came out that compared their level to the opponents and applied a bonus or penalty). In 3e onwards, spellcaster's had a greater chance of their spell succeeding because their spell save DC/attack bonus increases as they level and often there were additional bonuses that could be applied to improve their chances. As far as I can recall in 2e, only specialists penalised their opponents saving throws (by only 1 point) and there were some individual spells that made the target save at a penalty, but otherwise, your spells that targeted opponents could end up being quite useless. Better to buff your allies or focus on spells that don't require a save.

I played an enchanter once and focused heavily in spells with that save penalty built in. I think conceptually 2E MR as a flat number and TSR era save scaling is a good idea.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd say that's true of most of the editions. You're probably right insofar as 3e gave you more of such options, but the capacity for such play certainly existed outside 3e.

Absolutely. Smart play helped in every edition, and most other games. However, 3e as you note had more such options, and it also had extra spells granted for high stats, so you have more ability to cast and use those extra options. That lowers the deadliness of 3e by quite a bit.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Absolutely. Smart play helped in every edition, and most other games. However, 3e as you note had more such options, and it also had extra spells granted for high stats, so you have more ability to cast and use those extra options. That lowers the deadliness of 3e by quite a bit.

I don't think it does, at least not by much. Complaints about such parties usually involved the 5MWD. As such, the extra spells weren't as much of a benefit as they might seem at first glance. If your silo is still half full at the end of the day, then you weren't functionally different from a caster with half the spells. The extra options, sure, but come to think of it 2e might have 3e beat on spells if you consider the Spell Compendiums. In the end it's a bit of a wash though, since enemies could also benefit from spells. Options can benefit the DM just as much as the players.

Buff-Scry-Teleport-Kill was a viable tactic (to varying degrees) in probably every edition except 4e. However, it wasn't considered a "problem" AFAIK until 3e. IMO, that was due to the rocket tag nature of high level combat in 3e. In earlier editions, you were generally less likely to die as your level increased. That wasn't necessarily true in 3e, resulting in the use of such approaches. The fact that it was also easier to do in 3e than in other editions was just the cherry on top. In other words, I believe that such smart play was a response to the deadliness of 3e, rather than demonstrating its ease.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it does, at least not by much. Complaints about such parties usually involved the 5MWD. As such, the extra spells weren't as much of a benefit as they might seem at first glance. If your silo is still half full at the end of the day, then you weren't functionally different from a caster with half the spells. The extra options, sure, but come to think of it 2e might have 3e beat on spells if you consider the Spell Compendiums. In the end it's a bit of a wash though, since enemies could also benefit from spells. Options can benefit the DM just as much as the players.

I disagree. The caster that doesn't use all of his spells is functionally VERY different than one with half the spells. The caster with half the spells will have very hard choices on which spells to memorize. The one with double the spells will have room for plenty of defenses for many more different situations. Even if he doesn't use all of his spells, he and his party have a much higher survival rate.

Buff-Scry-Teleport-Kill was a viable tactic (to varying degrees) in probably every edition except 4e. However, it wasn't considered a "problem" AFAIK until 3e. IMO, that was due to the rocket tag nature of high level combat in 3e. In earlier editions, you were generally less likely to die as your level increased. That wasn't necessarily true in 3e, resulting in the use of such approaches. The fact that it was also easier to do in 3e than in other editions was just the cherry on top. In other words, I believe that such smart play was a response to the deadliness of 3e, rather than demonstrating its ease.

That wasn't my experience. We didn't say, "Hmm, we can scry-teleport-and waste the enemy, but let's not and see if we die easier. If we do, then we will use that tactic next time" We just engaged in the smart play and the game wasn't all that deadly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That wasn't my experience. We didn't say, "Hmm, we can scry-teleport-and waste the enemy, but let's not and see if we die easier. If we do, then we will use that tactic next time" We just engaged in the smart play and the game wasn't all that deadly.

Of course not.

But did you say, "This game is already pretty easy, but if we play smart we can trivialize it. Sounds fun"?

Or was it maybe more like (even if at only a subconscious level) "This game is swingy. If we don't find a way to play smarter rather than harder, probability dictates that we're likely to die. Let's come up with a better approach"?

 

[Maxperson]

Of course not.

But did you say, "This game is already pretty easy, but if we play smart we can trivialize it. Sounds fun"?

Yes, actually I did. Poison was rendered nearly worthless after the terror that it was in 1e and 2e, and the same with energy drains. The two things I feared most about the game were removed as serious threats.

The game being so easy was why the DM had to work to be able to challenge the players/PCs. I had to completely toss out CR since it failed miserably, and then learn the PCs abilities so that in the middle of all the easy encounters, I could challenge them with a tough one sometimes and make the game fun. I was/am very good at it.

Or was it maybe more like (even if at only a subconscious level) "This game is swingy. If we don't find a way to play smarter rather than harder, probability dictates that we're likely to die. Let's come up with a better approach"?

Nah. It was just the obvious tactic. If you have to go out of your way to make the game harder on yourself, the edition isn't hard. I mean, I suppose we could have forgone armor in 1e or 2e to make it more challenging, but armor was just an obvious go to and helped with survivability. It's the same with scry-teleport-kill. Or one of several other powerful spells.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny how experiences vary so wildly. I killed FAR more 3e characters than I ever saw die in 2e. By a pretty wide margin.

I've always wondered why 3e DM's struggled so much. It always baffled me why 3e DM's couldn't challenge players. If it was so easy in 3e, then why do Paizo AP's have such a reputation as meat grinders?

Like I've said here, a creature potentially does 10XCR in damage in a single round. If you cannot kill a PC with that damage potential, that's on you. There's really no reason why 3e wouldn't be highly lethal unless the DM was deliberately softballing encounters.

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought the Paizo APs had a reputation iof being easy. Sure the odd one is tougher but Tomb of Horrors, Labyrinth of Madness, Undermountain.......

 

[Maxperson]

Like I've said here, a creature potentially does 10XCR in damage in a single round. If you cannot kill a PC with that damage potential, that's on you. There's really no reason why 3e wouldn't be highly lethal unless the DM was deliberately softballing encounters.

Most of these creatures crit on a 20. To do the 10x damage you keep mentioning, they have to not only hit with every attack, but also crit. 95%(a bit lower if multiple attacks) of the time, most of them will be doing 2.5 to 5 times the CR, and then get wrecked by the massive damage PCs can do.

 

[Zardnaar]

Giant bees death 25% to around 40% low level if they hit. Save vs poison at +4 or die. Beats Orc critical chances. B/X death at 0 hp no Max hp level 1, clerics can't cast spells until level 2, fighters have a d8 hit dice iirc.

No cheap wands of clw, no OP spells or at least a lot less of them and you can't select them or buy them. No magic Mart.

So B/X as the deadliest. You have a hard ass DM 1E or 2E I would pick 1E as you had more powerful PCs. 2E kind of transitioned away from hard ass dungeons and playstyle but the rules were rougher IMHO.

Hard ass B/X DM good luck lol.