D&D 1E vs. 5E - WARNING GEEK ALERT

Those of you as old as me may have played D&D when it first started (1st edition, or 1E)

I recently started playing again after all these years using 5th edition with a group of friends.

One thing that people seem to like about 5E is that it's streamlined and balanced relative to earlier editions.

However in my opinion, the 5E rules have streamlined much of the fun out of it, and made it rather bland.

Some changes are just ridiculous such as being able to heal all damage with an 8 hour rest. Further, you get three "death saves" before you are considered permanently dead. Plus you can buy healing kits for cheap that can stabilize you. Heck, in 5E,(unlike 1E) poison can't kill you, it just reduce your hp a little. It's actually hard to die in 5E. Whereas in 1E, you had to be careful about what you did because death was around every corner.

Spells can now be cast in a single round, which is good, as it increases a magic users survivability, but many spells have been watered down. For example, in 1E, a 30th level wizard could cast a fireball of 30d6. In 5E, it maxes out around 12d6 regardless of your level.

There was no level cap in 1E. Levels in 5E are capped at 20.

In 5E, there is way too much focus and time spent on character background. It may seem relevant, but typically after the 3rd or 4th session, a characters background rarely comes into play unless the DM wants to use it to drive the adventure.

In 5E grappling can only prevent an opponent from moving from point A to point B. They can still attack or cast a spell...so grappling is pretty useless.

Almost all classes in 5E can cast spells, or have spell like abilities, which kind of makes being a magic user less relevant.

What are your thoughts?

I've only dabbled, but that does sound a bit weak.

In my one true D&D experience a million years ago (not sure the version) my thief character hid and took cheap shots while the others got killed, and then I ran off with their stuff and the treasure and was set for life.

Over the last few decades, D&D has suffered from a decent bit of power creep. The market wanted a greater emphasis on storytelling rather than dungeon delving. While the system is still easily lethal at low levels, with most characters being about two hits away from getting knocked unconscious and starting to bleed out, the game is certainly balanced with players being extraordinary heroes in mind.

At heart, 5e is still primarily a combat simulator system, just like every edition of D&D since Mr. Gygax decided to change Chainmail into a swords & sorcery-style small unit tactics game. That being said, it is certainly less complex than any other edition of the game. I can understand why that wouldn't appeal to old school players, and it's definitely not mechanically intense enough for my standards, but it does an excellent job as baby's first TTRPG. I would strongly recommend using it to introduce your grandchildren into the hobby.

Also, have you tried playing something other than D&D?

Jesse Booth said:

Over the last few decades, D&D has suffered from a decent bit of power creep. The market wanted a greater emphasis on storytelling rather than dungeon delving. While the system is still easily lethal at low levels, with most characters being about two hits away from getting knocked unconscious and starting to bleed out, the game is certainly balanced with players being extraordinary heroes in mind.

At heart, 5e is still primarily a combat simulator system, just like every edition of D&D since Mr. Gygax decided to change Chainmail into a swords & sorcery-style small unit tactics game. That being said, it is certainly less complex than any other edition of the game. I can understand why that wouldn't appeal to old school players, and it's definitely not mechanically intense enough for my standards, but it does an excellent job as baby's first TTRPG. I would strongly recommend using it to introduce your grandchildren into the hobby.

Also, have you tried playing something other than D&D?

Click to expand...

Back in the day, I played Gamma World, Star Frontiers, and some game that allowed you to build a superhero. A couple years ago, I tried Pathfinder, and a game that only used d6's..can't remember the name.

beancounter said:

Back in the day, I played Gamma World, Star Frontiers, and some game that allowed you to build a superhero. A couple years ago, I tried Pathfinder, and a game that only used d6's..can't remember the name.

Click to expand...

I've only gotten to try out Call of Cthulhu, the 2d10 system Palladium Games made, but Pathfinder looks like it'd be easy to get a group for.

How's Gamma World? I've heard a little about it, but not much.

My favorite is still 3.5e... :/

Jesse Booth said:

I've only gotten to try out Call of Cthulhu, the 2d10 system Palladium Games made, but Pathfinder looks like it'd be easy to get a group for.

How's Gamma World? I've heard a little about it, but not much.

Click to expand...

I honestly didn't enjoy it. It took place in a post apocalyptic world. You played either a human mutant with various powers, a mutated humanoid animal, or a "pure strain human", and went around and fought other mutants. There didn't seem to be any direction or purpose, or maybe I had a bad GM.

The game that uses d6's that I mentioned above was Shadowrun.

celticwar17 said:

My favorite is still 3.5e... :/

Click to expand...

What do you enjoy about that version?

beancounter said:

I honestly didn't enjoy it. It took place in a post apocalyptic world. You played either a human mutant with various powers, a mutated humanoid animal, or a "pure strain human", and went around and fought other mutants. There didn't seem to be any direction or purpose, or maybe I had a bad GM.

The game that uses d6's that I mentioned above was Shadowrun.

Click to expand...

That definitely sounds like a case of bad GM. Direction is always on the players' heads, in my experience; the system can't make you tell a story or put together an interesting adventure.

Isn't Shadowrun a game criminals in a dystopian future?

Traveller > *

beancounter said:

Those of you as old as me may have played D&D when it first started (1st edition, or 1E)

I recently started playing again after all these years using 5th edition with a group of friends.

One thing that people seem to like about 5E is that it's streamlined and balanced relative to earlier editions.

However in my opinion, the 5E rules have streamlined much of the fun out of it, and made it rather bland.

Some changes are just ridiculous such as being able to heal all damage with an 8 hour rest. Further, you get three "death saves" before you are considered permanently dead. Plus you can buy healing kits for cheap that can stabilize you. Heck, in 5E,(unlike 1E) poison can't kill you, it just reduce your hp a little. It's actually hard to die in 5E. Whereas in 1E, you had to be careful about what you did because death was around every corner.

Spells can now be cast in a single round, which is good, as it increases a magic users survivability, but many spells have been watered down. For example, in 1E, a 30th level wizard could cast a fireball of 30d6. In 5E, it maxes out around 12d6 regardless of your level.

There was no level cap in 1E. Levels in 5E are capped at 20.

In 5E, there is way too much focus and time spent on character background. It may seem relevant, but typically after the 3rd or 4th session, a characters background rarely comes into play unless the DM wants to use it to drive the adventure.

In 5E grappling can only prevent an opponent from moving from point A to point B. They can still attack or cast a spell...so grappling is pretty useless.

Almost all classes in 5E can cast spells, or have spell like abilities, which kind of makes being a magic user less relevant.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Haven't played in a long, long time - last seriously played in the early 80's. And the way you describe the newest edition, it does sound rather bland. Besides, my gaming tastes shifted to first-person shooters a long time ago.

Redress said:

Traveller > *

Click to expand...

Blast from the past!

I've played ever since 2nd and got my jollies being the DM in 3rd.

If I want to really go back to the good old days, I choose to pull out my 3.5 rules.

I do however work with a group that I am DM'ing for in 5th. The game is going rather well, but I am throwing in a few homebrew rules to make the game more self balancing and to ensure they have just a little bit more survivability. Because two of the players are experienced with the game since 3rd like myself and the other four are completely new.

Though I am using older versions of monsters and I am using customized gear for their rewards. I still maintain the game at a rather sensible rate, seeing as I have seen some of the younger players at the local hobby store make some rather goofy games.. and I mean goofy.

We are having fun, for me that is all that counts. Though I will say that this is the only game edition that I think I've enjoyed being the DM over being a player.

Jesse Booth said:

Isn't Shadowrun a game criminals in a dystopian future?

Click to expand...

In the game I played, we were part of an corporate thug group that fought other corporate thugs. I don't recall it being dystopian.

This is a description from a fan Wiki:

"Shadowrun is a role-playing game set in a fictional alternate universe. Shadowrun combines cyberpunk and high fantasy to create a near future world where technology has advanced beyond our understanding, powerful mega corporations control everyday life, and magic and classical fantasy races have returned to the world."

Shadowrun Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Glen Contrarian said:

Blast from the past!

Click to expand...

Apparently, the latest version was released in 2016. Looks like Traveller is still going.

beancounter said:

One thing that people seem to like about 5E is that it's streamlined and balanced relative to earlier editions.

Click to expand...

I've heard this, but I must admit I'm confused by it. Now admittedly, I was around for 2nd ed rather than 1st, but in either case I remember the fact that almost every single table I ever sat at had a plethora of "house rules" OR would go on to use numerous books for additional tweaks (Skills and Powers ring a bell?)

If you were someone who had no issue with that back in the early days with all the other grognards, I can't see why the same can't be done later.

For example, there's nothing that says you can't house rule out the healing rules. Hell, it actually wouldn't even be "house ruling", it'd simply be using alternative rules that are even offered in the DMG; which is the same practice for alternative rules that was provided in earlier editions as well.

I kind of chuckle at the notion of "helps magic users survivability" when you're then talking about a 30th level wizard. There's a reason why long term players all generally understand that Wizards and Clerics are far and away the most powerful at higher levels than their non-magical counter parts; because the ridiculous scaling of their abilities. 5th edition did take a lot of efforts at making it so that the game wasn't a situation where "X classes are near useless glass canons at low level but gods at higher level while the others are great at low levels and immensely boring mechanically at high levels". Some may see that as "watering it down", I see that as good design.

As far as levels? 1st edition began with a level 20 cap as well, though did expand over time. 20 was the default cap for 2nd edition as well. And the default cap for 3rd. It was actually the much maligned 4th edition that was the first and only one to have more than a 20 level cap by default. All other editions required additional purchases beyond the original source book to get post level 20 content. While that hasn't been developed and published epic level (21+) play for 5th ed yet, given the existance of it in every other edition it'd be foolish to just assume it's not going to end up coming.

In terms of focus on the background? Again, this is an entirely optional thing. If you're DM isn't going to care about your characters flaws, ideals, etc and you're not going to care about it, there's literally zero impact on the game if you ignore them. They don't actually have any systemic purpose. What it DOES do is serve as a teaching tool for many players that were either new to the game, or coming from 4th edition, in helping to teach the notion of "ROLE" playing as well as the "roll" part of things.

To each their own, I've played every edition from 2nd to 5th and 5th, to me, has been an exceptionally fun and successful edition (coming off my far and away least favorite in 4th). It's far easier to tweak, and maintain balance, than 3rd edition was (and more like 2nd edition was imho) while keeping the heart of early 3rd ed which simplified and streamlined a lot of pointlessly complex things. Any DM with half their salt can house rule and tweak the system, which is really what the system is built and designed for, in order to tailor a game to a style that suits their games. The fact that wizards don't fire off a spell and then sit there using a crossbow for and dying from a strong breeze at low levels, while fighters may as well sit on the ground with their thumb up their ass post level 9, is not something I view as a "bad" thing design wise.

In short....it's extremely easy to modify 5e to give you a gritty, hardcore, game feel. The reduction of complexity and wild imbalance in the system is not something I see as a "negative" factor for me, but I know others like the complexity for the sake of complexity or are more focused on the "simulation" part of things.

beancounter said:

and a game that only used d6's..can't remember the name.

Click to expand...

Shadowrun?

Redress said:

Traveller > *

Click to expand...

Never played it, but it looks similar to TSR's Star Frontiers.

Zyphlin said:

Shadowrun?

Click to expand...

Yep

Jesse Booth said:

Isn't Shadowrun a game criminals in a dystopian future?

Click to expand...

Eh, I was more of a Cyberpunk 2020 guy than Shadowrun, but had friends who played. To my understanding, the worlds were similar, save for the whole "fantasy" element in shadowrun. In both cases, "dystopian" themes are present but I don't think are necessarily the overarching feel. I don't really know how to fully describe it other than "cyberpunk"...low life, high tech, dystopian themes but it's not necessarily just this grim dark fascist world. If anything, typically it's more business/corporation control then government control even.

Wow, thanks for that great reply! Regarding house rules, you're right, but I'm not the DM. My DM is a rule book purist.:doh

Well, if you die at 1st level, you can't get to 30th level, so it was an issue back then. . That's why I like 5e unlimited cantrips. That was definitely an improvement.

Yep, fighters were boring mechanically, except for all those magic swords that could kill anything while a wizard's spells harmlessly bounced off the monster.

I honestly don't recall a level limit.

The DM insisted that we spend time on the background stuff, and we never used it after the 3rd session. Just useless.

Yep, it's very popular and financially successful, and definitely appeals to the majority, but to me it feels like a smart phone game vs. a classic PC game.

Zyphlin said:

I've heard this, but I must admit I'm confused by it. Now admittedly, I was around for 2nd ed rather than 1st, but in either case I remember the fact that almost every single table I ever sat at had a plethora of "house rules" OR would go on to use numerous books for additional tweaks (Skills and Powers ring a bell?)

For example, there's nothing that says you can't house rule out the healing rules. Hell, it actually wouldn't even be "house ruling", it'd simply be using alternative rules that are even offered in the DMG; which is the same practice for alternative rules that was provided in earlier editions as well.

I kind of chuckle at the notion of "helps magic users survivability" when you're then talking about a 30th level wizard. There's a reason why long term players all generally understand that Wizards and Clerics are far and away the most powerful at higher levels than their non-magical counter parts; because the ridiculous scaling of their abilities. 5th edition did take a lot of efforts at making it so that the game wasn't a situation where "X classes are near useless glass canons at low level but gods at higher level while the others are great at low levels and immensely boring mechanically at high levels". Some may see that as "watering it down", I see that as good design.

As far as levels? 1st edition began with a level 20 cap as well, though did expand over time. 20 was the default cap for 2nd edition as well. And the default cap for 3rd. It was actually the much maligned 4th edition that was the first and only one to have more than a 20 level cap by default. All other editions required additional purchases beyond the original source book to get post level 20 content. While that hasn't been developed and published epic level (21+) play for 5th ed yet, given the existance of it in every other edition it'd be foolish to just assume it's not going to end up coming.

In terms of focus on the background? Again, this is an entirely optional thing. If you're DM isn't going to care about your characters flaws, ideals, etc and you're not going to care about it, there's literally zero impact on the game if you ignore them. They don't actually have any systemic purpose. What it DOES do is serve as a teaching tool for many players that were either new to the game, or coming from 4th edition, in helping to teach the notion of "ROLE" playing as well as the "roll" part of things.

To each their own, I've played every edition from 2nd to 5th and 5th, to me, has been an exceptionally fun and successful edition (coming off my far and away least favorite in 4th). It's far easier to tweak, and maintain balance, than 3rd edition was (and more like 2nd edition was imho) while keeping the heart of early 3rd ed which simplified and streamlined a lot of pointlessly complex things. Any DM with half their salt can house rule and tweak the system, which is really what the system is built and designed for, in order to tailor a game to a style that suits their games. The fact that wizards don't fire off a spell and then sit there using a crossbow for and dying from a strong breeze at low levels, while fighters may as well sit on the ground with their thumb up their ass post level 9, is not something I view as a "bad" thing design wise.

In short....it's extremely easy to modify 5e to give you a gritty, hardcore, game feel. The reduction of complexity and wild imbalance in the system is not something I see as a "negative" factor for me, but I know others like the complexity for the sake of complexity or are more focused on the "simulation" part of things.

Click to expand...

beancounter said:

Those of you as old as me may have played D&D when it first started (1st edition, or 1E)

I recently started playing again after all these years using 5th edition with a group of friends.

One thing that people seem to like about 5E is that it's streamlined and balanced relative to earlier editions.

However in my opinion, the 5E rules have streamlined much of the fun out of it, and made it rather bland.

Some changes are just ridiculous such as being able to heal all damage with an 8 hour rest. Further, you get three "death saves" before you are considered permanently dead. Plus you can buy healing kits for cheap that can stabilize you. Heck, in 5E,(unlike 1E) poison can't kill you, it just reduce your hp a little. It's actually hard to die in 5E. Whereas in 1E, you had to be careful about what you did because death was around every corner.

Spells can now be cast in a single round, which is good, as it increases a magic users survivability, but many spells have been watered down. For example, in 1E, a 30th level wizard could cast a fireball of 30d6. In 5E, it maxes out around 12d6 regardless of your level.

There was no level cap in 1E. Levels in 5E are capped at 20.

In 5E, there is way too much focus and time spent on character background. It may seem relevant, but typically after the 3rd or 4th session, a characters background rarely comes into play unless the DM wants to use it to drive the adventure.

In 5E grappling can only prevent an opponent from moving from point A to point B. They can still attack or cast a spell...so grappling is pretty useless.

Almost all classes in 5E can cast spells, or have spell like abilities, which kind of makes being a magic user less relevant.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Didn’t even know there was a 5E

I started in 1977....and I DM’ed a number of tournaments over the years....

I got the chance to meet Gary Gygax at Pacific Origins in the early 80’s at a convention near San Francisco

The original rules were too rigid for my taste in some areas....but the countless hours I spent playing and dm’ing brings back fond memories of not just the game, but the people I shared it with back then

Just remembering a few of those all nighters brings a huge smile to my face....

As BOb Hope would say....thanks for the memories!!!!!

beancounter said:

Wow, thanks for that great reply! Regarding house rules, you're right, but I'm not the DM. My DM is a rule book purist.:doh

Click to expand...

I'll give a flip through the DMG here shortly and see if I can find page references for a few rule varient you may like. You can always remind him the DMG is technically a rule book

Yep, fighters were boring mechanically, except for all those magic swords that could kill anything while a wizard's spells harmlessly bounced off the monster.

Click to expand...

Was Tenser's Transformation not a 1st edition spell, because I know it was a 2nd edition spell that let those crazy mages pick up that same sword the fighter could use and swing it just as well

I honestly don't recall a level limit.

Click to expand...

Most likely because by the time you were playing, they were already using the black or gold box by the time you got up to that level. Kind of like if you played a campaign in 3rd edition after the "Epic Level Handbook", you probably only knew a game that could go ever upwards in levels as well.

Sadly, I can't say it's ever been an issue with me in any edition. Never ended up playing in a game that got much outside of the low teens.

The DM insisted that we spend time on the background stuff, and we never used it after the 3rd session. Just useless.

Click to expand...

Don't mean to be insulting to your DM, but that's a fail on his part honestly. I've played games where a DM knew he wasn't going to make use of it much, and so he left it off. I've also played with a great one at a Con who made it a point to write everyone's information down, and anytime we did something even mildly related to one of them was very open about giving Inspiration, which encouraged players to use it pretty routinely as well. I definitely agree that background stuff is useless if you're not going to use it. Then again, same thing goes with non-weapon proficiency in 2nd edition if a DM never bothered with anything but combat....or really ANY of the non-physical stats on a non-spell caster in any edition if a DM just lets you basically play your own intelligence/wisdom/intelligence in a character.

Yep, it's very popular and financially successful, and definitely appeals to the majority, but to me it feels like a smart phone game vs. a classic PC game.

Click to expand...

Heh, did you play any 4th?

If we're giving video game analogies, I view 5th edition more like Portal; not a ton of filler, doesn't try to be complicated for complications sake, ands puts it all together in a tight nice package that focused on why I enjoyed video games in the first place.

gdgyva said:

Din’t even know there was a 5E

Just remembering a few of those all nighters brings a huge smile to my face....

Click to expand...

All-nighters were awesome! The best part was the sugar high from all the soda and Doritos.

Zyphlin said:

I'll give a flip through the DMG here shortly and see if I can find page references for a few rule varient you may like. You can always remind him the DMG is technically a rule book

Click to expand...

I tried, honestly I tried.

Zyphlin said:

Was Tenser's Transformation not a 1st edition spell, because I know it was a 2nd edition spell that let those crazy mages pick up that same sword the fighter could use and swing it just as well

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was a 6th level spell. I probably would have taken anti magic shell or disintegrate instead.

Zyphlin said:

Heh, did you play any 4th?

Click to expand...

No, but I've heard from people in my group that 4E was a hot mess of rules. I can see why they simplified, but I think they may have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.