What are the Key Add-ons of each Edition?

[waysoftheearth]

I'm putting together a post for WotC's 5E forum, and it would be good to be able to correctly state what features came out of each edition. However, memory is not always perfect -- mine leastwise -- and I played some editions only briefly (especially B/X, 2e and 4e).

So I shall cast out the question to your formidable collective knowledge. What was added on to each successive edition?

OD&D had all the basic goodies. What did the others bring to the party..?
Holmes (9 alignments, dexterity based initiative, 3rd level cap),
B/X,
BECMI, (race as class)
AD&D (half-orcs, assassin, illusionist, cavalier, barbarian, THAC0, many of the "classic" spells, proficiencies, attacks/round, the one minute "round"),
2E, (kits)
3.0/3.5E, (OGL. Unified XP, unified ability adjustments, 3 saves, ascending AC, feats, d20 skill system, stacking multi-classing, rationalised spell levels)
4E, (powers, defenses, ability growth, massive HPs)

[Deleted]

Holmes added five alignments, not nine. The latter came out in OAD&D.

[llenlleawg]

Jan 18, 2012 6:32:33 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I'm putting together a post for WotC's 5E forum, and it would be good to be able to correctly state what features came out of each edition. However, memory is not always perfect -- mine leastwise -- and I played some editions only briefly (especially B/X, 2e and 4e).

So I shall cast out the question to your formidable collective knowledge. What was added on to each successive edition?

OD&D had all the basic goodies. What did the others bring to the party..?
Holmes (9 alignments, dexterity based initiative, 3rd level cap),

I know some people speak of Holmes as an edition. It's not, really. It was conceived as a way to draw people into the game (OD&D) with a cleaner presentation. Also, as published, it directed those who bought it to the then-upcoming AD&D manuals (MM, PHB, and DMG), which were released gradually.

As to specifics, Holmes has five, not nine alignments (LG, CG, N, LE, CE), although this scheme (i.e. of having both Good and Evil versions of Law and Chaos) has already been trotted out by Gygax in 1976 in Strategic Review. Also, it does not have a third level cap. Rather, it only details levels up to third, directing the reader to the existing supplements and the upcoming AD&D books for more details.

B/X,
BECMI, (race as class)

B/X saw itself as the representation of the original rules (so much so that X contained information on what to do if your "basic" was Holmes and not Moldvay). It restored 3 alignments. It had optional rules for personal initiative as well by a 1d6 with adjustments from Dexterity (and, in the case of Halfling, from class).

BECMI added an array of things at the CMI levels. The Immortals level was radically new. Companion gave explicit rules for developing and maintaining a barony as well as for warfare. Plus, is gave rules for bonuses for demi-humans beyond their maximum level. Master gave rules for Weapon Mastery.

AD&D (half-orcs, assassin, illusionist, cavalier, barbarian, THAC0, many of the "classic" spells, proficiencies, attacks/round, the one minute "round"),

Actually, the assassin was introduced in the Blackmoor supplement for OD&D. The illusionist first appeared in Strategic Review. Cavalier and barbarian were late-comers in AD&D, not appearing outside of Dragon until Unearthed Arcana, which also gave official rules for a whole array of demi-human subtypes. THAC0 actually has to wait until 2e. AD&D used charts (with repeating 20s before needing a 21, so it was not a THAC0 system). Weapon proficiencies were at the beginning of AD&D. The non-weapon proficiencies came later (first in Oriental Adventures, if I am not mistaken; maybe someone else here knows for sure?).

2E, (kits)

See above re: THAC0. Also, it removed half-orc as a core race. Cleric spells were grouped into spheres, with major, minor, or no access (i.e. giving "official" ways to customize clerical spells based on mythos/god). Bards became a normal, playable class (as opposed to the original version in Strategic Review which was quite powerful [fighter, thief and MU all at once, with charm and lore power and the AD&D version which required quite prohibitively high scores and an initial career first as a fighter and then as a thief before beginning as a bard under druidic tutelage). Thieves and bards could customize their "thief" abilities.

3.0/3.5E, (OGL. Unified XP, unified ability adjustments, 3 saves, ascending AC, feats, d20 skill system, stacking multi-classing, rationalised spell levels)
4E, (powers, defenses, ability growth, massive HPs)

I'll leave these to people better equipped. However, one notable change in 3e, retained in 4e, is that any race could play any class without any level limits.

Hope that helps!

[Azafuse]

I'll forgot something for sure.

Holmes: Alignments increased from 3 to 5, Thief as a Core Class, Dex Based Initiative.

B/X: symmetric Stat Bonuses, Race-as-Classes, Group Initiative.

BECMI: Weapon Masteries, World Management Rules (after Name Level).

AD&D: more race/class combinations, Racial Stat Bonuses, 9 Alignments, Rules for Multiclass/Dualclass Characters (at least more clear than in OD&D), Prestige Class Prototype (Bard).

2E: NWP, WP, Spheres for Druid/Cleric, Specialist Wizards,

3E: any class/race combination allowed, no racial level limits, different STs, ascending AC, Feats, Point Buy System for Skills, AoO, Prestice Classes, New Classes, Spontaneous Casting for Clerics

3.5E: Damage Reduction based on descriptor and not on a bonus, Spontaneous Casting for Druids, Bard/Sorcerer can forget spells and learn new ones

4E: Powers' Concept, Multiclassing ruled as gaining a Power from another class using a Feat, Hybrid Classes, Healing Surges, Skill Retraining, Half Level Bonus for all, Rituals, Tiers

[Max_Writer]

2nd Ed and 1st Ed were pretty much fully compatible. 3 and 3.5 were also compatible, but only with each other. 4th Ed - not so much at all.

I'd also argue that AD&D and 2nd Ed were also somewhat compatible with Holmes, B/X, and BECMI - at least more so than 3rd and 4th.

[llenlleawg]

I'd second the above point, adding that the differences between "late" OD&D (i.e. OD&D making use of the classes and such from the supplements as well as the commonly used additions, such as the ranger or illusionist, from Strategic Review and Dragon) and AD&D were such that they were also generally compatible. You can see this in the Monster Manual for AD&D (e.g. in having the weakest armor class be 9 and not 10, only the five alignments, etc.). So, while one can rehearse many of the "add-ons", what it helps to recall is that many of these had been proposed in the main magazines of the hobby or were common kinds of house rules, so one could both add them on or, just as easily, use parts of the new iterations while omitting what had once been house rules of sorts but had made it into "official" books.

[Azafuse]

Jan 18, 2012 10:07:16 GMT -6 Max_Writer said:

I'd also argue that AD&D and 2nd Ed were also somewhat compatible with Holmes, B/X, and BECMI - at least more so than 3rd and 4th.

True, although Saving Throws are a real tragedy in TSR Editions (because there have been little changes from edition to edition making compatibility not so perfect).

[Mushgnome]

At the risk of ruining my old-skool cred... I actually quite like the 3E system of fortitute/reflex/will saving throws.

In fact I once ran a 3e-lite campaign in which fort/ref/will will were main PC stats (replacing str/int/etc) in addition to also being the saving throws. Everybody had a blast and the game ran smoothly, something I cannot see happening if I'd used wands, poison, dragon breath, etc as the PC stats.

Sorry for the slightly off topic ramblings.

[snorri]

Becmi had war machine, which a great add-on with no equivalent in any other edition

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks guys, a lot of great insights

[Max_Writer]

What was War Machine? If it's mass combat, AD&D had Battle System, which wasn't a bad mass combat engine.

[waysoftheearth]

So, is it right that the notion of "kits" on top of classes first appeared in 2E?

[Deleted]

Jan 18, 2012 19:12:51 GMT -6 Max_Writer said:

What was War Machine? If it's mass combat, AD&D had Battle System, which wasn't a bad mass combat engine.

War Machine is an abstract combat system found in Mentzer's BECMI series.

[vladtolenkov]

A mass combat add-on for 5E would be great, and it might restore some of the old school wargameyness to D&D.

[Max_Writer]

Jan 18, 2012 19:22:19 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

So, is it right that the notion of "kits" on top of classes first appeared in 2E?

Yes, but they were not part of the core books. They didn't show up until the "Complete" books came out.

[Malcadon]

With all the supplements, source books and periodicals, it can get really confusing. A lot of iconic elements from OD&D can be found in the supplements (Greyhawk and Blackmoor), while Unearthed Arcana was 1st ed, but it never made an impact, and 2ed ed had campaign settings with differing ways to play (eg: Birthright had "bloodlines", and Masque of the Red Death had a SAN system). Dont even get me started with all the "splat books" from the newer games.

Jan 18, 2012 12:46:33 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

At the risk of ruining my old-skool cred... I actually quite like the 3E system of fortitute/reflex/will saving throws.

I totally agree. A number of the saves are redundant scores. The Staff & Wand score is like Spells, but weaker. Keeping the saving throws in three simple (and widely encompassing) categories make things a lot easier to work with...

But that was the original point of making the 3rd edition: to make the game easy to learn and easier to play - even encouraging house-rules - but the game end-up getting more complicated then need be, while the v3.5 game made it outright systematic and rigid. The point of old-school games is that they are simple, abstract and open-ended. There is nothing wrong with using newer rules, if it makes your games easier to work with - THAC0s or not.

[llenlleawg]

I think this is why the oft-used terms in forums for newer iterations of the game, viz. RAW (rules as written) and RAI (rules as intended), both fail to capture older ways of playing the game. After all, as I understand it, the rules Gary Gygax played at his table never, as such, saw it to print, but it would be perverse to suggest he was playing anything other than real, authentic D&D. Another way to say it is that, in my experience, there was for a very long time neither so much RAW or RAI (although the lack of clarity in writing or just plain typographical errors or inadvertent omissions, e.g. hobbits in the Raise Dead spell led many people justifiably to seek clarifications of the rules, beyond merely seeking the referee's ruling) as there was simply GAP (i.e. game as played). Most people kept up somewhat with the magazines (Strategic Review and Dragon) and so the game at one table or another was more or less the same. One learned to play Dungeons & Dragons, after all, not a given rule set, and one was used to having different add-ons.

[jjarvis]

Jan 18, 2012 9:29:13 GMT -6 llenlleawg said:

THAC0 actually has to wait until 2e. AD&D used charts (with repeating 20s before needing a 21, so it was not a THAC0 system)..

THACO was most certainly in AD&D. It was in the back of the DMG, of course there it was spelled out as "To Hit A.C. 0" in the Alphabetic Recapitulation of Monsters chart. THACO made appearance in fan/third party products before that as did the less useful THAC9 (I believe that was in the monsters and treasures assortment).

[jjarvis]

Holmes:brought the Parry rule, Magic-Users of any level scribing scrolls.

BECMI: Dominion Management rules, Demihuman clan artifacts, weapon mastery, a wrestling score.

AD&D: brought us Gnomes, the little used helmet rule, rules for naval combat. aerial maneuverability classes (or had i missed this earlier)

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2012 14:12:13 GMT -6 jjarvis said:

AD&D: brought us Gnomes, the little used helmet rule, rules for naval combat. aerial maneuverability classes (or had i missed this earlier)

OD&D had gnomes, though it is vague as to whether or not they were intended as PCs. They are listed as "Slightly smaller than Dwarves, and with longer beards, these creatures usually inhabit the hills and lowland burrows as opposed to the mountainous homes which Dwarves choose. They are more reclusive than their cousins, but in all other respects resemble Dwarves." (emphasis mine)

OD&D Volume II had an implied rule for helmet-less characters in combat, but it was buried in the description for one of the magical helms: "Helm of Reading Magic and Languages: Wearing this helm allows the person to read any language or magical writing. It does not protect in the same way as Magic Armor, so if it is worn in combat any hit upon its wearer should be given a 10% of striking the helm and smashing it."

OD&D Volume III contained rules for naval warfare.

The same volume also had the vague beginnings of maneuverability class for aerial combat but nothing set in stone.

[jjarvis]

Feb 5, 2012 14:28:33 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

OD&D had gnomes, though it is vague as to whether or not they were intended as PCs.

They were monster-types getting no more attention as PCs than balrogs and dragons did.

OD&D Volume II had an implied rule for helmet-less characters in combat, but it was buried in the description for one of the magical helms:

now that's buried.

OD&D Volume III contained rules for naval warfare.

I always forget those were there.

The same volume also had the vague beginnings of maneuverability class for aerial combat but nothing set in stone.

It does have some air-to-air combat rules, with critical hits, but nothing picky like AD&Ds maneuverability is present.

[murquhart72]

Jan 18, 2012 9:49:41 GMT -6 Azafuse said:

Snipped for brevity:
AD&D: more race/class combinations, Racial Stat Bonuses, 9 Alignments, Rules for Multiclass/Dualclass Characters (at least more clear than in OD&D), Prestige Class Prototype (Bard).
2E: NWP, WP, Spheres for Druid/Cleric, Specialist Wizards,

There are Weapon Proficiencies in AD&D. In the Player's Handbook, equipment section.

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2012 14:59:20 GMT -6 jjarvis said:

They were monster-types getting no more attention as PCs than balrogs and dragons did.

What you say may be true, but since the discussion is asking whether the rules allowed for it, I think a reasonable argument could be made OD&D allowed gnome PCs without house-ruling (which, of course, is always an option with any edition).

now that's buried.

Yeah, there is all sorts of things like that in there. The magic spear entry has a nice bit about damage for being "set against charge".

It does have some air-to-air combat rules, with critical hits, but nothing picky like AD&Ds maneuverability is present.

True. When I read the AD&D rules for aerial combat, I noticed how similar they were to OD&D's; though more structured.

One thing I appreciated about OD&D was the restriction of "critical hits" to a situation in which they made sense. Bust the wing of a flying creature and down he goes! It is one of the few situations critical hits make sense in an abstracted combat system.