Goodman Games classic TSR reprints.

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I wonder what it's like to play these old adventures with a system where the PC's basically can't die. My impression of 5E is that it gets back to basics in a lot of ways, but still gives you so many HP and so many ways to get them back after every encounter that you would have to work pretty hard to croak. That changes the nature of an adventure like B2, which presents low to moderate level characters with some serious resource management problems.
 
Bunch said:
How was that hardback? I have the originals so at the time I didn't have an interest in reprints. The current ones add 5e stats, additional information and sometimes company background info.
Click to expand...

I have the originals as well but I wanted to minimize further damage to them (my copies of S1 and S2 are especially battered).

The S1-4 hardback is fine. It doesn't add anything new -- unlike the one for the Slavers 'A' series, which added A0 (an AD&D adventure for levels 1-3).

One thing that I was disappointed by is that some of the player illustrations for S3 that were in colour in the original (those beautiful pictures by Erol Otus!) are reproduced in black and white in the hardcover reprint.

Also, neither hardcover reprint (the A-series or the S-series) includes the original covers.
 
Moonglum said:
I wonder what it's like to play these old adventures with a system where the PC's basically can't die. My impression of 5E is that it gets back to basics in a lot of ways, but still gives you so many HP and so many ways to get them back after every encounter that you would have to work pretty hard to croak. That changes the nature of an adventure like B2, which presents low to moderate level characters with some serious resource management problems.
Click to expand...

While it's harder to die in 5e than in B/X D&D or AD&D, in the two sessions of 'core 5e' that I've run one (out of four) characters died. So I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that they "can't die."

However, you could simulate the harshness of earlier editions (somewhat) by requiring 'long rests' for any healing/h.p. recovery (and 'full recovery' could only occur in 'sanctuaries' or safe places). The 5e DMG (iirc) provides suggestions for harsher games.

I hope to be running a Greyhawk game in the near-ish future, using some classic AD&D modules. We're still deciding whether to run it using AD&D or 5e. If we choose the latter, it'll be interesting to see how those modules play out with the 5e rules...
 
Baulderstone said:
Yes, that's the main thing that has stopped me from picking them up. It's cool collector's item to have on your shelf, but it would be a pain to use at the table compared to the original. I still have a number of my old modules, including X1, but I have lost B2 somewhere along the way. If I run it again, I'd rather just print out a PDF and stick it in a three-ring binder than use a big hardback.
Click to expand...

I agree that the books would be difficult to use at the table. If I were to run B1/B2 or X1 using the new material, I'd probably just photocopy the relevant sections. You'd only need about 10% of the material in any given session.
 
Bunch said:
Mine had chits.
Click to expand...

Same here. My parents got me the Holmes basic set for X-mas in 1980 (blue rulebook + B2 + chits).

If only they knew what they were unleashing!
 
Dumarest said:
Is that even a thing, or is it just the referee?
Click to expand...

Well as Akrasia Akrasia says it isn’t really true of 5e and even less so if you use the optional slower healing rules. The lethality of any edition D&D tends to be overblown anyways, after the PCs are lvl 5+ they are more powerful than most characters in RQ, T&T and most other frpgs, not to mention really lethal games like CoC or CP2020.
 
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Any 'classic' editions of D+D produced PC's with single-digit HP at first level, even a 3rd-4th level fighter is likely to still be under 20 hp, and in many of those editions you died at 0. So, some small number of successful hits from common monsters would off you, and the risk of death over the course of a couple hours of play was substantial. Most people who play a lot of 5E can present an example of a character dying, but the risk is no where near what it was. 5E provides PC's with several layers of protection: high initial HP and rapid rise, opportunities to live after HP are reduced to 0, and a constant replenishment between encounters.
 
Moonglum said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree...
Click to expand...

In my reply I explicitly stated that it is 'harder' to die in 5e (using the core rules) than in TSR era versions of the game. I simply disagreed with the claim that "PC's basically can't die". That's just not true IME.
 
Moonglum said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Any 'classic' editions of D+D produced PC's with single-digit HP at first level, even a 3rd-4th level fighter is likely to still be under 20 hp, and in many of those editions you died at 0. So, some small number of successful hits from common monsters would off you, and the risk of death over the course of a couple hours of play was substantial. Most people who play a lot of 5E can present an example of a character dying, but the risk is no where near what it was. 5E provides PC's with several layers of protection: high initial HP and rapid rise, opportunities to live after HP are reduced to 0, and a constant replenishment between encounters.
Click to expand...

3rd or 4th is still low level in D&D. Compared to a PC in RQ a 5th level fighter in D&D is far more powerful and able to survive fights that would put a RQ PC down. That is why D&D in all its editions is such a popular system for high fantasy gaming.

I found in B/X that after 5th most D&D parties are able to walk into most fights quite confident of winning. The lethality of D&D compared to other frpgs let alone the other games I already mentioned is far lower. I think that is why you see way more ‘save-or-die’ effects in earlier D&D to compensate for this fact. From the mid to high levels the PCs have less and less to fear from just HP loss.

As to 5e, rapid and high HP is there just as it is in all editions of D&D. Perhaps ‘worse’ but hardly that much moreso than previous editions.

Survival after hitting 0 exists in all editions of D&D except OD&D and B/X.

And the ‘constant replenishment’ between encounters is easily addressed with the optional DMG rules.
 
Last edited:
Voros said:
3rd or 4th is still low level in D&D. Compared to a PC in RQ a 5th level fighter in D&D is far more powerful and able to survive fights that would put a RQ PC down. That is why D&D in all its editions is such a popular system for high fantasy gaming.

I found in B/X that after 5th most D&D parties are able to walk into most fights quite confident of winning. The lethality of D&D compared to other frpgs let alone the other games I already mentioned is far lower. I think that is why you see way more ‘save-or-die’ effects in earlier D&D to compensate for this fact. From the mid to high levels the PCs have less and less to fear from just HP loss.

As to 5e, rapid and high HP is there just as it is in all editions of D&D. Perhaps ‘worse’ but hardly that much moreso than previous editions.

Survival after hitting 0 exists in all editions of D&D except OD&D and B/X.

And the ‘constant replenishment’ between encounters is easily addressed with the optional DMG rules.
Click to expand...
Comparing different editions of D&D is oftbe like looking at a Rorschach test and grading on the "right" answer.

So much depends on which rules were and weren't used, degree of Monty Haulism, GM mentality.

Not intending to poop on all this but it's something to keep in mind if it seems like people are talking past each other.
 
Moonglum said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Any 'classic' editions of D+D produced PC's with single-digit HP at first level, even a 3rd-4th level fighter is likely to still be under 20 hp, and in many of those editions you died at 0. So, some small number of successful hits from common monsters would off you, and the risk of death over the course of a couple hours of play was substantial. Most people who play a lot of 5E can present an example of a character dying, but the risk is no where near what it was. 5E provides PC's with several layers of protection: high initial HP and rapid rise, opportunities to live after HP are reduced to 0, and a constant replenishment between encounters.
Click to expand...

Hmm? What is a classic edition then? Because both AD&D (1st and 2nd editions) as well as B/X, BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia will let characters start with double digit hit points. Constitution bonuses and hit dice of D8 and above see to that (and with AD&D 1e Rangers start with two hit dice, making it not even particularly unlikely that they'll end up with 10 or more hit points). In 5e character classes have mainly the same hit dice as in AD&D (Rogues get a D8 and Wizards get a D6, but this is still on the same level) and they get the maximum roll for that die at level one. So usually a bit higher than in TSR editions. On the other hand, your standard orc has D8 hit points in AD&D, an average of 4,5, and does between 1D6 and 1D10 in damage, depending on weapon. In D&D 5e that same orc has 2D8 + 6 hit points, resulting in an average of 15, and does 1D12+3 damage. That's actually more hit points than your standard first level fighter has in 5e, and the damage is high enough to potentially drop pretty much any 1st level character with one hit. Meanwhile the TSR Orc is equal to a Basic fighter and has on average fewer hit points than an AD&D fighter.

The rise after first level is pretty much the same as in any other edition of D&D, roll your hit die and add that many hit points. A 4th level AD&D fighter with no Constitution bonus to HP is still likely to have more than 20 hit points at fourth level. A 5e Fighter will reach that average at level 3, thanks to the max hit die of first level. But after that first level, the only difference is the higher probability of having a Con bonus to hit points for the 5e fighter.

As for the constant replenishment of HP between encounters, in my experience that doesn't happen in low-level 5e play. Using a magic spell or lay on hands is available if you have someone with those abilities in the party, but they are fairly limited at low levels. And except for fighters everyone needs to take a short rest in order to use hit dice Hit dice are a very limited resource at 1st level (you have one) and resting can be a limited resource as well.

Low-level characters in 5e have on average a few more hit points than those same characters would in AD&D, but face opponents with more hit points and who usually do greater damage as well.

I think a much bigger difference is actually that 5e expects you to blow through level one in one adventure, while in older versions of D&D you're more likely to take somewhat longer to go through the early levels (although the starter set I got for AD&D 2e as a kid assumed a pace of one level per adventure also)
 
raniE said:
Hmm? What is a classic edition then? Because both AD&D (1st and 2nd editions) as well as B/X, BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia will let characters start with double digit hit points. Constitution bonuses and hit dice of D8 and above see to that (and with AD&D 1e Rangers start with two hit dice, making it not even particularly unlikely that they'll end up with 10 or more hit points). In 5e character classes have mainly the same hit dice as in AD&D (Rogues get a D8 and Wizards get a D6, but this is still on the same level) and they get the maximum roll for that die at level one. So usually a bit higher than in TSR editions. On the other hand, your standard orc has D8 hit points in AD&D, an average of 4,5, and does between 1D6 and 1D10 in damage, depending on weapon. In D&D 5e that same orc has 2D8 + 6 hit points, resulting in an average of 15, and does 1D12+3 damage. That's actually more hit points than your standard first level fighter has in 5e, and the damage is high enough to potentially drop pretty much any 1st level character with one hit. Meanwhile the TSR Orc is equal to a Basic fighter and has on average fewer hit points than an AD&D fighter.

The rise after first level is pretty much the same as in any other edition of D&D, roll your hit die and add that many hit points. A 4th level AD&D fighter with no Constitution bonus to HP is still likely to have more than 20 hit points at fourth level. A 5e Fighter will reach that average at level 3, thanks to the max hit die of first level. But after that first level, the only difference is the higher probability of having a Con bonus to hit points for the 5e fighter.

As for the constant replenishment of HP between encounters, in my experience that doesn't happen in low-level 5e play. Using a magic spell or lay on hands is available if you have someone with those abilities in the party, but they are fairly limited at low levels. And except for fighters everyone needs to take a short rest in order to use hit dice Hit dice are a very limited resource at 1st level (you have one) and resting can be a limited resource as well.

Low-level characters in 5e have on average a few more hit points than those same characters would in AD&D, but face opponents with more hit points and who usually do greater damage as well.

I think a much bigger difference is actually that 5e expects you to blow through level one in one adventure, while in older versions of D&D you're more likely to take somewhat longer to go through the early levels (although the starter set I got for AD&D 2e as a kid assumed a pace of one level per adventure also)
Click to expand...
I think that last paragraph is a major difference. In OD&D it was assumed take many months to advance.

By BX era the inclusion of modules with higher treasure payout than the other treasure tables and tournament modules with vastly different treasure payout and advancement increased substantially. By 2e it looked much more like modern advancement with a few short adventures leading to levelling.

Changing things from 10-20 combat encounters per level from maybe 200 per level and the hit point difference goes from a slight difference to massive.
 
Bunch said:
I think that last paragraph is a major difference. In OD&D it was assumed take many months to advance.

By BX era the inclusion of modules with higher treasure payout than the other treasure tables and tournament modules with vastly different treasure payout and advancement increased substantially. By 2e it looked much more like modern advancement with a few short adventures leading to levelling.

Changing things from 10-20 combat encounters per level from maybe 200 per level and the hit point difference goes from a slight difference to massive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my point (well, kinda). Basically, while hit points at lower levels don't really differ too much from the TSR editions, the fact that anyone requires 300 XP to level up to 2nd level in 5e, while 1200 (B/X, BECMI) or 1250 XP (AD&D) is the lowest requirement with some classes needing 2500 or even 4000 XP to reach level 2 in TSR editions will have far more of an effect. The first level experience should probably only be there for one adventure in 5e, with second level going by equally fast. Those same levels could be many sessions in older games.

This can be for both good and ill, in my opinion. There's something to be said for working your way up and staying for long periods of time at one level. But there's also the idea that it might be fun to actually get to the higher levels from level 1, and that can be difficult with an older system if you don't have the time to play that often.
 
I found leveling went reasonably fast in the early levels in AD&D as the modules tended to hand out a lot of gold, magic items and other valuables. Perhaps we were playing it ‘wrong’ though as we were young enough that I’m unsure if we were playing BtB.
 
Dumarest said:
Click to expand...
​
Heh. Never actually read the Original D&D rules, but I've understood it has lower hit points than succeeding editions, so probably limited to fewer than 10 hit points at first level. But since the word was pluralized as "editions" in the post I responded to, I don't think we can only count OD&D.
Dumarest said:
Click to expand...
I mean, you should be able to do this in any of the older editions as well. Just find enough treasure (or fight enough enemies or get enough quest XP depending on edition of the game) to advance (have your character tag along with some higher level friends and it might not be too out of reach either, especially with XP for treasure).
 
On the whole "less than 10 HP" topic, it is possible to start with 10 HP in B/X, but it is still very rare. You need to be playing a fighter or dwarf and get at least a 16 on your Constitution, and then get a very high roll for HP. Keep in mind, you can't adjust your Constitution score in B/X either. You've got about a 0.6% chance getting the needed rolls. And we are talking 0.6% of just fighters and dwarves. You've got an even smaller percentage if you are talking characters overall.

Characters with 10 HP at 1st level do exist in B/X, but they are serious outliers.
 
Baulderstone said:
On the whole "less than 10 HP" topic, it is possible to start with 10 HP in B/X, but it is still very rare. You need to be playing a fighter or dwarf and get at least a 16 on your Constitution, and then get a very high roll for HP. Keep in mind, you can't adjust your Constitution score in B/X either. You've got about a 0.6% chance getting the needed rolls. And we are talking 0.6% of just fighters and dwarves. You've got an even smaller percentage if you are talking characters overall.

Characters with 10 HP at 1st level do exist in B/X, but they are serious outliers.
Click to expand...
I'll just add that all of course depends on how your DM ran things as house rules were added about 30 seconds after anyone finished reading the books.

For my group it matched closer to the rules in that we didn't do max HP at 1st level but we often did 4d6 drop lowest , arrange to suit.
 
I made a cleric recently in b/x and started with 1 god damned hit point

And I survived and currently at 3rd level with 7 hit points.

I hired lots of hirelings.
 
Bunch said:
I'll just add that all of course depends on how your DM ran things as house rules were added about 30 seconds after anyone finished reading the books.

For my group it matched closer to the rules in that we didn't do max HP at 1st level but we often did 4d6 drop lowest , arrange to suit.
Click to expand...
Sure, and that is the way it should be. D&D feels wrong without any house rules. I'm just looking at it from a pure, baseline RAW perspective simply because comparisons between editions become impossible once you get into the myriad variation of ways people actually play the thing.
 
Baulderstone said:
On the whole "less than 10 HP" topic, it is possible to start with 10 HP in B/X, but it is still very rare. You need to be playing a fighter or dwarf and get at least a 16 on your Constitution, and then get a very high roll for HP. Keep in mind, you can't adjust your Constitution score in B/X either. You've got about a 0.6% chance getting the needed rolls. And we are talking 0.6% of just fighters and dwarves. You've got an even smaller percentage if you are talking characters overall.

Characters with 10 HP at 1st level do exist in B/X, but they are serious outliers.
Click to expand...

Sure, it is rare in by the book B/X. But in AD&D, you can be a Fighter, a Ranger or a Paladin and do it without a high Con score (Rangers being especially likely to in 1e). And then you still have the Clerics and Druids who can get there with a high Con (and if you roll 4D6 drop lowest arrange to taste, as I believe was standard in AD&D 1e, you'd have a pretty good chance of getting a high Con score).

It's all a spectrum. OD&D and B/X may be on one end, and 5e closer to the other end, but in the end it's a few hit points worth of difference. Other differences are far more important, I believe.
 
Dumarest said:
I once rolled up a fighter (3d6 in order, of course) with only 1 hit point. Survived at least to 2nd level! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Did that once. He survived to level 6 I think before he was retired. The funny thing was I tried to get him killed since I figured any time spent on him would be a waste. Luck favored him a d he reached second level fairly quickly. I think I rolled better than average for his second level hps and suddenly Mr throwaway became Mr maybe. He got a little more cautious. By the time he was 3rd level he was Mr Keeper because hey I'd already invested that much time into him. Love that guy.
 
Bunch said:
The funny thing was I tried to get him killed since I figured any time spent on him would be a waste.
Click to expand...
My experience was anytime any of us rolled up a "subpar" guy, he'd be a risk-taking daredevil. Usually they died ignominiously, but sometimes they achieved glory. Fun times!
 
Dumarest said:
My experience was anytime any of us rolled up a "subpar" guy, he'd be a risk-taking daredevil. Usually they died ignominiously, but sometimes they achieved glory. Fun times!
Click to expand...
That's definitely one of the perks of fast, random character generation. First level characters are fragile, but they also only take a few minutes to replace.
 
Baulderstone said:
That's definitely one of the perks of fast, random character generation. First level characters are fragile, but they also only take a few minutes to replace.
Click to expand...
Roll lousy for starting gold and it's even faster: no dithering over what to buy. "Well, I guess all I can afford is leather armor and this dagger..." :hehe:
 
It's fun to noodle our way through these old arguments, but you violate Roberts Rules of Order every time you present an argument based on a farcical statistical anomaly. 1st level characters in BD+D with double digit hit points? Pure blather.
 
Moonglum said:
It's fun to noodle our way through these old arguments, but you violate Roberts Rules of Order every time you present an argument based on a farcical statistical anomaly. 1st level characters in BD+D with double digit hit points? Pure blather.
Click to expand...
And saying that AD&D 1e, with its D10 hit die for Fighters and Paladins while Rangers start with 2D8 hit points at level one, doesn’t count as classical, or is somehow less classical than Basic? That seems to be more blathery to me.
 
raniE said:
And saying that AD&D 1e, with its D10 hit die for Fighters and Paladins while Rangers start with 2D8 hit points at level one, doesn’t count as classical, or is somehow less classical than Basic? That seems to be more blathery to me.
Click to expand...

Yes AD&D had double digit hos given many of us were twelve at the time and had abnormal levels of 18's. We also probably encountered reroll hos under half house rules, max HP house rules etc. Should we have? I dunno but many of us had fun even if we broke the rules as written

And just a friendly request to all. Please comment with bias towards kindness vs hostility. It's no fun when it devolves into flames.
 
Bunch said:
And just a friendly request to all. Please comment with bias towards kindness vs hostility. It's no fun when it devolves into flames.
Click to expand...

Sure, sorry if I got carried away.
 
To my mind the biggest difference is the death save rules. The HPs thing depends on monster damage anyway - but the Death Saving throws mean you're not all that likely to die unless there's a TPK or the party is forced to run and abandon you. You don't get so much of the sudden unexpected death from a single die roll.

Of course back when I was a teenager we never played RAW anyway. We always used the you don't die until you get to -10 hp houserule anyway (Because this was 2E and our PCs were the "Heroes").
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top