The Evolution of Dungeons and Dragons over the Editions

1st Edition Monster Manual

Grimm and I were chatting about D&D on Twitter recently and it got me thinking about the evolution of the game Dungeons and Dragons.  I had recently commented to a friend that D&D always felt like it was designed around combat and the RPG parts were tacked on later.  I feel like this is an easy argument to make considering it's birth from the Chainmail system.

From Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and the most recent 5th Edition - what's changed?

Well, quite a lot and yet not much.


Starting off, here's a few caveats.  I'm considering 3rd and 3.5 to be the same edition for all intents and purposes.  I'm also going to, for the most part, gloss over 4th edition (mostly because I don't have the books any more to use as references).  In hindsight - 4th edition was the largest change to the game engine of any of the editions.  This move away from the familiar confines of D&D, even if moved toward the familiar confines of online games, may have been doomed from the onset.  If the same rule set was released as World of Warcraft the Tabletop RPG I wonder if it would've been more widely accepted.  Similarly, I'm going to skip the boxed editions.  These rule-sets are great for introducing people to the core mechanics but have some limitations including races as classes, leveling restrictions, and an overall limitation of equipment, spells, and monsters.  Most people started with the red box and the adventure B2: Keep on the Borderlands so it's importance is noted and appreciated.  In my opinion, these games have more in common with the White box OSR than the Advanced edition.  Lastly, this isn't inclusive of every change in the games, it's just some broad brush stokes and a stroll down nostalgia lane.

1st Edition had some cartoons dispersed throughout the DMG.

Starting in second edition, I felt like there were always a lot of supplements that added more classes, skills, spells, monsters, etc.  So, unless otherwise specified, I'm generally just talking about the core rule books - Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual.

The first two editions had large restrictions for non-human races with respect what classes they could play and the maximum level they could obtain.  Half orcs were removed from second edition but have otherwise been a constant since first edition.  I never quite understood the reasoning of race limits other than to make humans seem more desirable.  The idea that elves can live hundreds of years but never get past 11th level for wizard always seemed silly.

For classes, one of the first shifts was changing Illusionists to Specialists which allowed each school of magic to be the focus of a wizard's study instead of just illusions.  Assassin class was dropped after first edition while Monk followed the path of the half-orc by skipping second edition before returning in the third edition.  Sorcerers and Barbarians were added to the core rule book in third edition (while at least the barbarian was in second edition in the Unearthed Arcana book).  Second and third editions had a lot of supplements that provided essentially variants of classes.  Third took this a set further with prestige classes - advanced classes (like bard in first edition) that gave new abilities and a new advancement chain.

Behold the 1st Edition Beholder

Third edition streamlined the strength ability by removing exceptional strength as well as limitations of 18 in ability scores.  This allowed characters to really grow to be epic as they advanced.  Third also made a large change in how bonuses were given allowing for +1's to be at 12 while negative stats began with scores lower than 9.  The old system was far more convoluted with each stat having essentially different bonuses, most starting at values greater than 15 and less than 7.

Saving throws categories were also reduced from five to three and bonuses were based on class and abilities.  While combat has always been a roller higher than X system, armor class went from lower is better in first and second to higher is better in third and beyond.  This "drastic" change was probably one of the best modifications made to the game engine as it greatly simplified figuring out if you hit a target.

Fourth edition, and third to a lesser degree, embraced the tactical combat aspect of the game and devoted a large amount of time to battle map mechanics.  Fourth was also constructed in a way that allowed players to do heroic actions infrequently while also giving each character the chance to heal themselves freeing the clerics of the world up to actually do more than be heal-bots.  These mechanics are what the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System series of board games uses and it's great for a board game.  I've found that board games do skirmishes/combat really well but tend to fall flat on the role-playing side of things mostly because it's hard for a game to do much past choose your own adventure and railroad you to the next adventure.

The addition of cantrips in the third edition (although they also were in Unearthed Arcana in second) gave priests and wizards the chance to do more frequently and not have to burn their only spell slot for a light spell.  Likewise spontaneous casting in third edition allowed clerics to not memorize healing spells but they could turn any spell into a healing spell.  This finally gave the cleric some power and flexibility.  Special powers from their deities also gave priests different feels, weapons, and character story/motivation.

Psionics went from appendix material in first edition to supplemental rules in future editions.

3rd Edition Paladin
The quality of art improved greatly

The most notable change between the editions, and it's been a steady stream of improvements, is the fleshing out of non-combat abilities and skills.  First edition, basically, didn't have any non-combat related skills.  Everything was left to the players and DM to decide.  Second edition added non-weapon proficiency abilities and secondary skills (broad backgrounds) to provide some framework for what a character could do.  Third edition unleashed a large table of skills characters could perform trained or untrained and provided great customization for thieves and other classes who received more skills than other abilities.  Third also included feats that gave characters special abilities and bonuses allowing them to do heroic things like cleave through opponents or deflect incoming arrows.  Fifth edition introduced backgrounds which includes tables for personality, flaws, bonds, and ideals.  This helps a player create a character who's more than their abilities and equipment.  It gives a starting point to for role-playing.

Taking a side-bar to the 2d20 Conan game - that game's character creation gives you a fully fleshed out character at the end of creation.  The downside of it is that you have an overly complicated and lengthy creation process.  It is far too easy to miss assigning a talent or skill.  Dungeons and Dragons, on the other hand, has always been fairly easy to sit down and create a character.  When comparing the two - I greatly prefer the character creation of D&D.  Many of the Conan classes, while they add little twists, are just variants of each other (take a peak at the different characters in the back of the Quickstart linked above).  As I look through the source books, many of the new classes don't bring a lot of new ideas to the table.

In first edition let's say you're making a male human fighter.  Is he a knight in shining armor?  Is he a chain mail wearing berserker?  Is he the nimble and flashy swordsman?  You took your stats, bought your gear and made your fighter.  Third edition and on, you bought a source book and rolled the character per a new class.  In some cases, I felt like many of the newer characters classes were over-powered compared to the ones in the core books at the same level.

Jeff Easley did most of the 2nd edition art.

And that can throw the balance of a game off and make it not fun.

In my opinion, the source books have removed people's need to be creative about their characters.  However, if used properly, they could also be the basis of a unique character.  I just felt that they were more often used by min/maxers than creative role-players.

5th edition is really the next step in evolution from 3rd/3.5.  This is of course because I consider 4th edition to be a different branch as it's core mechanics were so different than all the other editions.

Experience (XP) was partially gained from treasure in the first edition and thankfully this was removed later as second edition awarded XP based on monster level plus special awards for each class.  Challenge ratings in third edition greatly reduced book keeping since the award was for the whole encounter.  XP and treasure is where the DM's across the world alter the rules to fit their campaign better than any rule set could cover.

Dragons weren't terrifying until second edition as the original game was almost felt set up with the intent that nobody played past level 14.  2nd edition tried something interesting with the Monster Manual - it was a binder and as you bought expansions, you could add pages to this binder.  Each monster had it's own page.  In theory, this worked.  In reality, it felt cheap, pages tore, and the art,
despite being in full color was bad.  This concept was removed during the black covers reprint of 2nd edition and it's something I hope we never talk about again.  Third edition added a concept of templates so you could make vampires and liches more interesting by giving them each an unique build.  From second edition and forward a little more time was spent talking ecology and how each monster fit into the ecosystem.  This push for realism, in my opinion, was a useful tools for DM's that wanted their dungeons to make sense.

Great legs, nipples of steel, and she's ready to fight!

The simplified monochromatic black and white art style of first edition is classic yet not great when compared to third edition and beyond.  Second edition had some pretty cool color paintings but most of the art in the PHB and DMG was chunky blue and white drawings that felt like a regression even when compared to the very simple sketches of first edition. Third edition and beyond,  While I played 2nd edition probably the most of all of the editions, I disliked the layout and presentation.

Speaking of artwork, another change in art through the editions is the depiction of women and female monsters.  In first edition, there are quite a few topless monsters.  In later editions, these have had their boobs covered either by clothing, armor, or hair.  There's still some provocative female armor design but it's definitely been scaled back.  I'm not sure if this is due to Wizards of the Coast realizing there's a lot of female gamers or just politely conforming to societal norms since this game is marketed to kids/teens.  I started playing DnD when I was 8 (with my older brother).  Luckily my parents were practical and weren't too worried about the art.  Their focus was making sure we understood that this was a game and wasn't real so quit gathering disgusting things for casting spells.

Adventure quality has been a constant improvement since first edition.  B3, for example, is basically a series of rooms tied together in a loose story that you randomly roll to generate the contents.  Nearly 100% random - there's no cohesiveness.  Even some of the great modules like the GDQ series tend to be dungeon crawls where you fight through hordes of monsters with minimal plot.  The A1-4 (Slavers) series had a bit more opportunity for role-playing as did the U1-3 (Saltmarsh).  Even the legendary S1 (Tomb of Horrors) is a nightmare character killer dungeon crawl.  The third edition adventures and beyond seemed to allow for exploration and story development to go along with the combat.

This (seriously) is the 2nd edition Ettin.

The evolution of the game has been solid over the past 40+ years.  While I didn't like fourth, it did bring some good mechanics - and may be the best of the group as an engine for tactical skirmishes.  The inclusion of rules to provide more tools for role-playing has also been good.  Providing framework for how the players and DM interact with the world can avoid arguments.  A great DM will still know when to let the players be creative, when to force them to roll to succeed, and when to just narrate the action and let the good times roll.  Or role, depending on the edition you're playing.  There is, after all, more to the game than just combat.