Myth, Older Editions were more lethal at low level

Yes with a small caveat (3d6 in order, random HP at L1 instead of maximum and save or die stuff ) its a myth. In fact the opposite is true

Lets use B/X (Lab Lord) Fighter vs Orc as a demo. Note that i am using 3e style AC for simplicity

L1 BX Fighter Gets +1 to hit and damage (from STR) 9 HP (from Con) has AC +6 (mail and shield)

his Orc (as per LL) is AC+4 HP5 and does 1d8 with a to hit bonus of zero

This means our fighter can survive 1 or two strokes from the orc and baring bad luck, will be able to drop his orc, probably in one blow


Now of PF Fighter

He is +4to hit, +2 on damage (from feat, level and STR) has 12 HP with Con and AC +8 (scale, large shield, dex +1)

his Orc (as per SRD) is +3 to AC, 6 HP +5 to hit and does 2d4+4 --


This means while the chance of the fighter hitting and dropping the Orc are higher, the reverse is also true . Its easier for the orc to hit the fighter

Also while 1 good roll (either a good die roll, or a crit) can drop our PF fighter , the B/X fighter can always survive one good shot.

And yes this extra lethality pretty much carries over to all the low level monsters.

The only real mitigation in Pathfinder is the "die at minus 10 and stabilize rules" and of course the presence of more magical healing, the 1st of which is an old school rule and the second can be added via healing potions.

Now if anyone is wondering where that myth probably originated. I'd guess three things

#1 There was less effort at scaling encounters. Often as not no one cared, if you were dumb enough to mess with something bigger than you and couldn't get away, well ya died.

#2 Many of the old classic modules, even such things as the Keep on the Borderlands were Meat Grinders

#3 The hobby was pretty new and many DM's were unskilled and as such did not know how to DM in a way to challenge rather than wipe out players with bad luck.

However, myth or no myth, with a few key exceptions, older editions were less lethal mechanically.

Pathfinder/3.5 Watch out for combos

One thing that I have learned about 3.5 that I didn't see nearly as much in older editions (B/X etc) is the killer combo. yes there were a few of these in 2e but I never had as much trouble keeping them under control.

In the newer additions, 3.5 and to a somewhat lesser degree Pathfinder certain combinations of items, spells and classes can be abusive enough to wreck any sense of verisimilitude in a game and worse, can easily take away fun from the other players.

One example that came to mind recently was Mr. 27 Attacks per round. This is not of course the absolute maximum that can be had but its an example of the kind of thing a novice min maxer like me can think off on the fly

How this nightmarish think works is Take a High level L18+ Warblade (from Book of Nine Swords) with the following magic items

Belt of Battle (from Magic Item Compendium)

Weapon of Speed

Take the Two Weapon Fighting Feat Tree + Snap Kick (from Book of Nine Swords)

4 Primary, 4 Secondary (3 off hand, 1 snap kick) + 1 Weapon

Trigger "Time Stands Still" Make full round attack (9) make another attack (9) trigger belt of battle (another 9) -- now granted this is not especially unbalanced in terms of damage output but unless you are playing Ninja Gaidan or something, it comes on as intensely silly and can detract from the sense of "game reality" you are trying to build. The worse thing of course is it slows the game to a crawl even when the players are very well prepared for it.

Something else to be wary off . If you throw in extra 3rd party stuff like Boots of Kicking (from the excellent Loot for Less series here) or gestalt classes it can get even worse (a possible 300D6 Sneak Attack damage!!)

This should not warn you off 3x, Pathfinder or High level play but it should remind you that the same "cool stuff" players have to mess with can add a large extra layer of complexity to you game that you'll need to be prepared for.

Old School is mostly imagination, Newer School is about options and also Why No 4e?

Just a random though while I was looking through my books.

Old school gamer (OD&D, B/X, AD&D and early 2e) were toolkits to aid in imagination. Sure they had options, sometimes plenty of them, but they were often simply meant as spurs to you imagination.

Newer school games, late 2e (with the Kit books) and up are more about options. Rather than winging it, you can easily grab a book and viola, the rule will be there for you.

4e is perhaps the ultimate iteration of that, where virtually every cool thing your character or a monster can do is a power of some kind . The monsters tactics are fully specked out for you, the treasure is in literal parcels and all you have to do is take what pieces you want provide flavor text, set up the board, play. This structures the game in a way that Old School games never did. This is not wrong, if you like it mind and while I enjoy creating options for Pathfinder and such -- that amount of structure is no longer what I want in my D&D.

In fact I'd say my ideal D&D is more about imagination than anything else. Just roll some dice, be fair, err on the side of generous and go play. And since it doesn't feel like 4e supports that, I won't be buying in.

Instead because making options for that game is fun to me, I'll support Pathfinder and I'll play old style any time I can.