Forked Thread: I hate game balance! (How elves wrecked the wizard and game balance)

[Tarek]

It happens to be my real name.

As for Prismatic Blade, I think it was an eighth or ninth level spell, and at that level, well... there were considerably better spells available.

Chromatic Orb was an illusionist-only spell in 1st edition, and it was *the* major attack spell for illusionists. It was also just about their *only* direct attack spell, and practically the only one that worked against undead/constructs/creatures with high save vs. spells/illusion immunities.

I notice that a lot of the spells and options you're talking about are either late 2nd edition or 3rd edition... while I agree with your point that wizards got rather overpowered if the DM didn't exercise careful oversight about what made it into the campaign, I'm not sure that this is a problem with wizards per se that caused the massive "rebalance" in 4e.

In 1st edition, a fighter/magic-user who can cast two 8th level spells would be a fighter 15/magic-user 17. A pure magic-user would be 23rd level. A pure fighter would be 28th level.

Like I said before, multi-classes are very versatile, but they really lag behind at the higher levels of play.

You keep using the word "gestalt". I don't understand what that means when we're talking about 1st edition multi-classing. I have the feeling that "gestalt" is describing a house-rule of some kind that doesn't bear on the original multi-classing system.

My own experience playing multi-classed characters is that the versatility didn't compensate enough for the slower progression and the lack of focus on one field. Frankly, I felt that a fighter/magic-user ended up feeling less capable as a fighter and less effective as a magic-user, despite being able to take either role.

This is at least in part because of spell interruption and the fact that enemies would deliberately (when intelligent) target the spell-casters. And with the fighter/magic-user being frequently in melee, well, there weren't that many opportunities to get a spell off uninterrupted. That meant operating as a less-effective fighter than a pure fighter, and not operating as a magic-user except in maybe the first round of combat.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

It happens to be my real name.

Nice name. Cheers! : )

As for Prismatic Blade, I think it was an eighth or ninth level spell, and at that level, well... there were considerably better spells available.

Prismatic Blade was 9th level. And yes, there were better spells available (grins evilly.)

Chromatic Orb was an illusionist-only spell in 1st edition, and it was *the* major attack spell for illusionists. It was also just about their *only* direct attack spell, and practically the only one that worked against undead/constructs/creatures with high save vs. spells/illusion immunities.

Yes, in 1E Chromatic Orb was restricted to the illusionist only (making a lot of wizards turn green with envy.)
Remember that it required an attack roll, and the illusionist's THAC0 was awful.
In 2E, when Chromatic Orb became available to all wizards, all wizards kept that godawful THAC0.
But ... if you are playing a fighter/wizard, in 2E, you have a fighter's THAC0, the best in the game at that time. So now, you have the fighter's THAC0 to use the wizard's Chromatic Orb with. In this case, 2 + 2 = 5. At 9th level, 2 + 2 = 10.

I must admit, the 1E illusionist was shafted in spells, and I saw few people play illusionists. Unearthed Arcana helped a lot, with Chromatic Orb and other spells, but illusionists were still rare (the gnomish fighter/illusionist was a nice class, and in this one case gnomes really shined.)
Enter 2E, and all the generalist wizards greedily helped themselves to those nifty illusionist spells, while the poor illusionist could finally cast the good stuff.

I notice that a lot of the spells and options you're talking about are either late 2nd edition or 3rd edition... while I agree with your point that wizards got rather overpowered if the DM didn't exercise careful oversight about what made it into the campaign, I'm not sure that this is a problem with wizards per se that caused the massive "rebalance" in 4e.

The Original Shapechange, 9th level, was a 1E spell. In *this* case, it definitely was a case of Accept No Substitutions; the Original Pepsi is the Best!
That was one mighty spell. Become anything short of a demigod or singular creature type. Two tarrasques in the world? You can become a tarrasque.
You gained ALL the powers of the creature except magic resistance and those based on it's mind (the spell implied, adjudicate in the player's favor) and keep all your own powers in addition.
You could become a lightning bolt and literally rocket around the world at lightspeed with that spell.

And the original Timestop? In the original version, you could plant your dagger in someone, while they were Timestopped, and leave them to face the consequences when the spell stopped. Timestop was truly Autokill (it was meant to be truly autokill, no ifs, ands, or buts.)

All the spell goodness that came out later, just added to the helpings of the seven course meal. : )

In 1st edition, a fighter/magic-user who can cast two 8th level spells would be a fighter 15/magic-user 17. A pure magic-user would be 23rd level. A pure fighter would be 28th level.
Like I said before, multi-classes are very versatile, but they really lag behind at the higher levels of play.

Quite true.
My point was, that low level wizards were so difficult to keep alive, so weak, that players would use the fighter/mage class to 'get around' this problem.
At low levels, they could fall back on the fighter class. Then, when they reached the high levels, they got the goodies of the high level wizard.
Can you blame them? A smart wizard, given that option, *would do just that.* Why would she run around defenseless, when she could wear armor, wield weapons, and fight competently, up until she obtained those powerful spells? She would choose the way that worked! (And for single class wizards, it was - as you know - really, really, really hard to make things work.)

Had elves been barred from being fighter/mages, this would not have happened, and high level wizards would have been rare, the way Gary Gygax intended.
With high powered wizards so rare, the idea of wizards unbalancing the game would not have been nearly such an issue, people would not have taken it up as an issue, and perhaps the backlash against wizards would never have occurred.
But obviously, if you give a smart player a better way (and I would argue the 1E/2E multiclassing was a better way, in this case, despite the slower advancement) then they will take it. Why play a defenseless single-class low level wizard, when you can play a character with all the benefits of a wizard + all the benefits of a fighter + all the benefits of an elf - no drawbacks?

You keep using the word "gestalt". I don't understand what that means when we're talking about 1st edition multi-classing. I have the feeling that "gestalt" is describing a house-rule of some kind that doesn't bear on the original multi-classing system.

Gestalt, they say, is an optional 3E rule based upon 1E multiclassing.
Gestalt allows you to take 2 classes as 1 class. Literally. You are a Fighter/Wizard, and that's one class. Or a Cleric/Rogue, and that's one class. Or a Fighter/Bard, or Wizard/Cleric, or whatever combination you want.
You can multiclass in addition, so you can be a Fighter/Wizard / Cleric/Rogue, and that would count as 2 classes. You have all 4 core classes, but you still advance at half the normal rate.
You gain the abilities of all the classes in question. There was some argument over the specifics, but a reasonable extrapolation (for simplicity, if nothing else) was that you gained the fighter's BAB, the best saves of your various classes (no stacking), all the innate abilities, all the innate spells, all the granted feats, and your standard feat progression rate. You gained the rogue's starting skill points if you started with rogue - otherwise, you gained the best skill points possible (if you had bard, say, you gained his points, and not the paltry points of the cleric or fighter.) You gained the best hit points, of course, of your various classes.

Gestalt was a concept that would have allowed a character to be fully self-sufficient, a Jack of All Trades.
Multiclassed wizards versus Single Classed Wizards might have become an irrelevant point, since everyone was fighter/wizard/cleric/rogues (or, at least, most everyone.)
In this situation, especially if you used the 3.0 rules or better yet, the 2E spells, you really had it made. Use the benefits of one class to offset the penalties of another, until you get to high level. The synergy of the main classes is enormous, and now you had it all in one character.

I guess Gestalt fundamentally altered things because it basically said that the typical adventurer could become something much closer to Everything, than ever before. Gary Gygax created classes that were not self-sufficient; Gestalt created the idea of a fully self sufficient character.

(snip)

This is at least in part because of spell interruption and the fact that enemies would deliberately (when intelligent) target the spell-casters. And with the fighter/magic-user being frequently in melee, well, there weren't that many opportunities to get a spell off uninterrupted. That meant operating as a less-effective fighter than a pure fighter, and not operating as a magic-user except in maybe the first round of combat.

Yes, a major problem for the wizard. Intelligent foes did not sit around waiting to be roasted.
We did what we could to keep our wizards viable in combat. Like with you and your groups, our efforts didn't always work. We just did our best, and hoped it worked.

One particularly dastardly thing I saw emerge was the Rope Trick Stunt.
How did it work?
Wizard casts Rope Trick. She climbs in. She angles entry to extradimensional space so it faces sideways to combat, granting 90% cover (+8 AC.) (Round 1.)
Wizard casts spell, sticks finger out, Fireballs opponents, pulls finger back in. (Round 2 and onward.)
If monsters move around, Wizard closes entry to Rope Trick. Then casts spell, opens Rope Trick (revealing herself, no bonus to AC, but it's her initiative), Fireballs opponent, hopefully kills them before they can fire back.
And variants of the above. Such as the fighters putting Tower Shields over the entrance, physically blocking access to the entrance, and otherwise protecting the wizard. Clerics could help out too. Rogues could backstab or sneak attack monsters obsessed with getting at the wizard.

 

[Remathilis]

Forked from: I hate game balance!

And there's your answer to the problem of balance and the wizard.
Elves wrecked it. (Perhaps, it is time to wreak some serious harm on said elves?)

No. The thing that wrecked it was the concept of "fun now, pay later" and its inverse "suffer now, win later". It suffered for every edition of D&D up to 3e. And you know what? It NEVER worked. You said it yourself.

There were two things at work here: Level limits and multi-classing. Level limits was never (nor should it have been) a balance for multi-classing. However, that is what Gary (and Zeb later) did. And guess what, it didn't work as advertised.

Why did people play elves? Well, elves were tall and thin and beautiful; something you couldn't say for the short-burly dwarf, the comical gnome, the pudgy halfling or the ugly half-orc. You could envision your PC a "human with Spock ears" and be perfectly fine. So elves were humans in funny earpieces to many a D&D player. No one actually played them Tolkien; detached and empirical and slow to act. They played them HUMAN. Often to no penalty thanks to the often contradictory fluff (slow and pondering, yet chaotic good?).

Second, elves RAWK when you compare to a human. Infravision? Check. +1 to hit with swords and bows? 90% resist sleep and charm (the two "take you out of the fight" powers at low levels)? Secret Door Detection? Full movement? Immune to Ghoul paralysis (funny it never got mentioned in the racial section, just the ghoul section) and 4 hours of sleep to rest? What's the catch. Well, you have a -1 to con (oh noes!) and raise dead doesn't work on you (which is just as well, most DMs didn't allow frequent raising anyway...)

And then there was mages. They were the only race capable of being a full-bodied wizard (not a crippled illusionist like gnomes). As you said: fighter mages got the best of both worlds. (Funny how 1e/2e multi-classing did that). Sure it broke the idea of wizards "you might suck at level 1 but you'll rip at level 9", but that was the bloody point!

[While we're on the topic; the 2nd edition dwarf fighter/cleric of the god of war often broke the game the same way as elf f/m's did. Only marginally worse was the mage/thief, or illusionist/thief combos, both of which ripped the still beating heart out of the single-classed thief. Both of these combos removed the need for single classed fighters and theives respectively.]

Onto level limits. I rarely saw a D&D game go into name levels, let alone to limits. How was that at all a drawback? Its like buying a bunch of stuff on store credit and finding the store closed up before you could pay it off; all benefit, no payment.

And really, who (even if you made it level limit) bought the idea that demi-humans peak early and NEVER learn another thing again? How boring! How almost opposite the spirit of a game that rewards adventure and risk with power (XP). Seriously, what was the point of HL gaming if half your PCs were perpetually stuck at 9-11th level and the rest had built in obsolesces (thief, fighter)?

So the idea that you were awesome at level 1 (elf, dwarf, fighter, thief) and suck at level 15 (if you even made it) while those classes that sucked early (wizard, cleric) became the game-winners was IMHO a poor way of balancing D&D. That's not to spit on Gary's grave: he did a lot of great things with D&D, but it was a poor system to use to achieve some sense of "fairness".

As a final thought: What REALLY broke the system was that little used human racial feature called dual classing. Oh Dual-classing, how you broke everything. A human began as a fighter and got up to @ 4th level. (8,000 XP). Now, he switched to mage. He kept his 4d10+con in hp (and most likely his exceptional str score) and advanced until he was a 5th level mage (which is 20,000 XP) At that point, for 28,000 xp, he has:

• Thac0 16 (equal to a 13th level mage)
• better saves than a 4th level fighter (which will only get better)
• Fighter weapon choices (longsword? longbow?)
• 4-40 hp + con (at max, equal to a 10th level mage)
• exceptional str (if he had the score to do so)
• 5th level wizard magic (which is only going to get better)
• proficencies of both a fighter and a wizard (fresh set for starting over)
• Advancing like a regular wizard from then on out (no split XP)

Not a bad trade off for being only 8,000 behind a single classed mage, eh?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

No. The thing that wrecked it was the concept of "fun now, pay later" and its inverse "suffer now, win later". It suffered for every edition of D&D up to 3e. And you know what? It NEVER worked. You said it yourself.

You know what? I think the 3.5 Gestalt rules would have fixed this. Characters could finally have the best of both worlds. But we'll never know, since it was presented as an optional rule and had little time in play.

I do think Gary Gygax deliberately created both concepts, and asked that you choose one or the other. They are classic concepts in fantasy, and he brought them into the game.

There were two things at work here: Level limits and multi-classing. Level limits was never (nor should it have been) a balance for multi-classing. However, that is what Gary (and Zeb later) did. And guess what, it didn't work as advertised.

It never worked, for those I played with. We saw all the problems you have pointed out. All of them. We could never find satisfaction within them. And we could not find a good alternative.
I wish gestalt had existed back then!
Hmmm ... in a sense, 4E is gestalt. Hmmm ... add in the older concepts, and perhaps we could create a hybrid ...

Why did people play elves? Well, elves were tall and thin and beautiful; something you couldn't say for the short-burly dwarf, the comical gnome, the pudgy halfling or the ugly half-orc. You could envision your PC a "human with Spock ears" and be perfectly fine. So elves were humans in funny earpieces to many a D&D player. No one actually played them Tolkien; detached and empirical and slow to act. They played them HUMAN. Often to no penalty thanks to the often contradictory fluff (slow and pondering, yet chaotic good?).

(chuckles)

Indeed. Well said!
As I said: He's an elf, she's an elf, I'm an elf, don't you want to be an elf too?
Nobody ever played them as elves. Nobody. (Heh, the real elves should be very offended, and get rid of all these imposters in their midst!)

And then there was mages. They were the only race capable of being a full-bodied wizard (not a crippled illusionist like gnomes). As you said: fighter mages got the best of both worlds. (Funny how 1e/2e multi-classing did that). Sure it broke the idea of wizards "you might suck at level 1 but you'll rip at level 9", but that was the bloody point!

Again, you're dead on.
My point was that, once multiclassing produced a glut of wizards, people became resentful because higher level wizards had great powers (they were supposed to) but had paid no higher price than anyone else to get them (they were NOT supposed to.)
So the backlash against wizards began. That led to the Balance Movement. That led to nerfing of magic. That led ... to everything else.
All started by those elves and their multiclassing.

We should have just let EVERYONE multiclass and be anything they wanted to be, in the earlier editions.
After all, if you're a wizard and try hard enough, you'll extend your life expectancy to as long as any elf. So the demihuman longevity doesn't mean a thing. And the races are balanced.
All you OD&D, 1E, 2E players out there, take note!

Onto level limits. I rarely saw a D&D game go into name levels, let alone to limits. How was that at all a drawback? Its like buying a bunch of stuff on store credit and finding the store closed up before you could pay it off; all benefit, no payment.

Yep. : ) Hehe. WELL PUT. EXACTLY!
( I'm a fighter/mage. I get all the benefits of the fighter, all the benefits of a mid-level mage, I know the game won't go past the level limits, and thus I Get My Cake And Eat It Too. Sorry humans, but we elves really ARE superior to you!)

And really, who (even if you made it level limit) bought the idea that demi-humans peak early and NEVER learn another thing again? How boring! How almost opposite the spirit of a game that rewards adventure and risk with power (XP). Seriously, what was the point of HL gaming if half your PCs were perpetually stuck at 9-11th level and the rest had built in obsolesces (thief, fighter)?

A point made by many I played with.
Again, perhaps all the classes should have been able to multiclass any way they wanted, no level limits (as per the gestalt in 3E.)
Elves and others would have had minor racial benefits and their longevity, but I'm sure clever humans would have found longevity magic.

The drow? That's another matter, since they had major class powers (50% magic resistance, and better at higher levels.)
But then, drow were meant as NPCs ...

 

[Remathilis]

I think we agree more than we disagree Edena.

As you said though, the trade off for a HL wizard was 10 levels of sucking, and M/Cs (or D/Cs) removed that penalty (as they invalidated thieves and fighters in the process).

I almost banned multi-classing back in 2e, but I think I would have caused a riot at my table!

3e's solution was simple, yet inelegant. It took a concept that had (in theory) been viable and made it not so. While 2e fighter/wizards had it too good, a 3e fighter/mage had it dumped on him, (barring prestige classes, of course).

TBH, I don't consider 4e's idea a solution either. However, I prefer it due to the fact that it doesn't overshadow single classed PCs nor does it make said M/C PC terrible at its job. Personally, the best multi-classing came in the end of 3e: new base classes. Classes like Duskblade, Spellthief, Beguiler, Wamage, and even the Psychic Warrior were much better all round at the idea of "hybrid" characters. Since this is really where 4e is going with multiclassing, I whole-heartedly welcome the approach.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I think we agree more than we disagree Edena.

As you said though, the trade off for a HL wizard was 10 levels of sucking, and M/Cs (or D/Cs) removed that penalty (as they invalidated thieves and fighters in the process).

I almost banned multi-classing back in 2e, but I think I would have caused a riot at my table!

3e's solution was simple, yet inelegant. It took a concept that had (in theory) been viable and made it not so. While 2e fighter/wizards had it too good, a 3e fighter/mage had it dumped on him, (barring prestige classes, of course).

TBH, I don't consider 4e's idea a solution either. However, I prefer it due to the fact that it doesn't overshadow single classed PCs nor does it make said M/C PC terrible at its job. Personally, the best multi-classing came in the end of 3e: new base classes. Classes like Duskblade, Spellthief, Beguiler, Wamage, and even the Psychic Warrior were much better all round at the idea of "hybrid" characters. Since this is really where 4e is going with multiclassing, I whole-heartedly welcome the approach.

I think we agree on almost all the issues, actually. Cheers!
Aren't you glad they didn't have gestalting back then, and your players demanding their characters be gestalt, because it was in the core rules?
3E multiclassing (not gestalt, but standard 3E multiclassing) penalized the character rather severely, I think. It wasn't anywhere near as advantageous as 1E and 2E multiclassing. So we agree here. : )

 

[Tarek]

Dual-classing... seems to be useful, yes?

Not so much if you actually play out the dual-class and the DM enforces the rules. "Oh, you're acting as a fighter for this combat, putting on the chainmail? Well, no XP for you for this *adventure*."

Kinder DMs would only take away XP for that encounter...

About the only times I played a dual-classed human was if the DM gave us an XP total to start with. I have seen someone play through dual-classing levels, and our DM often gave us very tough fights which ended up being worth a fair amount of XP, that the dual classed character would miss out on because he just *had* to break out the sword and shield in order to survive. Fighter/Cleric is probably the easiest dual-class to manage, especially if the fighter had concentrated on weapons allowed to the cleric.

3e's multiclassing system was far worse than either 1st or 2nd edition. Basically, the only reasons to multiclass were a: to get into a prestige class or b: because the player had a very specific character concept in mind. I can see why the 'gestalt' rules were created.

I really think, however, that the impression of the overpowered wizard was more due to DM's not exercising their rights to control what entered their games rather than the actual material available. I mean, the Ultimist for 1st edition appeared in an early issue of Polyhedron.. it was a playable if entirely ridiculous "April Fool's" class. Did any DM actually use the material or allow a player to use it? One did, and sent in a letter complaining about the class.. to which the reply was something along the lines of unrestrained laughter and an explanation of the concept of April Fool's.

I find if you have to go to two or three different sourcebooks to work up an "unstoppable" combination for any class, then the best solution is to not allow those sourcebooks and just stick with the core. And for wizards especially, keep a tight control on what spells are allowed in.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(snip)

And for wizards especially, keep a tight control on what spells are allowed in.

Indeed.
Gary Gygax has a safety mechanism for this purpose. I can paraphrase it from the 1E DMG.

On sharing spells:

NPCs will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cooperate with the PC regarding sharing spells, even with their own master or mistress! Typically, they will demand double value plus a bonus, and the wizard must pay so dearly for new spells that the game is hardly worth the candle.
Yet pay they will. And thus, because obtaining spells is so difficult, a book of spells found in the wilderness is a benizen beyond price!

If you extrapolate from the above, you can see that no schools of wizardry or libraries of wizardry are going to share spells either, barring extraordinary circumstances.
The wizard, if she wants spells, is going to have to steal them (dangerous ...), take them by force (also dangerous ...), interrupt wizards in their studies to offer to buy spells (also very dangerous ...), or go adventuring (also dangerous.)

There is no Easy Way for the wizard, in the core rules. She must earn, through blood and tears, every single spell found (except for the 1 (or 2 in 2E) that is allowed upon leveling.)

What NPCs might have in the way of spells, and what spells are in those lost tomes of magic, are up to the DM.

Of course, if there are two wizard PCs in the party, they can cooperate, and probably will. But the DM has the final say on whether spells can be transferred, how long it takes, and what materials it takes. It is a painstaking process of translation, it takes concentration and time, and is perhaps not so easy as a simple agreement.

A wizard's lot is not easy or fair. One might pity the poor girl who chooses such a path in life.

 

[Staffan]

Dual-classing... seems to be useful, yes?

Not so much if you actually play out the dual-class and the DM enforces the rules. "Oh, you're acting as a fighter for this combat, putting on the chainmail? Well, no XP for you for this *adventure*."

Kinder DMs would only take away XP for that encounter...

It's possible that the rules changed between editions, but in 2e the rule was that if you used your old skills (except hp), you got no XP for that encounter and half XP for the whole adventure. However, once your new level had surpassed your old level, that restriction went away, and you could use both your old and new skills without restriction (except those restrictions based on the skills themselves, e.g. no casting spells in armor).

 

[Tarek]

That didn't change between editions. Once you'd actually gotten to higher level in your new class, you could use the skills of your old class pretty much without restriction.