What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?

[MoutonRustique]

7

7 all the way.

This is a social game and it is a difficult game (rules are complex and numerous) - that everyone should have a good time is so self-evident and axiomatic, I feel kind of silly saying it... One important part of putting better odds on that result is that everyone gets to play the game in a meaningful fashion. That combat is important makes it so that comparative balance during combat is important.

That it be already baked-in is important to reduce rulemastery levels required to perform reasonably well. This rulesmastery is a very significant barrier to many - and so, very undesirable (IMO).

Underperforming options can be present, but they must be clearly indicated as such and perhaps should be placed in "optional" sections...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also if I remember back in 2e(which means the rules might be a holdover from 1e) that Wizards had to find all of their spells after first level which meant that Wizards only ever had access to the spells that the DM specifically put into their campaign.

Clarifying, that was the 1e rule. In 2e most players played specialist wizards because specialist wizards got a free spell from their specialist school at each level. Huge power creep - even bigger than the extra spells you could cast.

It looks rough to a lot of us, but there were very obviously attempts made to balance classes against each other in D&D. The people who designed 3rd edition for some reason decided to throw all attempt to balance the classes out the window by giving all the nice stuff Fighters got to everyone(now even full casters could get multiple attacks and everyone could get followers with a feat) and throwing away all the attempts to balance Wizards by letting them pick spells each level, not completely fail if they wore armor, gave them a chance to concentrate on spells when they cast, let them fully benefit from constitution, and made magic item creation waaaaay easier to do for a Wizard.

3.0 was actually intended to be balanced and in the early days claimed to be more balanced than 2e. Which had issues with fighters kicking ass and taking names, (The 1e wizard was intended to be protected at low levels by two solid stone dungeon walls and half a dozen hirelings. None of these were part of the default playstyle in 2e). However they screwed up in a number of ways.

1. They only playtested the game to level 6. Which is part of the reason why E6 is a thing - and the game doesn't fall apart until after that point.
2. Compounding the mistake in 1 they decided to remove the level soft-cap. The highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at about level 13; higher levels were intended for the BBEG. But you were intended to stop adventuring at level 10 (hence the XP and HP progression).
3. Their playtesters weren't trying to break the game. A huge failure in playtesting.
4. Their playtesters were generally using good strategy for 2e without realising it had changed. If your wizards are evokers, your clerics are healbots, and your fighters tank and DPR your party is pretty balanced. It's obvious now that this is bad strategy but wasn't in 1999.
5. They didn't realise what the saving throw rules were for - I don't think Gygax ever wrote down the explanation of the saving throw categories were. But they boil down to +5 to save vs lose outright (death, paralysation or poison), and +3 vs save or fail this fight (petrification or polymorph). With that sort of modifier flying around evocation/direct damage spells had a much better chance of actually doing something than save-or-suck, and monster HP were far lower. (In 3.X you are best picking a collection of Save or Suck spells and guessing at the monster's lowest save, of course).
6. They also inflated hit points (con bonusses) and gave the wizards extra spells to compensate. Not realising they'd massively boosted save or suck spells again because they went right round the hit point defences.
7. They also screwed up the saving throw rules a second time. Saving throws got better as you levelled up in pre-3.0 D&D. In 3.X the modifiers from increased spell level are equal to those from high saves, and casters are more focussed at raising their primary stat than non-casters.
8. They playtested assuming a 2e world and screwed up the magic items. They assumed wizards wouldn't want to spend XP to craft. And they assumed a 2e like magic item distribution where swords were the most common items and had the highest modifiers despite taking away the tables that made this so.

3.X works much better if you undo the saving throw mistakes (and remove item crafting entirely from the hands of PCs).

To fix the saving throws:
1: Add a bonus of half the character's hit dice to all saving throws.
2: +3 to save vs suck. +5 to save vs death or paralysation.
(And watch for the rare save or suck spell like Evard's Black Tentacles that doesn't have orthodox saving throws).

And with Wands of CLW as gifts from the GM the cleric has to spend a lot of their spells healing. While the wizard goes for evocation or summoning for combat and is a utility monster who struggles in actual fights especially at higher levels. You probably also want to cut back on the spells known by the wizard to 1/level and restrict the cleric list. And you still cap at level 10 or 12.

(The fact the rogue is actually less skilled than the 2e thief (8 thief skills + NWPs -> 8 skill points/level as opposed to NWPs ->skill points/level) is counterbalanced by the Sneak Attack being massively more useful, so that one can be left alone).

3.X was the outlier in terms of unrestricted super powered casters

Yup. Much freer access to spells than any other edition, and Save-or-Suck moved from a longshot to utterly dominant. And rather than soft-capping at level 10, 3.X was supposed to have 20 working levels, allowing the PCs access to spells that were intended for NPCs only.

I can clearly see that Gary Gygax knew a hell of a lot more about balance than the people who did 3.X could. Did the people who made 3.X actually ever seriously sit down and think on the old rules for more than 2 seconds instead of just being like "that rules a bummer, let's get rid of it".

Yes they did. The thing was Gygax used to put in a lot of subsystems for balance and didn't explain why. These included the treasure tables, the weapon vs large creature damage modifiers, and the XP charts as well as the follower numbers and saving throws. Those tended to be what was cut.

But ultimately Gygax was the best developer the RPG hobby has ever had (he was a sucky designer as anyone who's read Mythus or worse yet Cyborg Commando knows- fortunately the design of D&D was Arneson's.)

Gygax also had two massive advantages. The first is that oD&D was playtested more than any (tabletop) RPG since. The second is the nature of the playtesters. 3.0 was playtested by roleplayers trying to make sure everyone had a good time and not pushing the system that hard. oD&D was playtested by wargamers trying to win and to break the game however they could. Exploiting loopholes until Gygax closed them was just smart play rather than seen as anti-social behaviour, and the game itself was competitive.

 

[overgeeked]

Definitely 7, by far for me. Both as a player and a DM.

That's why I still like bits and pieces of previous editions, they managed to get a few things 'right' that have been reverted, that I don't think should have been. As maligned as 4E is sometimes, at least every class in the game had general parity in contribution. Leaders could both heal a little and damage a little with their powers. They didn't have to stand back and do nothing whilst the rest of the party had fun pounding on the monsters. I get the 'well, he picked a healer' argument, but the simple counter is 'well, someone had to'. Just because the game is designed around someone having to play a healer doesn't mean that the healer's role in combat should be dull-as-dirt triage.

Cortex+ is a great system that definitely changes the dynamic up compared to D&D. The 'progression squish' from open ended bonuses in D&D to a series of d4-d12 in Cortex+ helps a lot. In D&D if you have a +2 and the other guy has a +20, you're ed. In Cortex+ if you're rolling mostly d6s, you've still got a chance against the bloke with a d12 or two.

I definitely agree with the above post about the differences between Drama, Action, and Heroic being far more about theme and intent of design than anything to do with balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nonsense. Off the top of my head, here are three great RPGs with no rule zero: Marvel Heroic RP, Burning Wheel, and 4e D&D.

Doesn't matter. Presenting a 'Rule 0' or not is meaningless: the GM can always alter the game, either formally, with up-front variants, or informally with on the fly rulings. Simply failing to acknowledge that in the ruleset doesn't change it - neither does explicitly forbidding it in the ruleset.

The best a system can do is reduce the DM's perceived need to override it (mostly by the simple expedient of not sucking too hard - which, coincidentally, includes being reasonably clear and playable and balanced).

The second best it could do would be to try to kick off a community-wide attitude among players that demands slavish adherence to the Rules As Written. If your players walk whenever you override the rules, it doesn't stop you from doing so, but it renders it moot. Ironically, the strongest example of that is 3.x, which has a Rule 0, and made no such attempt.

 

[howandwhy99]

None of the above

D&D was never (and should never) be balanced as a game in terms of Player vs. Player or for team vs. predetermined combat. D&D doesn't have predetermined combats.

For the first, D&D begins all characters at 1st level. Even if someone else in the party is 10th or higher, a new member will be added (always) at 1st. Moreover, all the items the characters have could be given to one character making that character more capable and the others less so. This is an unbreakable design rule for D&D and part of why it's a cooperative game rather than a collaborative storytelling venture.

For the second, combat is far from the only way to advance in D&D. And combats are not ever scripted for a player party. Other creatures (any of which you may attempt to fight) are representative of the dungeon level they are in (and vice versa). If a character, PC or NPC, goes into a more dangerous part of the game, they are statistically more likely to encounter (not confront, not combat, ...encounter) more difficult challenges with similar likelihood of commensurately more lucrative rewards.

What the OP is playing is skewing his or her perspective. None of the poll questions are relevant to D&D in any way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

D&D was never (and should never) be balanced as a game in terms of Player vs. Player or for team vs. predetermined combat. D&D doesn't have predetermined combats.

Apparently Dragonlance isn't part of D&D. Nor are most 2e modules, and many 3e and 4e ones.

For the first, D&D begins all characters at 1st level.

One minority play style begins all characters at 1st level. This playstyle hasn't been particularly wide spread in D&D in years.

Even if someone else in the party is 10th or higher, a new member will be added (always) at 1st.

Only at some tables.

Moreover, all the items the characters have could be given to one character making that character more capable and the others less so.

This has never been true in the history of D&D. Indeed part of the reason for the treasure tables in oD&D and 1e being what they are is precisely so you can not do this. The wizard can't wield swords, and the fighter can't use scrolls.

This is an unbreakable design rule for D&D and part of why it's a cooperative game rather than a collaborative storytelling venture.

Unbreakable design rules can be disproven by counter-examples. I've seen counter-examples for every point you are making and they are still D&D.

For the second, combat is far from the only way to advance in D&D.

Depends on your edition. XP for GP was a good rule. But got kicked to the curb for both 2e and 3e. 4e has XP for skill challenges and for quest awards.

And combats are not ever scripted for a player party.

The Dragonlance saga is in direct opposition to your claims. As are a lot of adventure paths.

Other creatures (any of which you may attempt to fight) are representative of the dungeon level they are in (and vice versa).

And that makes assumptions that you are anywhere near a dungeon. Not all games are.

What the OP is playing is skewing his or her perspective. None of the poll questions are relevant to D&D in any way.

The OP is playing D&D. Please stop assuming that your minority playstyle is the only possible way to play D&D and that all who don't play your specific way aren't playing D&D.

 

[Manbearcat]

As Zeuel said.

And importantly, these experiences don't really happen in D&D4e. It's damned hard to make an ineffective character.

Similarly, although the systems are hugely different, I haven't seen it happen in Dungeon World or any of the other PbtA games either. Nor Cortex Plus. (Though, IIRC, Cortex Plus Heroic doesn't actually have fleshed out character creation rules. So given that attempts to play outside the Marvel Superhero universe will involve a bit of fudging, it's possible that the sort of unbalance being described will sneak back it).

Just wanted to comment on this one right quick. If you don't have Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide, I highly, highly recommend it. The PC build (Distinction, Background Power Set, Class Power Set, Specialty and trade Psychic Stress for Mental and Emotional for Social) and conflict resolution mechanics (Combat, Exploration, Social scenes and transition mechanics) for Heroic Fantasy are in there and they're very robust. You can mix and match PC build mechanics to have more focus on certain themes (eg Values or Relationships). Very, very stout and it delivers the action you would expect from the genre and a C+ system.

 

[pemerton]

D&D begins all characters at 1st level. Even if someone else in the party is 10th or higher, a new member will be added (always) at 1st.

Are you talking about the D&D authored by Gary Gygax, whose DMG canvasses experienced players beginning PCs at 3rd level or higher, and has an Appendix P to support generation of PCs above 1st level? Or are you talking about some other game that just happens to share the same initials?

 

[pemerton]

Presenting a 'Rule 0' or not is meaningless: the GM can always alter the game, either formally, with up-front variants, or informally with on the fly rulings. Simply failing to acknowledge that in the ruleset doesn't change it - neither does explicitly forbidding it in the ruleset.

The GM no more has any automatic power to alter the game with upfront variants than a player does. A GM might say "I won't run my game unless the damage dice for fireballs are doubled", but a player can equally say "I won't play your game unless the damage dice for fireballs are doubled." The GM has no special authority to call for house rules as a necessary condition of playing a game.

As for changing a game informally with on-the-fly rulings, that depends hugely on the nature of the game and its mechanics. What would be an example from MHRP of the sort of thing you have in mind?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The GM no more has any automatic power to alter the game with upfront variants than a player does.

The point wasn't DM authority vs player authority, the point was that putting Rule 0 or the Golden Rule in a book doesn't mean a DM (or all players, by consensus) will change the rules, nor does leaving anything of that nature out, or even expressly forbidding doing so, prevent the DM (again, or players by consensus) from changing the rules they play by, either formally or informally.

I don't think whole groups reaching consensus on rule variants, let alone on the fly rulings, is as common as the DM doing so unilaterally, though, and I'm sorry if that assumption made it look like I meant to exclude players entirely - maybe I brought a little too much 5e 'DM empowerment' to the conversation at that point.

As for changing a game informally with on-the-fly rulings, that depends hugely on the nature of the game and its mechanics.

Indirectly, sure. A game that's vague invites more such rulings, for instance, one that's tightly designed presents less impetus for them (but doesn't actually prevent them). A game can all but force the GM to make on-the-fly rulings by simply being incomplete and consistently unable to handle many situations that come up. The reverse, a very complete game, though, doesn't prevent the GM from overriding its meticulous mechanics, either.