Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6660954" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Their playtesters weren't trying to break the game. A huge failure in playtesting. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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 <em>despite taking away the tables that made this so.</em> </li> </ol><p></p><p>3.X works much better if you undo the saving throw mistakes (and remove item crafting entirely from the hands of PCs).</p><p></p><p>To fix the saving throws:</p><p>1: Add a bonus of half the character's hit dice to all saving throws.</p><p>2: +3 to save vs suck. +5 to save vs death or paralysation.</p><p>(And watch for the rare save or suck spell like Evard's Black Tentacles that doesn't have orthodox saving throws).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>(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).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <a href="http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue3/worst2.html" target="_blank">worse yet</a> <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/dungeons-and-dragons/cyborg-gygax-1987/1/" target="_blank">Cyborg</a> <a href="http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10214.phtml" target="_blank">Commando</a> knows- fortunately the design of D&D was Arneson's.)</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6660954, member: 87792"] 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. 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. [LIST=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. [*]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). [*]Their playtesters weren't trying to break the game. A huge failure in playtesting. [*]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. [*]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). [*]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. [*]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. [*]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 [I]despite taking away the tables that made this so.[/I] [/LIST] 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). 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. 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 [URL="http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue3/worst2.html"]worse yet[/URL] [URL="http://www.somethingawful.com/dungeons-and-dragons/cyborg-gygax-1987/1/"]Cyborg[/URL] [URL="http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10214.phtml"]Commando[/URL] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
Top