Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Majoru Oakheart]

We didn't really think too much about game balance back when we played 2e. I mean, the rules were just there to help simulate a fantasy world. If that fantasy world meant that Wizards were immensely powerful and had the ability to defeat 10 enemies to every 1 a Fighter could defeat, it only meant they were doing their job properly.

It wasn't until I had started DMing that I began to notice balance issues. It was around the time someone in my group chose to be a race from Spelljammer(in a Spelljammer game) that got a +1 to Strength. So, he rolled an 18 and then had a 19 strength. Then he took a kit that made him even better at hitting. He was able to hit most enemies on a very low roll and the damage bonus he had from his strength ended up killing most enemies in one hit.

When the rest of the party noticed his ability to take care of the enemies much faster than they could, they started giving the best magic items they found to him without even arguing. If the rest of the party had +2 items, he had the one +3 item.

When I realized that nearly every battle for 5 sessions had gone the same(I miss with 90% of my attacks, he hits with 90% of his and kills enemies outright) I decided that the game needed to be a bit more challenging. I started to increase the strength of the enemies I used against the party. Unfortunately, they were defeated just as easily. So I increased the power again, which actually caused the rest of the group to start participating in combats again(previous to this, they kept saying "I'm not going to waste spells, the fighter has this"), but with the help of the rest of the party it was just as easy. I wanted them to actually worry about their lives, so I increased the power of the enemies AGAIN the next session. And killed everyone except the fighter. He barely took any damage.

It was about that time that I decided to really take notice of balance issues. The rules were getting in the way of the atmosphere I wanted at the game I was running. I started considering what I could do to fix it. I started telling players that they couldn't just have any kit they wanted, they had to run each and every one past me. The more I reviewed them, the more I realized how many of them had overpowering abilities. I had to say no over 50% of the time.

We weren't extremely conscious of the Wizard/Fighter gap, but only because we just took it for granted. Wizards were supposed to complain that they didn't have anything to do after they cast their only spell at level 1. They got to sit in the corner doing nothing during combat. That was their punishment for making everyone else feel useless when they got to higher level and defeated entire encounters with one fireball. Once WOTC came along with 3e and said "Maybe Wizards should be just as powerful as Fighters? Wouldn't that be more fun?" that all of us jointly looked at each other and thought "Wow! Wouldn't that be nice? But it's rather impossible."

 

[RoryN]

I'm like many who have already replied here: started out playing the boxed sets, then moved to 1E, and then on to 2E. When 3E came out, it had been some time since I actually played, but I got into a group and had fun with it. I felt that a lot of the feats could possibly get out of hand at higher levels, but we never played long enough for me to see if it would happen or not.

One thing I always got in to was the "why" of characters abilities/traits/feats/etc. If a fighter had certain feats or abilities to allow extra damage or attacks, I would ask the player why. It helped flesh out the character as well as let me know where this player's head is as far as adventuing goes and what they're looking for.

Most of my experience was with 2E, and the only times we ever really had anything that might be a "balance" issue was with a player's high level monk. Sure, the fighters could wade into a battle with a huge monster and hack their way through after a few rounds, the wizard could blast it with fireballs or lightening bolts, but if a monk could get in and just touch the thing (delivering quivering palm), you could save all those spells from the wizard (and the healing spells for the fighters). Another issue we had occassionally was with a player's assassin, but I think that was more a player issue than any balance issue.

I always felt (and still do) that the whole act of balancing the game was upon the shoulders of the DM. Afterall, the DM was the one witnessing the rolling up of characters, was the one stocking the adventure world with critters and treasures, so he/she was the one that should be aware of anything that could possibly put things out of balance. Did you stock that cloak of invisibility in the chest that the party shouldn't have found behind the hidden door? Then you're the one that needs to compensate for it during the following encounters, whether it's by means on a magical item used by a villian or powerful monster, or something else.

One thing we used to do was to automatically give monsters maximum hit points per HD as we became more experienced with the game and the races/classes as that seemed to make things more balanced as far as most combat went. Characters were allowed max HP at 1st level, but after thatt, it was all random. I recall several fighters with less than 20 HP at 3rd level, which I believe is rather rare in any edition.

I never really saw a balance problem with magic because those of us who DMed for our group were pretty good at keeping the threats against the party challenging, which included equipping the more powerful villians with magical items and/or spells to challenge the character's power.

 

[billd91]

DM: "The white dragon swoops in to attack and you can both get off one attack before it gets into breath weapon range."
Human Ranger: "I shoot it with my shorbow... hit... 4 points of damage."
Elf Fighter/Wizard: "I cast fireball at it, 7d6 damage, 22 points of damage, save for half"

How about:
Human wizard: "I cast a fireball at it, 8d6 damage, 26 points of damage, save for half."

If you're seeing multiclassing being a problem in the example you've made up, I'm not seeing where it comes from. I can see the difference between the ranger firing a bow and the wizard tossing off a fireball. But that's got nothing to do with the multiclassing issue.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Before thinking that multiclass was an easy path to more power remember that training costs needed to be paid for each class trainer. At lower levels, getting the gold to pay for single classed training was tough enough, imagine trying to come up with the dough to pay 3 trainers!

That would result in a fair bit of adventuring being done by these multi-classed wonders without XP gain since they had to actually attain the new level before any more xp could be earned.

Of course those rules could be swept aside and forgotten but then how can the product be blamed for the power creep of multi-classed characters.

Did a lot of people use the training costs? I generally used them to siphon funds away from characters but when they were in 'broke' periods skipped over it.

 

[billd91]

I'm really curious where this idea comes from that the only people who could possibly have balance issues were power gamers.

It's a question of odds. Power gamers, redlining the system, are likely to uncover more problems than players who don't.

 

[billd91]

Did a lot of people use the training costs? I generally used them to siphon funds away from characters but when they were in 'broke' periods skipped over it.

We used to have to find other sources of income to come up with the training costs in 'broke' periods.

 

[JoeGKushner]

We used to have to find other sources of income to come up with the training costs in 'broke' periods.

There were times when I'd want to advance the timeline a bit so I do recall having characters pay with service. Not quests mind you, but actual guard duty, training duty, etc... That seemed to work well too.

 

[WheresMyD20]

That just made me wonder if "balance" in the older editions (pre 3E) was a factor, of it was something that noone ever noticed or worried about, and the game was just played and enjoyed without all of the angst.....

I doubt "balance", as we understand it these days, was really a design goal of the older editions. After all, real life isn't at all balanced. Most characters in fantasy novels aren't balanced. Sorcerers are often portrayed as major powers in fantasy stories. Thieves rarely are. If one of the goals of an RPG is to create the illusion of a fantasy world, then having a little imbalance might not be such a bad thing.

I think there was some effort made in older editions to ensure that no character class or race would be completely useless and boring to play. After all, it's not so important that every character be equal. It's important that every character can play a productive and meaningful role in the party.

I doubt the designers had much concern over precisely balancing all the classes, races, or characters mechanically. It is incumbent upon the DM to make sure things didn't get so out of hand as to spoil the group's fun. That is the important thing.

 

[Imperialus]

Before thinking that multiclass was an easy path to more power remember that training costs needed to be paid for each class trainer. At lower levels, getting the gold to pay for single classed training was tough enough, imagine trying to come up with the dough to pay 3 trainers!

But the converse of this is that demi-human characters typically didn't have to sock away money for the eventual construction of a stronghold once they hit name level, since with the exception of Dwarven fighters, none of the demihumans can reach 'name level' except as thieves*.

*And a few assassins.

 

[MerricB]

Did a lot of people use the training costs? I generally used them to siphon funds away from characters but when they were in 'broke' periods skipped over it.

from here

When I ran my AD&D campaign, training was generally quite informal and considered to be done "on the job" as it were. Only if a virtual windfall of XPs came at once did I call for PCs to take a protracted period of time from adventuring to do their studies, train, be educated, gain experience, and practice what they had learned. A week to a month was the normal period. Otherwise, it was subsumed that the time between adventures was spent thus.

Elsewhere, Gary talked about how multiclasses did need to pay the different costs for levelling each individual class... (here)

The multi-class character needs training in each class possessed when ready to rise in level.

For my own part, training rarely came into it, especially as we were playing things like the Slavelords... where training time? What time?

Cheers!