Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[NewJeffCT]

I must admit I had a very different experience than you did (with the Elf F/MU and the ranger). It is true that multi-class characters were good but careful enforcement of the rules made spell casting a lot trickier to pull off. You needed that fireball memorized (and it was lengthy to do so). You needed to declare it before you rolled initiative or you faced losing the spell. With a dragon it could breathe which made that a tough gamble. If you were in a confined space that fireball could be deadly to the caster. Without bonus spells casters had a lot fewer spells to cast.

That is not to say that 1Eand 2E were more balanced than 3E (they were not) but I did find it possible to have a fairly enjoyable game with these editions with a variety of classes. My major (personal viewpoint) difference is that I seemed to enjoy warrior classes (like Fighter) a lot more in 1E and 2E than 3E which seemed to be very caster friendly in comparison.

Oh, I still had a ton of fun playing 1E and 2E, and we had a fantastic DM for that 2E campaign with my human ranger and the elf fighter-mage (and 8 other PCs!), so that certainly helped. Plus, since 1E was fairly simple, it was not a hard job for a DM to balance things out. However, as somebody stated above, most of the campaigns in those early days did not progress beyond reaching "name" level. Those "big" spells (level 6 & above) were almost never used in game, except for possibly the finale with the villain casting one of them at the PCs, or a special Resurrection cast by an NPC cleric.

And, while 3E/3.5E were more balanced, it required a ton of work on my end as DM to create encounters for my big group of players (all those high level spells that just took up space in my 1E PHB were used by both PCs and bad guys (Delayed Blast Fireball, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Maze, etc) Heck, it was a memorable moment in game when my evil wizard cast "Maze" on the party tank - a goliath barbarian - and the goliath barbarian needed a natural 20 on her INT check to escape the maze, and she rolled it!) So, while it was more balanced, it was more work for me as a DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is worth remembering, too, that the original model for D&D had most players controlling multiple characters, and the composition of a party was negotiated by the players amongst themselves.

In such a paradigm, you might have a character that can wipe the snot off anyone's nose, but if no one wants to go adventuring with your superman, it does you very little good (apart from solo adventuring).

Likewise, if Bob from Accounting tends to have his PCs kill off or steal from other PCs, the inter-player dynamic automatically corrects the problem.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Or semantics with meaningful dialogue.

Semantics are required for meaningful dialog.

The 1e system had both precision and accuracy.

Given that it went down to the level of individual hit points, I'll grant you the precision. Accuracy? That one's debatable, especially in the current context of discussing balance - whether it is accurate depends on what target you're trying to hit.

 

[Dausuul]

I think this balance thing is simply people arguing more over why their favorite class should the biggest baddest tough guy around.

I've been playing wizards and sorcerors for twenty-two years. If my goal was to have my favorite class be the biggest baddest tough guy around, I'd be a hardcore 3E advocate* and my mantra would be "The game is perfectly balanced the way it is."

[size=-2]*That's 3E, mind you, not 3.5E. The changes to haste and the reduced duration of the 2nd-level ability score buffs nerfed wizards so bad they're practically useless in 3.5. Also, half-elves and monks are grossly overpowered and Pun-Pun is a perfectly reasonable build.[/size]

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, while 3E/3.5E were more balanced, it required a ton of work on my end as DM to create encounters for my big group of players

Making sure that "What you get out of it" is more than "What you put into it" is probably the most important type of "balance" for a game to have. This is where 3.x falls down, in spades.

Semantics are required for meaningful dialog.

Yes, but that is two posts now rolling "20" on the semantics and "1" on the meaningful dialogue.


RC

 

[Melkor]

The thing I thought was most unbalance about both 1e and 2e was the utter lameness of a fighter vs. a ranger or a paladin.

The ONLY time someone played a fighter was when they specifically wanted to be in the background and not contribute as much as anyone else, or else to poke fun at the system itself.

DS

The one character I did manage to get to 10th level in AD&D 1E/2E was an Elf Fighter, and I never had any issues with that.

I don't dispute your assessment at all....Just wondering why that kind of thing never actually came up when we were playing.

 

[S'mon]

This is incorrect. It didn't indicate the level the PCs were meant to be. Monster level was related to the level of the dungeon they appeared on, but it had no relation to party level.

There was a system that related monster HD and abilities to party-level to work out appropriate XP, but it was a very hit-or-miss affair.

Cheers!

But PCs were "supposed" to be on a Dungeon Level corresponding to their character level - unless they chose to Delve Deeper! Didn't you know that?

 

[S'mon]

I have to say that demi-human level limits were never a great balancing factor, and I know many house-ruled them.
The idea that you'd get to a certain level and then just stop advancing was just plain silly. One of the major elements for any player, in any rpg designed to be played in a campaign, is the idea that the characters improve over time. If this stops happening then you remove a major prop of the campaign.

You're supposed to retire maxed-out PCs. It's a 1e thing, pre Dragonlance style endless quest campaigns. I find it works fine if you understand EGG's preference for an 80%+ human campaign (like my current 1e campaign). You're not generally supposed to play demi-humans!

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but that is two posts now rolling "20" on the semantics and "1" on the meaningful dialogue.

It seems to me that the point that what you consider accurate depends on what you think the target is has significant meaning and relevance in this context. You, in particular, seem to have some rather particular views on what the target is, for you and your personal system, so I would have thought you'd consider it a juicy point.

You seem to have chosen to pass on it. Your choices are not my fault.

 

[DragonLancer]

Likewise, if Bob from Accounting tends to have his PCs kill off or steal from other PCs, the inter-player dynamic automatically corrects the problem.

Unfortunately, I don't think Bob from Accounting is around any more.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1NV7-Pbsg]YouTube - Magic: the Gathering "Bob the Accountant"[/ame]​