Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Doug McCrae]

There are a few elements of 1e AD&D that are not balanced in either short or long-term play - demihuman thieves and half-orc assassins - which are both permitted unlimited advancement. I'm not sure what the thinking was here, as non-humans are just better than humans. Infravision is particularly useful for stealthy classes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Game balance is not some passing fad, nor a new concern, by any means.

Not by any means.

But you will, I hope, note that balance to give "each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game" is a very different kettle of fish from balance to ensure that all can contribute equally to every approach that might be taken.

One requires a series of adventure environments wherein different approaches can be taken and probably should be taken (or the balance doesn't work; see Hussar's example of 80% combat games where sleep is a clear autowin).

The other is perfectly fine with a string of combats with preprinted battlemats, intended to be approached only as a string of combats. If might even tell the GM exactly when some other approach (skill challenge) is to be used. It may also mandate ignoring verisimilitude in the rules, because that tricky V word almost ensures that different problems are going to require different approaches, and that different people will be clearly better at some approaches than others.

Both games are going to be better suited for a limited set of playstyles as a result. What your playstyle is will very likely determine (or at least factor highly in) the type of balance you prefer. And, probably, how you think of other types of "balance" as expressed in other games.

Balance. The same word is being used, but the same meaning is not.

"Balance" is not a new concern; the sort of balance 4e offers is.

And I have come to regard that as a good thing. Different games should be concerned with different things, because different people are. As this thread clearly shows. Having different styles of balance out there makes it easier to play what you want.

And life is too short for games that you don't find fun.



RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

There are a few elements of 1e AD&D that are not balanced in either short or long-term play - demihuman thieves and half-orc assassins - which are both permitted unlimited advancement. I'm not sure what the thinking was here, as non-humans are just better than humans. Infravision is particularly useful for stealthy classes.

Assassin is capped at 15th level so unlimited isn't truly unlimited. For really high level play a human could reach 15th level as an assassin then start another class. A non-human must multiclass from the start.

Thieves are a bit more of a mystery. Except for the poor half orc (whose only "unlimited" class is capped) every race can advance unlimited as thieves. Based solely on the XP tables, thief is the weakest class and a non-multiclassed demi-human thief can never aquire another class.

Even so there is little mechanical reason beyond wanting to gain a second class later to play a single classes human thief.

 

[Beginning of the End]

In any case, since he didn't write those ideas in the books, we can only speculate as to what they were at any given point (they undoubtedly changed over time) and how well the game would or would not work if you followed them. I'm not criticizing Gygax for being a pioneer--as you say, everybody was new to RPGs back then, and it's no shame on Gygax for not spelling out his underlying assumptions. But he didn't spell them out.

I'm trying to figure out where this idea that Gygax didn't write it into the rulebooks came from. Gygax's rulebooks are filled with procedural methods for content generation which will result in providing a very specific and detailed baseline for play.

OD&D, for example, told you:

(1) Exactly what the average encounter density in the dungeon should be.
(2) Exactly what monsters should be encountered on each level of the dungeon.
(3) Exactly how much treasure should be located on each level of the dungeon.
(4) The general pace of monster encounters versus other content (by means of the wandering monster system and monster reaction tables).

Wandering monster encounters also serve as a control mechanism on the "nova" technique. Blowing all your resources in one or two encounters and then pulling back to rest for the day doesn't actually work all that well if you're playing OD&D by the RAW: There's no such thing as "clearing" a section of the dungeon. You might be able to lower your risks by rooting out some of the set encounters (although the DM is explicitly told to periodically refresh those), but if you retreat from the 3rd level of the dungeon you're going to have to work to get back down there before you can push further. (And your rewards for doing so will be lessened because you'll have already cleared out the treasure from those sections.)

All of this content is, in fact, "spelling out" the baseline of the game.

The 5th level rogue who invested many skill points (in 3+, or thief skills before) in open locks will not feel doing something meaningful standing next to the 8th level wizard with his knock wand...

Tangentially: I have a party in which there's a rogue and a knock. The rogue loves having that resource to fall back on when her lockpicking skills can't beat a tough lock. While it's true that if the wizard went around whapping every locked door with his wand the rogue would get annoyed, everyone else at the table would also get annoyed: Wands cost money. The wizard should stop wasting it.

Compare a dire wolf to That Damned Crab (scroll down on second link). That's a classic (if extreme) example of the CR system breaking down right there. It's not a statistical artifact, it's That Damned Crab.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at there. The questionable CR due to the ill-bethought Constrict ability? Are you claiming that the class system is broken if somebody designs a class that gets 5 wish spells per day at 1st level?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Gygax's rulebooks are filled with procedural methods for content generation which will result in providing a very specific and detailed baseline for play.

Yeah, but they are also filled with exhortations to ignore them. Do those tables describe the intended world, or are they merely something for the DM to fall back on when he has nothing prepared? And even when they are used, Gary says the DM should sometimes ignore results.

But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die.

- 1e DMG pg 9

It is highly recommended that you develop an overall scheme for both population and habitation. This is not to say that a random mixture of monsters cannot be used, simply selecting whatever creatures are at hand from the tables of monsters shown by level of their relative challenge. The latter method does provide a rather fun type of campaign with a ”Disneyland” atmosphere, but long range play becomes difficult, for the whole lacks rhyme and reason, so it becomes difficult for the DM to extrapolate new scenarios from it, let alone build upon it. Therefore, it is better to use the random population technique only in certain areas, and even then to do so with reason.

Thoughtless placement of powerful magic items has been the ruination of many a campaign... This is in part the fault of this writer, who deeply regrets not taking the time and space in D&D to stress repeatedly the importance of moderation. Powerful magic items were shown, after all, on the tables, and a chance for random discovery of these items was given, so the uninitiated DM cannot be severely faulted for merely following what was set before him or her in the rules. Had the whole been prefaced with an admonition to use care and logic in placement or random discovery of magic items, had the intent, meaning, and spirit of the game been more fully explained, much of the give-away aspect of such campaigns would have willingly been squelched by the DMs.

Initial placement of magic items in dungeon and wilderness is a crucial beginning for the campaign. In all such places you must NEVER allow random determination to dictate the inclusion of ANY meaningful magic items.

- 1e DMG pgs 90-92

Even OD&D recommends that the major encounters and treasures be determined by the DM, not randomly rolled.

It is a good idea to thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monsterous guardians, and then switch to a random determination for the balance of the level. Naturally, the more important treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry. Once these have been secreted in out-of-the-way locations, a random distribution using a six-sided die can be made as follows

- Vol 3 The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures pg 6

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, but they are also filled with exhortations to ignore them.

As well as advice for when to do so.

A baseline, plus advice for how and when to vary from it, plus advice for how to follow the baseline without using random tables.

What, exactly, is the problem here? I mean, wouldn't (say) CR and EL have worked (far) better with some direct advice to ignore the math when throwing on templates, if the result didn't seem right?



RC

 

[Voadam]

That Moathouse offer stands, if anyone still imagines sleep was an autowin in 1e.


RC

Sure, list them out.

Other than the undead and green slime what is immune versus affected? Its been a while so I don't remember everything that is in there.

Giant Toads? Rats? Humans? Giant Crayfish? Bugbears? Ogre? Ghouls? Green Slime? Spider? Anything else?

 

[Voadam]

Stats mattered a lot in AD&D.

Whether you had good or poor stats was determined by the generation method you used and luck. Those with lower stats from rolling mostly just got the short end of the stick.

Two fighters, one with a 16 strength and one with an 18 strength were hugely disparate and felt so at the table. The difference also got wider as the campaign went on due to xp bonuses for good stats.

Powerful classes and human dual classing required powerful stats.

Level mattered a lot. A party had a different balance of power between the same PCs at 1st, 5th, 10th, and 15th level. Some classes were comparatively more combat powerful at different levels. If you were playing a one shot or for only a couple levels the campaign balance concept of balance across levels was inapplicable.

Race matters for balance with racial powers and multiclassing twisted by its own level balance of level caps and roleplay stuff.

Non combat stuff balanced against combat stuff. A paladin was more powerful than a fighter.

The party could vary significantly in level. Some games started from 1st when you came in so your human thief 1 could be next to an elven fighter magic user thief 8/8/8 with a ton of accumulated magic items.

AD&D had a lot of room for imbalance.

 

[ExploderWizard]

[QUOTE=Voadam;5323764]Sure, list them out.

Other than the undead and green slime what is immune versus affected? Its been a while so I don't remember everything that is in there.

Giant Toads? Rats? Humans? Giant Crayfish? Bugbears? Ogre? Ghouls? Green Slime? Spider? Anything else?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't call "affected by" or "subject to" equal to autowin in every situation. There is suprise, initiative, and such to consider. Remember how fragile low level characters were. A 4 segment suprise differential could render most of the party (including the magic user with sleep still locked within his severed head ) out of action before initiative is even rolled.

Would you call a lich with power word kill prepared an autowin against a character with 60 hitpoints or less? What if that character is a specialized archer with an arrow of slaying undead at the ready?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, list them out.

Okay; see below.

Other than the undead and green slime what is immune versus affected? Its been a while so I don't remember everything that is in there.

Giant Toads? Rats? Humans? Giant Crayfish? Bugbears? Ogre? Ghouls? Green Slime? Spider? Anything else?

Been a while for me, too, but it is the iconic low-level 1e adventure, written by the game's creator. I didn't check the monsters before offering. Maybe there's a bunch of sleep-able stuff there!

But recall the claim disputed was that "anything you were likely to encounter" would be automatically won if the magic-user got the spell off. Let's not change the goalposts now!

OK, we've got:

SURFACE

Area 1: 6 Giant Frogs, 2 with 2 HD, 4 with 1 HD. Autowin.

Area 4: Huge Spider, HD 2+2. Autowin.

Area 7: Brigands. 8 normal men and 1 2nd level fighter. Not an autowin, but the Die Roller says the m-u wins.

Area 12: Giant Snake, HD 4+2. 50% chance. Die Roller says the m-u squeaked by.

Area 13: 13 Giant Rats, 1/2 HD each. 4d4 are put asleep. Die roller says 9. 4 rats nibble our caster's toes.

Area 16: Giant Tick, HD 3. Autowin.

DUNGEONS

Area 1: Green Slime, 2 HD. Not affected.

Area 4: 12 Zombies, 2 HD each. Not affected.

Area 7: Ogre, HD 5+1. Not affected.

Area 10: 6 Bugbears, HD 3+1. 1-2 are affected. The other 4-5 wail on the magic-user. Die roller rolls low; looks like 5 bugbears to play with our magic-user. How many hit points has this guy got again?

Area 12: 9 Gnolls, HD 2. 2d4 are affected. At least one is there to wail on the magic-user or wake the others. Die roller says, 5 are sleeping and four remain alert and ready to play.

Area 13: Giant Crayfish, HD 4+4. 50% chance. Nope. The die roller says Pinchy is still awake.

Area 14: 4 Ghouls, HD 2. Not affected.

Area 16: 6 normal Guardsmen and 1 Sergeant (6 HD). 4d4 guardsmen are affected. The die roller says 7, so all the normal guardsmen are affected. The Sergeant wails on the magic-user.

Area 17: 12 Guardsmen and 2 Sergeants (as above). As above, but now there are two sergeants. The die roller says 8, so there are four more guardsmen as well.

Area 18: 5th level cleric. Not affected.

So much for sleep as the autowin button for all encounters you could reasonably face. I hope that magic-user wasn't so cocky as to go solo, even with his Ring of Automatic Sleep At the Start of Each Encounter. Was sleep useful? Sure. Especially if you are guaranteed to always have it available, never be surprised, always have your opponents conviniently bunched up, and always go first. But even then you'd better consider when it is wise to use it, and have someone else to help you when it fails. And I don't think that "even then" applies to most AD&D 1e games.

So, can we put this "autowin" theory to....err....to sleep?



RC