Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[LostSoul]

What I actually said is that the MU would autowin ONE encounter and then spend the rest of the time plinking away with darts (Ie. being pretty much completely inneffective).

Ineffective? The first Pit Fiend I used as a DM was killed by the M-U's darts! (Granted, Shelor the Great was 25th level at the time - finding 20 million GP in an unguarded closet because the DM is 11 and tired when rolling up the dungeon helps.)

I think when he fell over with a dart in his head he crashed through a locked door. Talk about taking over the Thief's role!

 

[Hussar]

And, what weapon is he using? How many hit points does he have? What's his AC?

If he gets into melee, he dies. End of story. The cleric and fighter both have easily 5 point advantages on AC and likely twice as many hit points.

... Wait... hang on.

I will not get drawn into this again. We're going to head back into Heisenberg edition again where the game becomes quantum in nature - PC's are perfect machines of tactics, unless, of course, that would result in their gaining advantage, and then they suddenly develop huge blind spots and miss half the things in the dungeon.

Nope, I've seen where this discussion goes and it never ends well.

I wanted to clarify my position and I have done so. You're free to disagree, but, at least now, you're disagreeing with what I said, and not what Raven Crowking claims that I said.

 

[billd91]

And, what weapon is he using? How many hit points does he have? What's his AC?

If he gets into melee, he dies. End of story. The cleric and fighter both have easily 5 point advantages on AC and likely twice as many hit points.

... Wait... hang on.

I will not get drawn into this again.

Oh, this is lovely. You won't get drawn into this again? Then why not just delete your post or navigate away rather than Submit Reply and getting involved in this again? Why waste either of our times?

 

[S'mon]

That's not balanced, IMO. Balanced would mean that he would have several options available to him at all times, none of which are I Win and none of which are, "I sit in the corner and cower".

Your definition bears no relation to the word 'balance'. Balanced against what?

 

[bagger245]

Ineffective? The first Pit Fiend I used as a DM was killed by the M-U's darts! (Granted, Shelor the Great was 25th level at the time - finding 20 million GP in an unguarded closet because the DM is 11 and tired when rolling up the dungeon helps.)

I think when he fell over with a dart in his head he crashed through a locked door. Talk about taking over the Thief's role!

It is these unpredictable outcomes that makes rpgs great to play.. for me.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

How big a time frame are we considering as "in the present"? Is it an instant in time? A day? An adventure? A segment, a round, a turn, an hour? I ask because this exact thing can be said about all editions of D&D. 4e characters run into a trap and only the rogue has taken Thievery as a trained skill. Where's the balance there? Is the "present" in that situation the task of dealing with the trap?

This from a few pages back.

Its worth noting that 4e actually *does* deal with this. Traps in 4e are no longer the sole domain of the rogue which involve him rolling through a minigame while the rest of the party twiddles their thumbs. They are either:

Skill challenges, which require multiple players to contribute. For example, the party stumbles across an ancient dwarven trap which, through a combination of ingenious design and magic, causes the room to shrink in around the party,eventually crushing them like a trash compactor if it isn't stopped. Thievery can disable the mundane mechanisms, Arcana can disable the spells, and Athletics allows one to literally hold the walls in place. History (of the dwarves at the time) and Dungeoneering are secondary skills which can help the people using thievery and arcana by offering insight into what they are facing. So the rogue gets to work messing with the device, while the wizard does the same with spells, the fighter holds the ceiling in place long enough to keep it from crushing them while the others work, and the Cleric offers advice to the rogue and wizard based on his knowledge of the trap creators or dungeon.

or

They are components of combat. For example, there is a device pumping poison gas into the room, being guarded by a bunch of monsters immune to poison. The rogue is the only one who can disable it, but doing so will leave him helpless to the monsters, so the rest of the party must work to defend him.


In other words, 4e specifically avoids the sort of imbalance called out in the point above. It isn't a game about a spotlight which moves from one character to the next. Its a game about a big-ass spotlight which is focused on all the characters at all times.

 

[Imperialus]

Sigh.

I really didn't want to come back in here.

It appears that my point has been missed by RC's mischaracterization of what I said.

What I actually said is that the MU would autowin ONE encounter and then spend the rest of the time plinking away with darts (Ie. being pretty much completely inneffective).

This is considered balanced design? I win once and then ride the pines while the rest of the group acts until such time as they graciously decide to rest and let me get my one spell back?

I'm not sure how other groups handled this, but in my BD&D game our (now 4th level) MU and the Elf also manage our hirelings and 'friends' from their charm spells. My Clerics henchman is largely under the MU's control too since he had taken over the role of her 'bodyguard'. I think you may be forgetting that up until 3rd ed parties (especially low level parties) were assumed to have a lot more people in them than just the PC's. At least that's how we always ran things.

Even in our 3rd ed campaign we had a Druid character who had quite the traveling circus following him around. Combat basically consisted of "Flamestrike! Flamestrike! Send in the Clowns to mop up."

As a matter of fact the lack of rules for hirelings and and the assumption that a 'party' consists only of PC's is one of the things that my group had an exceptionally tough time adapting to with 4th ed.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Funny, I've never used hirelings. They tend to be even more squishy than a mage. And then you have to deal with their family when one dies.

 

[Imperialus]

Going from the 2nd ed DMG 2GP a month will get a footman plus some investment to get them armour, a shield and a weapon though you can keep this to around 10GP if you go for leather armour until you get more gold. They have 1d8+1 HP. Whenever I played a Wizard, hiring or charming (or hiring and then charming) a bodyguard was always one of my top priorities before I'd even set foot in a dungeon.

And don't forget either that by higher levels the situation has reversed and the fighters now have a retinue that they can call on to do some of the heavy lifting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It appears that my point has been missed by RC's mischaracterization of what I said.

Yeah, those exact quotes of what you said are one heck of a mischaracterization. Especially when another poster was so kind as to supply the exact claim in a post prior to my analysis of the Moathouse encounters. EDIT: And that poster did so to ensure that the goalposts wouldn't be shifted.....And until your post, they had not.

What I actually said is that the MU would autowin ONE encounter and then spend the rest of the time plinking away with darts (Ie. being pretty much completely inneffective).

Now, this may be true. However, it certainly doesn't have to be true. If you insist that it is true, you are simply wrong.

It very much depends on exactly what you believe you bring to the party. Are you just a single spell and some darts? Or did you choose to play a magic-user because you tend to be smart enough that you contribute loads to the party even when firepower isn't the issue?

I have played many magic-users, and run many a game of 1e AD&D. And I have to say that the player who thought all his character could do was cast one spell and then plink with darts tended to have characters a short lifespan. At least when playing magic-users.

If that's really all you imagine you can contribute with that character, perhaps you should play something else. Because, I guarantee you, other people can and have contributed far, far more.

But, on at least one previous occasion, you admitted that you shouldn't argue about the AD&D 1e rules because you keep getting shown that your understanding of them is wrong. Or words to that effect.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this is another of those cases?


RC