D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Hussar]

/edit

snip

Whoops, hit reply before I realized that post was WAYY too long ago.

Better at what, statistically? Not everyone chooses that perfect combo or even one that synergize well. Some people, myself included, make choices based on concept. Gary relied on the DM actually having a pair and saying no again keeping the balance.

I would rather have a game that allows me to play what I want to play with the DM having to police when necessary than to have a game that is so worried about balance, and one that shoves it's take on balance, down our throats to the point where it is so boring that I would rather watch paint dry.

An elven wizard is better than a human wizard in OD&D and AD&D. Flat out better. There is nothing a human wizard has that an elven wizard doesn't and the elven wizard has a number of things that the human wizard doesn't. In AD&D, the only issue that might come up is in high level play. IIRC, elves were limited to 12th level wizards in AD&D. Then again, since very very few campaigns went beyond these levels, it hardly seems a limitation. And, also note, that limitation is lifted somewhat with the Unearthed Arcana, where higher stats allow demi-humans to advance further.

This is why we need balance. I think gamers who have never really played earlier versions of D&D really don't understand why D&D moved so far in this direction. Unbalanced systems remove choice. If A is better than B, then the logical choice is always A. Choosing B doesn't make rational sense.

Presuming irrationality by players isn't a good way to design games. A longsword was outright better than virtually every other weapon in almost every situation. So, everyone that could, took longswords. I played AD&D for almost twenty years, I don't think I ever saw a single player play a fighter type that didn't use either a longsword or a two handed sword. Once The Complete Fighter (2e) came out, everyone used two weapons, because it was just that much better than any other choice you could make.

It's not even about the DM keeping balance here. The rules allow for an elven wizard. It's not like elven wizard is some bizarre Pun Pun like monstrosity that will never see the light of day. Elf Wizard is pretty much the standard archetype. But, Elf Wizard is flat out better than Human Wizard, which should be another pretty stock standard archetype. But, Choice A is better than Choice B. Why take B? Out of some nebulous "Oh, I'm a ROLE-player fetish"? How is it not being a role player to choose elf wizard?

Actually, this reminded me of the AD&D (I think) table where magic-users rolled for the spells they started the game with at 1st level; they got Read Magic and exactly one spell from each of three lists - Attack Spells, Defence Spells and Utility Spells.

Old School Attack and Utility powers, anybody?

Shhh, quiet, we're not supposed to point to how 4e is directly inspired by other editions. 4e is created whole cloth from nothing and must never be allowed to pollute the mainstream of D&D. The fact that virtually everything in 4e comes directly from earlier editions is a secret that must never be spoken.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

/edit

Whoops, hit reply before I realized that post was WAYY too long ago.



An elven wizard is better than a human wizard in OD&D and AD&D. Flat out better. There is nothing a human wizard has that an elven wizard doesn't and the elven wizard has a number of things that the human wizard doesn't. In AD&D, the only issue that might come up is in high level play. IIRC, elves were limited to 12th level wizards in AD&D. Then again, since very very few campaigns went beyond these levels, it hardly seems a limitation. And, also note, that limitation is lifted somewhat with the Unearthed Arcana, where higher stats allow demi-humans to advance further.

This is why we need balance. I think gamers who have never really played earlier versions of D&D really don't understand why D&D moved so far in this direction. Unbalanced systems remove choice. If A is better than B, then the logical choice is always A. Choosing B doesn't make rational sense.

Presuming irrationality by players isn't a good way to design games. A longsword was outright better than virtually every other weapon in almost every situation. So, everyone that could, took longswords. I played AD&D for almost twenty years, I don't think I ever saw a single player play a fighter type that didn't use either a longsword or a two handed sword. Once The Complete Fighter (2e) came out, everyone used two weapons, because it was just that much better than any other choice you could make.

It's not even about the DM keeping balance here. The rules allow for an elven wizard. It's not like elven wizard is some bizarre Pun Pun like monstrosity that will never see the light of day. Elf Wizard is pretty much the standard archetype. But, Elf Wizard is flat out better than Human Wizard, which should be another pretty stock standard archetype. But, Choice A is better than Choice B. Why take B? Out of some nebulous "Oh, I'm a ROLE-player fetish"? How is it not being a role player to choose elf wizard?

Right. I think again that it is worth pointing out that for every point in a game where the system makes one choice obviously more versatile or more potent than other choices you do 2 things. A player is always tempted to choose the more potent choices. More importantly IMHO is just that certain possibilities are closed off. I don't like the AD&D elf vs human wizard juxtaposition because its overall a bit trivial, the advantages of being an elf are really mostly not huge. OTOH the difference between a bard or a thief and a wizard is pretty huge. This closes off choices, its wonderfully imaginative to think of the thief getting the better of wizards, but it takes a pretty unimaginative and frankly stupid wizard to come out with the short end of that stick. AD&D (and how much more 3.x) has a hard time telling the 'thief outsmarted the wizard' story.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed. Although, the advantages of elf can be pretty big, but, like you say, not huge.

I personally usually look at the 2e two weapon fighting rules as a perfect example of bad balance. TWF in 2e is just too good. Double your DPR at the cost of 1 point of AC and one weapon proficiency. Yeah, it becomes a no brainer. Why would you not choose TWF at that point? It's just that good.

So, 3e drastically reduced the potency of TWF. Possibly too far, IMO since the penalties generally meant that you were missing so often, combined with the fact that you could no longer move very much in combat because you lost all those extra attacks, meant that it was generally not a very good option.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

/edit

Whoops, hit reply before I realized that post was WAYY too long ago.



An elven wizard is better than a human wizard in OD&D and AD&D. Flat out better. There is nothing a human wizard has that an elven wizard doesn't and the elven wizard has a number of things that the human wizard doesn't. In AD&D, the only issue that might come up is in high level play. IIRC, elves were limited to 12th level wizards in AD&D. Then again, since very very few campaigns went beyond these levels, it hardly seems a limitation. And, also note, that limitation is lifted somewhat with the Unearthed Arcana, where higher stats allow demi-humans to advance further.

This is why we need balance. I think gamers who have never really played earlier versions of D&D really don't understand why D&D moved so far in this direction. Unbalanced systems remove choice. If A is better than B, then the logical choice is always A. Choosing B doesn't make rational sense.

Presuming irrationality by players isn't a good way to design games. A longsword was outright better than virtually every other weapon in almost every situation. So, everyone that could, took longswords. I played AD&D for almost twenty years, I don't think I ever saw a single player play a fighter type that didn't use either a longsword or a two handed sword. Once The Complete Fighter (2e) came out, everyone used two weapons, because it was just that much better than any other choice you could make.

It's not even about the DM keeping balance here. The rules allow for an elven wizard. It's not like elven wizard is some bizarre Pun Pun like monstrosity that will never see the light of day. Elf Wizard is pretty much the standard archetype. But, Elf Wizard is flat out better than Human Wizard, which should be another pretty stock standard archetype. But, Choice A is better than Choice B. Why take B? Out of some nebulous "Oh, I'm a ROLE-player fetish"? How is it not being a role player to choose elf wizard?



Shhh, quiet, we're not supposed to point to how 4e is directly inspired by other editions. 4e is created whole cloth from nothing and must never be allowed to pollute the mainstream of D&D. The fact that virtually everything in 4e comes directly from earlier editions is a secret that must never be spoken.

Need I remind you that elves back then had level limits while humans did not so I'm not sure where you get that elves were better. Also, let me remind you that elves could only be resurrected back then so generally when you died you were dead for good unless you found someone that had resurrection.

 

[pemerton]

Need I remind you that elves back then had level limits while humans did not so I'm not sure where you get that elves were better.

Hussar actually pointed this out in his post. The level limit for an elf in Gygax's PHB is 11th with 18 INT; my guess, relying on memory without the book in front of me, would be that this drops to 9th level if INT is 16 or lower. But how many AD&D games hit that level cap? Very very few; which was Hussar's point.

And once we get to UA or 2nd ed AD&D those level limits are increased.

Also, let me remind you that elves could only be resurrected back then so generally when you died you were dead for good unless you found someone that had resurrection.

This is not a factor in OD&D, where elves could reach (I think) 10th or so level as wizards.

But Hussar could equally make his point with respect to a half-elf wizard (8th level in Gygaxian AD&D, higher in 2nd ed, which will see you through most AD&D campaigns); or a dwarven fighter (9th level in Gygaxian AD&D, and I think as high as 15th in 2nd ed); or any sort of demi-human thief, none of whom except half-orcs had level limits.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Meant to reply to this post and wanted to go back because I thought there might be some substance here.

Well, I don't really know what was a bad idea. If you go back and read the 4e DMG1 Encounters chapter it is really not all that nailed down. It gives some pretty precise advice but it seems clearly in the vein of advice, not purely formulaic rules. There's of course a narrow path there. If you make things too hard and fast then DMs will tend to get locked into thinking they MUST do A, B, and C, but if your advice is too vague then it has really limited value.

I don't think it has much of any value. I'd be fine if they cut out that chunk and just used the DMG as a repository for environmental rules and other things the players don't need. Or eliminated it altogether. I don't think that reading a book can be of much help in learning to DM. Learning the rules, yes. The rest of it, no.

Yeah, I don't think of it as deception, just art. My players are fully aware of how it all works, they are all highly accomplished GM's in their own right. I can clearly see the gears turning in their heads and they'll sometimes do something basically because they know its going to all work out better that way game-wise (the old, yeah, we'll keep exploring the haunted mine since we know that the DM probably hasn't written up the lost city yet).

Fair enough. Part of my philosophy though, is trying to make it so that the player's can't see the wheels turning or predict outcomes on a metagame level. They like to guess, sure, but that's part of the fun.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hussar actually pointed this out in his post. The level limit for an elf in Gygax's PHB is 11th with 18 INT; my guess, relying on memory without the book in front of me, would be that this drops to 9th level if INT is 16 or lower. But how many AD&D games hit that level cap? Very very few; which was Hussar's point.

And once we get to UA or 2nd ed AD&D those level limits are increased.

This is not a factor in OD&D, where elves could reach (I think) 10th or so level as wizards.

But Hussar could equally make his point with respect to a half-elf wizard (8th level in Gygaxian AD&D, higher in 2nd ed, which will see you through most AD&D campaigns); or a dwarven fighter (9th level in Gygaxian AD&D, and I think as high as 15th in 2nd ed); or any sort of demi-human thief, none of whom except half-orcs had level limits.

but we are comparing wizards here and being able to reach beyond 11th is a huge advantage with that particular class.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Hussar actually pointed this out in his post. The level limit for an elf in Gygax's PHB is 11th with 18 INT; my guess, relying on memory without the book in front of me, would be that this drops to 9th level if INT is 16 or lower. But how many AD&D games hit that level cap? Very very few; which was Hussar's point.

And once we get to UA or 2nd ed AD&D those level limits are increased.

This is not a factor in OD&D, where elves could reach (I think) 10th or so level as wizards.

But Hussar could equally make his point with respect to a half-elf wizard (8th level in Gygaxian AD&D, higher in 2nd ed, which will see you through most AD&D campaigns); or a dwarven fighter (9th level in Gygaxian AD&D, and I think as high as 15th in 2nd ed); or any sort of demi-human thief, none of whom except half-orcs had level limits.

Please please please don't use the "well how many games actually get that far" line to justify an argument. I can tell you that our games went to 20 but that's not the point. The point is that the game is geared for levels 1 through 20 and being able to have access to high level spells trumps any advantage an elf may have.

Now if I remember correctly, an elf had to get a 25 intelligence to max out and that was an optional rule and not a core one.

 

[El Mahdi]

Shhh, quiet, we're not supposed to point to how 4e is directly inspired by other editions. 4e is created whole cloth from nothing and must never be allowed to pollute the mainstream of D&D. The fact that virtually everything in 4e comes directly from earlier editions is a secret that must never be spoken.

Thank You for saying this, and you're absolutely right. The idea that 4E isn't based on what came before it is complete poppycock.

As also is the myth that the 4E experience is sooooooooooo uniquely special that it can't possibly be replicated in any other system or with the use of any other mechanics.

I wish more people would use the rational objectivity you just did when contemplating or discussing different D&D editions.

 

[Dausuul]

Hussar actually pointed this out in his post. The level limit for an elf in Gygax's PHB is 11th with 18 INT; my guess, relying on memory without the book in front of me, would be that this drops to 9th level if INT is 16 or lower. But how many AD&D games hit that level cap? Very very few; which was Hussar's point.

It feels bizarre to be defending racial level limits, but in this case I think you're underselling them. Remember that in AD&D, wizards made a very specific tradeoff: Frailty and weakness at the low levels, in exchange for godlike power at the high levels. I think this is a lousy way to do game balance, but accepting that the game was balanced that way, racial level limits became a big deal for the elf wizard. Your tribulations at the low levels might be reduced, but you still had to go through that period of weakness, and unlike the human wizard you never got to reap the rewards.

If the campaign ended before you got to those levels, the human wizard was screwed, but the human wizard was screwed anyway. The problem was AD&D's model of class balance, not the elf mechanics.

(Of course, lots of DMs ignored racial level limits, because when you did get to the high levels it felt pretty mean to just drop a brick wall in front of the elf. At that point, yes, elf wizards were strictly better. But technically you can't blame the rules for that outcome.)