Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5749857" data-attributes="member: 87792">IIRC this is revisionist history and E Gary Gygax cared quite a bit about having a relatively balanced game.&nbsp; And there are a lot of balancing factors in OD&amp;D and 1e AD&amp;D that simply got removed in later editions.&nbsp; A good example of this is the Wandering Monster Table; there were deliberately mechanisms in place in classic D&amp;D that prevented you taking extended rests.&nbsp; This of course is a balancing factor with serious impact for the wizard and EGG (and the rest of his table e.g. Old Geezer at rpg.net) knew exactly what it was for.&nbsp; But none of the books actually explain this and as first TSR then WoTC moved away from EGG's game about professional dungeon-looters they threw out the balancing factors.&nbsp;Balance is like oxygen.&nbsp; You don't realise the importance of it until it shatters.&nbsp; And it did shatter in 3e.&nbsp; Especially when 3e tried to go not only playstyle but complete setting independent and took away the fighter's resources.&nbsp;Strawman.&nbsp; The problem really comes to a head in mid-high level 3.X when a decently built cleric is better than a naively built fighter even at the things the fighter is meant to be good at.&nbsp; Mess up balance enough and there are no things I can do that you can't.&nbsp; Comparing fighter to properly buffed cleric - remember that the cleric starts with more hit points because unlike the fighter he can actually heal.&nbsp; (Or fighter to druid (&quot;I have class features stronger than your entire class)).&nbsp;&nbsp;That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy goal.&nbsp; But the critical problem isn't the balance mismatches, it's that they are never explicitely called out (Monte Cook having even deliberately left in trap options).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5749857, member: 87792"] IIRC this is revisionist history and E Gary Gygax cared quite a bit about having a relatively balanced game. And there are a lot of balancing factors in OD&D and 1e AD&D that simply got removed in later editions. A good example of this is the Wandering Monster Table; there were deliberately mechanisms in place in classic D&D that prevented you taking extended rests. This of course is a balancing factor with serious impact for the wizard and EGG (and the rest of his table e.g. Old Geezer at rpg.net) knew exactly what it was for. But none of the books actually explain this and as first TSR then WoTC moved away from EGG's game about professional dungeon-looters they threw out the balancing factors. Balance is like oxygen. You don't realise the importance of it until it shatters. And it did shatter in 3e. Especially when 3e tried to go not only playstyle but complete setting independent and took away the fighter's resources. Strawman. The problem really comes to a head in mid-high level 3.X when a decently built cleric is better than a naively built fighter even at the things the fighter is meant to be good at. Mess up balance enough and [I]there are no things I can do that you can't[/I]. Comparing fighter to properly buffed cleric - remember that the cleric [I]starts[/I] with more hit points because unlike the fighter he can actually heal. (Or fighter to druid ("I have class features stronger than your entire class)). That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy goal. But the critical problem isn't the balance mismatches, it's that they are never explicitely called out (Monte Cook having even deliberately left in trap options). [/QUOTE]

Verification