D&D Problems

[Jan van Leyden]

tl;dr: yes, many of these points are D&D-isms.

D&D is especially vulnerable to this discussions.

Start with the concept of classes and levels which let you compare different characters easily. 3e+ enhanced this comparability because of the unified progression of levels and the idea that characters should have similar, if not equal levels. In other systems, skill-based one, e.g., a character has his abilities (or not) because the player wants it, so power and balance are not system functions.

Next is the highly codified nature of combat in 3e+ in conjunction with higher HPs. Now you could tell the GM that your character takes this-and-that action, using some feat, magic item, power, what have you, whereas in the older editions one tried to describe the action. This new trend allows to assess and quantify the power of a character/action.

Then we have the fact that D&D isn't tied to a game world or style. We user it to play over the top high fantasy (FR), pseudo-realistic medieval stuff (Greyhawk), horror (Ravenloft), or apocalypse survivor games (Dar Sun), all with the same set of rules. So the system has to be more generic than a game tied to one world/style. While a fireball by a high-level wizard in the Realms should be able to blast lots of enemies, the expectations fo Ravenloft would be different.

Given the apporach of D&D 3e+ that characters of the same level should be comparable and the multitude of construction kit parts (feats, spells, powers, prestige classes, ...) leads to optimisation, which, in conjunction with the possibility to discuss this with lots of participants, leads to optimised results available to all those interested, handing them lots of ammunition for their wa..., uh, discussions.

And don't forget that the number of D&D players (I'm counting Pathfinder player in this group, here) is much higher than those of any other system(s), that the games has changed a lot over its history, and that people want to remain in their comfy zone. Addionally, D&D players seem to be rather passionate about their pastime and their game. It's not so much a tool for having a good time with your friends, but a fashion statement or way of life.

So yes, these discussions are rather typical for D&D. In part due to objective reasosn, in part due to human nature.

 

[delericho]

I began to wonder if these controversial topics were D&Disms. While regular debates for D&D, they seem less present in almost every other RPG I’ve played or own.
Just like you have First World Problems that are “problems” only when you live in a rich affluent country you have D&D Problems that only exist when playing a tabletop role-playing game that is like D&D.

Most systems I own do not include martial powers, the burning need to have fighter-type characters do more than swing and deal damage. Systems occasionally add universal rules for some combat actions like charging, aiming, rapid fire, or recklessly attacking; however, just as often it’s just roll attack and deal damage. Or, for a few systems, just attack with the success of the hit determining damage. A couple systems don’t even have powers for wizards with the overt mechanical effects of spells being limited.

I think there are a couple of things going on:

- D&D (and Pathfinder) is much, much more widely-played by gamers. And of those other games that are quite widely played, quite often the very appeal is that they're not so mechanically-focussed. What this means is that mechanical issues with D&D are far more likely to be found, and far more likely to be commented on, than equivalent issues in other systems.

(But, if you play some other system long enough, and you care about such things, chances are you'll find some issues there that may really bug you.)

- Most other games don't have the "Quadratic Wizard" issue to the same extent, either because all the characters have access to the same powers (Mage, Mutants & Masterminds), or because magic is severely curtailed in the game. So while they may have issues, they probably don't have that issue.

(And, unfortunately, the "Quadratic Wizard" is a design fault in D&D that goes right back to the earliest editions. Over time, the problem has been exacerbated by Wizards gaining ever more power or loosing restrictions on his power with each edition (up to 3.5e), but the root cause was always there. 3e could potentially have introduced Quadratic Fighters to match, but the higher-level feats were nowhere near powerful enough for that. And removing the Quadratic Wizard is probably not an option, since they're pretty much a sacred cow by now.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

(And, unfortunately, the "Quadratic Wizard" is a design fault in D&D that goes right back to the earliest editions. Over time, the problem has been exacerbated by Wizards gaining ever more power or loosing restrictions on his power with each edition (up to 3.5e), but the root cause was always there. 3e could potentially have introduced Quadratic Fighters to match, but the higher-level feats were nowhere near powerful enough for that. And removing the Quadratic Wizard is probably not an option, since they're pretty much a sacred cow by now.)

There wasn't much of a "quadratic wizard" problem in the earliest vesions of the game as written. Even at median to high levels, an OD&D, B/X, or AD&D wizard was fairly easy to kill and couldn't "be a better class X character than an actual character of class X". If anything, a Monty Haul DM would be responsible for such a character rather than the rules themselves.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There wasn't much of a "quadratic wizard" problem in the earliest vesions of the game as written. Even at median to high levels, an OD&D, B/X, or AD&D wizard was fairly easy to kill and couldn't "be a better class X character than an actual character of class X". If anything, a Monty Haul DM would be responsible for such a character rather than the rules themselves.

even in the 90's with 2e (still worse then what had come before) there were ALOT of restrictions on Mages. They were powerful but it came at a price. Even most non specialist only had a few spells known and some of those spells had drawbacks (go on haste the fighter 4 times in one day and watch him age). And saves were easier to make, it was un heard of for a monster over level 1 to not save on an 18...

3e took away limited number of spells known based on Int, took the drawbacks off dozens of spells, gave more spells per day, and on top of all that made saves scale harder. I have seen LOTS of cases where someone with pimped up saves targeting a monsters lowest save set un hitable or almost unhittable (if a 20 is needed) save.

Prestige classes that gave awesome class features AND +1 caster level made it even worse...

Everyone got a HP boost, but it is most notable with wizards...

2e best case you have at 20th level 9d4+4+18+10 so 41-68 (Average 54)
3e with a 16 con at level 11 has 10d4+4+33 47-77 (Average 61)

 

[Teataine]

I'd agree that LFQW and its related discontents are almost entirely an artifact/overhyped problem of 3.x/PF. Since those games hold almost 50% of the RPG market and most gamers have learned to play through them or played them or know of them in passing, this whole thing about balance has been grossly missrepresented and argued back and forth without much tought given to context and metagame concerns.

 

[Storminator]

I think classes has a lot to do with it. A lot of the other games you list have freeform or points based character creation, so if there's a broken option it's available to anyone. In D&D the decision "what class do I play?" dominates everything about your PC for the entirety of his career. So balancing that decision is pretty important.

PS

 

[Umbran]

Other game systems offer a different perspective on the power discrepancy between fighters and spellcasters. While a D&D fighter only increases in power along a linear progression contrasted with the parabolic power spike of the wizard, in other systems it’s possible to make a character with no combat skill progression or that lacks a line on the graph, being possible to make a character with no combat functionality at all.

Actually, I'd say that other systems make it more difficult to see the power discrepancy between its types. D&D has levels, and in theory, everyone of a given level is supposed to be roughly on par. Other games don't have levels, so the disparity between characters simply isn't so obvious as you don't have the level as the basis of comparison.

But don't kid yourself - that you can create a character with no combat skill doesn't somehow mean that you'll have a great play experience if you do that.

D&D admits what it is - a game that's going to have a lot of combat. It takes some steps to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot by accident, by making sure that each character has at least some relevant and useful capabilities. Yes, someone who has system mastery can still make problems at the upper end of the scale. But this problem also exists in other systems - I experienced it myself in White Wolf, Shadowrun, among others.

Basically, since they tried to at least keep you from shooting yourself in the foot at the bottom of the scale, we then gripe that they didn't do it perfectly, so you can still shoot yourself in the foot at the top end.

This is interesting when paired with the insistence that D&D conform to “modern game design”. However, when I think of modern RPG games I think of Fiasco, FATE, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. These games are much more freeform and narrative, with fewer overt powers for everyone.

Note that FIasco is not really build for campaign play, so ongoing power levels aren't an issue. Also note, for FATE and Cortex+ (the basis of MHRP and Leverage) that they largely avoid the question of character power levels by largely avoiding character advancement. They instead opt for character *development*, which is not the same thing - characters can change without going up much in power for rather long periods of time.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

To the OP's talk about narrative elements in newer games, I agree that newer games probably won't sell well without these elements. But I think rules complexity isn't a fad (either high or low complexity) and it's just based on individual preferences.

There wasn't much of a "quadratic wizard" problem in the earliest vesions of the game as written. Even at median to high levels, an OD&D, B/X, or AD&D wizard was fairly easy to kill and couldn't "be a better class X character than an actual character of class X". If anything, a Monty Haul DM would be responsible for such a character rather than the rules themselves.

Wizards were very weak at the low end; they might not have been overpowered at high levels, but the gap in power between a low and high level wizard was bigger than the gap in power between a low level and a high level fighter.

 

[delericho]

There wasn't much of a "quadratic wizard" problem in the earliest vesions of the game as written. Even at median to high levels, an OD&D, B/X, or AD&D wizard was fairly easy to kill and couldn't "be a better class X character than an actual character of class X". If anything, a Monty Haul DM would be responsible for such a character rather than the rules themselves.

I can't speak to either OD&D or B/X, but in both BECMI D&D and 1st/2nd Ed AD&D, non-casters stopped getting any significant power after about name level - they switched to fixed hit points per level, they no longer gained additional attacks per round, etc. The casters, on the other hand, continued both to gain additional spells per level and also additional levels of spells. (And, in AD&D, the spells they did have also gained in power.)

The restrictions that they faced were definitely a brake on the power that these classes had relative to the others, but they still had a quadratic progression vs the non-caster's linear one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wizards were very weak at the low end; they might not have been overpowered at high levels, but the gap in power between a low and high level wizard was bigger than the gap in power between a low level and a high level fighter.

The gap between any really low level and high level characters in D&D are huge. If any class could be said to have the widest gap in that area it would be the cleric IMO. The wizard has quite a large jump in personal power, while the fighter adds his followers to his overall power base. The cleric gets best of both of these power-ups. The cleric gets really powerful personal abilities like the wizard AND command of loyal followers like the fighter. If anything it is clerics who are more "quadratic" in comparison to fighters than wizards.