D&D Problems

[Aenghus]

I think superpowered wizards like Mordenkainen, Elminster and Raistlin provided aspirational figures for spellcasters that other classes lacked. D&D had ubernpcs long before White Wolf. Named spells are the most common in-game branding in D&D.

Also for a long time it's been easier to make challenging BBEGs with wizards. Something of a chicken and egg situation, in that making wizard NPCs more challenging to fight trickles down more power to PC wizards, who do everything they can to aquire the most broken abilities of the bad guys they are fighting.

The power level wizard players can aspire to has steadily grown with the accumulation of thousands of spells, the most powerful of which slowly bump up the power curve. First TSR and now WotC have produced mechanics for their ubernpcs, some of which have fallen into the eager hands of players who unsuprisingly want them a lot, and are willing to pay for them.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Clerical magic was weaker than arcane in AD&D for the most part and only went up to level 7 spells.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Clerical magic was weaker than arcane in AD&D for the most part and only went up to level 7 spells.

Not that much weaker. Also in AD&D and earlier editions the phrase " You and what army?" was meaningful. The impact of having over a hundred troops to back you up isn't understood by those who have only played games in which such support characters are trivial and meaningless.

WOTC versions of D&D (particularly 4E) have featured power scaling unlike anything previously seen. High level AD&D characters were plenty powerful but not scaled to a point where ONLY other supercharacters could defeat them. This feature of scaling power up to a level of absurdity is what essentially turned D&D into a supers genre. If you have ever taken a super-high level MMO character into a low level zone and laid waste to it then you know what I'm talking about.

Take a 1st level AD&D fighter and compare it in power to a 9th level AD&D magic user.

Now take a 1st level 4E fighter and compare it in power to a 9th level 4E wizard.

The difference is staggering.

 

[Aenghus]

Take a 1st level AD&D fighter and compare it in power to a 9th level AD&D magic user.

Now take a 1st level 4E fighter and compare it in power to a 9th level 4E wizard.

The difference is staggering.

Both 9th level characters massively outclass the 1st level pc, as they should. But the AD&D MU has more potential access to one-shot-wins than the 4e wizard, and longer lasting spells to boot. One AD&D Charm Person will probably render the fighter into a useful friend for weeks. a 9th level magic missile for 5d4+5, average 17.5 hp is almost certainly a one shot kill, as is burning hands.

Is this the staggering difference you mean?

Just the fact that the 9th level MU is alive at that level implies certain information, as AD&D MUs are so vulnerable due to lack of hp and AC, and spell disruption, that campaigns where they are aggressively engaged generally kill them off long before 9th level.

Also magic items can't be left out of the equation, as AD&D magic items were massively more influential than in 4e, and a 9th level MU probably has some nice ones. Even bracers of defense would allow the MU to just kill the fighter with darts or beat him to death with a staff.

 

[Umbran]

Also in AD&D and earlier editions the phrase " You and what army?" was meaningful.

That was entirely campaign dependent. If you got lots of followers, you could play the army game in theory (not that the rules handled mass-combat well), but if you were sticking to dungeon crawls in high-level play, those followers basically became "I have a keep, and people to protect it while I'm off gallivanting around killing slavers, giants, and demons!"

 

[Sage Genesis]

High level AD&D characters were plenty powerful but not scaled to a point where ONLY other supercharacters could defeat them.

I don't know about your AD&D experiences, but I've seen high level characters who were pretty much exactly that. I've seen a level 10 paladin quite literally take on seven stone giants all by himself and not only did he win, he did so effortlessly and with barely a scratch on him. I've seen a Fighter take on a horde of orcs and drive them back. And when I say "horde" I'm not talking about a number in the double digits anymore. I've seen a party of adventurers challenge a god and win.

 

[Storminator]

I don't know about your AD&D experiences, but I've seen high level characters who were pretty much exactly that. I've seen a level 10 paladin quite literally take on seven stone giants all by himself and not only did he win, he did so effortlessly and with barely a scratch on him. I've seen a Fighter take on a horde of orcs and drive them back. And when I say "horde" I'm not talking about a number in the double digits anymore. I've seen a party of adventurers challenge a god and win.

I remember from my 1e days "kill the hell hounds! Fire giants can't hurt us."

PS

 

[TerraDave]

Balance is an old issue. You certainly have it in point buy and or ad/disad based systems where charop can really go wild, and you could have huge disparities in builds. I think these games where the pioneer in this area, with D&D catching up.

And of course, there is RIFTS.

 

[Iosue]

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 games have edition wars over cosmetic issues. oWOD vs nWOD. B/X Errol Otus and Souvenir font vs BECMI Larry Elmore and Baskerville. The rules and design paradigm are essentially the same, barring a few subsystems. On the whole, early material is compatible with later material. In most cases, it truly is a case of "ze game remains ze same." People don't argue about the existential stuff because they all basically agree with the essential form of the game, which doesn't really change.

WotC chose in 2000 to rebuild the game from the ground up with a new design paradigm, did it again in 2008, and are doing it again now in 2014. Each time they did they brought in different types of gamers who want different things from their games. So, in broad strokes, TSR-D&D folks and 3e folks largely disagree with 4e folks about the degree of necessity for tight math and balance. 3e and 4e folks largely disagree with TSR-D&D folks over the primacy of rules vs. DM. TSR-D&D and 4e folks disagree with 3e folks over the degree to which rules should act as physics simulators. Because WotC has chosen to make each edition a relatively distinct game with a distinct design philosophy, fans of each division are compelled to debate these fundamental issues, rather than the vagaries of Morgan Ironwoof vs. Aleena, or whether demons should be called demons or tanar'ri.

 

[Bluenose]

Most games have edition wars over cosmetic issues. oWOD vs nWOD. B/X Errol Otus and Souvenir font vs BECMI Larry Elmore and Baskerville. The rules and design paradigm are essentially the same, barring a few subsystems. On the whole, early material is compatible with later material. In most cases, it truly is a case of "ze game remains ze same." People don't argue about the existential stuff because they all basically agree with the essential form of the game, which doesn't really change.

WotC chose in 2000 to rebuild the game from the ground up with a new design paradigm, did it again in 2008, and are doing it again now in 2014. Each time they did they brought in different types of gamers who want different things from their games. So, in broad strokes, TSR-D&D folks and 3e folks largely disagree with 4e folks about the degree of necessity for tight math and balance. 3e and 4e folks largely disagree with TSR-D&D folks over the primacy of rules vs. DM. TSR-D&D and 4e folks disagree with 3e folks over the degree to which rules should act as physics simulators. Because WotC has chosen to make each edition a relatively distinct game with a distinct design philosophy, fans of each division are compelled to debate these fundamental issues, rather than the vagaries of Morgan Ironwoof vs. Aleena, or whether demons should be called demons or tanar'ri.

It's not the only game where this is true. Indeed the most vicious flame war I was ever involved in, which I saw come to blows in a game store, wasn't anything to do with D&D at all. A combination of big mechanical changes to the rules, and a large change to the default setting with it's decade+ of development. People are still angry about it today.