D&D Problems

[Aenghus]

In OD&D and AD&D 1E melee combat was an abstract chaotic event. One couldn't choose specific targets. Targets were selectable for missile fire only. Thus what was "protecting" the squishy magic user in melee combat was pure luck. <snip>

1) More fighters means an actual physical barrier between enemies and the magic user. To be considered a possible target, the enemy must be able to reach the magic user.

2) Simple odds. If you have one fighter protecting the magic user and enemies can reach you then the magic user has a 50% chance of being the target. If you have four fighters doing the same then the chances go down to 20%.

The reason for large parties of mercenaries should now be readily apparent.

Interesting. Since I live in Ireland, the playstyle here evolved directly from the rulebooks, without reference to unspoken elements of the intended playstyle. Therefore, my early experiences of 1e gravitated away from "mercenary band" to "small adventuring party of equals" from the very start, which was more in keeping with the inspirational novels and the illustrations used. Attempts to use wardogs, hirelings etc were discouraged by making them ineffective or just wiping them out.

Enemies often came in large numbers and were assigned to attack the party evenly, barring a convenient battle-line or dungeon bottleneck. Dungeoneering was safer than being in the open, which reflects their separate treatment at the time.

 

[billd91]

Interesting. Since I live in Ireland, the playstyle here evolved directly from the rulebooks, without reference to unspoken elements of the intended playstyle. Therefore, my early experiences of 1e gravitated away from "mercenary band" to "small adventuring party of equals" from the very start, which was more in keeping with the inspirational novels and the illustrations used. Attempts to use wardogs, hirelings etc were discouraged by making them ineffective or just wiping them out.

Don't worry about it. That was the predominant play style of 1e AD&D here in the US too.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually for me it's the complete Fighter that I usually turn to for a prime example of why balance matters.

The style specialization rules made two weapon fighting just so much better than sword and board or two handed weapon that after we introduced the book every single character who could (which is most since clerics could style specialize as well) always did it. After that point across multiple groups and a couple of countries I never saw single weapon fighters again.

We could certainly quibble over details here, but even if we assume this was embraced at every table and implemented as you say, I think it doesn't come close to approaching the balance issues you find in 3E with class dipping and feat combos. Two weapon fighting was a known issue in the game, like specializing in darts. It was pretty easy to work around or just accept. At the time, everyone wanted to be a twin blade wielding loner because of the drizzt books. But to be honest, i didn't see it that much in groups after the first year or so. With the complete books you have a lot of optional rules that are very much an "incorprate at your own risk" type of thing, plus some questionable changes (like extending specialization to paladins and rangers). But the kits were so easy to control. Most just gave you NWPs and circumstantial bonuses. Those that were busted you simply didn't allow. But kits were something you layered on your class, they were not like the prestige classes or new classes in thelater complete books, where you had players combining them to really unexpected results. With 2E the balance issues that existed were known, there just wasn't that level of surprise you bumped into again and again in 3E (and i do like 3E, it just has more balance issues to juggle).

Another key difference between the 2E complete books and 3E complete books is the ratio of flavor to crunch. The 2E books offered some mechanics, but the kit entries were mainly about character ideas and text explaining the concept. That is why the complete Bard was so popular and still highly regarded among 2E players. No one really cares about the kit bonuses, they like it because it has all kinds of useful infomation about bards and being a Bard. Heck, if you are only going to buy one complete book for 2E, it should be the Bard book IMO because it can add a lot to the game.

I have been useing the 2E system for time again, including the class complete books. It has been way easier to manage than 3E in terms of balance. 3E has lots of advantages though. It is a lot more customizeable. So when I did my wuxia campaign, i used third edition because it was was a btter fit for the genre and had way more mechanical options for turning martial characters into wanderin martial heroes like you see in the Condor series.

I am in no way saying 2E is perfect. It isn't. And 4e is definitely more balanced than 3E or 2E, but 2E is pretty well balanced and still gives me a lot of what I want. The kind of balance achieved in 4E just isn't what I am looking for. I find between 2E and 3E (and occassionally 1E) I can get what I need for a gameof D&D. I go to 3E for its flexibility and unified mechanics, but go to 2E for the level of balance and th flavor.

 

[Storminator]

In OD&D and AD&D 1E melee combat was an abstract chaotic event. One couldn't choose specific targets. Targets were selectable for missile fire only.

I'm pretty sure that's backwards, at least for 1e. I just read the rules last night. There's nary a word about picking targets for melee attacks, but there are for missile fire into melee. Presumably when using missile fire against targets that aren't in melee you can target as well.

PS

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm pretty sure that's backwards, at least for 1e. I just read the rules last night. There's nary a word about picking targets for melee attacks, but there are for missile fire into melee. Presumably when using missile fire against targets that aren't in melee you can target as well.

PS

I presume your reading of the rules included page 70 of the DMG? An excerpt:

Who Attacks Whom:As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific
opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random
number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents,
remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made
upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able
to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will
remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break
off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to
melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to
assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which
their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed
Note that intelligent NPCs and similar opponents can choose to single out opponents and specifically target casters which makes them much more dangerous than just thier statistics may indicate.

 

[billd91]

Another key difference between the 2E complete books and 3E complete books is the ratio of flavor to crunch. The 2E books offered some mechanics, but the kit entries were mainly about character ideas and text explaining the concept. That is why the complete Bard was so popular and still highly regarded among 2E players. No one really cares about the kit bonuses, they like it because it has all kinds of useful infomation about bards and being a Bard. Heck, if you are only going to buy one complete book for 2E, it should be the Bard book IMO because it can add a lot to the game.

The Complete Bard Handbook did offer lots of juicy information... but the kit bonuses also went a long way toward taking a weak class and making it not suck. I think those really do have to be considered when looking at the historical popularity of the book. Lots of useful info and useful fixes to make bards work better.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The Complete Bard Handbook did offer lots of juicy information... but the kit bonuses also went a long way toward taking a weak class and making it not suck. I think those really do have to be considered when looking at the historical popularity of the book. Lots of useful info and useful fixes to make bards work better.

I can only speak to my own experience, but with my group the complete bard was something people used mainly for the flavor. I did see kits but i also saw lots of straight up bards (because kits did usually come with hindrances). Part of this may have been that min-max was frowned upon more in the 90s. Might also just have been my group. I know for me the main draw was the useful information on bards. The kits could be cool as well,mbut they were not the main attraction for me. That said, yes there were still guys back then who tried to squeeze as many bonuses onto the sheet as possible and made choices based purely on mix-max over creating an organic character. I don't want to paint it like it was a perfect system or anything. It wasn't. But it felt about right to me balance wise. There were certainly broken or potentially broken mechanics in those books. I simply found they were easier to identify before the became a problem in 2E, where you read it and knew right away it would create imbalance in a campaign. Whereas with the 3E books, if you didn't know to follow the optimization boards, you wonld duscover the imbalances after the fact. I think it was just largely a side effect of 3E's strength: flexibility. Multiclassing was easy and allowed you do to so many things. That hadn't existed in that way in previous editions.

Interestingly for how much people point to bards as a bad option in 2E, they were one of the most popular classes in the games i was in.

 

[Storminator]

I presume your reading of the rules included page 70 of the DMG? An excerpt:

Who Attacks Whom:As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific
opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random
number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents,
remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made
upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able
to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will
remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break
off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to
melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to
assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which
their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed
Note that intelligent NPCs and similar opponents can choose to single out opponents and specifically target casters which makes them much more dangerous than just thier statistics may indicate.

I looked in the DMG, but didn't see that paragraph. Hmmmm. I've never seen it played that way.

PS

 

[billd91]

I looked in the DMG, but didn't see that paragraph. Hmmmm. I've never seen it played that way.

PS

I think it bears keeping in mind that there's virtually no way the PCs can be kept from singling out opponents.

 

[Storminator]

I think it bears keeping in mind that there's virtually no way the PCs can be kept from singling out opponents.

If three enemies are in a line across the hallway, and you apply that rule, wouldn't that make it a mass melee and then you're rolling randomly? Similarly, how would PCs prevent enemies from singling out PCs?

PS