[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Henry]

And, yeah, Henry, I probably violated the Cavalier's code nine ways from Sunday.

*fondly* Ahhh, didn't we all?

However, the point still remains, can you show me a single book from WOTC that has grossly violated game balance anywhere near to the level that Unearthed Arcana did? Hrm, let's give fighters +3 to hit and damage and an extra attack, all at first level.

To be fair, they needed that one - I equate that to be similar to the high level fighter feats in Player's Handbook II, because compared to Rangers, Paladins, et. al. even before the UA, they were looking pretty weak compared to their kin - although there were fewer of their kin, if the ability score requirements were strictly followed, but the big shift in the early 80's was, you get to play the class and race you WANT to play, rather than what the dice dealt you.

 

[SmokestackJones]

If you have nothing constructive to say, adding snarky quotes isn't going to help.
-Pielorinho

 

[MerricB]

But it's quite different, because that +3 to hit and damage kicked in at level 1, when Fighters were already the strongest class. Fighters needed a boost at high levels, not at 1st.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

It's also interesting that many of the detractors of pre-3.X editions seem to focus purely on 1E; 2E actually streamlined a lot of the rules from 1E, while still managing not to be too vastly different... As with 3.X, the main pitfalls of 2E seemed to occur from an endless series of splat books, up to and including the "2.5E" Players Options books - the precursors to 3E.

Hmm. You'd be hard-pressed to really compare the balance of the supplements to 3e with the balance of the supplements to 2e. The 2e supplements show, if anything, why the balance considerations in 3e and the unified system needed to be made.

In many cases, the balance of a 2e supplement showed no relation to the base game. The Complete Priest's Handbook is generally the example I use of this: the CPH provided a new system that made clerics substantially weaker than that in the Player's Handbook. It even admits that in the book. Huh?

The big improvements 2e made to the system did come in the core rules. I'm generally admiring of them, especially what they did to initiative and surprise. However, the framework wasn't really made for the options then layered onto it in the supplements.

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

Seriously, don't try to answer these questions from memory. I have the AD&D books open in front of me, and the answers aren't obvious.

I'll concede that point, I haven't cracked open the 1E rulebooks in well over a decade - I must be getting mixed up with some of the 2E rules.

Old age will do that to you.

 

[Thurbane]

Hmm. You'd be hard-pressed to really compare the balance of the supplements to 3e with the balance of the supplements to 2e. The 2e supplements show, if anything, why the balance considerations in 3e and the unified system needed to be made.

I can see your point, but I'm afraid that even in 3.5 there are still plenty of race/class/PrC/feat combos that when drawn together from enough non-core WotC supplements, create totally unbalanced characters (I hate the term "broken", but it may be appropriate).

Simple fact is that now, as in 2E, when you layer on enough extra options for players, some will undoubtedly find a way to combine them that was never the intent of the original authors. Check out some of the Frankenstein creations lurking in the WotC Character Optimization boards.

But yes, this isn't a problem new to 3.X, it has been in D&D (and most other RPGs) for a long time.

 

[Psion]

I can see your point, but I'm afraid that even in 3.5 there are still plenty of race/class/PrC/feat combos that when drawn together from enough non-core WotC supplements, create totally unbalanced characters (I hate the term "broken", but it may be appropriate).

Yep.

When you have a rules set as big as that of official D&D products, it's sort of unavoidable. That's why I say DMs need to "take charge of [their] game"!

 

[MerricB]

I can see your point, but I'm afraid that even in 3.5 there are still plenty of race/class/PrC/feat combos that when drawn together from enough non-core WotC supplements, create totally unbalanced characters (I hate the term "broken", but it may be appropriate).

There is a striking difference, however. In 3e, feats and abilities from many different sources can combine in frightening ways, but the supplements by themselves are mostly balanced against the basic game. In 2e, a single supplement isn't necessarily balanced against the basic game!

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

There is a striking difference, however. In 3e, feats and abilities from many different sources can combine in frightening ways, but the supplements by themselves are mostly balanced against the basic game. In 2e, a single supplement isn't necessarily balanced against the basic game!

Cheers!

Really? Could you give an example, as I can't readily think of a supplement that didn't at least attempt to be balanced against the basic game...although Complete Psionics Handbook came close

 

[MerricB]

Really? Could you give an example, as I can't readily think of a supplement that didn't at least attempt to be balanced against the basic game...although Complete Psionics Handbook came close

Complete Priest's Handbook. (It even says so in the book). I know a lot of people are suspicious of the Complete Elf as well.

Cheers!