Game Balance - A Study in Imperfection (forked)

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not sure this is true about 4e though...

While the 1st level adventurer in 4e is beating the stuffing out of the "rabble", against expected human opponents such as town guards, pirates, bandits, he's decidely facing an uphill battle.

My impression of pre 4e was that the "DEFAULT" situation was that the vast majority of the rest of the world were 0-1hd (in the 2e Monstrous Manual, under human, only the Knight entry actually has 2 HD)

The human berserker in 4e for example is a 4th level "monster" whereas in the 2e entry for human berserker, it's listed as a 1 HD "monster".

PCs aren't automatically more powerful than the rest of their "race" I think in 4e is one of the differences between editions.....

What 4E got rid of was the "common man standard" measuring stick for threat determination. In earlier editions the bulk of the population was considered to be "normal men" and thus you could see how tough an ogre or giant was by comparing one to a typical man.

4E has no typical man and an ogre or giant has no effective standard threat level.

" Holy crap, run it's an ogre!"
" Why? It's just a minion."
"Maybe to you!!"

 

[Bluenose]

It's something of a stylistic difference, in that some people prefer for PC's to be professional kill-things-and-take-their-stuff-ologists ("I'm workin on my PHD in orc stabbin'!"), and others prefer for PC's to be Joseph Campbellesque, Narrative-trope-ridden Unexpected Heroes a la Bilbo, Frodo, Luke, Harry, et al ("Golly, I didn't know about other planes, Gandalf/Obi-wan/Hagrid!").

4e is squarely on the side of the card-carrying adventurer, and most earlier editions at the very least skewed heavily in that direction (3e maybe came closest to modeling the farmboy paladin PC with the NPC classes and Profession skills).

Bilbo travelled with one of just five wizards in the world and a band of dwarf warriors including an exiled king. Frodo spent the first part of his travels running away before he and his friends met yet another king-in-exile and then fell in with another band of hard cases. Luke and Harry inherit special powers and spend a fair bit of time with more powerful mentors who teach them to use those powers. Campbellian 'Heroes with a Thousand Faces' rarely get thrown straight in the deep end. Whether that's the case in a D&D campaign is another matter, but everyone starting a campaign at first level seems to be normal.

And one other thing I've got a personal peeve about, D&D Fighters are not farmboys who sold their plough and bought a sword and shield. They've got to be trained, at least at the level of a Roman legionary, a young knight or senior squire, a novice samurai or ghilman, etc. That's not something you pick up in a week. Think how long basic training lasts for modern soldiers, and then consider that D&D fighters are skilled with multiple weapons and armour types and often a lot of other things.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And one other thing I've got a personal peeve about, D&D Fighters are not farmboys who sold their plough and bought a sword and shield

In your campaigns, perhaps, every PC uses every bit of the text included in the class description, but its not required.

One of my favorite Paladins I ever played was fresh from the mason's job in a fishing village she (yes she!) left for campaign reasons. Despite Paladins having a host of martial skills, for character & campaign reasons, she knew only various hammers & peasant weaponry- albeit some in more martial forms- and low-quality armor. There was no reason this PC would be familiar with swords or high-quality armor...and MANY reasons why she would not- indeed, COULD not- be.

She literally was a jumped-up peasant...and she worked out wonderfully.

 

[Fifth Element]

In your campaigns, perhaps, every PC uses every bit of the text included in the class description, but its not required.

In every edition of the game, 1st-level fighters are noticeably better mechanically than 0-level peasants. They are not the same, mechanically.

Which does not preclude the possibility of playing a character as if he just began his adventuring career yesterday, as your example illustrates. But the default assumption that many put forth, that in D&D characters are supposed to start out no better than dirt farmers, is unsupportable.

 

[ST]

Counterpoint: a 1st level fighter and a 0th level peasant can both die in a couple of rounds of combat against an orc with a battleaxe, which is also traditionally a 1 HD monster. You're right that relative to each other the fighter is much more powerful, but it's no slam-dunk rebuttal when you compare either to things that PCs might actually fight in a dungeon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, its more a question of how one interprets the mechanics for a particular PC.

its clear, for instance, that a 1st level Wizard has had some kind of education. But is he self taught- having found an old book of spells and started experimenting- or does he have formal training- he was apprenticed to a mighty Mage (or at least, someone who is willing to take on an apprentice) and has finally struck out on his own?

Is the 1st level fighter a trained warrior with a campaign or 2 under his belt, or is he a farmboy in a culture in which ALL the young men are part of the miitia (and he's a bit better than most), or is he the farmboy who happens to be unusually gifted, or is he a farmboy who got some training from his Uncle who lost a leg in the 3rd war of the Grassy Plains?

IOW, the 1st level PC IS more capable than Joe Commoner in every edition of D&D. By how much varies from edition to edition and campaign setting to campaign setting.

And the reason WHY is left up to the player and the internal logic of the campaign world in which the PC is to operate.

 

[Ariosto]

no rogue - he was replaced with a wand of knock spells, which tells one something about a rogue's utility in D&D

Not really. It would say about as much as the replacement of a magic-user with a wand of magic missiles -- if I had relevant information about this "wand of knock spells" (which is not a standard item in the 1E DMG).

There is a wand of secret door and trap location. If one were able to find one for sale, then it might or might not be worth the purchase. It depends upon one's circumstances.

However, such a wand is probably not a potential player-character! One can spend so much gold, and have the wand. Or, one can gain so much gold as a thief, enough XP to attain 6th level or higher (or about a level lower if a henchman) -- and have the full range of thief functions and the gold to spend.

"It depends upon one's circumstances" is really the bottom line.

combat would've taken far too long and would've become tedious

YMMV, but in my experience it's "45 minutes tops" (epic battle) in TSR-D&D versus "45 minutes average, 30 minutes minimum" (call this a scrap?) in WotC-D&D.

There was a desire to make combats the spice, not the main course, of a session.

One might start by passing up ToEE, which I have never seen as anything but a slog of one fight after another.

Look, the game was designed for players with freedom of choice. If the fighters and the magic-user are all your own figures, then play them (or not) however you please. If you want to field a gang of thieves, then do that and pursue enterprises suited to the gang's interests.

If unloading spells in one big shot works for you, then work it. If you're having fun with the all-cleric party that "nobody expects", then rock on. It's not going to be a sure answer to every problem, so choose your problems wisely.

In old D&D, big, bad Wizards start out as mere Mediums or Prestidigitators with but a single spell to unleash. Throughout their careers, they are dangerous above all to each other. Even non-spellcasters, moreover, tend to value their lives enough to "do unto the m-u before he does unto you!" They are, like thieves, more vulnerable than other classes to poison (especially in AD&D, at least 1E). Although magical means can speed fighters' recovery of HP, only time suffices for spells. In 1E, it takes a 12th-level wizard 24.5 hours -- more than a full day -- to recover what in other versions is a "daily" allotment. That assumes a straight 16.5 hours of work without a break, which is pushing it. It would be a stretch to go any longer without a rest of at least 4 hours.

It's a long way to such lofty status. Even then, a failed save versus an 8-dice lightning bolt (castable by a mere warlock with less than 1/8 the experience) is likely to come at least very close to killing our mighty magician at his or her fresh-as-a-daisy best. A failed save, barring a bonus, happens more than 1/3 of the time.

Oh, and no crossbow -- per the PHB, just dagger, dart and staff. UA adds knife, sling and caltrop. I'm not sure how weapon proficiency is supposed to apply to caltrops. A -5 non-proficiency penalty would make a crossbow a pretty poor choice.

Now, if one actually plays a character as a character, pursuing her or his own career from low levels to (with luck) high, a life that involves interests besides killing things, then the choices may be different than if one is simply putting together pawns of a certain level for a combat-game scenario.