Game Balance - A Study in Imperfection (forked)

[Quartz]

To me, it seemed that 3E was screwed by the modules. The system was designed so you could - and should - pick a few levels of this, a few levels of that, and a few levels of the other. And woe betide the spellcaster who lost a level or two of spellcasting advancement. But the adventures all assumed that you were single-classed characters of the appropriate level.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Good point.

I never had a problem in homebrewed campaigns when I or someone else ran a multiclassed spellcaster. When we went through modules, however, some issues did pop up.

We're currently running through a module as part of an ongoing campaign, and my Clc/Sorc/Geomancer/M-T is the highest level divine caster in the group. I can heal like nobody's business, and I've got a LOT of spells at my disposal...

But I can't Turn Undead worth a darn.

Eh...it keeps everything interesting for everyone.

 

[Crothian]

To me, it seemed that 3E was screwed by the modules. The system was designed so you could - and should - pick a few levels of this, a few levels of that, and a few levels of the other. And woe betide the spellcaster who lost a level or two of spellcasting advancement. But the adventures all assumed that you were single-classed characters of the appropriate level.

In what way was this assumption in modules?

 

[MerricB]

You know...I'm actually wondering about something more and more....

WERE you supposed to play/have only 1 character?

Read Gary's posts on his campaign and Old Geezer musings/memoirs at rpg.net. It seemed like everyone in Gary's personal campaign was playing multiple characters.

I believe there were a bunch of assumptions about early play that aren't quite true - if they ever were for most players: you can see from the description of time tracking in the campaign that it's expected that people won't always play at the same time, and the campaign will run on a near-daily basis.

If you're playing so often, then character death isn't so important for those first few games. (And once you reach higher levels, you aren't so likely to die or can work around it with wishes and resurrection magic).

Compare to a group that meets 1/fortnight; dying as a 1st level PC is far more significant.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

In what way was this assumption in modules?

I don't think it was universal, but there were threats that assumed you had particular spells. You also needed the right party composition. Anything that drained ability scores is at the top of my list for "I'm annoying" since only clerics of a certain level could deal with it; no druids or bards need apply.

Other unusual non-hit point damage (petrification) also applied.

Cheers!

 

[Nifft]

In what way was this assumption in modules?

I don't think it was universal, but there were threats that assumed you had particular spells. You also needed the right party composition. Anything that drained ability scores is at the top of my list for "I'm annoying" since only clerics of a certain level could deal with it; no druids or bards need apply.

Very true.

Aside from that, though, it seemed to me that many modules -- especially late "Adventure Path" modules -- assumed a certain degree of optimization. They didn't just ask for 12th level PCs, they demanded PCs who spent those 12 levels focused coherently on becoming a badass.

- - -

On this subject, 3e made it kinda hard to tell at first which character "builds" would result in broken badassery, and which would result in lukewarm lameness. For example, when 3.5e came out I recall thinking -- along with quite a lot of other people -- "ZOMG, the Mystic Theurge is broken! Dual spellcasting progression?! What the heck were they smoking?" -- and eventually doing the math & realizing that it would actually be on the weak side.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Just goes to show: the desire to play cool concepts (including "rare" classes like Paladin) will tend to corrode Balance by Rarity.

Depending upon system.

Sometimes. More often, IME, it depended on how much the DM was willing to stand up to his friends.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one around here who played early editions as an adolescent, with adolescents.

 

[Nifft]

Sometimes. More often, IME, it depended on how much the DM was willing to stand up to his friends.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one around here who played early editions as an adolescent, with adolescents.

Yep yep.

Social pressure can subvert some balance mechanisms more easily than others. Rarity is relatively easy to subvert!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ariosto]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one around here who played early editions as an adolescent, with adolescents.

I was introduced to the original game at the age of 10 or 11. I was 12 in 1978, when the Players Handbook hit the scene, and 19 in 1985 when Unearthed Arcana came out.

All along, I played with people ranging from 10 to 20 years old, and older. I don't remember any age having any great difficulty with playing by rules that included not necessarily getting to play a Paladin (or whatever) every time.

I encountered a few bad apples, but that was just a matter of their own character. I preferred to play with friends, and my friends were friends for reasons that included not doing things to each other that "needed to be stood up to".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Aside from that, though, it seemed to me that many modules -- especially late "Adventure Path" modules -- assumed a certain degree of optimization. They didn't just ask for 12th level PCs, they demanded PCs who spent those 12 levels focused coherently on becoming a badass.

And I think that hurt the game overall. It didn't lead to the problem of "accidental suck" by itself, but it certainly exacerbated the problem.

It's also probably one of the reasons 4e characters are comparatively homogeneous. Optimized characters are still within the sweep of given challenges, even if they are at the high end of the curve, and can adventure beside their less-optimized brethren fairly well.

If you don't take Expertise at first level, you aren't necessarily boned in the same way in a 4e module as if you didn't have a fully loaded for bear cleric by 15th level in a given 3e module.

Though, of course, in a game that favors Balance By DM Fiat (where there DM specifically makes challenges to challenge the PC's that are present), this was never a problem, since there's always a challenge that a given PC can't really face up to. I wonder if that mode of balance is generally preferred by active groups, or if there's another kind that gets preferred more often.