Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Beginning of the End]

But it is also incontrovertible fact that the CR system was not designed so that every single encounter could have an EL equal to the party's average level.

How is it a fact that the CR system was not designed for that reason? The DMG actually tells you the percentage of EL you should use against a party in an average adventure. The numbers escape me right now, but it was something like 50% should be EL=APL, 30% should be EL=APL+1, 15% should be APL+2 and 5% should be APL+3 or higher.

Seriously...?

I mean, you're clearly aware that not all encounters should have an EL equal to the party's average level. You've even gone so far as to half-heartedly cite some of the relevant passages from the DMG.

And yet you're still asking me how it's a "fact"?

Because, as you yourself point out, even under the strictest interpretation of the rules from the DMG, the CR system was never designed so that all encounters would have an EL equal to the average party level. Period.

The citation you're looking for, BTW, is Table 3-2 on pg. 49 of the DMG.

But to interpret even this table as the "one true way" of encounter design espoused by the DMG is to take it out of context, because on page 48 of the 3.5 DMG we read: "If you decide to use only status quo encounters [...] some of the encounters you place in your adventure setting will be an appropriate challenge for the PCs, but others might not be. For instance, you could decide where the dragon's lair is long before the characters are experienced enough to survive a fight against the dragon." (emphasis added)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In my experience, older editions (OD&D/1E/2E) were very unbalanced in theory but ended up having much better balance in practice. 3E/3.5E made a serious attempt at being balanced in theory, but ended up being very unbalanced in practice.

 

[NewJeffCT]

In my experience, older editions (OD&D/1E/2E) were very unbalanced in theory but ended up having much better balance in practice. 3E/3.5E made a serious attempt at being balanced in theory, but ended up being very unbalanced in practice.

I found just the opposite with the older editions - PCs were unbalanced as written. You were just more powerful out of the box if you chose non-human races and multi-classed. What made it fun was that we were younger and didn't care so much about fairness - and, we all knew D&D because we had grown up playing it.

And, because we knew 1E/2E so well, it was easier for the DM to accommodate the wildly divergent power levels in game. As I stated earlier, witout magic items, the multi-class elves (or dwarves) were far more powerful than straight classed humans with the same overall XP. The DM would need to give the weaker characters special situations in order to level the playing field - be it special encoutners, extra magic items, etc. However, even then, the better race/class combos still excelled at the table.

With 3E/3.5E, I found characters to be more reasonably balanced than prior editions, both in theory and in practice. I was involved in two long term campaigns – one with 3E, and one with 3.5. The 3E campaign was as a player, while 3.5 was as DM. There really was nobody that took a backseat to the rest of the group in terms of how powerful their characters were in game. Sure, there were situations where somebody did not do well for a particular encounter, but over the course of the campaign, everybody was in the ballpark in terms of overall power level.

Where 3E and 3.5 have problems is when somebody would try to build a character towards a particular prestige class or special class or template or whatnot. Then, things can get unbalanced quickly. But, you could have had similar in 2E with kits instead of prestige classes (elf bladesinger anybody?)
3.5 was also a ton of work for me as a DM – part of which I spent making sure each PC would have their moments to shine

I have not played or DM’d 4E enough to comment enough on it, other than saying it seems much easier to DM than 3.5.

 

[S'mon]

With 3E/3.5E, I found characters to be more reasonably balanced than prior editions, both in theory and in practice.

You think a 3.5 Cleric-15 is balanced vs a Fighter-15? A Druid-10 vs a Fighter-10? A Wizard-17 vs a Fighter-17?

 

[NewJeffCT]

You think a 3.5 Cleric-15 is balanced vs a Fighter-15? A Druid-10 vs a Fighter-10? A Wizard-17 vs a Fighter-17?

It certainly played out that way at the table, both when I was a player and when I was a DM. The only problem I found was in the mid levels (8-12 or so), the party psion kind of stood out in certain situations, but that subsided after that stretch.

The 10 players that were in the group where I was a player for 3E were almost all there from 1E/2E days as wel and the group certainly found the characters in 3E to be more balanced than prior editions. I don't think the group suddenly matured and grew innate senses of balance and fairness.

The players I DM'd for my 3.5 campaign were all new as well. So, it wasn't like they were the same players.

And, a 1E rogue 17 (or rogue 18, 19 or 20 for that matter) can't hold a candle to a 1E wizard 17, or even a 1E wizard 15.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I found just the opposite with the older editions - PCs were unbalanced as written. You were just more powerful out of the box if you chose non-human races and multi-classed. What made it fun was that we were younger and didn't care so much about fairness - and, we all knew D&D because we had grown up playing it.

And, because we knew 1E/2E so well, it was easier for the DM to accommodate the wildly divergent power levels in game. As I stated earlier, witout magic items, the multi-class elves (or dwarves) were far more powerful than straight classed humans with the same overall XP. The DM would need to give the weaker characters special situations in order to level the playing field - be it special encoutners, extra magic items, etc. However, even then, the better race/class combos still excelled at the table.

While this is true to some extent, the difference between power levels really wasn't that big, especially compared to 3.5E shenanigans. Mulitclassing was good, but I never found it gamebreaking, at least not to 3.5E levels of gamebreaking. An older editions multiclass is far less gamebreaking than an optimized 3.5E Wizard or Druid.

With 3E/3.5E, I found characters to be more reasonably balanced than prior editions, both in theory and in practice. I was involved in two long term campaigns – one with 3E, and one with 3.5. The 3E campaign was as a player, while 3.5 was as DM. There really was nobody that took a backseat to the rest of the group in terms of how powerful their characters were in game. Sure, there were situations where somebody did not do well for a particular encounter, but over the course of the campaign, everybody was in the ballpark in terms of overall power level.

Your experiences are far from typical.

Where 3E and 3.5 have problems is when somebody would try to build a character towards a particular prestige class or special class or template or whatnot. Then, things can get unbalanced quickly. But, you could have had similar in 2E with kits instead of prestige classes (elf bladesinger anybody?)
3.5 was also a ton of work for me as a DM – part of which I spent making sure each PC would have their moments to shine

I have not played or DM’d 4E enough to comment enough on it, other than saying it seems much easier to DM than 3.5.

In 3E/3.5E, building towards a particular prestige class or whatever is a core concept of the game. If playing towards one of the core concepts of the game causes problems in balance, the game has problems with balance. Playing the game in opposition to its design by gentleman's agreement does not make the design any less flawed.

If playing a vanilla Druid to the best of your ability unbalances the game, the game has a problem with balance.

 

[Hussar]

You think a 3.5 Cleric-15 is balanced vs a Fighter-15? A Druid-10 vs a Fighter-10? A Wizard-17 vs a Fighter-17?

Name an edition of D&D where that wasn't true. That's hardly a 3e issue.

Caster vs non-caster has always been problematic. 1st level wizard with sleep wins against anything a 1st level character could reasonably face. Granted, he only wins once, and then he automatically loses. The 1st level fighter might win or he might lose, depending on a lot of factors.

This is balanced? One first level character auto-wins one encounter of his choice and then (pretty much) loses any other encounter, vs a character that might or might not win vs any reasonable encounter.

I have to admit that my experiences are far closer to NewJeffCT's. AD&D was unbalanced out of the gate, and, if the campaign lasted long enough, you moved from the Monster Manual to the Dieties and Demigods to get a reasonable challenge for your players. 3e, by and large, was balanced.

Can you unbalance a balanced system? Of course you can. It's generally not all that difficult. But, trying to balance an unbalanced system means the DM has to be aware of how to fix problems all the time. And if he makes a few mistakes, the campaign goes into a tailspin.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In 3E/3.5E, building towards a particular prestige class or whatever is a core concept of the game.

I don't think this is true (or at least it certainly didn't start out as true). As you remember, 3.0e introduced prestige classes in the DMG as optional choices that a DM might want to introduce into his campaign to give extra campaign specific flavour and options.

Now, to my mind it is unfortunate that WotC went hog-wild in producing hundreds of 'prestige classes' which became seen as player focused PC powerup options.

It certainly became a problem with balance when people cherry-picked their way through certain prestige classes (as NewJeffCT said), and the problem existed because of what prestige classes eventually became... but I don't think that they were (or were intended to be) a core concept of the game. The last 3e campaign I played in went from 1st to 20th level without any prestige classes; it was core rules (phb, dmg) + psionics only, no prestige classes allowed. I would say that core concepts of the game couldn't be ommitted - feats, skills, multiclassing etc.

Cheers

 

[Raven Crowking]

1st level wizard with sleep wins against anything a 1st level character could reasonably face.

1st level elf thief. Just saying.

Or anything that sneaks up on him. Or beats his initiative with a ranged weapon, or in melee range.

Frankly, if you think a 1st level wizard with sleep can autowin any single 1st-level encounter, your 1st-level wizards would probably drop like flies in any 1e game I have ever played. There is no auto-win button! Playing like there is will not ensure character survival.

1e didn't assume that 1st level characters should be out adventuring alone, however, or facing each other one-on-one in an arena somewhere. The dynamic is not based on a single encounter, but what can be done over the course of an adventure or a play session -- keeping in mind resource tracking (including the time to memorize spells in 1e, which isn't just a little bit, and tracking ammunition for missile weapons).

I've played every class in 1e except the bard, and they all contributed. I found them all fun to play. I didn't have any balance issues with any of them -- even with UA, although I stuck to the 4d6, arrange as desired method, as both player and DM, which might have helped to curb that book's excesses. Certainly, my DMs had no problems challenging me -- lethally, even! -- if I went too deep, picked the wrong battle, or my hubris got the better of me.

Part of the reason that 1e balances well, when played as intended, is that the players are choosing the balance. They decide what risks they can take, and they decide which player characters adventure together. They can choose to play it safe, taking easy victories for small rewards, or they can risk more in hopes of getting more. Obnoxious players or overpowered characters simply are not invited on an expedition -- the players, not the DM, make this determination.....Although the DM, too, has a say!

The more risks the characters take -- and survive -- the more they grow, so more active characters do better overall. You can bumble about with 15-minute adventuring days, if you like, but your friends will soon pass you by.

The farther you go from the core assumptions, though, the harder it is to balance the game. Likewise for all games, I suspect. 3e is certainly easier to balance when you plan the encounters based on APL, when the party hits the standard wealth, and is of standard size.

It is also easier to balance a game with a shallower power curve than a steep one. The steeper the curve, the more impact small changes will have.

All IMHO and IME, of course.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

When comparing pre- 3X editions to older editions lets remember a few facts about balance.

1) The older editions never claimed to be balanced out of the box, especially combat balanced between PC's.

2) The game rules instructed the DM to consider game balance before permitting new material in the game.

3) Combat was not the only assumed measure of balance.

4) Any RPG system that claims to be balanced out of the box will become the proverbial gauntlet thrown down before powergamers and rules lawyers everywhere. It WILL fail sooner or later. This cycle just becomes the RPG version of the malware/antivirus escalation which is endless.

5) Looking at older systems and expecting to see the types of balance concerns that preoccupy the minds of so many players today is pointless madness.

6) A game with rules written to be played with and interpreted by people is best balanced by those people. Such balance is fluid, flexible and much harder to hack than RAW code.