Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Imperialus]

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

Which if you think about it, is also how Kits were introduced in 2nd ed. They were flavor options, that a DM may or may not include. DM's really need to cherrypick what they'll allow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's certainly your prerogative. 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. Those using the tool for that, or anything remotely resembling that, are explicitly not using the tool in the way it was meant to be used.

All balance is is information to give to the DM and players. It allows the DM to have a good estimate of what he is throwing at you. Anyone criticising balance as a goal is proposing that the DM shouldn't have a clear idea of the power dynamics of the game world.

It's also impossible unless you take away all player initiative in choosing and building their characters. (And you'd probably have to take away their ability to actually choose the actions they take in combat, too.)

Balance is impossible. So is a frictionless environment. Doesn't mean that engineers don't spend millions working to get as close to a frictionless environment as possible - and with good reason.

And it got closer to your theoretical "ideal" by taking away player choice in character builds.

While at the same time widening the range of possible character concepts - the true advantage of a class based system. The level of detail is less. But there's a lot that I can make easily in 4e that was difficult in 3e (and I was damn good at character optimisation).

 

[Voadam]

Just a point of clarification here: There are magic weapons other than swords in 0e, but swords are special. All magic swords (and only magic swords) in 0e are intelligent weapons.

Page 27: "Among magic weaponry swords alone possess certain human (and superhuman) attributes. Swords have alignment (Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic), an Intelligence factor, and an egoism rating (as well as an optional determination of their origin/purpose)."

The fact that magic swords are the exclusive domain of fighters is supposed to be a major advantage for fighter characters. (Note: Supplement I allows thieves magic swords as well.)

Page 6: "All magical weaponry is usable by fighters, and this in itself is a big advantage."

I think I would often prefer an axe or hammer +1 to a sword +1 with an alignment, intelligence, and ego.

Ego means they can take you over right?

Alignment means it will zap you if you are a different one and try to use them right?

Those are my memories from 1e and basic.

Did they give any special bonus powers the way they did in AD&D?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

Yeah, but the passages do say that they should all be close to the EL of the party. Sure, not equal. But the game was (according to the rules) created so that PCs of Level 8 could take on encounters of EL 8-12 with varying degrees of difficulty, but likely success. The ELs are there so the DM can estimate how much difficulty the party with have with an encounter.

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.

No, but they do say they should be close. I think the difference between all encounters being EXACTLY EL=APL and them being within 4 of the APL is kind of semantics. The point of the EL system was to make encounters "level appropriate", which means not too easy and not too hard and also to help predict how big of a challenge an encounter would be.

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)

Yes, the entirety of the DMG is written this way. There is a rule promptly followed by a sentence or paragraph saying "Oh, and if you don't want to use this rule...you are the DM, you don't have to."

That entire section of the book reads to me as "Here's how to find the difficulty of an encounter. You should use an spread of fairly easy to fairly difficult encounters so that your PCs are challenged and have fun. Here's the percentage we recommend. The monster manual is filled with CRs for monsters to make this process easier for you. Remember, enemies too low level don't even give out XP, and ones too high are so powerful they'll just wipe out your group. which isn't fun for anyone.....oh, and as a side note, you don't have to follow these rules if you really want to use a really easy or really hard encounter...but don't say we didn't warn you."

But to say the EL rules weren't there to help DMs plan out appropriate challenges is kind of silly. If it didn't matter what the power level of an encounter you used in your game, then the EL system wouldn't be needed at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You could give a CR6 Will-o'-Wisp (AC29) levels in monk and sorcerer, for mage armor and shield, and it would have an AC of 40 (more with the elite array) and be CR8. Conveniently the shield spell also covers one of the Wisp's few vulnerabilities - magic missile. OP, you say? If the level 8 PCs aren't packing a scroll of maze for just such an eventuality, they only have themselves to blame!

That's the least of the things you could pull. You could create a monster with a combination of templates and classes that would keeps it's CR very low while giving it a super high AC, immunity to all sorts of things and increase it's power dramatically beyond its own CR.

Adding levels of Monk to various creatures was a common tactic amongst Living Greyhawk authors. Especially enough levels to get evasion. It turns out Oozes with Monk and Sorcerer levels can go from AC 2 to nearly 30 if done right. With the ability to take no damage from a fireball on a save.

The other common trick was to add a level of Warrior to enemies. Since you needed to add at least 2 levels of an NPC class to a monster to increase its CR, but a level of Warrior gave it more hitpoints, and possibly more stats and feats if you added it at the right time.

Another good one was to take enemies with a large number of attacks that had low to hit bonuses and give them the spell from the Spell Compendium that made all their attacks into touch attacks for a round. Preferably by making them Sorcerers so they also got Shield, Mage Armor, and the ability to cast the touch attack spell multiple times.

EDIT: I just realised that the Wisp might be immune to its own shield and mage armor spells, sadly. Unless it can switch its immunity off, a la spell resistance. The text does indicate its immunities are like SR. Hmm, the perplexing mysteries of 3e D&D.

I'm fairly certain that 3.5e said to treat immunities like infinite SR. SR can be turned off at will. So, it could turn it off long enough to cast spells on itself then turn it back on.

 

[Diamond Cross]

1. Fighters(and Paladins/Rangers/ect) completely outclassed other classes at trading hits with big sacks of HP with sharp claws. It wasn't even close.
2. No other class could match the utility of Thief skills
3. Wizards had a clear role as artillery and problem solvers, and their role was important enough and their resources limited enough that they had a responsibility to fill it and not dabble in other people's stuff. In addition, many monsters where heavily and unavoidably resistant to magic.
4. Clerics healed.

This is nonsensical. That;s why they're called classes and each class has a role to play with different skills.

How do you balance the different skills?

Fighters are supposed to dish out the most weapon damage. That's why they're front line people.

Let's at least try to put this into a real world perspective.

Not everybody on a football team can be the quarterback. Not everybody on a football team can be a linebacker. You need linebackers and other defenses to protect the quarterback.

It's also like complaining that a car mechanic is not an electrician nor is like a carpenter. They're all a part of the same team and all have their role to play.
It's not like you have three people on the team doing everything.

A fighter's main ability is to dish out heavy damage through weapons. A magic-user's ability is to dish out heavy damage through spells.

Survivability depends upon how creative a player can get in using those class abilities and skills. It doesn't depend upon making a character or character class an everyman with everybody's skills in one package with all skills or just beef up the skills they do have.

And if that's what gaming is all about, then, you might as well just stop playing.

Games are based on creativity, not having uber stats and skills and having a team of Mary Sues.

 

[Diamond Cross]

1. Fighters(and Paladins/Rangers/ect) completely outclassed other classes at trading hits with big sacks of HP with sharp claws. It wasn't even close.
2. No other class could match the utility of Thief skills
3. Wizards had a clear role as artillery and problem solvers, and their role was important enough and their resources limited enough that they had a responsibility to fill it and not dabble in other people's stuff. In addition, many monsters where heavily and unavoidably resistant to magic.
4. Clerics healed.

This is nonsensical. That;s why they're called classes and each class has a role to play with different skills.

How do you balance the different skills?

Fighters are supposed to dish out the most weapon damage. That's why they're front line people.

Let's at least try to put this into a real world perspective.

Not everybody on a football team can be the quarterback. Not everybody on a football team can be a linebacker. You need linebackers and other defenses to protect the quarterback.

It's also like complaining that a car mechanic is not an electrician nor is like a carpenter. They're all a part of the same team and all have their role to play.

It's not like you have three people on the team doing everything.

A fighter's main ability is to dish out heavy damage through weapons. A magic-user's ability is to dish out heavy damage through spells.

Survivability depends upon how creative a player can get in using those class abilities and skills. It doesn't depend upon making a character or character class an everyman with everybody's skills in one package with all skills or just beef up the skills they do have.

And if that's what gaming is all about, then, you might as well just stop playing.

Games are based on creativity, not having uber stats and skills and having a team of Mary Sues.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, but the passages do say that they should all be close to the EL of the party. Sure, not equal. But the game was (according to the rules) created so that PCs of Level 8 could take on encounters of EL 8-12 with varying degrees of difficulty, but likely success. The ELs are there so the DM can estimate how much difficulty the party with have with an encounter.


No, but they do say they should be close. I think the difference between all encounters being EXACTLY EL=APL and them being within 4 of the APL is kind of semantics. The point of the EL system was to make encounters "level appropriate", which means not too easy and not too hard and also to help predict how big of a challenge an encounter would be.

I do not remember it saying all ELs should be close to APL.

Can someone look up and post the specifics please? I remember the 3.0 DMG suggesting a spread of suggested ELs with most hovering around APL but I remember the high end being very high like APL +5 or so to the point where avoiding/running away/negotiating/super prep should be preferred to straight on fighting.

I remember this being reflected in the second 3.0 AP Forge and Fury having a CR 10 roper in it, in a module designed for 3rd level characters.

I really wish this type of crap was included in the srd.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Adding levels of Monk to various creatures was a common tactic amongst Living Greyhawk authors. Especially enough levels to get evasion. It turns out Oozes with Monk and Sorcerer levels can go from AC 2 to nearly 30 if done right. With the ability to take no damage from a fireball on a save.

The other common trick was to add a level of Warrior to enemies. Since you needed to add at least 2 levels of an NPC class to a monster to increase its CR, but a level of Warrior gave it more hitpoints, and possibly more stats and feats if you added it at the right time.

Another good one was to take enemies with a large number of attacks that had low to hit bonuses and give them the spell from the Spell Compendium that made all their attacks into touch attacks for a round. Preferably by making them Sorcerers so they also got Shield, Mage Armor, and the ability to cast the touch attack spell multiple times.

Interesting stuff. I know that touch attack spell, it's called Wraithstrike (had to look it up tho). I used it for a PC, a drider gish with levels in the Daggerspell Mage PrC from Complete Adventurer.

That crazy magic kung fu master who keeps teaching oozes how to be sorcerer/monks is a menace. There should be an adventure where the PCs finally catch up with the madman, after encountering a slew of OP oozes.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Can someone look up and post the specifics please?

Here's several interesting quotes from the 3.5 DMG regarding encounters, pages 48-50.

TAILORED OR STATUS QUO
Just as with motivations, encounters can be tailored specifically to
the PCs or not. A tailored encounter is one in which you take into
consideration that the wizard PC has a wand of invisibility and the
fighter’s AC is 23. In a tailored encounter, you design things to fit
the PCs and the players. In fact, you can specifically design something
for each PC to do—the skeletal minotaur is a challenge for
the barbarian, another skeleton with a crossbow is on a ledge that
only the rogue can reach, only the monk can leap across the chasm
to pull the lever to raise the portcullis in front of the treasure, and
the cleric’s hide from undead spell allows her to get to the treasure
the skeletons are guarding while the battle rages.

A status quo encounter forces the PCs to adapt to the encounter
rather than the other way around. Bugbears live on Clover Hill,
and if the PCs go there, they encounter bugbears, whether bugbears
are an appropriate encounter for them or not. This kind of
encounter gives the world a certain verisimilitude, and so it’s good
to mix a few in with the other sorts of encounters.

If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should
probably let your players know about this. 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. If players
know that the setting includes status quo encounters that their
characters might not be able to handle, they will be more likely to
make the right decision if they come upon a tough encounter.
That decision, of course, is to run away and fight again another day
(when the party is better equipped to meet the challenge).

DIFFICULTY
Sometimes, the PCs encounter something that’s a pushover for
them. At other times, an encounter is too difficult, and they have
to run away. A well-constructed adventure has a variety of encounters
at several different levels of difficulty. Table 3–2: Encounter
Difficulty shows (in percentage terms) how many encounters of a
certain difficulty an adventure should have.

Table 3–2: Encounter Difficulty
% of Total - Encounter ------------- Description
10% -------- Easy ------------------- EL lower than party level
20% -------- Easy if handled properly - Special (see below)
50% -------- Challenging ------------- EL equals that of party
15% -------- Very difficult ------------ EL 1–4 higher than party level
5% --------- Overpowering ----------- EL 5+ higher than party level

Easy: The PCs win handily with little threat to themselves. The
Encounter Level for the encounter is lower than the party level.
The group should be able to handle an almost limitless number of
these encounters.

Easy if Handled Properly: There’s a trick to this kind of encounter—
a trick the PCs must discover to have a good chance of victory.
Find and eliminate the evil cleric with greater invisibility first
so she stops bolstering the undead, and everything else about the
encounter becomes much easier. If not handled properly, this
kind of encounter becomes challenging or even very difficult.

Challenging: Most encounters seriously threaten at least one
member of the group in some way. These are challenging encounters,
about equal in Encounter Level to the party level. The average
adventuring group should be able to handle four challenging encounters
before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources.
If an encounter doesn’t cost the PCs some significant portion
of their resources, it’s not challenging.

Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level
is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more
dangerous than an overpowering one, because it’s not immediately
obvious to the players that the PCs should flee.

Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don’t, they will
almost certainly lose. The Encounter Level is five or more levels
higher than the party level.

Difficulty Factors
You have several options for making an encounter more or less difficult
by changing the circumstances of the encounter to account
for some feature of the PCs’ surroundings or the makeup of the
party. For instance:

• Tight quarters make things more difficult for rogues, since it’s
harder to skulk about and gain a sneak attack.
• A spread-out force makes things more difficult for spellcasters,
since the area affected by most spells is small.
• Many lesser foes are harder for a character to engage in melee
than one powerful foe.
• Undead are much more difficult to fight without a cleric.
• Encounters involving animals or plants are much more difficult
without a druid or a ranger in the party.
• Encounters involving evil outsiders are much more difficult
without a paladin or cleric (and perhaps a wizard or sorcerer) in
the party.
• A large force is much more difficult to fight without a wizard or
sorcerer in the party.
• Locked doors and traps are much more difficult to overcome
without a rogue in the party.
• Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to win without a
fighter, a barbarian, a ranger, or a paladin in the party.
• Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to survive without
a cleric in the party.
• The bard and the cleric make good group support characters.
Their presence makes practically every encounter easier.

None of the above factors should necessarily be taken into
account when assigning or modifying Challenge Ratings, but you
should keep them in mind when designing encounters.