Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[TheYeti1775]

We didn't need no stinking balance.
So what kobolds were found in groups of 10-100.
You fought, ran, or were invited to dinner as the main course.


Actually never noticed a real balance issue as we played either, course we weren't looking for balance just fun.
That and outside a few rare circumstances did we take characters into the upper teens and beyond in Red Box and 1E. Most ended up retiring and fostering our future characters as their apprentices and stuff.

In 2E, we played several up into the high teens, and a few limited number above that. Again didn't notice balance, or we didn't care. Never really got into the Skill Option books though.

I will admit it did confuse me when all the classes used the same progression chart and multi-classing now added your classes together .


In all pre 3.0E, as far as disruption we used the Spell Casting Time in conjunction with Initiative.
You had your initiative and you declared what you were casting at your initiative time and started. If it was Fireball (3 segment if I recall correctly) and your initiative was 10, than you started the casting at 10 and finished casting at 13 (remember low was good on initiative back than). That became the time frame you could be distrupted 10 - 13.
Same with weapon speed.

 

[S'mon]

Currently running OSRIC (1e clone) 1st-4th so far. My impression is that Thieves seem a bit weak, otherwise the classes are well balanced. M-Us are vulnerable to Fs and vice versa, as it should be. Clerics are decent but not overpowered.

 

[Imperialus]

One thing a lot of people overlook when it comes to balancing during previous editions, particularly balancing casters vs the fighting classes is the sheer amount of time spell memorization takes at high levels. A lot of DM's in my experience (which is mostly confined to 2nd ed) would ignore this because it wasn't 'fun' but according to the PHB it takes a magic user 15 minutes per spell level to memorize a spell for the 'day'. To use a 10th level MU as an example, this means that if he is starting with a 'blank slate' he needs to spend 9 hours and 45 minutes memorizing spells.

In 2nd ed the memorization time is lowered to 10 minutes, but that still means that the wizard in this case needs to spend 7 hours 40 minutes memorizing.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The thing I thought was most unbalance about both 1e and 2e was the utter lameness of a fighter vs. a ranger or a paladin.

The ONLY time someone played a fighter was when they specifically wanted to be in the background and not contribute as much as anyone else, or else to poke fun at the system itself.

DS

 

[Imperialus]

The thing I thought was most unbalance about both 1e and 2e was the utter lameness of a fighter vs. a ranger or a paladin.

The ONLY time someone played a fighter was when they specifically wanted to be in the background and not contribute as much as anyone else, or else to poke fun at the system itself.

DS

Or you can't make the Ability Score requirements but still want to hit things with something sharp. With a 17 Cha requirement for a Paladin you had approximately a 1.5% chance of getting that 17, plus you needed a 13 Wis, and a 10 Str. Paladin's and Rangers were more powerful for sure, but they showed up pretty rarely, plus the Paladin code was a lot more restrictive.

 

[S'mon]

The thing I thought was most unbalance about both 1e and 2e was the utter lameness of a fighter vs. a ranger or a paladin.

The ONLY time someone played a fighter was when they specifically wanted to be in the background and not contribute as much as anyone else, or else to poke fun at the system itself.

DS

Haven't encountered any problem in my OSRIC game. Fighters advance quicker than Paladins, they gain multiple attacks faster, and Paladin abilities aren't so amazing as to overshadow the Fighter PCs.

My current OSRIC PC group:
Fighter-4
Paladin-3
Fighter-3
Paladin-3 NPC (girlfriend of the Ftr 4)

+sometimes
Fighter-2
Ranger-3

I haven't noticed any overshadowing, they all have their different strengths, eg the Fighter-4 has the lowest stats but the most XP, the only magic weapon, and a 'hawt' 3rd level Paladin girlfriend.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I was first introduced to D&D during 2nd Edition in my early 20's. It was an amazing experience and from there I played a few games and then started DM'ing as well. I have to admit that yes Wizards were a bit overpowered at higher levels, but that's what you come to expect when dealing with these characters that were able to survive beyond their apprenticeship and journeyman years. I think balance can and was achieved by the DM ultimately. Magic items were fun to have and give away to the fighters and thieves in the groups to help them gain an edge and try to keep up with the wizards who became more and more powerful. But when you think about it and if you've ever read any of the Dragon Lance or Forgotten Realms books, who are the most powerful beings around? That's a no brainer, you look towards Raistlin, Kelben BlackStaff and Elminster. Of course you also get semi-powerful characters like Drizzt or Tanis, but the ones who you remember and EVERYONE knows are the uber powerful wizards who are almost demigods.

In campaigns I ran, yes the monsters "would" have gone down fast against the more powerful PCs, but I didn't like that happening so I'd amp up the HPs, damage, etc to make it a more balanced fight and give it more dangerous feel. Hence, why I say DM's are ultimately in charge of the overall balance in the game.

I once ran a campaign w/ just my best friend. He played 2 characters, one was a big dumb Barbarian meatshield and the other was a half-mad brainiac Necromancer. It was probably the most fun I've ever had as a player or DM running that campaign as the wizard progressed he would gain more powers/spells and ended up becoming a demigod and the Barbarian ended up becoming the king of the northern barbarian tribes.

I later brought the demigod necromancer back as an NPC and used him to mess with my friend's next character, transplanting him into Ravenloft... but that's a story for another time.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I personally disagree with the game has balance issues.

Different classes are going to be more powerful with certain abilities than other classes. A fighter is going to be a much better combatant but not a powerful spell caster. A spell caster also starts out weak but his only real strength is in his ability to cast spells. A fighter is not supposed to cast spells either. If a spell caster were to pick up a sword he might even be too weak to lift it. A long sword is more effective against daggers as well. So a spell caster is not a very effective fighter.

That's why he casts magic, and powerful magic at that. That's why they are artillery, not front line fighter.

Ah, but his learning would know what weak spot a monster would have. A fighter might know it, but more than likely would know more through experience rather than book learning.

So, the complaint is the spells often overcome non sepll casters?

I think this balance thing is simply people arguing more over why their favorite class should the biggest baddest tough guy around.

This is also why team are formed. And why team work is important. You form a team with people who's skills is meant to compliment each other and to take up the slack where there is a lack of an important ability. No one person can do it all people.

Kirk wasn't very intelligent, but was very intuitive. Spock was very intelligent, but not all that intuitive. Together, they compensated for each others weaknesses, and that made them an unbeatable team.

Of course there's Mary Sues like Superman and Batman, where one person can do everything and beat anybody with the right preparation, but that is really not very realistic.

The realism is that nobody can do everything, and sometimes needs to form a team to help them.

 

[Verdande]

I currently play Labyrinth Lord and I haven't noticed any balance issues. Seriously. Everybody has a useful role to play, and the party functions coherently. Isn't that what the game is about?


Sure, not everybody's as "good" in combat, but the game isn't about combat. Everybody contributes to the party's success, both in and out of combat, in a large part because the game's about challenging the players, not the characters.

 

[DragonLancer]

I cannot recall whether 1st ed AD&D was balanced or not. It's been twenty years and my memory isn't that hot.

With 2nd ed AD&D I always wrapped up around 10th or 12th level because past that point we found magic got out of hand and very unbalanced.

With 3rd ed D&D that imbalance was there but not as bad unless someone powergamed.

Don't play 4th ed so cannot comment.

Now playing Pathfinder we've found that it the same as 3rd ed but at higher levels things remain more balanced that they were under 3.X .

That's just the insight of myself and regular group.