Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord_Blacksteel" data-source="post: 5315962" data-attributes="member: 53082">I can't remember the exact quote, but Gary Gygax said in a thread over on Dragonsfoot that the reason clerics were only given blunt weapon proficiencies was a balance issue.The idea may have eventually been altered in order to become a balancing tool, but one can say with absolute certainty that in a game where all weapons regardless of type do 1d6 points of damage (i.e. OD&D in 1974) that any differences in weapon proficiencies were entirely a matter of flavor text.In 0E this was tied to magic swords - the only magic weapons were swords, so if the cleric couldn't use them it made the fighter stronger. Later (1E) this magic restriction wet away and the blunt weapons only limitation was discussed and debated heavily in Dragon.Older editions were not balanced for the combat encounter equivalence (noted in an early post in this thread) as 4E is, so in that sense, no - they were not 4E balanced.There was however a balance built into the system and the most obvious was the class-specific experience table. Thieves take 1250 XP's to get to 2nd, Wizards take 2500. At higher levels given a fixed number of XP's a Thief will typically be 2 levels higher than the wizard and 1 level higher than everyone else. Thus an adventuring party might range in levels from 10 for the wizard to 12 for the thief. Things were campaign-balanced, not encounter-balanced.Another concept that has faded since those days was the use of non-combat restrictions to balance combat abilities. The Paladin's alignment and other restrictions are a good example here. He is better than a fighter in many ways but can only have 10 magic items, has to give away a lot of cash, and has to be lawful good - this doesn't really hurt him when fighting the red dragon, but it is a set of restrictions he has to deal with within the game, just not necessarily within combat. 3E and 4E went with the idea that combat advantages should be balanced with combat restrictions while 1E and 2E did not. The idea that balance is something that should or must be left to the designer is just not practical in play. Examples: In 1E finding a +2 Giant Slayer just as you start G1 is a huge deal. 1E assumes you will figure this out and admittedly not everyone will, players or DM's. In 3E finding a Giant Bane sword just as you start an updated G1 is a huge deal, but 3E tries to tell you that it has the same value as finding a Dragon Bane or Rabbit Bane or any other Bane weapon - it' doesn't. 3E tries to wrap this in a framework, stick a number on it, and call it a balanced system to make everyone feel better, yet something like this is still very situational and often misleading. How is a later edition better in this case, as in more "balanced?" - it isn't. It's a guideline at best. The DM has to play a major role in this kind of thing knowing by his party, his players, and his campaign regardless of the system being used. It's part of the job, whether you're playing 1E or 4E.</blockquote>

Verification