REALLY What Was So Bad About 2nd Edition?

[ColonelHardisson]

Don't get me wrong, I think 3rd edition is the best incarnation of D&D yet. However, nothing is perfect and, IMO, 3rd is far from it.

You haven't seen an explanation of the problems with 3rd edition, have you had your eyes closed?

No, but I specifically said that the explanations we've seen of 3e's imbalance cites how easy it is to min/max. The balance of your post after the above quote reinforces that.

For balance issues, the prominant ones that come to my mind are

Rangers - Many people have noted that there are great benefits to taking 1 level of ranger, but then very little incentive to continue on as one. The favored enemy bonuses are paltry. The two-weapon fighting/ambidexterity virtual feats limit character concept. Ranger spells might have balanced the 11 bonus feats that fighters get, except that they are cast at caster level = 1/2 character level so their duration and save DCs are low.

The Ranger is the classic example of how min/maxing is the main complaint. While I see the point that it is front-loaded, relatively speaking, there are any number of roleplaying reasons to continue on as a Ranger past 1st level. In addition, I think the Ranger's spells and favored enemy bonuses are given far too little credit. Is balance measured simply by who is the last man standing in a fight? Of course not. The Ranger has a role which I feel it fills fairly adequately. Maybe not perfectly, but certainly not to the point of imbalance, especially if everything except fighting is considered.

Wizards - Wizards are extremely powerful. IMO, a Sorcerer's spontaneous choice of spells doesn't quite compensate for their limited number of known spells. But then Wizards also get 4 bonus feats, and scribe scroll!

A wizard's power is limitless because
1) He can now freely create his own magical items
2) He is extremely versatile. No matter the situation, there is potentially a spell to solve it (try doing that with feats or skills). Who needs 80 epic ranks in climb when a spiderclimb or fly spell surpasses it? How can the fighter's prized Whirlwind ever compare to Wish? And of course, with every new supplement, their power grows as new spells are introduced into the game (at a far quicker rate than feats).

Again, I feel that skills are being given short shrift. Skills are generally instantly ready and relatively inexhaustible. Those spell slots can go to much better use. If they do go to replacing skills, this seriously depletes a wizard's repertoire.

Feats - I don't believe enough effort is being put into developing feat chains and balancing feats. Feats like Toughness never get chosen unless they are a prerequisite for something else. The introduction of Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, and Dragon's Toughness just make the feat even more obsolete. Most characters will only get 6 feats after 20 levels, yet WotC and d20 publishers persist at making feats no one ever chooses (e.g., +2 to skill x and skill y).

But how is this imbalanced, even if we take this thesis as a given? Underpowered in some cases, but certainly not unbalanced.

Prestige Class - There are so many balance problems with these guys, but that's less a fault of the core rules as it is design problems with the individual classes.

And a problem with d20 publishers, not official 3e.

Psionics - Lesser Mind Link, Mind Link, Forced Mind Link, etc. There are too many psionic powers like this where you get access to increasingly better versions as you level. The only problem is once you get the ultimate version, you've obsoleted all the psionic power slots you spent on its lesser cousins.

Again, sounds more underpowered than unbalanced. Taking such chains is a conscious choice, not one that is forced upon the character. That is, they can be avoided.

 

[7thlvlDM]

No, but I specifically said that the explanations we've seen of 3e's imbalance cites how easy it is to min/max. The balance of your post after the above quote reinforces that.

Colonel (can I call you Colonel? ),

I guess I don't quite equate the ability to min/max with balance; maybe my concept of those terms is different/wrong. I think people should be able to make advantageous builds by finding combinations that work well together, for example, Whirlwind and a spiked chain, or trip attacks and a reach weapon. However, I don't like to see aspects of the game that are useless. If the designers had made Toughness a mediocre feat, yet made it the prerequisite of something really good (like Dragon's Toughness), then I would say the feat is balanced because there is a good combination that includes it and people would choose it.

The Ranger is the classic example of how min/maxing is the main complaint. While I see the point that it is front-loaded, relatively speaking, there are any number of roleplaying reasons to continue on as a Ranger past 1st level. In addition, I think the Ranger's spells and favored enemy bonuses are given far too little credit. Is balance measured simply by who is the last man standing in a fight? Of course not. The Ranger has a role which I feel it fills fairly adequately. Maybe not perfectly, but certainly not to the point of imbalance, especially if everything except fighting is considered.

I definately agree that fighting is not the be all and end all of balance. From my experience, however, I don't think I have evaluated favored enemies and ranger spells incorrectly. My group's ranger as fought his favored enemy once in the past 6 months of playing. It's not that I avoid throwing Giants at him, it's just that they haven't come up. And I believe Paladins have the same problem as far as spells are concerned. I see spells like Greater Magic Weapon that look good at first sight, but then I realize that a Paladin's caster level is 1/2 his character level (so the spell really gives him +1 per 6 character levels, and most 12th level characters will already have a +2 weapon, etc.)

There are role-playing reasons to play a Wizard as well. I just think that no matter your tastes, you should be equal in power.

Again, I feel that skills are being given short shrift. Skills are generally instantly ready and relatively inexhaustible. Those spell slots can go to much better use. If they do go to replacing skills, this seriously depletes a wizard's repertoire.

But how many times per day do you really see most skills being used, besides Spot and Listen? It could be argued that spells can be tailored to the situation given one nights sleep--but you're stuck with your skill choices. I think in the limited dungeon setting, the nonreplenishable spells are in balance with skills and feats. But in general, if you're going to lay siege to a castle, plan an assassination/rescue, travel great distances, break into the king's vault, charm your way into high society, solve the mystery of 3 dead farmers, build a magical stronghold, etc., spells own. And anyone with access to infinite spells (theoretically) is obscenely powerful.

But how is this imbalanced, even if we take this thesis as a given? Underpowered in some cases, but certainly not unbalanced.

I guess that's my definition of imbalanced. Both underpowered and overpowered.

And a problem with d20 publishers, not official 3e.

True. But WotC makes their share of bad designs too.

Again, sounds more underpowered than unbalanced. Taking such chains is a conscious choice, not one that is forced upon the character. That is, they can be avoided.

I don't think it is good design to force people to choose between getting useful powers now and having them obsolete in the future vs. putting off getting a power until the ultimate version becomes available (at say 17th level).

All options should be appealing, just like a straight ranger character should be viable. Maybe its close enough for some, but I think if there is a general concensess that a problem exists with a certain class/feat/spell etc., attemps should be made to fix it.

-7th

 

[Dinkeldog]

My problem with the one minute round was with the casters. Sure, a fighter might be dodging and parrying and feinting and making one decent attack a minute. What about the spell-casters, though? A wizard couldn't move all round and dodge and feint while casting. What was to stop the enemy fighter-types from getting in a dozen good attacks on him? He's obviously not providing as much of a defensive target as another fighter-type.

 

[Psion]

I never said it was a TRAVESTY of balance. Not perfect is wide open, it means anything but perfect

Well, yeah, but that doesn't say a whole hell of a lot, now does it. If the point were merely that 3e isn't perfect, we would be in "perfect" agreement.

What I was taking issue was the statement "You haven't seen an explanation of the problems with 3rd edition, have you had your eyes closed?" To which I answered yes I have seen many such statements, but IME, most such statements are mere grousing without much substance. "Not perfect" does not mean that every comentary that detracts from the game has any basis in reality.

And you have blithely dismissed my argument that a ranger's caster level is half his level, cutting the duration of his spells in half, not to mention he is only getting 4th level spells at 15th level

So you would give a ranger more? A multi class fighter/druid, for example, would have an impugned casting level as well, plus would have a lower attack bonus than a ranger. The ranger is QUITE a competant class despite windage to the contrary.

Furthermore, you've probably heard many people don't find spell casting within their concept of "ranger".

And this has what to do with balance?

The fact that they have the option to create magical devices means they can acquire items (of their choosing) that may be inaccessable to most other classes, or at least acquire them at half price even if they are widely available. Furthermore, every book that is released adds more power to the king of spell casters. Flip through the Stronghold Builder's Guide. Notice all the new things wizards can make?

Since I don't have it yet, no.

However, having access to new goodies does not equate to more power, sorry. The availability of items is still restricted by the character's resources.

Well, let's see, polymorph self into a flying creature can last close to 24 hours at medium level. So one 4th level slot is worth 100 ranks in climb.

Yep, the flying wizard has it all over the rogue in terms of mobility. Am I supposed to be shocked?

Yes, I have played a high level game. Have you ever thought about how to play a wizard?

Of course I have. Don't be insulting.

Any wizard worth his salt is going to cast Haste, Fly, and be 90 ft in the air on the first round, in addition to having contingency + stoneskin active at all times.

Oooh, the classic "if you give me the authority to decide the situation, my supposedly uber-character will always win" argument.

Any party worth their salt fighting a wizard will have means to remove enchantments and corner the wizard.

How can you downplay potential power because it costs money?

Hate to break it to you, but in 3e, money = power = resources.

If a fighter could acquire free feats by paying for training, I would say a wizard's access to infinite spells only restricted by money is a non-issue.

Infinite spells? What bunk.

First off, the spells available to a wizard overall AREN'T infinite, because neither is his cash.

Second, the spells are further restricted by the fact that the wizard can only prepare a limited number of spells.

Because it is poor game design, and a waste of space in my player's handbook. Let's say half the spells are useless and half are good. What is the point of having the former half exist at all?

The problem is that I don't happen to agree they are useless. They may be useless to a particular character. But nearly every feat and spell has some utility. It's not what your character needs or wants? Then don't take it.

By your reasoning

Stop right there. If you want to know my reasoning, I'll tell you. Don't tell me. That is just strawman bashing.

if half the core classes are pathetically imbalanced, just don't choose to play them. Don't fix anything, just be cheerful that every 5 pages out of 10 are being used.

That's circular logic - including your conclusion in the premise. The problem is that they aren't imbalanced and I never agreed to any such notion, so I take offense at your notion of labeling this "my reasoning." A lot of playtesting went into the core classes, and I consider them fairly balanced. Not perfectly, mind you, but considering that the situations in a game will vary wildly, I think they are about as well balance as can be expected.

If you don't see the problem with these guys, it would take far too much explanation on my part, moving right along...

No, I don't see a problem with these guys, because your tired prattle has not demonstrated some great imbalance, nor could it.

All powers should have appeal (at least to most), otherwise there is no point in it existing.

Okay, but do all powers have to have the same appeal?

Psion, Black Pudding has an Intelligence of 0, a Wisdom of 1, and a move of 20'. If I made it adapt to my party's tactics, I would be accused of wholesale cheating. The party easily adapted to the pudding by out running it and going back to town for fire. CR 7 indeed.

Did you read my statement at all? I never said the pudding should adapt. I said YOU should adapt. If YOU know that given the resources and tactics the party uses, then YOU should feel free to downgrade the challenge of the encounter. In fact, the book recommends just this. YOU are not dismissed from using your brain in ajudicating encounters.

You miss my point. Burning hands is decent, no argument there. Shocking Grasp is a different story.

Shocking grasp seems weaker to me, too. But it is definitely too strong to be a 0-level spell. And though possibly not the best selection, it's not a bad offensive spell. The problem you seem to be having here is that feats and spell levels don't all have exactly the same level of power. I really don't see that as a huge problem. A small problem, perhaps, but not one that is really going to create a problem in play. And games are made to be played.

And I think you are a fan boy (I hope I am using that phrase correctly).

And I think you are a grouser who makes mountains out of molehills.

Balance can be achieved much better than it is now,

Oh can it? I would like to see you try. Take for example the "ranger is weak" bandwagon, which you seem to be a charter member of. Nearly every "alt.ranger" I have seen gives the ranger power on a silver platter. If that's the row you want to hoe, I daresay that the designers have a much better bead on what is balanced than you do. And judging from the remainder of your analyses, I can only conclude that is precisely the case.

 

[Piratecat]

The one minute round wasn't one swing and that's it. It was swings, parries, blocks, etc. The actual attack rolls were to see if you had hit during that time.

Heh - then how come an archer only used up two arrows during the one minute?

I loved 1e, and when 2e came out I was in the store to buy it even as they were unpacking the boxes. Right up until we began playtesting 3e we played 2e and had a great time. Oddly enough, although I didn't have major issues with 2e, now going back and playing it is like having my teeth drilled.

Oh - and time to stop the thread hijacking and the personal insults, guys. This isn't the place. If you're going to discuss 3e balance, please do so politely and in a different thread.

 

[Henry]

Well, it used to be civil around here...

Most of the problems I have seen listed before, I have seen in the D&D Rules Forum hundreds of times over two years' time. It's just too much to answer in one post, but I so far have not seen anything unbalanced over or under in power from what has so far been mentioned. The balance problems I saw in Sword and Fist supplement, for example, were errata'ed out; the Mage of the Arcane order, for example from Tome and Blood, is possibly one of the most unbalanced (overpowered) prestige class that I have yet seen; the rest don't really upset me much, and can easily be handled by a DM.

In regards to differing feat power levels, such as the ever-popular Toughness, I have to say that all feats were not designed equally. Toughness has its own uses, particularly to rogues and wizards! Wizards because not every wizard in a party can be protected behind the lines in all situations, and rogues because they put themselves in some of the most dangerous situations in combat, all for the benefit of getting off a proper sneak attack.

I'll leave this discussion at that, but do keep in mind that the difference between "slightly unbalanced" and "unplayable" are quite wide. 3E by NO means is unplayable, and msot people here will agree it is a big improvement of playability over 2E.

 

[teitan]

Re: Re: Second Edition

Your complete 1e hardback collection shoudl have included Oriental Adventures and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Both of those books included the rules for NWPs. Like almost everything else that made it into 2e, NWPs were not a new innovation, or even new to the AD&D game rules. They were just a rehash of 1e material, like just about everything else about 2e.

I know that, but they were not given a central focus and my players didn't know about those two books until a few weeks later. I even mentioned that while the NWPs (which I will still refer yo as Useless Weapon Proficiencies) were present in those two (and also the WIlderness Survival Guide) that they were not part of the core rules for 1E. They didn't make into NPC stat blocks to my knowledge etc.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That was true of the first two editions. You could throw weapon speed & mods vs armour type out and it didn't really affect anything.

That's a good idea if you do not care an iota about game balance. (Some people don't, so that is not necessarily a criticism.)

Blunt and two-handed weapons were very attractive against tough ACs relative to longswords if you used the armor type mods. If you throw them out, the short and long swords (and bastard swords) are categorically superior weapons.

Weapon speeds were always gibberish.

 

[7thlvlDM]

Well, yeah, but that doesn't say a whole hell of a lot, now does it. If the point were merely that 3e isn't perfect, we would be in "perfect" agreement.

It was a joke. I think you are making mountains out of mole hills by attacking my initial post.

What I was taking issue was the statement "You haven't seen an explanation of the problems with 3rd edition, have you had your eyes closed?" To which I answered yes I have seen many such statements, but IME, most such statements are mere grousing without much substance. "Not perfect" does not mean that every comentary that detracts from the game has any basis in reality.

That was in answer to ColonelHardisson's claim of not seeing any explanation of this before that isn't linked to min/maxing. Apparently he thinks my arguments are linked to min/maxing as well. So in short, I wasn't talking to you

So you would give a ranger more? A multi class fighter/druid, for example, would have an impugned casting level as well, plus would have a lower attack bonus than a ranger. The ranger is QUITE a competant class despite windage to the contrary.

I'll look into it.

And this has what to do with balance?

My comments weren't just about balance, but simply things I feel that are wrong with the game.

Since I don't have it yet, no.

Then you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle now do you? Get informed =P

However, having access to new goodies does not equate to more power, sorry. The availability of items is still restricted by the character's resources.

Here is where I think you are totally wrong. Options do mean power because it allows for greater versatility, even if there is a sacrifice involved.

Yep, the flying wizard has it all over the rogue in terms of mobility. Am I supposed to be shocked?

Your comments seem to imply you think spells are balanced with skills and feats. So you tell me.

Of course I have. Don't be insulting.

You make comments like "You have quite obviously never played a high level game" and "It is not a substitute for the GM having a brain," and you tell me not to be insulting? I don't want this thread closed Psion, so I will respect your point of view if you respect mine.

Oooh, the classic "if you give me the authority to decide the situation, my supposedly uber-character will always win" argument.

What did I decide about that situation other than what a wizard character would do during combat and normally cast on him self every few days?

Any party worth their salt fighting a wizard will have means to remove enchantments and corner the wizard.

That's not the point. You need another spellcaster for that.

Hate to break it to you, but in 3e, money = power = resources.

Infinite spells? What bunk.

First off, the spells available to a wizard overall AREN'T infinite, because neither is his cash.

I'll say it again, if you can buy feats like you can buy spells, I wouldn't be complaining.

Second, the spells are further restricted by the fact that the wizard can only prepare a limited number of spells.

One word: scrolls. And if you're going to make the same counter argument you always do, see my last comment.

The problem is that I don't happen to agree they are useless. They may be useless to a particular character. But nearly every feat and spell has some utility. It's not what your character needs or wants? Then don't take it.

Stop right there. If you want to know my reasoning, I'll tell you. Don't tell me. That is just strawman bashing.

That's circular logic - including your conclusion in the premise. The problem is that they aren't imbalanced and I never agreed to any such notion, so I take offense at your notion of labeling this "my reasoning." A lot of playtesting went into the core classes, and I consider them fairly balanced. Not perfectly, mind you, but considering that the situations in a game will vary wildly, I think they are about as well balance as can be expected.

Are you or are you not advocating that underpowered feats and spells like Toughness and Shocking Grasp should stay as they are because people don't have to choose them? That is the argument I am bashing, because it is counterproductive to having a continually improving, balanced game.

Okay, but do all powers have to have the same appeal?

I want to have variety Psion, I want it to be a hard choice whenever I get a new feat. I want a good reason to consider taking Toughness.

Did you read my statement at all? I never said the pudding should adapt. I said YOU should adapt. If YOU know that given the resources and tactics the party uses, then YOU should feel free to downgrade the challenge of the encounter. In fact, the book recommends just this. YOU are not dismissed from using your brain in ajudicating encounters.

Of course DM judgement is required, but doesn't it seem like the CR system has room for improvement if it got young adult white dragon and black pudding equal in CR?

Shocking grasp seems weaker to me, too. But it is definitely too strong to be a 0-level spell. And though possibly not the best selection, it's not a bad offensive spell. The problem you seem to be having here is that feats and spell levels don't all have exactly the same level of power. I really don't see that as a huge problem. A small problem, perhaps, but not one that is really going to create a problem in play. And games are made to be played.

I'm not saying it's not unplayable. Again, I *like* this incarnation of D&D better than the previous versions. But I think there is room to grow. Shocking grasp should have been (and should be) better balanced, maybe lasting multiple rounds instead of discharging after one attack.

And I think you are a grouser who makes mountains out of molehills.

I know you are but what am I =P

Oh can it? I would like to see you try. Take for example the "ranger is weak" bandwagon, which you seem to be a charter member of. Nearly every "alt.ranger" I have seen gives the ranger power on a silver platter. If that's the row you want to hoe, I daresay that the designers have a much better bead on what is balanced than you do. And judging from the remainder of your analyses, I can only conclude that is precisely the case.

I do agree that the Monte Cook ranger is over powerful. But then he was one of your vaunted designers, wasn't he? Given time, I will make my alt. ranger. Your opinions are not the epitome of good judgement though.

-7th

 

[Henry]

Y'know, as I was thinking, something occurred to me from a thread in the Rules Forum - Spell casting in 2E. That almost killed me when I played 2E. Spell-casting in 2E was a losing proposition, and a wizard almost ALWAYS came out on the losing side. Say a wizard casts a spell in 2E, but rolled a middling initiative. Anyone who could even so much as damage him for ONE point would kill off his spell. 2E was always a game of "spellcaster piñata" for who could peg the caster before his spell went off. It made playing a wizard a frustrating task, as the wizard or cleric player would invariably stick to the list of spells that had casting times of 3 or less, meaning that half of the spells were too much of a pain to use.

Worse, I saw MANY groups house rules weapon speeds out, but DIDN'T house-rule out spell casting times. This compounds the problem! At least in 1st edition rules, weapon speed and casting times didn't matter until you tied someone for initiative.

I am so much happier for 3rd edition - the spellcasters actually get to cast spells in combat! It's great!