Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Stoat]

I would suggest that AD&D is balanced around two concepts:

1) The players will generate and play many different PC's in a relatively short span of time. Thus the paladin and ranger are balanced against the fighter because they have higher ability score requirements and will be generated less often.

2) A given campaign will continue for a fairly long time. Thus demi-humans are balanced against humans by the level cap. Wizards are balanced against other classes by the fact that they begin play very weak and end play fairly strong.

 

[Janx]

The current crop of D&D tends to balance the classes with a focus on equality in combat.

Such that for any given level and any pair of classes, they do roughly the same amount of damage within a 6 round combat

Loosely put, nobody sucks at any level during combat compared to another PC. Since most of D&D is combat, that's the balancing point.

In prior editions, having less combat skill meant you had greater skill in other areas for other enounter types. Thus it was justifiable for the Bard to suck during combat, because he could do cool things outside of combat.


Compare this to 1e. A first level wizard is so worthless, that if you were recruiting for a 1st level mission, you'd be better off taking a 1st level fighter.

Later, at 15th level, you'd be better off taking the wizard than the fighter.

While the 1e designers saw this as a long term balance (life is harder at low level for a wizard, in trade for more power at high level), it didn't necessarily make for fair and fun game play on a per session basis.

Sure 1e had balance goals in mind. But they were 1970s idea of balance.

The 21st century idea of balance is that each PC in the current game session is able to contribute and add value in a fairly equal fashion. If there is a class that a min/maxer would say "only an idiot would pick that class, it sucks" or "I always play this class, its the best" then that class is out of balance.

Why does this form of balance matter?

For a GM, it matters because it makes measuring encounter difficulty a more consistent process. Each PC is balanced, so they are interchangeable, to an extent. This in turn means all you need to know is how many levels there are. Sure, the GM could tweak set up special encounters to challenge or spotlight a class, but on the average, it's all the same.

For a player, balance matters because nobody likes their character concept to suck so badly that they feel like the tagalong sidekick to the heroes. Sure the guy with the uber-class is happy with the imbalance. Deep down, nobody else is.

In 4e, it seems like the focus is combat functionality. Some classes may do better in direct combat, but all the classes have features to make sure they are actively participating in a fun and useful fashion. Thus, the guy playing the "least fighty" class can still feel like he kicked butt, because he actively contributed in a meaningul way.

That's the new balance.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I voted "other" and wait eagerly for the sister poll "was the Complete Book of Elves the best-balanced product for D&D ever?"

 

[Dice4Hire]

I find it hard to believe a game system would be madethat was purposely unbalanced. If so, I would avoid such system like the plague.

Most systems fall short of that goal, of course.

 

[the Jester]

Of course it was. Game balance is probably one of the most common 2-word terms in the 1e DMG.

 

[Umbran]

I expect that the authors intended some form of balance. However, the industry as a whole was still new then, so they didn't do a very good job of it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I voted "other" for essentially the same reason as jgbrowning. The early ideas of balance stemmed from how OD&D treated "balance". For the most part there just wasn't a lot of power to balance in the first place. But it seems apparant that "balance" was to be established by enforcing rarity. If a PC class was deemed powerful it was made slower to advance. In 1E powerful classes were made harder to qualify for. The idea being that it was okay for a player to have a powerful class if A) the class levelled up more slowly and B) the qualifications made it infrequent or even rare to actually SEE the class in play. Rarity=balance. This approach persisted through 2nd Edition. Also, level limits came in with 1E for demihumans and persisted through 2E and while not furthering the idea of rarity it attempted to discourage play of the more powerful demihuman multiclassed characters by simply placing an arbitrary hard limit on their advancement.

Of course, it's complete bunk, not least because the factors that were supposed to ensure a given level of rarity or discouragement were simply wildly circumvented if not outright ignored. People developed and used all manner of character generation methods that overcame the high qualifying stats or just allowed players to meet them if they wanted to play the class. They houseruled or ignored demihuman level limits. Not until 3E came along were these "quaint" ideas about balance abandoned in favor of actually attempting to make the classes and races of a more equal degree of balance in the first place. Their success or failure even through 4E is no less debatable but at least they were finally approaching the problem in a sensible manner.

 

[Lancelot]

Intended to be balanced? Sure (...so I voted Yes).

There are too many nods to balance to ignore it. For example, wizards have poor attack rolls, can't wear armor, have low hp... but can cast spells. The Vancian magic system. The more powerful magic items are harder to find. Artifacts can "break the rules" in many ways, but have serious drawbacks.

Was it balanced? Absolutely not.

I think one of the biggest problems with 1e balance was the assumption that low probabilities helps to correct major benefits. An 18/00 Strength is a huge advantage for a fighter, but few fighters will ever have that. Psionics are awesome, but very few PCs will qualify due to the random roll. Your chances of rolling a vorpal blade or hammer of thunderbolts are miniscule.

Similarly, I believe there were a few weird areas where balance was thrown out the window to achieve some semblence of historical accuracy. Take the weapons and armors, for example. Gygax seemed to really love this stuff (...check out the Appendix in Unearthed Arcana on pole-arm nomenclature, for example). Hence, I don't think there was the same effort to balance the equipment tables. The classic longsword was almost always the superior option (gotta love that one-handed d8/d12 damage), and this was reflected in the probabilities of acquiring magical weapons. Using a horseman's mace or a hook-fauchard (or 80% of the weapons listed) was an exercise in futility.

 

[Desdichado]

That's not really the kind of question that needs a poll attached, is it? I mean, the truth of it one way or another isn't really a question for public opinion.

 

[Ourph]

I voted yes. The balance isn't the kind that focuses on each class being equal in power to every other class at every level and in every playstyle. However, I do think the authors intended that it be balanced in the sense that every class has something to contribute to the success of the group for the majority of playstyles in the majority of sessions.