Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[JRRNeiklot]

That's precisely my point. 25% is the upper range of a low level thief's ability. Most average characters are rolling against a 10 to 15. Which means, of course, that any thief actually trying to use his professional skills is likely a dead thief. The better strategy is to simply stay out of harm's way and take no chances. But then, why play a thief at all?

No. A 1st level thief has a 25% chance of picking a lock period. The only adjustment is for a high dexterity. There is no penalty.

 

[Ariosto]

No. A 1st level thief has a 25% chance of picking a lock period. The only adjustment is for a high dexterity. There is no penalty.

A dexterity of 9 gives a -10% penalty, one of 10 -5%; an elven thief gets -5%.

A dexterity of 12 or better avoids all penalties but one (-5% to moving silently), and a score of at least 13 avoids that one. By any of Methods I-IV in the DMG (and of course by UA's Method V), it would be most unusual to be unable to assign a 13 or better to dexterity -- in which case one might consider another career than thief.

Obviously, though, a thief with neither bonus nor penalty is in the 10% to 15% range only for the following:

Level 1: silent 15% -- shadows 10% -- hear 10%
Level 2: --------------- shadows 15% -- hear 10%
Level 3: ---------------------------------- hear 15%
Level 4: ---------------------------------- hear 15%

 

[AllisterH]

re: Humanocentric D&D.

In both 3e and 4e, humans are one of the strongest races mechanically speaking. In core 3.x, humans were pretty much considered the BEST race (dwarves might have a chance arguing against that) and in 4e, humans are similarly considered one of the best races (there might be race X and Y that perfectly synchs with a class, but humans are slowly becoming stronger as more and more options release (another at-will and bonus feat are sweet)

re: Skill Challenges

I always assumed that skill challenges are there for those that have groups were in non-combat they seem trapped like a deer in headlights or there's only one guy who seems to shine at it.

Maybe I'm weird, but I found a lot of groups over the years needed handholding when it came to non-combat scenarios. From coming up with plans to get the attention of the Duke during the annual royal ball to coming up with a plan to sneak into the enemy fortress to simply doing a murder investigation, many players don't seem to know what to do.

The skill challenge idea (it has certainly been refined since the original presentation in the 1st DMG - alot like how other mechanics from Men & Monsters got refined in the next iteration. Contrast the skill challenge chapter in DMG1 with the one in DMG2) is a great mechanic for easing/teaching players how to interact with the world in non-combat scenarios.

I personally have found that if your group ALREADY does all these things, you're not going to use said mechanic but frankly,that's not how most players start off with.

It certainly took many a years before I would consider my 1e group to be "roleplaying"...the roleplaying mechanic/advice in 1e certainly wasn't what caused it.

 

[bardolph]

A dexterity of 9 gives a -10% penalty, one of 10 -5%; an elven thief gets -5%.

A dexterity of 12 or better avoids all penalties but one (-5% to moving silently), and a score of at least 13 avoids that one. By any of Methods I-IV in the DMG (and of course by UA's Method V), it would be most unusual to be unable to assign a 13 or better to dexterity -- in which case one might consider another career than thief.

Obviously, though, a thief with neither bonus nor penalty is in the 10% to 15% range only for the following:

Level 1: silent 15% -- shadows 10% -- hear 10%
Level 2: --------------- shadows 15% -- hear 10%
Level 3: ---------------------------------- hear 15%
Level 4: ---------------------------------- hear 15%

OK, OK, yes. Of course imagine my chagrin after digging through my closet to find my old PHB only to remember that I lent it to a friend several years ago!

But whether we're talking about 10% hide in shadows or 25% for open locks, my point still stands that a 75+% FAILURE rate results in a character who isn't very useful overall.

Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness, or a cleric's 100% success rate when casting Cure Light Wounds, and the thief starts to look like the bastard step-child that he is.

I also found it amusing that MAGIC was the LEAST variable and MOST reliable element in the game.

 

[Lady Dragon]

I voted Other. I don't really think That Gary really understood game balance the way we do today. Especially back in 77, 78 when he was writing it. Game balance wasn't really an issue like it is today. Also I think he was inexperienced and naive enough so that he believed that most people would follow the rules as written ( even though there is evidence that he and his group did not always do so themselves). So even though the 4 main classes are somewhat balanced if you take the long veiw of it into account, with magic-users weak early and very powerful late. Obviously the other classes were superior but hard to roll up if you followed the rule of strict 3d6 for each attribute no exceptions.

However, the hard restrictions on non-humans to their level advancments show that he did take balance into account he felt that their special abilities made them more powerful so he restricted their levels in most classes and restricted what classes they could become.

So while it is obvious that he did take Game balance into account in some ways in other ways he obviously ignored it.

I have long had a theory that what made 3rd edition so special was it was the first edition to acheived game balance by addition instead of subtraction. Gary used subtraction. The non human races had special abilities so he had to subtract from them to achieve balance, by resticting there class choices and level advancement. Paladins could do eveything that fighters could do plus cast spells and turn undead so he had to make it hard to be one and put other sometimes unreasonable restrictions on them. In fact a lot of the unreasonable rules and restrictions from first edition were because of game balance.

But in 3rd edition they used addition. instead of taking something away from non-human characters to make up for the their special abilities they added abilities to humans extra feats and skills) Fighters were no longer just ordinary they got extra abilities (Feats) that Paladins didn't have.

So basically Gary was counting on the roll of the dice to restrict just anyone from playing the premium classes not realizing they most players and DM's would fudge to rolls so that they could play the class that they wanted. It is after all a game and it is about fun so why not.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

A dexterity of 9 gives a -10% penalty, one of 10 -5%; an elven thief gets -5%.

I stand corrected. Somehow I had the idea that an 8 or lower had penalties, and since you have to have a 9 to be a thief.....

At any rate, why play a thief with a 10 dex? Unless of course, that's all you qualify for.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

OK, OK, yes. Of course imagine my chagrin after digging through my closet to find my old PHB only to remember that I lent it to a friend several years ago!

But whether we're talking about 10% hide in shadows or 25% for open locks, my point still stands that a 75+% FAILURE rate results in a character who isn't very useful overall.

Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness, or a cleric's 100% success rate when casting Cure Light Wounds, and the thief starts to look like the bastard step-child that he is.

I also found it amusing that MAGIC was the LEAST variable and MOST reliable element in the game.

The thieves skills are very specialized. 1 in 4 is pretty good odds, considering my chances to pick a lock are about 1 in one million.

 

[Ariosto]

Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness.

Certainly.

A first level fighter or cleric has a 10% (1.1 x) better chance to hit AC10, a 17% (1.17 x) better chance to hit AC 6 and a 50% (1.5 x 10% = 15%) better chance to hit AC 2, than a first level thief or magic-user.

He can strike from behind, but does he deal double (100% better) damage? No; nor shall he eventually deal quintuple.

What is the first level fighter's chance of picking a lock? The tenth level fighter's? Of moving silently, of hiding in shadows so as to remain unobserved when in sight, of climbing like a "human fly"? What is his chance of ever casting a spell from a scroll, apart from dual-classing?

A 4% total chance of removing a poisoned needle device is not so great -- but how about a 20% chance of noticing it in addition to whatever other precautions one might take?

Shall we take it that you so disdain your level 1-2 fighter's measly 20% saving throws versus breath weapons and spells as to donate them to a needy thief?

 

[Ariosto]

Obviously the other classes were superior but hard to roll up if you followed the rule of strict 3d6 for each attribute no exceptions.

They are close enough to impossible to roll up with 3d6 in order -- which naturally was not among the options presented.

Gary used subtraction.

Yes. In the case of the barbarian, subtract the magic-users. What, there can't be any in the campaign? No; different model of campaign. How is the barbarian balanced? As a member of a small party of fighters (using Method V and Weapon Specialization), or even as a "lone wolf" ... like Conan or Thongor in so many stories.

How about drow and deep gnomes? They're fine in the Depths of the Earth, especially as opponents of normal AD&D PCs. An all-monsters campaign in the faerie underworld might be splendid. Mixed in with PCs of the standard surface-dwelling races, they are a recipe for trouble primarily (but not solely) because they are so powerful.

Oriental Adventures? East is East, and West is West, and the East is better in every way. Dumb move, except that it appealed not only to fanciers of ninjas and samurai but to munchkins everywhere.

The non human races had special abilities so he had to subtract from them to achieve balance, by resticting there class choices and level advancement.

Yes, but balance was not what he was after there. He wanted to keep at least the highest levels in the campaign packed with humans.

Subtraction is key in 4e as well. It balances making the magicians more martial by making them less magical (and the warriors more so). Coming from previous games called D&D, that means a net loss either of magic; or of class distinctions; or both.

But in 3rd edition they used addition. instead of taking something away from non-human characters to make up for the their special abilities they added abilities to humans extra feats and skills) Fighters were no longer just ordinary they got extra abilities (Feats) that Paladins didn't have.

No, they were as much "just ordinary" as ever; but elves and paladins became "just ordinary", too. That is nifty and spiffy and feytouched and dragonborn and all sorts of things ... but it is not what AD&D1 was about.

 

[Remathilis]

OK, OK, yes. Of course imagine my chagrin after digging through my closet to find my old PHB only to remember that I lent it to a friend several years ago!

But whether we're talking about 10% hide in shadows or 25% for open locks, my point still stands that a 75+% FAILURE rate results in a character who isn't very useful overall.

Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness, or a cleric's 100% success rate when casting Cure Light Wounds, and the thief starts to look like the bastard step-child that he is.

I also found it amusing that MAGIC was the LEAST variable and MOST reliable element in the game.

While I agree with your premise, I want to point out; clerics with wisdom less than 13 suffer SPELL FAILURE when casting their spells. Granted, its small (20% for wis 9) but it does remind us all that for a game that prided itself on "3d6" bell-curves, your really weren't any good unless you had AT minimum a 13, and realistically a 16 (and most often an 18; come to think of it, I never saw a PC with less than an 18 in prime) prime requisite.

I will agree though that most thief skills were too low. Again, you needed an 18 dex (with its +10 to most skills, give or take) to make them usable at 1st level. Most of the time, low-level thieves were a.) Multi-classed with fighter or magic-user to make them useful or b.) Snipers with a bow until they got some magical items and levels.

Still, with an 18, a 40% PP, 40 OL, 25% F/RT, 25 MS, 20 HS, 10 HN, 85 CW, and no RL was acceptable. Just make sure you fudged rolled that 18 Dex!

However, backstab was a real waste of time though. First, you had to a.) not be noticed by the foe so, lets pull out that 25/20% success HS/MS rolls, b.) hit, though a +4 was nice, it was usually negated by a thieves less than 17 strengh and 2nd worst thac0; and c.) all for... 1extra dice at low-level, 4 extra at high. Assuming you used a longsword, you did 2d8 damage (+ whatever magical plus, which was NOT doubled). Compared to a fighter whose 18% strength granted him a guaranteed +3-+6 damage per hit (plus spec, if used) and backstab looks kinda pathetic. And that's not EVEN comparing how much easier and more effective a spell from a M-U is!