D&D General Which (non 4e) edition of D&D had the best class balance?

[TarionzCousin]

1E. Everyone rolled 3d6 in order and nearly all PC's were fighters or thieves--and about a third of those PC's died before level 10.
All dead = perfectly balanced.

YMMV

 

[Blue]

Right. Quadratic wizards were most often a symptom of the DM ignoring the rules of the game, not following them. So judging the edition on its rules means throwing out quadratic wizards.

Rolling to learn spells is RAW, but DMs ignored it.

The DM determining starting spells is RAW, but DMs ignored it.

The DM determining spells during play is RAW, but DMs ignored it.

DMs ignoring RAW is what caused quadratic wizards.

AD&D DMG, p39 has the relevant info.

Clerics had access to every spell in the book.

And when you get to 3.0 and 3.5 even for wizards you put a lot more control in the hands of the players.

Again, LFQW is a well accepted part of the history of the game - you're not really going to be able to make an argument it didn't exist.

 

[overgeeked]

Clerics had access to every spell in the book.

Note how clerics aren't wizards.

And when you get to 3.0 and 3.5 even for wizards you put a lot more control in the hands of the players.

I wouldn't know as I never played 3X...and we're not talking about 3X. We're talking about AD&D.

Again, LFQW is a well accepted part of the history of the game -

What memes and folk wisdom people accept doesn't matter. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the rules of the game as written...as per your insistence a few posts ago...

This is true, but "what the rules allowed but the DM does not" is a per-table variable that really has nothing to do with the balance within an edition. That needs be judged on the rules of the edition itself.

Unless you've changed your mind on that point. Which would be...convenient.

you're not really going to be able to make an argument it didn't exist.

I'm not trying to. Quadratic wizards absolutely existed. They were a thing. The cause of them was the DM...not the rules. DMs not actually following the RAW of the game and letting wizard players have way more say in what spells their characters got than the RAW permitted is what caused quadratic wizards.

So what's the balance of AD&D wizards? As per your insistence, the variable of the DM's rulings must be set aside and we can only look at the RAW.

AD&D DMG, p39.

At 1st level, wizards get read magic plus four randomly determined spells from a short list. There's a 10% chance of the player getting to choose a spell from the full list, but certain spells are explicitly banned for 1st-level wizards, two of the most commonly chosen spells I might add. Yep, the DMG explicitly bans 1st-level wizards from starting with Tenser's Floating Disc. Of note is that only these spells are automatically known. For every other spell acquired, the PC must roll to learn the spell.

At each level the PC wizard gets to add a single spell to their spellbook. The rules are non-specific about if it's a random roll or a choice. It's also non-specific if this spell is subject to the learning a spell roll. So how this is handled is up to DM fiat.

The DMG is also explicit that NPC wizards will not easily share their knowledge. Asking exorbitant prices or equivalent exchange for sharing spells, but also only permitted by DM fiat.

Every other spell the wizard gets is found...aka DM fiat.

So again, quadratic wizards absolutely were a thing that happened. But clearly that's not RAW. DMs ignoring the above restrictions is what caused quadratic wizards.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Someone actually voted for 3.5? Even as someone who liked 3.5, from a balance perspective it was a flat-out failure. Oh, for the days of CoDzilla, divine favor, divine power, righteous might, divine metamagic, natural spell, animal companions, etc.

 

[overgeeked]

Someone actually voted for 3.5? Even as someone who liked 3.5, from a balance perspective it was a flat-out failure. Oh, for the days of CoDzilla, divine favor, divine power, righteous might, divine metamagic, natural spell, animal companions, etc.

I've learned that players seem to think "balance" means whatever makes their characters the most powerful.

 

[Blue]

Note how clerics aren't wizards.

Correct. We are talking about casters, and you are trying to limit it just to wizards to say it's the DM's fault. I was showing other examples.

I wouldn't know as I never played 3X...and we're not talking about 3X. We're talking about AD&D.

Umm, what? We're explicitly talking all editions of D&D except 4e. That's what the OP asked about. We've given examples from different editions.

What memes and folk wisdom people accept doesn't matter. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the rules of the game as written...as per your insistence a few posts ago...

What I was pointing out was that those rules have been already well played and these trhings have been determined. It's like saying "well, people have been analyzing the moon for years, but that's folk wisdom and memes and nothing compared to my assertion that it's made of green cheese.

I'm not trying to. Quadratic wizards absolutely existed. They were a thing. The cause of them was the DM...not the rules. DMs not actually following the RAW of the game and letting wizard players have way more say in what spells their characters got than the RAW permitted is what caused quadratic wizards.

So what's the balance of AD&D wizards? As per your insistence, the variable of the DM's rulings must be set aside and we can only look at the RAW.

AD&D DMG, p39.

At 1st level, wizards get read magic plus four randomly determined spells from a short list. There's a 10% chance of the player getting to choose a spell from the full list, but certain spells are explicitly banned for 1st-level wizards, two of the most commonly chosen spells I might add. Yep, the DMG explicitly bans 1st-level wizards from starting with Tenser's Floating Disc. Of note is that only these spells are automatically known. For every other spell acquired, the PC must roll to learn the spell.

At each level the PC wizard gets to add a single spell to their spellbook. The rules are non-specific about if it's a random roll or a choice. It's also non-specific if this spell is subject to the learning a spell roll. So how this is handled is up do DM fiat.

The DMG is also explicit that NPC wizards will not easily share their knowledge. Asking exorbitant prices or equivalent exchange for sharing spells, but also only permitted by DM fiat.

Every other spell the wizard gets is found...aka DM fiat.

You were doing well up to that point, which is absolutely false. Spells could be copied off scrolls, which are randomly generated as part of treasure. Following the rules, there's no DM fiat at all, it's random generation.

So again, quadratic wizards absolutely were a thing that happened. But clearly that's not RAW. DMs ignoring the above restrictions is what caused quadratic wizards.

Umm, still no. You are asserting that random creation of spells could never create a quadratic wizard, which should be obviously false. You also are asserting that DMs were failing by providing a play style where wizards had at least a spell of each level they could cast (since there was no upcasting), which is pretty much the minimum for fun to play a wizard. Providing the minimum for fun is not a broken playstyle that the DM should avoid.

 

[overgeeked]

Correct. We are talking about casters

No, wizards. As in quadratic wizards. The goal posts were fine where they were.

Umm, what? We're explicitly talking all editions of D&D except 4e. That's what the OP asked about. We've given examples from different editions.

And the edition this tangent is based on, QWLF in AD&D…is, apparently surprisingly…about AD&D.

What I was pointing out was that those rules have been already well played and these trhings have been determined. It's like saying "well, people have been analyzing the moon for years, but that's folk wisdom and memes and nothing compared to my assertion that it's made of green cheese.

Except you got it backwards. Folk wisdom is asserting the moon is cheese, looking through a telescope is not. Mirroring that to this discussion, reading the RAW…that you insisted on, but now refuse to accept…would be looking through the telescope. Rejecting RAW is deciding nope, it’s made of cheese.

You were doing well up to that point, which is absolutely false. Spells could be copied off scrolls, which are randomly generated as part of treasure. Following the rules, there's no DM fiat at all, it's random generation.

LOL. Except the bits in the AD&D DMG that say otherwise.

Page 91. “All monsters would not and should not possess treasure! The TREASURE TYPES given in the MONSTER MANUAL are the optimums and are meant to consider the maximum number of creatures guarding them. Many of the monsters shown as possessing some form of wealth are quite unlikely to have any at all. This is not a contradiction in the rules, but an admonition to the DM not to give away too much!”

Page 92. “Assign each monster treasure, or lack thereof, with reason.”

You are asserting that random creation of spells could never create a quadratic wizard…

No, I didn’t. I’m quoting the RAW for how DMs are advised to handle spells and you are telling me I’m wrong.

You also are asserting that DMs were failing by providing a play style where wizards had at least a spell of each level they could cast (since there was no upcasting), which is pretty much the minimum for fun to play a wizard. Providing the minimum for fun is not a broken playstyle that the DM should avoid.

You’re mistaken. The AD&D DMG specifically says to give wizards one spell per level gained. I’m pointing out the book is unclear as to how that’s handled. I get that people stopped reading the old books ages ago. But I’m quoting the thing to you. Not giving an opinion. Try reading it for yourself before shouting about the moon being made of cheese. There’s plenty of room to look through the telescope. Give it a shot. You might like it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So again, quadratic wizards absolutely were a thing that happened. But clearly that's not RAW. DMs ignoring the above restrictions is what caused quadratic wizards.

Look, you're debating an edition I never played so I don't know a whole lot, but you seem to be using "quadratic" to just mean more powerful than other classes, whereas my understanding is that it specifically refers to the trajectory of progression with wizards being very weak at low levels and comparatively stronger than other classes (with more linear progressions) at high levels. The one has a progression that would be graphed more like a linear function, the other more like a quadratic function (note that both mathematical terms are being somewhat misapplied, but anyone who would care to read about the details of that could explain it better than I could). It has nothing to do with absolute power level, but with the trajectory of the power progression. It has developed associations with high power at high levels, but that's not what makes a wizard "quadratic".

And I think it's worth being pedantic about because the idea that classes can be "balanced" with each other in a broad, whole progression sense, while following different trajectories of progression along the way and not being of comparable power at particular levels, seems to underlie the balance of all these editions, and particularly the older ones. Whether or not that should be accepted as a form of class balance is an open question that one has to answer before one can meaningfully compare the balance of editions. Using "quadratic" to just mean "very powerful" or "unbalancing" obfuscates that question.

So I think what you're trying to say is that high level Wizards were less powerful by RAW then they are portrayed in folk memory and at the tables of uncautious or overindulgent DMs, and that they did not intrinsically unbalance the high level play of the editions in question as much as most of us think. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it seems a fair argument. It is not the same as wizards being or not being quadratic.

 

[Blue]

@overgeeked You replied to my original comment where I was talking about all casters and all editions (outside 4e). I brought up LFQW as a well known example of how full casters were known to grow in power so much faster than martial, but giving an example in no way limited the scope of my discussion to it any more than me mentioning CoDzilla limited scope to 3.5 and Clerics or Druids. I am having a discussion about all editions and casters. If you would like to join that conversation I would be most pleased to discuss it.

 

[Minigiant]

1e

It was extremely balanced. The issue is very few liked what playstyle it was balanced for.