D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[pemerton]

In 2E, you get shape change at 7th level, which is when mages already have access to spells like polymorph other (which has similar effects), and other fourth level spells.

In 1st ed AD&D, at least, a druid needs considerably fewer XP to get to 7th level than a MU of the same level. (That was part of what started this druid tangent.) Also, a druid gets 3 shapechanges per day, and each one heals 10-60% of damage taken, which is quite a bit better than the 1d12 hp from Polymorph Self.

 

[billd91]

In 1st ed AD&D, at least, a druid needs considerably fewer XP to get to 7th level than a MU of the same level. (That was part of what started this druid tangent.) Also, a druid gets 3 shapechanges per day, and each one heals 10-60% of damage taken, which is quite a bit better than the 1d12 hp from Polymorph Self.

It's really only a difference of 1 level. The MU hits 7th level just as the druid hits 8th at that point on the XP tables. And it's not like the druid's shape changing is quite the combat power it ends up being in 3e. In many cases, that druid is probably more formidable in his normal form than he is in animal form - though it does end up being pretty useful for spying.

Picking out and comparing this one set of trees is really missing the rest of the forest. The MU, even a level behind the druid here, has a lot of raw combat power potential at his fingertips because of his spells that the druid does not have. The druid, instead, has some good support and repair powers as well as good "getting along in the wilderness" abilities. It's perfectly OK for the druid's shape changing abilities to be better than the wizard's polymorph self spell and not consider the druid to be, somehow, overpowered. The druid's a good, flavorful, and fun class to play in 1e - but it's not overpowered even if it does have a few nice and specific places it shines for a while.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In 1st ed AD&D, at least, a druid needs considerably fewer XP to get to 7th level than a MU of the same level. (That was part of what started this druid tangent.) Also, a druid gets 3 shapechanges per day, and each one heals 10-60% of damage taken, which is quite a bit better than the 1d12 hp from Polymorph Self.

In 2E they still need less xp, but require more than a cleric. They can also change three times a day, but each shape is only allowed once per day.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's really only a difference of 1 level. The MU hits 7th level just as the druid hits 8th at that point on the XP tables. And it's not like the druid's shape changing is quite the combat power it ends up being in 3e. In many cases, that druid is probably more formidable in his normal form than he is in animal form - though it does end up being pretty useful for spying.

Picking out and comparing this one set of trees is really missing the rest of the forest. The MU, even a level behind the druid here, has a lot of raw combat power potential at his fingertips because of his spells that the druid does not have. The druid, instead, has some good support and repair powers as well as good "getting along in the wilderness" abilities. It's perfectly OK for the druid's shape changing abilities to be better than the wizard's polymorph self spell and not consider the druid to be, somehow, overpowered. The druid's a good, flavorful, and fun class to play in 1e - but it's not overpowered even if it does have a few nice and specific places it shines for a while.

I have to agree with this. Druids were something that never presented an issue for any of my campaigns until 3E. Possible some if the 2E optional druid material available in supplements were an issue but never had players using much of the druid stuff beyond the phb, so not sure. But as it appears in the phb, they never became an issue at my table.

 

[Hussar]

I have to agree with this. Druids were something that never presented an issue for any of my campaigns until 3E. Possible some if the 2E optional druid material available in supplements were an issue but never had players using much of the druid stuff beyond the phb, so not sure. But as it appears in the phb, they never became an issue at my table.

To be fair, casters in general weren't an issue in AD&D particularly since play was generally lower level and casters were so limited at lower levels.

But, yeah, I didn't generally see the class imbalance issues in AD&D that I saw in 3e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To s were so limited at lower levels.

But, yeah, I didn't generally see the class imbalance issues in AD&D that I saw in 3e.

]

Wait...perhaps I misunderstood your position, but weren't you and I just debating this point regarding AD&D 2E versus 3E for like two days?

 

[Obryn]

To be fair, casters in general weren't an issue in AD&D particularly since play was generally lower level and casters were so limited at lower levels.

But, yeah, I didn't generally see the class imbalance issues in AD&D that I saw in 3e.

There's numerous balancing mechanisms in 1e for magic. The problem is, a lot of them are nitpicky and labor-intensive (spellbook pages, material components, etc.) so they were broadly ignored by quite a few tables. But still, everyone got better at resisting magic as they leveled, which is a major equalizer. (And RC D&D gave some really cool toys to weapon-using characters, so it's one of my top choices for caster/non-caster balance in D&D despite its "Basic" heritage.)

As for the general topic of this month-old thread, which maybe nobody cares about anymore. Intra-party balance is directly important to me because of my actual gameplay experiences with 3e and its offshoots - most notably Arcana Evolved. It's not just a "forum issue" for my group. It was an actual issue that actually and substantially negatively affected my gaming group and my enjoyment in running games. I understand that not everybody ran into these issues, and that others did ... but either houseruled or used other strategies to counteract it (tiered play and the like). But for me? It's a crucial element that I look for in D&D these days. Pretty much end of story. You can certainly say you don't give a care about balance in your own games, and that's fine, but pretending like it's an entirely illusory problem that nobody actually encountered is pretty crappy.

 

[Hussar]

]

Wait...perhaps I misunderstood your position, but weren't you and I just debating this point regarding AD&D 2E versus 3E for like two days?

Umm, no?

I was talking about the balance issues in 2e - none of which I outlined were class based. I mentioned two weapon fighting, and character generation issues. I don't recall talking about inter-class balance issues. Fighters were absolute damage kings, but, the issue was that they were so front end loaded. When first level fighters can deal enough damage to whack 8 HD monsters, there's a balance issue.

Which leads to cookie cutter characters - every character takes a longsword/shortsword combo because that was just head and shoulders better than any other option for fighters.

That sort of thing.

But caster/non-caster imbalances aren't generally a huge issue in 2e since the campaigns stay at fairly low levels, and some pretty stringent limitations on casters.

3e's caster issues generally pop up at higher levels - it's not a problem with a 5th level party. Generally speaking, it's 10th level plus where the campaign changing elements crop up.

3e is a far better balanced system than 2e, simply because it keeps the power level between classes at a given level fairly close. A 7th level cleric isn't head and shoulders better than a 7th level fighter (by and large). 2e's balance issues weren't really between classes so much as problems where given options for classes were just so much better than other options.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Umm, no?

I was talking about the balance issues in 2e - none of which I outlined were class based. I mentioned two weapon fighting, and character generation issues. I don't recall talking about inter-class balance issues. Fighters were absolute damage kings, but, the issue was that they were so front end loaded. When first level fighters can deal enough damage to whack 8 HD monsters, there's a balance issue.

Which leads to cookie cutter characters - every character takes a longsword/shortsword combo because that was just head and shoulders better than any other option for fighters.

That sort of thing.

But caster/non-caster imbalances aren't generally a huge issue in 2e since the campaigns stay at fairly low levels, and some pretty stringent limitations on casters.

3e's caster issues generally pop up at higher levels - it's not a problem with a 5th level party. Generally speaking, it's 10th level plus where the campaign changing elements crop up.

3e is a far better balanced system than 2e, simply because it keeps the power level between classes at a given level fairly close. A 7th level cleric isn't head and shoulders better than a 7th level fighter (by and large). 2e's balance issues weren't really between classes so much as problems where given options for classes were just so much better than other options.

Okay. Just unclear on what you were saying. Disagree with all this obviously, but not going to rehash the same debate.

 

[Obryn]

3e is a far better balanced system than 2e, simply because it keeps the power level between classes at a given level fairly close. A 7th level cleric isn't head and shoulders better than a 7th level fighter (by and large). 2e's balance issues weren't really between classes so much as problems where given options for classes were just so much better than other options.

Say what?

We agree much of the time, but one of the distinguishing features of 3e was its jettisoning of most balancing factors which kept spellcasters in check.

Spell resistance is an interesting (imo) case in point. In 1e, it was based on (iirc) a 10th level caster. Higher than that, you pierce it more easily. Lower than that, and it hoses you harder.

In 2e, it was an unmodified percentile. If a creature had 80%, it had 80% vs everything.

In 3e, it's back closer to 1e, but based on a d20 with caster level checks.

Material components are another big one. 1e and 2e, you needed to track them. 3e, you're solid as long as you have a very metagamey "pouch", which was basically Bugs Bunny's back pocket of whatever you needed.

In 1e and 2e, saving throws are based on the target and rarely modified. It's easier for the deadliest spells, but all saves are pretty close to one another.

In 3e, it's spell level and caster's (buffable) stat vs. a potentially very wide spread of saving throws, which gets wider with level.

In 1e, you get interrupted if you're hit during casting, even for 1 point. In 3e, you need to act at a specific moment with a readied action and your target gets a chance to resist with a skill check.

So I'm not sure where you're coming from, basically.