The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)

[Bedrockbrendan]

Lord mistborn. How old are you?

[Lord Mistborn]

It would probably be helpful if you first demonstrate an imbalance, and then demonstrate that it needs to be corrected.

Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
Fighter-weak against foes with exotic movement types -all editions
Fighter-excessive dependence on magic items -all editions
Thief- weak in 2e combat/wizard and 10ft poles poach on his terf
Wizard- starts taking over games after a point (5th in 3e 7th-9th in older editions)
Wizard- too versatile, spells can do everything -all editions
Polymorph- do I have to elaborate
Cleric- better at fighting than fighter -3e
Monks- problem class in all editions
Multiclassing- broken- 2e

Also the 2e Summon Monster spell fills me with incoherent rage. (not a balance problem just somthing I noticed when I went through the 2e phb.)

[Bedrockbrendan]

Seriously lord mistborn you should read the entire wizard vs fighter thread someone just linked. These were all discussed in depth. In many instances I think compelling cases were made that each was very much over blown as a concern and often flatly false if you fully understand the 1E and 2E rules. Read the thread. Read AD&D and play it for yourself.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Also the 2e Summon Monster spell fills me with incoherent rage. (not a balance problem just somthing I noticed when I went through the 2e phb.)

was it the second paragraph?

[StormBringer]

Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
...etc

Aside from none of these actually being provably true, that isn't a demonstration to begin with.  Listing your mis-conceptions doesn't make an argument.

[Lord Mistborn]

was it the second paragraph?

Nope the first one.

[StormBringer]

was it the second paragraph?

What what the second paragraph, the one he had to have someone read to him?  I believe that was probably more like 'all of them'.  

[Bedrockbrendan]

Nope the first one.

What bothered you about it?

[Sacrosanct]

Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
Fighter-weak against foes with exotic movement types -all editions
Fighter-excessive dependence on magic items -all editions
Thief- weak in 2e combat/wizard and 10ft poles poach on his terf
Wizard- starts taking over games after a point (5th in 3e 7th-9th in older editions)
Wizard- too versatile, spells can do everything -all editions
Polymorph- do I have to elaborate
Cleric- better at fighting than fighter -3e
Monks- problem class in all editions
Multiclassing- broken- 2e

Also the 2e Summon Monster spell fills me with incoherent rage. (not a balance problem just somthing I noticed when I went through the 2e phb.)

You've never played AD&D, how would you know?

You don't.  This is something that is repeatedly pointed out to you and you keep trotting out the same incorrect assumptions.

so that begs the question, why?  Why do you continue to say stuff like this after it's already been proven false at least a dozen times?

[Lord Mistborn]

For the same reason MGuy and deadDM are still here. You have failed to convince us with your arguments. It took almost all of that 4000 post monstrosity and a thunderdome for people to stop insisting Wizard vs Fighter wasn't a problem in 3rd but people did backpedal.

I can't criticize older editions directly anyway since the resulting grognard spazout will get the thread locked and me banned. So I've been trying to talk general design as much as I can. However if people keep using 2e/1e as a shield I'm going to have to start critiquing it more directly and I don't want to start that if I don't have too.

Of course no mater what logical arguments I make they're going to be dismissed with ”play the game not the rules” so why should I take any of you seriously when talking about game design.

The point is moot because this isn't suposed to be an edition war thread. This is suposed to be about general game design theroy not tied to any one edition.  Can we not do the edition war thing this time.

[Bedrockbrendan]

1) We aren't saying "play the game not the rules" we are saying play the actual game so you can comment on it intelligently.

2) no one gets banned here for insulting earlier editions of D&D. This is demonstrably untrue about therpgsite. I have been here a long time and being contrarian or anti- x edition isn't going to get you banned or get a thread closed. Most forums would have banned you, mcguy, deaddm and kaelik long ago. Notice that hasn't occured here for some reason.

3) Nobody convinced anyone else of their position on the fighter versus wizard thread. However ought to at least characterize the discussion accuratley. Your summary is highly misleading.

4) feel free to criticize 1E or 2E. No one expects you to like editions that dont suit your preferences. Clearly AD&D isnt going to be your cup of tea.

5) if you dont want to make it an edition war thread I suggest you stop relitigating the fighter versus wizard debate, which requires people to talk about features of specific editions.

[Sacrosanct]

For the same reason MGuy and deadDM are still here. You have failed to convince us with your arguments.

When you've got everyone who has actually played the game, and has pointed out to passages in the book showing you where you're clearly wrong and you still aren't "convinced"?  That says a whole lot about you, not everyone else.

I can't criticize older editions directly anyway since the resulting grognard spazout will get the thread locked and me banned. So I've been trying to talk general design as much as I can. However if people keep using 2e/1e as a shield I'm going to have to start critiquing it more directly and I don't want to start that if I don't have too.

Who has been banned for that?  No one.  Stop whining.  And people aren't using AD&D as a shield.  You are the one making claims about AD&D that aren't remotely true, so don't be surprised when people keep pointing this out to you.

Of course no mater what logical arguments I make they're going to be dismissed with "play the game not the rules" so why should I take any of you seriously when talking about game design.

Well, try making a logical argument and see how that goes.  Because the arguments you're making aren't logical.  They've been disproven a dozen times over and yet you keep making them.

[Lord Mistborn]

Given how defensive people are about older editions I find it hard to take people at their word when they say they're fine with them being criticized. I'm willing to bet that someone will argue 2E Wizard 20=2E Fighter 20 for 100 pages. Say what you want about the 3e crowd we at least are cognizant about the flaws in out game of choice. Since this line of discussion is going nowhere. I'm going to ask one more time if anyone else has a metric for game balance.

[RandallS]

Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions

Not really true in OD&D, B/X, BECMI, or 1e. (Probably not in 2e either, but I have not played 2e enough to be sure).

Fighter-weak against foes with exotic movement types -all editions

Bows, Crossbows handle a lot of this. And in TSR editions of D&D, fighters could be quite good with them.

Fighter-excessive dependence on magic items -all editions

Not an issue for me or many other people. The ability to use magical weapons and armor that other classes could not was designed into the class,

Thief- weak in 2e combat/wizard and 10ft poles poach on his terf

Thieves aren't supposed to be good in combat. Combat isn't their thing. The 10-foot pole bit has never been an issue in any game I've seen.  In some versions of D&D, thieves don't even have a "detect trap" ability for this to step on.

Wizard- starts taking over games after a point (5th in 3e 7th-9th in older editions)

It's more like 14th level and higher in older editions of D&D, and even then it is not nearly as noticeable as in 3e. Especially as the spell lists prior to late 2e were pretty short compared to 3e. Also magic was much more limited, easier saves than 3e, no concentration meant any hit before a spell was cast meant the spell did not work and it disappeared from memory, etc. Also, casters were supposed to be better at high levels BY DESIGN to balance their weakness at low levels.

Wizard- too versatile, spells can do everything -all editions

Not really, the number of spells existing were very limited in core 2e and before. There were relatively few of them and many of the problem spells from 3e either did not exist or were much more limited than in 3e.  And it was much harder to get and be able to use the spells you wanted.

Polymorph- do I have to elaborate

Nerfed in early versions of D&D compared to 3e. Polymorph Self did not give one anything more than appearance -- no abilities. Polymorth Other did, but required a System Shock roll or the target died.  

Cleric- better at fighting than fighter -3e

Might be true. I haven't played enough 3e to say for sure.

Monks- problem class in all editions

As I don't run oriental campaigns, I've seldom used them. They did not seem to be much of a problem in 0e or 1e, however. A bit weak on the weak side, in fact.

Multiclassing- broken- 2e

Perhaps, but not nearly as broken as in 3e, IMHO.

I think a lot of this was covered in the Wizards vs Fighters thread, but here it is again.

[RandallS]

Given how defensive people are about older editions I find it hard to take people at their word when they say they're fine with them being criticized.

Since few people playing older editions are concerned about the RAW, the criticisms are different. People who play older editions can argue for pages over things like undead level drain. However, the arguments are about whether one likes level drain or not and what to replace it with if you don't like it. Few people claim the game is "broken" and needs to be fixed because undead drain levels (and those who do say things like "game broken" are generally laughed at), instead they say they don't like level drain and replace it with "X" in their campaigns. As they aren't trying to convince others that some rule is "broken" and this means you people who like the rule as it is don't have any reason to get defensive.