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

[Sacrosanct]

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.

In other words, no, you have no basis for your assumptions, and refuse to acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you.

Shine on crazy diamond.

[Lord Mistborn]

In other words, no, you have no basis for your assumptions, and refuse to acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you.

Shine on crazy diamond.

In other words you're just going to assert I'm wrong and not engage with any of my argumets, that's cool.

[Lord Mistborn]

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).

How? no skills/NWPs untill 2e Theif/Cleric/Wizard all have utility stuff the fighter just has a sword and a Str score.

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

Bow's and Crossbows are of limited help agaist things that teleport, walk though walls, are invisible, have DR your +X is to low for, or any number of ways the game can leave you behind.

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,

If the fighter needs his items to compte it opens a fairly large can of worms, the issue of magic items is something still under debate at the Den.

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.

The problem with the Theif/Rogue is that alot of his usefulness is steaked on being the trap guy. If you don't need him to deal with traps then why is he in the party. According to the Den by potentially being good in combat also the 3e rogue came closser then any of the other 3e mundanes to being able to party with casters.

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.

Once again this is not indicative of a balanced system.

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.

2e spells are often better than their 3e counterparts. 3e casters are stronger because they have more spells and are better at getting them off in combat not because of anything about the spells themselves.

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.

I had heard that their is an edition where monks were op but monks sucking fits with my expectations of D&D. The monk class is problematic because they get a pile of class features designed to allow them to fight without weapons or armor, in 3e it's not enough but I could see them overshooting it in older editions

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

Nope the 3e rule that's most like 2e mulitclassing is called gestalt an optonal rule that is well known for its brokeness.

[Bedrockbrendan]

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.

I dont care if you dislike 2E or think it is imbalanced. Now if you try to tell me I ought to agree with your conlcusions I may explain why I dont share your view, but I let Benoist and others attack second edition without getting defensive, it isnt going to bother me if you criticize it.

We have already established that younhave a different sense of what balance should be than most other posters on this forum. I am fine with a 20th level wizard and 20th level fighter being different, particularly when the situation is inverse at level 1.

[crkrueger]

If you think we're wrong then by all mean step up and join in on the debate.

Put forth something to debate that includes on your side actual proof of anything, otherwise you're just saying the moon is made of green cheese and asking us to go to the moon to prove it's not.  

You have absolutely no experience with any version of D&D pre-3e and yet somehow expect any contention you make about TSR editions to be taken at face value. Not.Gonna.Happen.Ever.

[Lord Mistborn]

Put forth something to debate that includes on your side actual proof of anything, otherwise you're just saying the moon is made of green cheese and asking us to go to the moon to prove it's not.  

You have absolutely no experience with any version of D&D pre-3e and yet somehow expect any contention you make about TSR editions to be taken at face value. Not.Gonna.Happen.Ever.

I.Own.The.Fucking.Books. If I make a wrong claim then correct me by chapter and page number by all means.

You guys are the ones who are circling the wagons whenever anyone even implies that your favorite edition isn't the bestest edition ever.

If it absolutely has to be done I will go through my 2e core books and Rules Cyclopedia and subject them to the same withering analysis that people have turned on 3e for the past decade and they will do no better.

[Sacrosanct]

In other words you're just going to assert I'm wrong and not engage with any of my argumets, that's cool.

:jaw-dropping:

People have been showing you how you're wrong for a month now.  Are you serious?

[Sacrosanct]

I.Own.The.Fucking.Books. .

So.  I own Molecular Driving Forces : Statistical Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Biology, 3rd edition.  But if I have never actually studied or used chemisty and start making claims about chemistry and a bunch of chemists start telling me how I'm wrong, I would be an idiot to say, "well, you guys haven't convinced me of anything and are just circling the wagons so why should I take any of you serious if you're not going to have a grown up conversation."

I mean, Jesus, how can you not see this?  Are you in grade school or something?

[RandallS]

How? no skills/NWPs untill 2e Theif/Cleric/Wizard all have utility stuff the fighter just has a sword and a Str score.

And DEX, INT, WIS, CON, and CHR scores. Saving vs attribute scores is common in old school games. Yes, it is not in the RAW, but it's been done since shortly after D&D was published. 1e had secondary skills. Late 1e has NWP, BECMI had weapon mastery and later actual skills. Also, old school play was about challenging the player not the character, so characters could think up just about anything their players could. (Yes, I know you don't want to count that as you don't like GM rulings, but your dislike of it does not change the fact than other people play that way, enjoy doing so, and don't want to be told it's wrong by people who object to it on principle.)

Bow's and Crossbows are of limited help agaist things that teleport, walk though walls, are invisible, have DR your +X is to low for, or any number of ways the game can leave you behind.

Invisibility can be handled with flour, paint, etc. The ability to walk through walks doesn't require any special ability to counter. Teleport is nerfed pre-3e. Etc. Yes, some monsters are going to be hard for some character classes to handle alone. So what?  There are monsters that only really affect magic-users too. If you think every classes has to be able to take on every monster in direct combat without requiring any other classes, you are looking for a completely different game than I am.

If the fighter needs his items to compte it opens a fairly large can of worms, the issue of magic items is something still under debate at the Den.

Why should I care what the Den thinks/decides?  Especially when it seems obvious from reading posts at the Den that what they want from a game is often the opposite of what I want from a game.

The problem with the Theif/Rogue is that alot of his usefulness is steaked on being the trap guy. If you don't need him to deal with traps then why is he in the party.

Thieves have many other abilities besides removing traps. Hiding in shadows, move silently, pick pocket, et al can be very useful at getting the treasure from monsters one cannot beat in a fight. Thieves -- at least in most settings I'm familiar with -- also have underworld connections that can be very useful to a party of characters.  Combat ability is not the be-all and end-all of the game -- at least not for many of us. Saying that is is or should be isn't going to change out minds.

According to the Den by potentially being good in combat also the 3e rogue came closser then any of the other 3e mundanes to being able to party with casters.

Again, why should I care what the Den concludes.  Thieves have been useful to almost every session a thief has been in since I started playing D&D. Just as useful in their own way as casters -- who have never saw the need to memorize spells that duplicate thief abilities either.

Once again this is not indicative of a balanced system.

As you define balance, this is probably true. As I define balance, it's fine.

2e spells are often better than their 3e counterparts. 3e casters are stronger because they have more spells and are better at getting them off in combat not because of anything about the spells themselves.

Core 2e spells are generally not as powerful as their 3e versions. There are not nearly as many core 2e spells as there are core 3e spells. Pre-3e, casting them successfully is much harder -- and they are harder to obtain.

I had heard that their is an edition where monks were op but monks sucking fits with my expectations of D&D. The monk class is problematic because they get a pile of class features designed to allow them to fight without weapons or armor, in 3e it's not enough but I could see them overshooting it in older editions

Monks seem fine in older editions, perhaps even a bit weak.

Nope the 3e rule that's most like 2e mulitclassing is called gestalt an optonal rule that is well known for its brokeness.

For a broken rule, a lot of people seem to use 3.x gestalt classes without any problems (or at least any that they care about).

[crkrueger]

If it absolutely has to be done I will go through my 2e core books and Rules Cyclopedia and subject them to the same withering analysis that people have turned on 3e for the past decade and they will do no better.

Since you've actually never played any of it, let me know when your analysis from actually having at least read it starts.

[One Horse Town]

Since you've actually never played any of it, let me know when your analysis from actually having at least read it starts.

Hey, i've only read a number of Storygames that i criticise.

[Sacrosanct]

There are monsters that only really affect magic-users too..

Not to mention, in AD&D monsters had magic resistance.  Not the pansy magic resistance you see in 3e, but an outright % chance of ignoring all magic.  That % was often pretty high too.

[Lord Mistborn]

Hey, i've only read a number of Storygames that i criticise.

Remeber when you said the people here could have a mature discussion about class balance. I'm begining to think you're wrong.

Sigh, you know what. I'm not going to beat my head into the wall arguing about older editions. If I've learned anything here it's that making grognards concede any points is like pulling teeth. If people really want to continue a decade old edition war they can do it from my ignore list.

So I'll ask this one more time. How the fuck do we balance a class based game anyway. Tomorrow I'll start posting some potential balance solutions, I've procrastinated on finishing this week's AERSiB for far too long.

[Bedrockbrendan]

from my ignore list.

So I'll ask this one more time. How the fuck do we balance a class based game anyway. Tomorrow I'll start posting some potential balance solutions, I've procrastinated on finishing this week's AERSiB for far too long.

first we have to define balance

[One Horse Town]

first we have to define balance

Balance is subjective. Thus ultimately useless as a discussion trying to pin it down.