Every time people say casters in AD&D are way over powered at name level, I think of this




Why?

Because in AD&D, you had:

* no guarantee of learning the spell
* no guarantee of finding the spell (magic users)
* no guarantee that your God would even grant the spell (clerics, and specifically called out that this can and will happen)
* no guarantee of having proper spell components
* any sort of disruption ruins the spell (pouch full of pebbles anyone?)
* super soft squishy primary target of enemies
* no scroll scribing spamming like in 3e
* couldn't use many magic items that were the realm of fighters

And I'm sure there are several others.  High level magic users do have the potential of doing some really powerful things, but there are a lot of limitations around them.  A 10th level MU doesn't have access to spells like Wish, Limited Wish, or Power Word spells that are often quoted in these types of discussions, and yet 10th level is often believed to be "high level'.

3e is the caster king edition. Making spell interruption near impossible, item creation... fucking wands man. Wands were absolutely retarded.

Yes, a good GM can reign all this stuff in. But if you want to talk about mechanical imbalances, 3e is where its at. And then 4e came in and went crazy the other direction.

(though yes, 4e is not PERFECTLY balanced either. But it did get rid of most trap options. I am curious what 1st level character Rooster thinks he could build that would solo a "5th level dungeon" though.)

Balance is OK but its not necessarily achieved without cost. I'm not always willing to pay the cost in fluff, character customization, or whatever.
4E thri-kreen for instance (4 arms = quick draw for free, wooo).

Quote from: The_Rooster;680010AD&D is a prime example of it where past around 10th-level, clerics, druids and wizards can do everything that any other class can do, only better. Great fun fro the cleric, druid and wizard players, not so fun for everyone else.

Seriously?

It is possible to select an initiative system that will make this less true (as it is hard to understand the 1E initiative system and the 2E has a number of options).  But spell interruption can make a big difference.  And remember that you could not penalize saving throws in 1E or 2E.  Casting while flying requires hovering or drifting.  There are no bonus spells.  

Is there really a 1E cleric spell that a 10th level cleric can cast that would actually scare an opponent.  A 10th level cleric has two fifth level spells under nearly any plausible scenario.  That is a 6d8 damage spell, save for half (which is AT LEAST 50% likely in 1E at those levels).  Or maybe a slay living spells, which also requires a save.  I don't see any decent buffs that don't work on the entire party.  Remember, one hit and the spell is ruined.  

Whereas a 10th level fighter has 1.5 attacks per round, likely has a +3 weapon and might well have a strength bonus.  If we can add in guantlets of ogre power, that is a pretty likely hit for 1d8+9 damage (presuming that you aren't using weapon specialization from UA).  At worst I would presume 1d8+3, all day long.  He has to hit, but he can't be interrupted either.  

That isn't a silly level of assumption.  I don't want to say that the cleric in AD&D is weak -- I found it a decent class.  But it really, really hard to imagine it dominating the way it did in D&D3.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;680026(though yes, 4e is not PERFECTLY balanced either. But it did get rid of most trap options. I am curious what 1st level character Rooster thinks he could build that would solo a "5th level dungeon" though.)

Clearly you never spent time on the CharOP boards. There are some seriously broken builds even at low levels. Wardens, for instance, could be amazingly powerful and pretty much bench the rest of the party while obliterating everything in their path.

It gets so much worse by paragon where synergistic combinations come into play.

The sad thing is that it's so easy to fix those issues with a few very minor tweaks and some banned combinations.

Quote from: The_Rooster;680061builds [...etcetera, etcetera] *snips.

It's like you are speaking some alien language or playing a totally different game. Indeed you are playing a totally different game. That's no offense, just that RPGs to me are nothing to do with builds, being the best or other related concepts. I could understand such things if I was playing a video games, but i don't and that is where such concepts should belong.

...I think there is a reason why I only seem to like D100 at the moment.

I am fond of the old WEG Star Wars. If you look at the templates, in particular the starting equipment and background notes it's clear that the different templates are not created equal neither in practical or dramatic terms.

Choose the bounty hunter and you get tons of useful gear, guns and a health amount of credit. Choose the ewok and you start with a spear and "a collection of shiny objects". I tned to find this blantant disregard for fairness in favour of flavour is important.

The key point is you don't have to play the ewok (or the kid or the loyal retainer) if you don't want to. No one forces you to choose one of those templates so there is no reason to complain that they are underpowered.

The option is there because the Star Wars game is more concerned with genre emulation than MMO style balance issues and because some players enjoy experiencing heroic stories from the point of view of character of less than heroic stature and constant challenge of finding ways to be useful in unorthodox ways.

Quote from: elfandghost;680068It's like you are speaking some alien language or playing a totally different game. Indeed you are playing a totally different game. That's no offense, just that RPGs to me are nothing to do with builds, being the best or other related concepts. I could understand such things if I was playing a video games, but i don't and that is where such concepts should belong.

I think you're missing the point.

Theory does not necessitate practice. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That's the essence of charop. Everyone looks at charop and thinks, "OMG! Those people don't know how to have fun or roleplay, they just make things broken and ruin the game!"

The point of charop isn't to ruin people's fun, it's to find the flaws in the game so that people's fun ISN'T ruined. Charoppers don't play those broken builds other than to test them. So just because I could create a 1st-level warden that was basically invincible, doesn't mean I should, or would do it in a regular game.

But the importance of finding those cracks and fixing them means that others can't abuse the system either and everyone exists on a more even playing field, whether they care about balance or not.

Quote from: elfandghost;680068That's no offense, just that RPGs to me are nothing to do with builds, being the best or other related concepts. I could understand such things if I was playing a video games, but i don't and that is where such concepts should belong.

...I think there is a reason why I only seem to like D100 at the moment.

The point of an RPG isn't char op metagaming.  It's to have a social interaction with other players in a fantasy/sci-fi game world where players play an archetype role that appeals to them.

Char Op balance should never be anywhere near a priority as actual game play experience.

Quote from: The_Rooster;680087I think you're missing the point.

Theory does not necessitate practice. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That's the essence of charop. Everyone looks at charop and thinks, "OMG! Those people don't know how to have fun or roleplay, they just make things broken and ruin the game!"

The point of charop isn't to ruin people's fun, it's to find the flaws in the game so that people's fun ISN'T ruined. Charoppers don't play those broken builds other than to test them. So just because I could create a 1st-level warden that was basically invincible, doesn't mean I should, or would do it in a regular game.

But the importance of finding those cracks and fixing them means that others can't abuse the system either and everyone exists on a more even playing field, whether they care about balance or not.

Can you provide an example of a single roleplaying game that is balanced as written? I want to know what the holy grail is that everyone should be playing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680091The point of an RPG isn't char op metagaming.  It's to have a social interaction with other players in a fantasy/sci-fi game world where players play an archetype role that appeals to them.

Char Op balance should never be anywhere near a priority as actual game play experience.

Well exactly.

I generally like a game to be well built, but it doesn't have to be balanced, so long as every character gets a chance to shine and isn't squashing another persons fun.

Quote from: elfandghost;679739Following on from this thread .

Should there be game balance at all? And if so, should it be mechanical (within the rules); through role-playing (cultural differences) and/or through the GM?

Mechanical balance: If a player has a mechanical choice in play, chargen, or advancement, that choice should have rough parity with the other options. Choices that are too bad to take or too good not to take aren't really choices. Where no choice exists, balance does not matter. At least to me, and at least so long as the disparity isn't something insane.

Scenario/setting balance: Players should have similar choices when engaging the setting or situation of the game. They should have the option prepare for challenges and pick and choose which challenges they face and how they face them. I'm more okay with some false choices here. There absolutely should be some cakewalks and some TPKs waiting to happen.

Mechanical/setting balance: If players can make mechanical choices about their characters' capabilities based on the challenges they want/expect to face, and can choose their challenges based on their characters' capabilities, I really see no need for hand-holding from myself as a GM. Seems to me like a good way for things to work.

Quote from: The_Rooster;680087I think you're missing the point.

Theory does not necessitate practice. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That's the essence of charop. Everyone looks at charop and thinks, "OMG! Those people don't know how to have fun or roleplay, they just make things broken and ruin the game!"

The point of charop isn't to ruin people's fun, it's to find the flaws in the game so that people's fun ISN'T ruined. Charoppers don't play those broken builds other than to test them. So just because I could create a 1st-level warden that was basically invincible, doesn't mean I should, or would do it in a regular game.

But the importance of finding those cracks and fixing them means that others can't abuse the system either and everyone exists on a more even playing field, whether they care about balance or not.

That is nice and all but fails to keep in mind that the purpose of a design is to model a setting or genre. A game can be flawed if to doesn't do what it supposed to do. For example having death rules that turn out to be too realistic in a RPG about Looney Tunes cartoon action.

Elves in the world of Middle Earth are superior to humans in every sense mechanically. Their limitations are  all roleplaying. The design of a RPG about Middle Earth the game needs to reflect that to faithfully reflect its setting.

Even general purpose RPGs like D&D, Runequest, etc, have to decide on a implied setting and design to it. This is because the RPGs are games where the players can attempt anything as their characters. This means there is no way an RPG can account for every situation that comes up in play.

Pun Pun the kolbold existed because the Charops folks combined several books and actions that made no sense in terms of the implied setting or even an explicit setting.

Again there can be mechanical issues with a design but Charops exploits are not one of them.

With that being said there is one area where rules should be designed with true mechanical balance in mind. The rules used for organized play. There it is essential for a fair and level playing field. However a company using organized play HAS to make this a separate rule book or handout. Or the main game will suffer from blandness and be stuck with a implied setting that both boring and makes no sense.

Quote from: fuseboy;679756I'm sure this has been chopped to death in other threads, but I find it interesting to ask what we're balancing?

The characters are have equal ______________________ (what?)

• relevance to the outcome of combats
• relevance to each sphere of action (e.g. everyone has something to do in combat, in diplomacy, in exploration, etc.)
• power, but in different spheres
• access to spheres that are most relevant to their character
• numbers of decisions to make
• connection to the campaign's events through their backstories or game history
• ability to affect what happens in the campaign
• focus around the playing table
• power in the game world in some absolute sense (e.g. political)
• some subtle combination of all these things, and more, that differs player by player

yes, this is what I saw immediately.
All games try to be somewhat balanced, but they balance around the fulcrum of the type of games the rules are meant for.