Quote from: Exploderwizard;680344If we were talking about a competitive game, priorities would differ.

The campaigns for which the original D&D rules were written involved a significant element of competition among players. They are nonetheless very far from the kind of competitive balance to be found for instance in The Fantasy Trip (or more modern systems generally).

The latter kind also inherently serves at least one aspect of non-competitive, "spotlight" balance.

Quote from: Bill;680720I agree, but I have heard people defend that indirectly.

As in, an assumption that the rules are the Gospel, and threfore must be Good.

Clearly if one dislikes fighters not being able to fight, there is something wrong with the player, not The Rules.

It's also different priorities.

For some people, charop is one of their main attractions to the game.  Having Fighters be good at fighting is almost an anti-feature, as they want to show off how awesome they are by actually building a character that's good at Fighting.  If it's just as easy as "take this class, and keep leveling it", then there's no point, in their minds.

Now, that's not an attitude I have any interest in, but I can understand that it exists.

Quote from: The Traveller;680381The thief class was shitty. It's an excellent example of why baking a little balance into character options is a good idea.

I agree that it's a good idea, but let us not insist on limiting options only to those that fit a mold. The Thief class was not originally intended for players steeped in the attitudes informing perception of supplemental materials today.

Early weakness in exchange for late strength was not 'unbalanced' in the kind of game for which the OD&D rules were written. That said, the Hobbit ("should anyone wish to play one") was notably disadvantaged all told, and arguably so was the Thief.

In the original context, this was not so bad. For one thing, one could always recruit a Thief NPC, just as one could hire a locksmith in town. It was not necessary that every butcher, baker and candlestick maker should be as good at slaying monsters and such as a Fighting Man, Cleric or Magic-User, and the Thief was basically another (if more fantastic) tradesman.

For another thing, it was not a matter of a Monolithic Party in every session like the cast of a TV serial, nor was dungeon-delving the sole activity of interest. The game was more a matter of a sum of histories of multiple characters, who might get up to all sorts of things.

Quote from: Phillip;680833I agree that it's a good idea, but let us not insist on limiting options only to those that fit a mold. The Thief class was not originally intended for players steeped in the attitudes informing perception of supplemental materials today.

It wasn't intended for players at all from the looks of it.

Quote from: Phillip;680833Early weakness in exchange for late strength was not 'unbalanced' in the kind of game for which the OD&D rules were written.

Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.

Quote from: Phillip;680833For one thing, one could always recruit a Thief NPC, just as one could hire a locksmith in town.

Why? A sixth level magic user could do most of what a thief was meant to be able to do without even having to roll for it. Automatic success, often at a distance, and much more besides.

There is literally no way to fig leaf this, the thief class is useless compared to the rest out of the book and so makes a good example of an imbalanced character option.

Quote from: Phillip;680833For another thing, it was not a matter of a Monolithic Party in every session like the cast of a TV serial

I think that's the key thing that people miss.  While a lot of the early games *did* start out as pure dungeon-crawls (easy way to tell: MegaDungeon in/under/near a major city), the "monolithic party" wasn't really a major part of play.  And that made a lot of things make more sense:  "weak early, strong later", alignment grouping restrictions, easy death, long periods of time to do certain things, etc.

Forgotten Realms is pretty clearly a campaign that developed this way - you've got the MegaDungeon under the city (Undermountain/Waterdeep), you've got the plethora of levelled NPCS (aka: retired characters), a bunch of organizations for PCs to join, and a rather organic campaign world development.

I'm a strongly believer that you can't *really* understand early versions of D&D without having played in at least one campaign that works that way.  I was fortunate enough to play in one in the early-to-mid 90s that was winding down, but you could still see the patterns.  It's a style of play I'd very much like to be involved in again.

Quote from: The Traveller;680840Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.

The thief was also the only class that didn't have attribute prereqs.  It's what you did if your random stats sucked.  It worked in paleo games because, hey, you probably ended up playing the wizard next week anyway.

It doesn't work well with modern campaigns and modern campaign assumptions.

Quote from: The Traveller;680840There is literally no way to fig leaf this, the thief class is useless compared to the rest out of the book and so makes a good example of an imbalanced character option.

By any modern definition, I couldn't agree more.  In much the same way that the wizard starting weak and ending ZOMGPOWERFUL doesn't really work in modern games.

It had a place in paleo campaigns.  Sometimes managing to level the shitty character with the crap stats was its own pleasure.  And since you likely had a binder full of women^H^H^H^H^H characters, it wasn't a big deal to either have a weak one, or if the weak one died.

Quote from: Bill;680435The fundemental difference between level 1 combat in 1E and 4E is that level 1 (sometimes higher) characters can be one-shot in 1E, and it takes at least two hits in 4E.

Not from a sufficiently high-level foe, I think. Also, you can take additional 'hits' from Ongoing Damage (or whatever it's called). Racking up the failed saves might take a while, but it happened pretty quickly to a figure killed by "friendly fire" in the first game I played, and there was apparently nothing to be done to prevent it.

QuoteI decree that means 1E is more lethal.

Maybe less so* in practice? 4E seems cunningly designed to give the impression, just about every single fight, that the PCs are in desperate peril -- and then have them come back handily to win a victory. I've seen players who thereby had no reverse gear, even when things were more actually bad (which they easily could be in a local campaign). Another impression I have about 4E is that when things go pear-shaped, they can get FUBAR fast.

*(edit) I don't mean less lethal than 4E; I mean not so much more lethal as one might expect.

Quote from: Rincewind1;680475I'll be actually damned and agree with what gleichman once said, and what A&E gets right - perhaps assign different values to skills, based on their usefulness in campaign.

If you don't adjust the costs of various things in a points-system game such as one using Hero System or GURPS, then a campaign that's notably different from the design assumptions is likely to have have weird 'unbalanced' artifacts.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679791a) "Doing more damage per round is objectively the best because killing the creature faster is always better."

Wrong.  I have 22hp and deal an average of 5 hp per round,and my opponent has 22hp and does 5 hp per round.  I could increase my damage by 5 points, killing my opponent in 3 rounds instead of 5, taking 15 hp myself.  Or I could decrease the damage taken by 5, killing the opponent in 5 rounds, but not suffering any damage myself.  It's an argument dependent on refreshing all resources (hp) after every battle.

And a mere three additional hit points (objectively a smaller number than five) gives you an extra round to survive in case the opponent gets a lucky roll or pulls off some special attack.

Quotec) "the wizard can do an average of 22hp damage per round with his spells.  The fighter can do 10.  The wizard also can replicate any ability of any other class.  Obviously the wizard is a lot better."

Wrong.  This argument often ignores things that mitigate the wizard's weaknesses.  Does the wizard have access to all of these spells to cast to begin with?  Did he learn them successfully?  Did he happen to memorize the right ones?  The wizard can't cast knock (or any other spell) indefinitely, so what happens if you have 4 locks that need opening in your session?  Is the wizard never in danger of being hit, with his low AC and HP?  Are his spells never interrupted?  Etc.

Along with weapon vs AC, this is the most ignored balancing feature of AD&D.

Thieves are useful in 1e for the one simple reason that you want to be able to try to open a lock without trying to break it, and magic-users don't have infinite spell slots or all the spells that they want like in Amazon.com 3e. Every knock or fly or improved invisibility spell is a spell that isn't killing monsters. If your magic-user is subbing for the thief you are doing the 15-minute adventuring day ("woops, out of knock spells, back to the camp guys").

Quote from: The Traveller;680840It wasn't intended for players at all from the looks of it.


Seriously, have you looked at the thief percentages. By the time they are even halfway to competent everyone else is either ruling fiefdoms or lashing about the place with meteor swarms. And that's all they get. Weird for a game built solidly on stealing things.


Why? A sixth level magic user could do most of what a thief was meant to be able to do without even having to roll for it. Automatic success, often at a distance, and much more besides.

There is literally no way to fig leaf this, the thief class is useless compared to the rest out of the book and so makes a good example of an imbalanced character option.

I need to preface this with the fact that I agree with this.  So the comments made are minor differences, but I agree for the most part.

The thief class was underpowered, but in certain game styles, did ok.  One of the roles that is oft-overlooked is the critical position, for hours of game time in a span, of the silent, unseen scout.  Quieter, more unseen, able to traverse tough terrain, more perceptive (especially in hearing), underpowered or not, a party without a thief did not survive in my settings.  Someone, and often more than one, had to be there to scout ahead.  Read that again.  DID NOT SURVIVE.  
(and this is the case still for me, a group that does not scout ahead does not survive adventuring).

The thief was also one of the classes that had skills that affected the in-town game more heavily.  Picking pockets was clearly part of this, but the ability to start a guild and attract underthieves at 160,00k experience put the thief in the thick of any in-town adventures long before the other classes started their own groupings.  

And while clerics and magic users could do some of the same things, it was a crappy use of a spell slot, especially when the party checked for traps 20+ times a day when adventuring.

Quote from: Imp;680861Thieves are useful in 1e for the one simple reason that you want to be able to try to open a lock without trying to break it, and magic-users don't have infinite spell slots or all the spells that they want like in Amazon.com 3e. Every knock or fly or improved invisibility spell is a spell that isn't killing monsters. If your magic-user is subbing for the thief you are doing the 15-minute adventuring day ("woops, out of knock spells, back to the camp guys").

In addition to this and other points already made, consider the XP tables. The thief might be considered weak but look how swift progression is.

While the MU and fighter are still out in bush scaping by, the thief will have a hideout, and some mooks to use for income, and information gathering.

Once again, if the assumption is that all characters stick together like an ensemble TV cast and level up at the same pace, a lot of stuff doesn't work.

Quote from: robiswrong;680841I think that's the key thing that people miss....
I'm a strongly believer that you can't *really* understand early versions of D&D without having played in at least one campaign that works that way.

I'll second that.

QuoteThe thief was also the only class that didn't have attribute prereqs.

Actually, at that time the Paladin was the only class in the books (as opposed to magazines) that had literal prerequisites. Supplement I did, however, make Intelligence very important for MUs, and gave big bonuses for Fighters with exceptional Strength, Constitution or Dexterity.

QuoteIt worked in paleo games because, hey, you probably ended up playing the wizard next week anyway.

It doesn't work well with modern campaigns and modern campaign assumptions.

...In much the same way that the wizard starting weak and ending ZOMGPOWERFUL doesn't really work in modern games.

Apparently neither do Hobbits who, like their literary prototypes, will never be a match for Conan the Cimmerian in his prime. That's an example of valuing 'emulation' above 'balance'.

Quote from: Phillip;680878Actually, at that time the Paladin was the only class in the books (as opposed to magazines) that had literal prerequisites. Supplement I did, however, make Intelligence very important for MUs, and gave big bonuses for Fighters with exceptional Strength, Constitution or Dexterity.

I was referring to AD&D 1e, so that's probably where we're differing.

Quote from: Imp;680861Thieves are useful in 1e for the one simple reason that you want to be able to try to open a lock without trying to break it, and magic-users don't have infinite spell slots or all the spells that they want like in Amazon.com 3e.

If it fails 90%+ of the time, it's not useful.

Quote from: LordVreeg;680863The thief class was underpowered, but in certain game styles, did ok.  One of the roles that is oft-overlooked is the critical position, for hours of game time in a span, of the silent, unseen scout.

Except they were terrible at moving quietly too. If I recall correctly about the only thing they had any chance of doing was climbing walls, and hey, rope+grapnel. Plus they weren't really very good at even that.

Quote from: Phillip;680878Actually, at that time the Paladin was the only class in the books (as opposed to magazines) that had literal prerequisites.

Yeah, I don't think paleoboy ever actually played older games.

The thief was and remains a great example of why a little mechanical balance goes a long way.

Quote from: The Traveller;680896The thief was and remains a great example of why a little mechanical balance goes a long way.

If you apply modern play assumptions to a class designed for a different set of assumptions certainly.