Were the different experience level progressions supposed to be in the interest of balance?
I thought they were just how the early designers thought the different classes 'should' progress, not an attempt to make the weaker classes level faster than the stronger. (If it was a balance attempt they seem to have had a peculiar view of which classes were 'weak').
I honestly don't know what the thought process behind the XP charts was.
Magic-users progressed incredibly slowly at first, when they were at their weakest and least useful to the group. Then, when they reached high levels and became dominating in battles, they progressed faster than fighters. At around 9th level a fighter would be a full two levels behind a magic-user with the same amount of XP.
There was also the situation where the XP needed to advance at high levels flattened out but monster XP kept increasing for higher-level challenges. The result was that you actually advanced much faster through the levels as you got higher level, especially if you used the 1 gp = 1 XP rule.
Were the different experience level progressions supposed to be in the interest of balance?
I thought they were just how the early designers thought the different classes 'should' progress, not an attempt to make the weaker classes level faster than the stronger. (If it was a balance attempt they seem to have had a peculiar view of which classes were 'weak').
How so? I think it did a good job at allowing a degree (not complete) of balancing - seems semantics. The other factor was that classes did quite specific things meaning that Thieves being a joke wasn't really the case in 1e/2e (I really liked the 2e way of thief ability pointing up) for example. Parties were much more paper, scissors, rock - of course many complain that it forced a certain combination of classes. This wasn't a mistake this WAS the games design.
S.
I've never played 2e, so perhaps that's the difference. I'm referring to 0E and AD&D.
What I meant was that some of the weaker classes progressed more slowly than some of the stronger classes. It didnt seem like a 'balance' issue to me - I'd presumed it was more an aesthetic judgement.
Were the different experience level progressions supposed to be in the interest of balance?
I thought they were just how the early designers thought the different classes 'should' progress, not an attempt to make the weaker classes level faster than the stronger. (If it was a balance attempt they seem to have had a peculiar view of which classes were 'weak').
I think they knew that they couldn't really balance magic so other classes leveled up faster and AD&D were not fighter replacements like 3.x ones.
wizard-fighter-cleric-thief was more or less the powerful to weakest classes in the 2nd ed books.
That was a major cause of 3.o's problems. Powerful classes leveled up just as fast as the normal classes and they buffed spellcasters and nerfed fighters. Was not balanced in the modern sense of the word but you did not have the game wrecking abuse of 3rd ed except maybe at the very highest levels with wizards and they were still glass cannons.
|
highest levels with wizards and they were still glass cannons.
Being a glass cannon was what kept Magic Users in check AND the rules supported this. I played H4 Throne of Bloodstone (for Levels 18-100) and after setting out my Archmage never had a full complement of spells. At 15 mins per spell per level a single 9th level spell took 2 hours 15 min to learn AFTER an 8 hour rest. This was shortened to 10 mins per spell per spell level. But serious resource management was required. The 3e, wow its morning, poof I know all my spells - seriously I'm just shaking my head. Then everybody wonders why magic out of hand in 3e?
The Wizards in Dragonlance would have never lost against the rabble and Knights under 3e...
My solution has been to play 2nd ed and BECMI again. Probably DM my 1st game of 1st ed soon as well. I don't think the wizard outside a few annoying spells is the main offender in 3.x type games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a glass cannon was what kept Magic Users in check AND the rules supported this.
Not to say that AD&D 2nd Ed was a Paragon of Balance, but I honestly think this is one of the main causes of the 'issue' with spell casters in 3e. Magical spells were taken, almost word for word, from 2nd Ed to 3e. Sure, there was some further adjustments in the transition from 3e to 3.5, but still, by and large, magic didn't really change much.
What did change, however, was twofold:
First, while they did bring the spell lists into 3e almost wholesale, they did so without the downsides to being a spellcaster. Monstrous memorization times, casting speed, ease of being interrupted (it sucked a lot more to be a wizard in melee in 2nd Ed than 'casting defensively' could ever hope to echo.) There was a lot of inconveniences to being a wizard, that was never translated into the new editions.
Secondly, the amount of hit points for PCs and NPCs has increased significantly, especially in higher level play, while the spells do roughly (or exactly) the same damage as they've always done. A fireball is 10d6, same as 2nd Ed, but the impact of that ~35 damage has changed a lot. I think this is what leads to the "wizards shouldn't focus on damage" idea you see tossed around frequently.
I'm also sure the changes to saving throws have some significant impact, but to be honest I don't remember the old system well enough to say which way that change has swung.
Anyway, in summary I'll say that I like the powerful wizard. I hate when magic gets turned into 'just another attack'. I think it should be special, and powerful. I also think it should come with inconvenient consequences, even though I realize this is much harder to balance.
I've spent the last 9 months or so playing OSR type games. They are still fin and once you see spell casters being used aain in AD&D it is very different from 3rd ed.
They just took the brakes off in 3.0 spell DCs being a big offender, hit point bloat being another one and the removal of restrictions. Even the way MR/SR worked contribute to the problem along with the fighter nerf.
Thought I'd mention that the last playtest packet is up. I'm downloading it as I type this...
|
|
Multi-classing restrictions, lets say that word again, restrictions. They actually included RESTRICTIONS. Awesome. Seriously I was sick of the hippy hug a tree permissive rubbish that 3e era introduced.
I can hear it now; "But I want to be a Wizard, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Battle Gimp, Panzer Tank. D&DN Sux, none of the Kidz will play!"
Now I can say as DM (NOT GM)... "Bite me." :)
WotC is right on track to have me buy their product. They really are making a game I like.
Happy.
|
|
Post more on MC restrictions please.
Not sure if I can give details (anyone?). But generally speaking you need a certain level of stat to multi-class. Think of the old restrictions on being dual-class in 1e AD&D. Very similar idea. This will mean that where you place your stats initially will determine any later multi-class path and will curtail the dreaded 'class dip' that is seen in 3.5e & PF (lesser extent).
S.
My friend runs a Pathfinder campaign and I've recently (a few months now) started DMing D&D Next.
When I first proposed the idea he was taken aback, "Why do we need another game? What do you have against Pathfinder?"
I explained to him that I like Pathfinder, but would rather DM D&D for a few reasons. Partially because I wanted a campaign with the proprietary D&D material (Mind-Flayers, Beholders, etc) baked in. Mostly, though, I wanted to be able create my own campaign world. Pathfinder is good at a lot things, but I don't think homebrewing is one of them.
"So," he said, "what about all of the work I put into my Pathfinder campaign? Are we just going to abandon it?"
"Of course not.", I told him, "When you run a game it can still be Pathfinder."
I think it's odd that people often get into these edition wars or frea out over product loyalty.
I get that for some people one game per week or month is all they can afford time for and they want to stick with something. At their table that makes sense. But I guess I'll never understand people who want to fight with each other over one game or another.
|
I explained to him that I like Pathfinder, but would rather DM D&D for a few reasons. Partially because I wanted a campaign with the proprietary D&D material (Mind-Flayers, Beholders, etc) baked in. Mostly, though, I wanted to be able create my own campaign world. Pathfinder is good at a lot things, but I don't think homebrewing is one of them.
This is odd being that PF is essentially D&D.
Pathfinder isn't going anywhere in a hurry.
Yeap, neither is 2E
I explained to him that I like Pathfinder, but would rather DM D&D for a few reasons. Partially because I wanted a campaign with the proprietary D&D material (Mind-Flayers, Beholders, etc) baked in. Mostly, though, I wanted to be able create my own campaign world. Pathfinder is good at a lot things, but I don't think homebrewing is one of them.
This is odd being that PF is essentially D&D.
I think he's referencing the fact that the more complex the system, the more interaction / interdependencies in the system exist, the more difficult it is to mod it without unforeseen or annoying consequences. The consequences of homebrewing are easier to predict and deal with in a simpler game system. Making your world easier to create / customize. Or I'm way off base and he meant something else entirely :)
Pathfinder isn't going anywhere in a hurry.
Yeap, neither is 2E
And neither is the hope that arises with any new edition. That it will hit that sweet spot (for you) and provide the perfect game.
R Chance is partially right. But also Pathfinder is very much tied to Golarion. I could use the rules for a homebrew but somehow it just doesn't feel right.
I like Pathfinder and Golarion, but I also like DMing my own campaign.
I like the idea of taking the traditional items of D&D (the classes, monsters, etc) and using them to make something that is simultaneously familiar and unique. Golarion is a good example of that as it is very different from say, Forgotten Realms.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To each their own, but I've run my home setting in Pathfinder for years now with no issues. Running a Pathfinder game with a homebrew setting is no harder than running a D&D game with a homebrew setting.