PDA

View Full Version : WotC on 3.5 game balance



Drolyt
2010-04-01, 06:30 PM
Alright, it's already been a few years since 4e came out, but one thing I was wondering recently, during 3rd edition's lifespan, did WotC ever admit that the PHB classes were unbalanced? Like in any D&D supplement did they ever say anything except that the classes were perfectly balanced? People were saying spellcasters were stronger than non-spellcasters even before the 3.5 revision, and yet to my knowledge WotC just kind of ignored this issue. I remember WotC articles where they claimed that Monk's were stronger than other characters in low magic games (admittedly a common mistake among players) when the opposite is true. It just seems that they must have known, but did they ever admit to it?

Gnaeus
2010-04-01, 06:34 PM
Yes, when they were drumming up support for 4.0. Better balance was one of the selling points.

JasonP
2010-04-01, 06:35 PM
I think that the way they made 4e is a clear admission that 3.5 was unbalanced.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 06:37 PM
Yes, when they were drumming up support for 4.0. Better balance was one of the selling points.

Right, but that was just a marketing tactic. Did they ever make that claim prior to 4.0's announcement?

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-01, 06:40 PM
Right, but that was just a marketing tactic. Did they ever make that claim prior to 4.0's announcement?

Probably not explicitely. However, a lot of people have interpreted the creation of the Tome of Battle as exactly this, and that it was only ever intended as a direct replacement for the martial characters. (Which is not inconceivable, given that they do map to the phb concepts reasonably, and bring martial characters up a tier or two, (putting them much more reasonably close to the Casting classes than they were otherwise).

I really, really doubt they'd have specifically come out and openly criticised their own core product whilst it was still current, though.

Xefas
2010-04-01, 06:47 PM
If I recall, there was a post on these boards a long time ago that quoted one of the writers for WotC, who said that the imbalance was all part of their master plan. They wanted to reward some kind of meta-knowledge about the workings of the game, so they slipped in things that looked good but actually weren't and things that looked weird but were amazing, and why their example help for beginners is always terrible.

Kind of like how they make MTG cards. That card *looks* amazing, but it's really the worst card in the set because everything else combos better once you get into the mythic rares and anything it would be useful with was banned from official tournament play anyway.

It seemed very conspiracy-theory to me, and I doubt I could find it again.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-01, 06:48 PM
Yeah, admitting that your product has flaws is generally bad for business.

Speaking of which, I recall a 4e article that mentions the Expertise feats and why they were written, but I can't find it. Can I get a helping hand?

/threadjack

Starscream
2010-04-01, 06:49 PM
Probably not explicitely. However, a lot of people have interpreted the creation of the Tome of Battle as exactly this, and that it was only ever intended as a direct replacement for the martial characters. (Which is not inconceivable, given that they do map to the phb concepts reasonably, and bring martial characters up a tier or two, (putting them much more reasonably close to the Casting classes than they were otherwise).

Agreed. ToB was pretty much a blatant attempt to upgrade martial classes so they could compete with spellcasters.

And one that worked pretty well, actually. If they had stuck with 3.5 a while longer and added some splatbooks that built on what ToB established, they might have closed the gap.

But as it stands we have about 50 books that add new spells, and one one book with martial maneuvers. Oh well, it was a good start.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 06:49 PM
If I recall, there was a post on these boards a long time ago that quoted one of the writers for WotC, who said that the imbalance was all part of their master plan. They wanted to reward some kind of meta-knowledge about the workings of the game, so they slipped in things that looked good but actually weren't and things that looked weird but were amazing, and why their example help for beginners is always terrible.

Kind of like how they make MTG cards. That card *looks* amazing, but it's really the worst card in the set because everything else combos better once you get into the mythic rares and anything it would be useful with was banned from official tournament play anyway.

It seemed very conspiracy-theory to me, and I doubt I could find it again.

It would explain why their advice on optimizing characters was always completely terrible, but it sounds too far fetched.

Runestar
2010-04-01, 06:52 PM
They did not expressly admit this outright, but I felt it was implied in some of their supplements.

For example, PHB2 does mention that the alternate class features are designed to help alleviate some of the more common problems plaguing players (such as fighters with useless iterative attacks, monk's flurry of misses, wildshape/spontaneous summoning being too strong, barbs stuck with too few rages at lower lvs, ranger's animal companion being flat-out useless etc).

You had the polymorph subschool being touted as a more balanced alternative to polymorph, and spells in later books seem to shift away from save-or-dies to battlefield control, direct damage or simply "being more fun" or party friendly. Reserve feats were likely incorporated so spellcasters did not feel too useless at lower lvs since they have so few spells prepared.

I still believe tome of battle is unofficial errata for the core melee classes such as the fighter, monk and paladin. Barbarian later got pounce (at 1st lv, no less!). Dungeonscape printed the factotum, wide touted as a viable rogue replacement.

There were "feat patches" for some of the more hopeless classes like the scout (which in turn makes ranger much stronger) and swashbuckler. Magic of incarnum exists to make melee more fun (Yay! Totemists). Healing became cheaper and more easily accessible (like that reserve feat in complete champion which gives free healing up to 1/2 your hp).

MIC was intended to address the issue of magic items being boring in general, though it also had the interesting side-effect of also making magic gear more readily accessible to monster npcs, which in turn makes them more challenging (but also more memorable, as they have more varied abilities).

Subsequent monsters in MM3-5 were noticeably stronger than their MM equivalents, possibly to make allowance for more optimized parties.

Rules compendium also touches on some of these issues, but their responses are more along the lines of "Why we did it this way" rather than "Yeah, we screwed up".

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 06:53 PM
Yeah, admitting that your product has flaws is generally bad for business.

Speaking of which, I recall a 4e article that mentions the Expertise feats and why they were written, but I can't find it. Can I get a helping hand?

/threadjack

I'd like to see that too actually.


Agreed. ToB was pretty much a blatant attempt to upgrade martial classes so they could compete with spellcasters.

And one that worked pretty well, actually. If they had stuck with 3.5 a while longer and added some splatbooks that built on what ToB established, they might have closed the gap.

But as it stands we have about 50 books that add new spells, and one one book with martial maneuvers. Oh well, it was a good start.

I like the general idea behind Tome of Battle, but like a lot of late 3.5 material it was very flavor specific, as opposed to the core classes which could be applied to a variety of settings (I've played games set in the modern era using the core classes). Now a lot of people will point out that you don't have to use the flavor, and the Warblade in particular could be thrown into any setting while ignoring the flavor completely, but that's besides the point.

That said, mechanics wise ToB was pretty sound and it did help non-spellcasters to not suck so bad.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 06:58 PM
They did not expressly admit this outright, but I felt it was implied in some of their supplements.

For example, PHB2 does mention that the alternate class features are designed to help alleviate some of the more common problems plaguing players (such as fighters with useless iterative attacks, monk's flurry of misses, wildshape/spontaneous summoning being too strong, barbs stuck with too few rages at lower lvs, ranger's animal companion being flat-out useless etc).

You had the polymorph subschool being touted as a more balanced alternative to polymorph, and spells in later books seem to shift away from save-or-dies to battlefield control, direct damage or simply "being more fun" or party friendly. Reserve feats were likely incorporated so spellcasters did not feel too useless at lower lvs since they have so few spells prepared.

I still believe tome of battle is unofficial errata for the core melee classes such as the fighter, monk and paladin. Barbarian later got pounce (at 1st lv, no less!). Dungeonscape printed the factotum, wide touted as a viable rogue replacement.

There were "feat patches" for some of the more hopeless classes like the scout (which in turn makes ranger much stronger) and swashbuckler. Magic of incarnum exists to make melee more fun (Yay! Totemists). Healing became cheaper and more easily accessible (like that reserve feat in complete champion which gives free healing up to 1/2 your hp).

MIC was intended to address the issue of magic items being boring in general, though it also had the interesting side-effect of also making magic gear more readily accessible to monster npcs, which in turn makes them more challenging (but also more memorable, as they have more varied abilities).

Subsequent monsters in MM3-5 were noticeably stronger than their MM equivalents, possibly to make allowance for more optimized parties.

I more or less agree with this, to some extent at least, but it isn't very helpful to newbies. Their article section on their website particularly baffled me, it often gave absolutely insane recommendations on how to build your characters. The fact that they never bothered to make official guides on how to balance the party just kind of bugs me.

Asbestos
2010-04-01, 07:03 PM
If I recall, there was a post on these boards a long time ago that quoted one of the writers for WotC, who said that the imbalance was all part of their master plan. They wanted to reward some kind of meta-knowledge about the workings of the game, so they slipped in things that looked good but actually weren't and things that looked weird but were amazing, and why their example help for beginners is always terrible.

Kind of like how they make MTG cards. That card *looks* amazing, but it's really the worst card in the set because everything else combos better once you get into the mythic rares and anything it would be useful with was banned from official tournament play anyway.

It seemed very conspiracy-theory to me, and I doubt I could find it again.

I've heard that story before too, and I agree that it does sound rather unlikely. Putting 'traps' into a game on purpose? That's just bad game design.

Eldariel
2010-04-01, 07:04 PM
I more or less agree with this, to some extent at least, but it isn't very helpful to newbies. Their article section on their website particularly baffled me, it often gave absolutely insane recommendations on how to build your characters. The fact that they never bothered to make official guides on how to balance the party just kind of bugs me.

That's why they opened the Char Ops-forum; better let competent people figure that out since they can't trust themselves not to give horrible advice :smallcool:


I've heard that story before too, and I agree that it does sound rather unlikely. Putting 'traps' into a game on purpose? That's just bad game design.

I can't find it, but I do remember it in some interview. They wanted to reward system mastery much like in MTG; basically, they decided they wanted expert players to simply be able to construct more powerful characters as they're able to evaluate matters more evenly.

JaronK
2010-04-01, 07:06 PM
It was certainly implicitly declaired in the end when they started making powered up replacements of the core classes and other early game classes (Warblade for Fighter and Barbarian, Swordsage for Monk and Ninja, Factotum for Rogue, Crusader for Paladin and Knight) and providing suggested nerfs for the higher powered classes (Shapeshift Variant for Druids). I don't think they ever outright said anything, and remember that different designers had different ideas for how balance should be. They definitely started to get the hang of things after a while... if you look at the later classes, they started to even out a lot more. A few classes didn't work (Truenamer, Shadowcaster) but most were right in the T3 band, so they were doing pretty good.

JaronK

Reverent-One
2010-04-01, 07:08 PM
There were "feat patches" for some of the more hopeless classes like the scout (which in turn makes ranger much stronger) and swashbuckler.

Just curious, what feats are these?

JaronK
2010-04-01, 07:09 PM
Just curious, what feats are these?

Swift Hunter is the Scout one, allowing you to multiclass with Ranger and stack the abilities. There's one for Fighter/Swashbucklers and Rogue/Swashbucklers as well.

JaronK

Philistine
2010-04-01, 07:11 PM
I've heard that story before too, and I agree that it does sound rather unlikely. Putting 'traps' into a game on purpose? That's just bad game design.

The author in question was Monte Cook, and you can read it for yourself here. (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

Greenish
2010-04-01, 07:15 PM
Just curious, what feats are these?Swift Hunter allows ranger's favoured enemy progression to be advanced with scout levels and scout's skirmish to be advanced by ranger levels.

The rogue/swashbuckler one (the name escapes me at the moment) allowed swashbuckler levels to keep advancing sneak attack damage.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-01, 07:18 PM
Swift Hunter allows ranger's favoured enemy progression to be advanced with scout levels and scout's skirmish to be advanced by ranger levels.

The rogue/swashbuckler one (the name escapes me at the moment) allowed swashbuckler levels to keep advancing sneak attack damage.There were a lot of feats like that later on. Fusing paladin with other classes, monk with other classes (yay Talashtora!), rogue, ranger, scout, and numerous other lower-tier classes.

It definitely added a bit of oomph in places it was needed.

Now they just need to do something with the samurai, the divine mind, the soulborn, and the soulknife.

The truenamer, though, is pretty much unsalvageable without a full rewrite.

JaronK
2010-04-01, 07:21 PM
Now they just need to do something with the samurai,

Imperious Command sort of did it. They need a bit more though.


and the soulknife.

Soulbow, perhaps?


The truenamer, though, is pretty much unsalvageable without a full rewrite.

Helpful hints on book burning, perhaps?

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2010-04-01, 07:23 PM
The rogue/swashbuckler one (the name escapes me at the moment) allowed swashbuckler levels to keep advancing sneak attack damage. That would be Daring Outlaw.

There's also Swift Ambusher, another way to make dipping into Scout worthwhile (for Rogues). The key to all of the multiclassing feats is that they're asymmetric: they reward the right one-sided class investment much more than the other way around. Regardless, you never need more than 3 levels of Scout. Usually the way the multiclassing feats work is you take the minimum in the weaker class, but sometimes not. Sacred Outlaw (Dragon # 357) is different: it combines Rogue and Cleric levels for sneak attack (a strong class ability for a weaker class) and undead turning (a weak ability for a strong class), so this also works well with a Cleric dip (to pick up domains and 2 good saves) with a mostly Rogue character.

Runestar
2010-04-01, 07:24 PM
Swift Hunter allows ranger's favoured enemy progression to be advanced with scout levels and scout's skirmish to be advanced by ranger levels.

Because it did just too little damage. There was another feat which lets it stack with rogue for skirmish.


The rogue/swashbuckler one (the name escapes me at the moment) allowed swashbuckler levels to keep advancing sneak attack damage.

Which in turn gave people a reason to actually take more than 3 lvs in swashbuckler. I have to commend wotc on the elegance of their solution. A single feat actually being able to redeem an entire class?!? :smallamused:

There was also some unofficial update for the hexblade posted on one of the designer's blog, IIRC.

Does a patch exist for the warlock outside of hellfire warlock? :smalleek:

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 07:27 PM
The author in question was Monte Cook, and you can read it for yourself here. (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

I read that article, and although I could almost believe Monte Cook would do that, it still baffles me that it would make it to print. To be honest, intent isn't even the point, what he said is true insofar as the PHB is written in such a way as to not give you a damn clue what you should actually be doing with the rules.

There were a lot of feats like that later on. Fusing paladin with other classes, monk with other classes (yay Talashtora!), rogue, ranger, scout, and numerous other lower-tier classes.

It definitely added a bit of oomph in places it was needed.

Now they just need to do something with the samurai, the divine mind, the soulborn, and the soulknife.

The truenamer, though, is pretty much unsalvageable without a full rewrite.
The problem with that is it just increases non-spellcaster's dependence on multiclassing. Never take more than 4 levels of Fighter, Barbarian is just a 1 or 2 level dip, stuff like that.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-01, 07:27 PM
Does a patch exist for the warlock outside of hellfire warlock? :smalleek:Dragonfire adept.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 07:29 PM
Does a patch exist for the warlock outside of hellfire warlock? :smalleek:

Not that I know of, but Warlocks aren't that bad. They are at least comparable to Rogues and the like.

Tengu_temp
2010-04-01, 07:33 PM
I read that article, and although I could almost believe Monte Cook would do that, it still baffles me that it would make it to print. To be honest, intent isn't even the point, what he said is true insofar as the PHB is written in such a way as to not give you a damn clue what you should actually be doing with the rules.

Remember that 3.0 was the first roleplaying game released by WotC - they only made Magic before. They probably thought, due to lack of experience, that the rules of a trading card game, a competetive game focusing on figuring out the winning combos, also apply to an RPG, a cooperative game where everyone should be able to contribute and feel useful.

That's the generous interpretation.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 07:40 PM
Remember that 3.0 was the first roleplaying game released by WotC - they only made Magic before. They probably thought, due to lack of experience, that the rules of a trading card game, a competetive game focusing on figuring out the winning combos, also apply to an RPG, a cooperative game where everyone should be able to contribute and feel useful.

That's the generous interpretation.

That actually makes some sense, but I still doubt they would do something like that on purpose. Honestly I don't know the circumstances behind WotC's purchase of D&D, I know that TSR managed to screw both Arneson and Gygax of their royalties and that after Gygax quit due to various disputes TSR suffered huge mismanagement, but why WotC thought D&D was a good purchase is beyond me, I love D&D but I can't see how they would think it would be a good moneymaker.

lesser_minion
2010-04-01, 07:44 PM
If I recall, there was a post on these boards a long time ago that quoted one of the writers for WotC, who said that the imbalance was all part of their master plan. They wanted to reward some kind of meta-knowledge about the workings of the game, so they slipped in things that looked good but actually weren't and things that looked weird but were amazing, and why their example help for beginners is always terrible.

That thread exaggerated Monte's position, IIRC. If you read the article, you'll note that the examples are all things like swords being better than axes in the cases where the only difference is that axes do triple damage on a crit while swords crit twice as often, and that toughness is only useful as a feat for first level elf wizards who otherwise aren't going to live that long.

I never read it to imply that druids being massively more powerful than fighters was intentional.

It's worth noting at the same time that 'system mastery' was also the argument Monte made against letting the 3.5 designers change things simply because they found them distasteful (e.g. wizards buffing everyone's Strength, Con, and Dex at the start of the day).

Also, bear in mind that the key issues behind 3.0 mostly came from being rushed to production (Monte actually admitted that there were many catastrophic bugs that needed ironing out, mostly in the form of bards, rangers, bards, and rangers).

[hr]

As for the claim that ToB was a tacit admission that there was a problem, I don't believe that either - I get the impression that it was more "oh crap, this is an awesome idea but it's too late in the game to put it into the core books" as opposed to "oh crap, look at this feedback, we need to patch this HARD".

DeltaEmil
2010-04-01, 07:46 PM
Didn't D&D do very good money when TSR wasn't being mismanaged? I remember having read somewhere that AD&D 1st edition is still the best-selling edition of all D&D-versions, and that AD&D 2nd edition wasn't that shabby at the beginning.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 07:51 PM
Didn't D&D do very good money when TSR wasn't being mismanaged? I remember having read somewhere that AD&D 1st edition is still the best-selling edition of all D&D-versions, and that AD&D 2nd edition wasn't that shabby at the beginning.

No idea, but it doesn't seem like it would be an extraordinarily profitable business. The three core rulebooks sell for a total of $90, even if that were magically pure profit, and you sold a million copies of each, that's only 90 million dollars. Okay, I just said only there, I'd love to have 90 million and it would be pretty nice for a small company like TSR, but given the cost of purchasing the intellectual property and putting together a team to make a new edition, it's not much for a major company. There are movie stars worth more than that, not to mention people in big business. Maybe I'm underestimating how popular D&D is.

Tengu_temp
2010-04-01, 07:54 PM
Seeing that WotC seems to be making a lot of money on DND, yeah, I'd say you are underestimating its popularity.

DeltaEmil
2010-04-01, 08:01 PM
Pen-and-Paper-games generally aren't that profitable compared to trading card games. After all, Habro brought up Wizards of the Coast because they made money with the Pokémon- and Magic-the Gathering-card games (especially because of Pokémon). However, D&D is still profitable for Wotc (perhaps even moreso with their D&D-Insider business model), and it's one huge prestige property in the gaming world.
But I don't think that acquiring the rights for D&D was that expensive for Wotc, after TSR was practically bankrupt.

Drolyt
2010-04-01, 08:08 PM
Pen-and-Paper-games generally aren't that profitable compared to trading card games. After all, Habro brought up Wizards of the Coast because they made money with the Pokémon- and Magic-the Gathering-card games (especially because of Pokémon). However, D&D is still profitable for Wotc (perhaps even moreso with their D&D-Insider business model), and it's one huge prestige property in the gaming world.
But I don't think that acquiring the rights for D&D was that expensive for Wotc, after TSR was practically bankrupt.

It's probably that it was a cheap acquisition. I'm positive that their card games are more profitable. According to Wikipedia, TSR at it's height had a profit of about 1 million a year, pretty nice for the people that owned TSR but still small in the business world, Hasbro making a profit of hundreds of millions a year. I think WotC managed to make the game far more profitable, but I don't have numbers. The way they are managing 4e it is probably more profitable than 3e was.

Runestar
2010-04-01, 09:09 PM
Remember that 3.0 was the first roleplaying game released by WotC - they only made Magic before. They probably thought, due to lack of experience, that the rules of a trading card game, a competetive game focusing on figuring out the winning combos, also apply to an RPG, a cooperative game where everyone should be able to contribute and feel useful.

I am not sure so. 3.0 was revolutionary in that it did manage to fix many of the issues plaguing 2e, but it also introduced many more problems.

I would chalk it down largely to faulty assumptions and inadequate playtesting. The game was designed around 1 playstyle, and once you deviate from that, all semblance of balance goes out the window.

Remember when 3.0 haste was first printed? There wasn't a single spellcaster who didn't start combat by first casting haste. I have no idea how that managed to slip by the designers.

Believe it or not, dnd was actually balanced if you played under the "Fighter tanks, rogue flanks, cleric heals and wizard blasts" paradigm. But with the internet contributing to the sharing of ideas, people soon discovered that fighter was a druid class feature, healing was subpar unless performed outside of combat and blasting was generally inefficient compared to battlefield control.

Encounters ended up being no match for this new party makeup.


As for the claim that ToB was a tacit admission that there was a problem, I don't believe that either - I get the impression that it was more "oh crap, this is an awesome idea but it's too late in the game to put it into the core books" as opposed to "oh crap, look at this feedback, we need to patch this HARD".

I don't believe it is any coincidence that the 4e combat system largely mirrors the maneuver system. ToB was likely meant to test the waters and gauge the audience's reaction to such a mechanic. So ToB was the designer's vision of what a "re-balanced" 4e fighter might look like.

Eldariel
2010-04-01, 09:36 PM
Remember when 3.0 haste was first printed? There wasn't a single spellcaster who didn't start combat by first casting haste. I have no idea how that managed to slip by the designers.

Far as I know, its status at level 3 was legacy with rest just being "top-down design" (to use Magic-terminology; that is, take whatever ability you want and come up with mechanics that match it); I guess they figured moving fast is a huge offensive and defensive advantage and allows you to do more in the same allotment of time; Haste mechanics are born!

So...yeah, I think Haste's OPness is explained by mechanical balance simply not being a factor in design. +4 / +4 / extra action / bonus speed pretty accurately matches the benefits you'd think being practically "sped-up" and the only rational way to fix it (with making its bonuses less consistent with the idea, as with the 3.5 solution of only granting extra attacks on full attacks as opposed to extra actions), making it a higher level spell, probably never even crossed their minds due to AD&D-legacy. Of course, 3.0 Haste would be a worthwhile spell no matter how high level.

JoshuaZ
2010-04-01, 09:46 PM
The author in question was Monte Cook, and you can read it for yourself here. (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

Wow, that's wretched. And I'm disturbed how the description is coming from Monte Cook who I've always thought of as one of the better 3.5 writers. He does however say explicitly in that article that he's not a fan with some aspects of this which is a good thing.

DeltaEmil
2010-04-01, 09:50 PM
Wow, that's wretched. And I'm disturbed how the description is coming from Monte Cook who I've always thought of as one of the better 3.5 writers. He does however say explicitly in that article that he's not a fan with some aspects of this which is a good thing.That was back then when he and others made D&D 3rd edition, not 3.5. He went indipendent when Wotc was planning 3.5.

krossbow
2010-04-01, 10:05 PM
That was back then when he and others made D&D 3rd edition, not 3.5. He went indipendent when Wotc was planning 3.5.


Ah yeah, Arcana evolved. I had some fun with that game, but never really delved into thinking about it too deeply to test whether or not it was more balanced than normal D&D.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-04-01, 10:06 PM
Wow, that's wretched. And I'm disturbed how the description is coming from Monte Cook who I've always thought of as one of the better 3.5 writers. He does however say explicitly in that article that he's not a fan with some aspects of this which is a good thing.No worries, he's probably full of it anyway. Hanlon's razor and all of that.

Zeta Kai
2010-04-01, 10:13 PM
The truenamer, though, is pretty much unsalvageable without a full rewrite.

No, the TN is made perfectly fine with a simple tweak: just assume that when they wrote "you TN check's DC = your opponent's HD × 2," the ×2 part was a grievous typo.

Knaight
2010-04-01, 10:29 PM
No idea, but it doesn't seem like it would be an extraordinarily profitable business. The three core rulebooks sell for a total of $90, even if that were magically pure profit, and you sold a million copies of each, that's only 90 million dollars. Okay, I just said only there, I'd love to have 90 million and it would be pretty nice for a small company like TSR, but given the cost of purchasing the intellectual property and putting together a team to make a new edition, it's not much for a major company. There are movie stars worth more than that, not to mention people in big business. Maybe I'm underestimating how popular D&D is.

Well, lets assume a world population of 6 billion. 6 million people is .1% of that, and D&D is probably bought by more than 1 per 1 thousand people, 1 million is very low. Its big all over the place. Sure, its not the Sims, but then they had something like 300 million people in it, which is a solid 5% of the world population. Pretty incredible really, although 6 billion is rounding down significantly.

Endarire
2010-04-01, 10:33 PM
I read a WotC article during the 3.5 days that admitted the Cleric was the most powerful core class.

Clerics heal, and WotC was of the mind, "The Cleric gets what the Cleric wants." This also might be why there are so many more ways to boost divine CL than arcane CL.

DeltaEmil
2010-04-01, 10:39 PM
According to Wikipedia, 20 million people will have played the game at least once, and all the products total from when Gygax and Arneson created the game to the newest edition brought in 1 billion dollar per the year 2006.

DragoonWraith
2010-04-01, 10:44 PM
No, the TN is made perfectly fine with a simple tweak: just assume that when they wrote "you TN check's DC = your opponent's HD × 2," the ×2 part was a grievous typo.
Ehhh... they still have mediocre effects, and I know Zaq (the only person I've seen post a campaign journal of their Truenamer experiences), at least, found that the Law of Sequence hurt Truenamers more than anything else...

JoshuaZ
2010-04-01, 11:01 PM
No, the TN is made perfectly fine with a simple tweak: just assume that when they wrote "you TN check's DC = your opponent's HD × 2," the ×2 part was a grievous typo.

Law of Sequences and the Law of Resistance still makes the truenamer pretty weak with that. And then when they hit 20th level they get Gate at will. So they are really, really weak, and then they become insanely broken. Granted you could just not include the truename effect that does that (I forget what the 3rd tier of truenames is called) but then you still end up really weak. A truenamer with the tweak you give is still going to be very weak given the law of sequences and the law of resistance.

Truenamers also lack much in the way of out of combat abilities. They have a very limited number of truename effects they can learn. This can be dealt with at 20th level because of the gate at will but that's just insanely broken.

A class that is at best 4th tier with a fix, maybe 5th tier and shoots up to Tier .5 or so at 20th level? Just not playable. And what's worse is the point where the truenamer is weakest is around 5-15th level which is where most actual play occurs.

lesser_minion
2010-04-01, 11:15 PM
I don't believe it is any coincidence that the 4e combat system largely mirrors the maneuver system. ToB was likely meant to test the waters and gauge the audience's reaction to such a mechanic. So ToB was the designer's vision of what a "re-balanced" 4e fighter might look like.

No, just no.

It was just a new system for martial characters. No different to any of the five other new magic systems they released. There is no use reading any further into it.

The only thing 4th edition actually kept from Tome of Battle was the idea of giving martial characters something analogous to spells - it doesn't "largely mirror" the maneuver system at all (in fact, fundamental elements of Tome of Battle are completely inimical to some pretty key elements of 4th edition).

Even that has a much simpler explanation. Seriously, it's a nice concept that was reasonably well-received. Why ditch it?

The idea that WotC settled on a system to use for 4th edition, wrote in fundamental differences, and then released the result disguised as a splatbook for third edition is patently ridiculous.


Wow, that's wretched. And I'm disturbed how the description is coming from Monte Cook who I've always thought of as one of the better 3.5 writers. He does however say explicitly in that article that he's not a fan with some aspects of this which is a good thing.

You're reading way too far into the article and assuming things that were never stated.

The things he's talking about are on par with power attack being better than toughness or some weapons being better than others. He even noted that they didn't use a full 'Timmy card' element (in fact, D&D's 'Timmy cards' are all more powerful).

3.0 was seriously incomplete when released. Several classes had been rushed in advance of printing (most notably the ranger), not everything that made it to print had been playtested, and certain classes had picked up fundamental mistakes.

When 3.5 came around, the decision to keep most of the engine had been made. They threw in some patches, but they didn't have the time or the money to fix the most important problems in the system, nor were they able to test the ramifications of everything they did (nor did they try to limit the changes they made).

It took WotC seven years to work out what a caster should be capable of.

Draz74
2010-04-01, 11:38 PM
The truenamer, though, is pretty much unsalvageable without a full rewrite.

How about ...

Storyteller of Creation
Prerequisites: Bardic Knowledge, ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells, ability to use Utterances of the Evolving Mind, Truespeak 5 ranks, Knowledge (any) 7 ranks.
Benefits: Your Bard and Truenamer levels stack for the purposes of determining how many Utterances you know, the maximum level of Utterances you can learn, the bonuses to your Inspire Courage and Bardic Knowledge abilities, and uses of Bardic Music per day.
Add Truespeak to your list of Bard class skills.

This could still use a little work. I'm not sure giving the Bard full Utterance progression, at the cost of a caster level or two and a bunch of skill points, isn't too good. On the other hand, a Truenamer who dips Bard and takes this feat may still be pretty weak, even with Bardic Knowledge and decent Inspire Courage added into his abilities. (But then again, Dragonfire Inspiration ...)

Fluffwise, though, I absolutely love the idea of the Bard working his magic via truespeech.

Optimystik
2010-04-01, 11:44 PM
Just curious, what feats are these?

Another fix-it feat for the list is Master Spellthief. Pity they never made one for the Ninja!


Dragonfire adept.

I disagree; warlocks are more powerful, and got way more love, than DFAs. In a straight-up comparison, Warlocks learn more invocations, have simultaneously more range and better melee ability (thanks to EG), and best of all get the amazing double-whammy of Deceive Item and Imbue Item, making them crafting machines on par with Artificers. Going to splats widens the gap further - more Warlock PrCs, more Warlock invocations, and even Epic feats. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20061027a)


Fluffwise, though, I absolutely love the idea of the Bard working his magic via truespeech.

I do too! Though I might require the Words of Creation feat [BoED] as a prerequisite.

JaronK
2010-04-01, 11:47 PM
No, the TN is made perfectly fine with a simple tweak: just assume that when they wrote "you TN check's DC = your opponent's HD × 2," the ×2 part was a grievous typo.

But that destroys the concept and just makes the Truenamer into a Warlock with different powers, since it becomes very easy to always make the check. The point is that the concept of a skill based magic system where your skill determines success or failure and you can use it only a certain number of times per day just fails, as skills are too hard to control.

JaronK

Draz74
2010-04-01, 11:58 PM
I do too! Though I might require the Words of Creation feat [BoED] as a prerequisite.

I thought about that, but I decided there's plenty of incentive (fluff- and crunch-wise) for them to take it even without it being required. And that I don't want to force all would-be Truenamers to be Good.

krossbow
2010-04-02, 01:20 AM
This thread seems to have gone from a balance thread to a truenamer thread :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 02:53 AM
If I recall, there was a post on these boards a long time ago that quoted one of the writers for WotC, who said that the imbalance was all part of their master plan.
Yeah, I read that. An obvious CYA if ever I saw one.


Yeah, admitting that your product has flaws is generally bad for business.
I'm not convinced that it is, really. It's more like that people are generally unwilling to admit their mistakes, especially in public. It would make a great impression on the fans and buyers if you could tell them that yes, we realize (now) that this-and-this is a problem and we'll do something about it. Point of fact, this is precisely what the MTG team has done several times.


why WotC thought D&D was a good purchase is beyond me, I love D&D but I can't see how they would think it would be a good moneymaker.
As I recall, Peter Adkinson (former CEO of WOTC) simply loved D&D and when he saw the opportunity to buy and improve it, he did. Arguably they did improve it, and certainly they made money out if it: 3E is a wildly successful RPG by any standard.

Greenish
2010-04-02, 03:58 AM
I read a WotC article during the 3.5 days that admitted the Cleric was the most powerful core class.

Clerics heal, and WotC was of the mind, "The Cleric gets what the Cleric wants." This also might be why there are so many more ways to boost divine CL than arcane CL.*rubs eyes and checks again*

No link for hood?

Nero24200
2010-04-02, 05:05 AM
I've heard that story before too, and I agree that it does sound rather unlikely. Putting 'traps' into a game on purpose? That's just bad game design.

Actually it's true, Monte Cook even mentions it on his own blog (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142).

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 05:12 AM
Actually it's true, Monte Cook even mentions it on his own blog (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142).
But he also states that Timmy Cards "are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other". That's completely out of whack with what Timmy Cards actually are and do.

AslanCross
2010-04-02, 05:16 AM
They did admit certain monsters were unbalanced or at the very least badly designed in their Monster Makeover series of articles. The Beholder, Rust Monster and Ogre Mage were among the monsters mentioned.

Player's Handbook 2 presents alternate class features on the pretext of certain abilities being lousy ("Flurry of blows might end up as a flurry of misses") or downright unusable (the paladin's mount).

Runestar
2010-04-02, 05:26 AM
I'm not convinced that it is, really. It's more like that people are generally unwilling to admit their mistakes, especially in public.

I think the problem with admitting your mistakes is that you are generally expected to offer solutions as well. Wotc didn't really do that for 3.5, while some attempts were made at patching the game here and there, for most part, each new splatbook just introduced additional ways to break the game.

If they had admitted this, then our next reaction would be "Then why aren't you doing anything to rectify this?" And we cannot possibly expect them to say "We are, just that the proposed fix is a new system called 4e." Yeah, that would really kill the sales of 3.5 books. :smallannoyed:

Or maybe they were thinking that by screwing 3.5 up real bad, that would increase the number of people willing to convert to 4e. I recall some of the earlier 4e articles really criticizing 3.5 rule flaws quite harshly. :smallamused:

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 06:05 AM
I disagree; warlocks are more powerful, and got way more love, than DFAs. In a straight-up comparison, Warlocks learn more invocations, have simultaneously more range and better melee ability (thanks to EG), and best of all get the amazing double-whammy of Deceive Item and Imbue Item, making them crafting machines on par with Artificers. Going to splats widens the gap further - more Warlock PrCs, more Warlock invocations, and even Epic feats. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20061027a)

All of this makes me sad really. Warlock never really gathered much interest for me. 'Your great-great-great-great grandfather made a deal with a demon/devil/daemon/fey, so you get all these nifty powers and a tragic-misunderstood outcast backstory?':smallconfused::smallannoyed:

DFAs are people who are so devoted to being able to harness the power of dragons that they can breath fire and do more with their breath weapons than actual dragons. That and the ability to determine what powers a magic item has for free and at will is pretty nice.

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 06:28 AM
All of this makes me sad really. Warlock never really gathered much interest for me. 'Your great-great-great-great grandfather made a deal with a demon/devil/daemon/fey, so you get all these nifty powers and a tragic-misunderstood outcast backstory?':smallconfused::smallannoyed:

DFAs are people who are so devoted to being able to harness the power of dragons that they can breath fire and do more with their breath weapons than actual dragons. That and the ability to determine what powers a magic item has for free and at will is pretty nice.

Really? We each have our opinions, but Warlock is one of the most popular classes despite being weaker than the full casters. Well, personally I would rather just play a Sorcerer, but there you go.


But he also states that Timmy Cards "are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other". That's completely out of whack with what Timmy Cards actually are and do.
I read the article, but I've only ever played Magic rather casually, so what exactly is a Timmy Card?

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 06:36 AM
Or maybe they were thinking that by screwing 3.5 up real bad, that would increase the number of people willing to convert to 4e. I recall some of the earlier 4e articles really criticizing 3.5 rule flaws quite harshly. :smallamused:
I'm sure that 5E will start by heavily criticizing unpopular parts of 4E, too.


I read the article, but I've only ever played Magic rather casually, so what exactly is a Timmy Card?
Three main profiles of Magic players are Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

Timmy wants to do something big and impressive, generally involving huge numbers. In MtG terms, he likes big critters; in D&D terms, he is happy when he crits with his barbarian and gets 100+ damage. This corresponds to the "Real Man" archetype of roleplayers. Basically, he wants to be awesome, and he's okay with it if he's awesome two times out of ten, and not particularly effective the other eight, because he'll always remember that time when he cleaved that dragon in half!

Johnny wants to do something clever and creative, generally involving obscure combos that nobody else had figured out yet. In MtG terms, he likes all those cards with ten lines of rules text; in D&D terms, he is likely to play a caster with spells nobody's ever heard of. This tends to correspond to the "Real Roleplayer (Brain)" archetype of roleplayers. Basically, he wants to be clever, and he's okay with it if his clever tricks only work in an obscure situation that doesn't come up too often, because he'll always remember that time when he saved the party's life using a giant wooden alpaca filled with potato salad!

Spike is a munchkin. He wants to win.

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 06:38 AM
Really? We each have our opinions, but Warlock is one of the most popular classes despite being weaker than the full casters. Well, personally I would rather just play a Sorcerer, but there you go.

And characters with the 'tragic misunderstood outcast' backstory are popular too. Doesn't make them good. :smallamused:

Runestar
2010-04-02, 06:45 AM
What's stopping me from refluffing warlock to be another sorcerer variant? At least, I see little difference between zapping them with an EB or a magic missile. :smallamused:

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 06:52 AM
Yeah, admitting that your product has flaws is generally bad for business.

Tell that to Domino's. No, really. (http://www.pizzaturnaround.com/) Or Toyota.
"Pretend everything is fine" is a really 'old-guard' way of doing business. With the ease of spreading information around these days, you can't hide it if your product sucks anymore, nor can you stick your head in the sand and hope nobody finds out. The best option now from a PR standpoint is to face the problems head-on, address them, and deal with them.

While WotC has fixed the game aspect of D&D, they've done so (to an extent) at the expense of the simulation aspect. In an ideal world, we'd have ongoing support for both 3.5e and 4e... but that won't happen, because both systems share too many fans - namely, us.


All of this makes me sad really. Warlock never really gathered much interest for me. 'Your great-great-great-great grandfather made a deal with a demon/devil/daemon/fey, so you get all these nifty powers and a tragic-misunderstood outcast backstory?':smallconfused::smallannoyed:

DFAs are people who are so devoted to being able to harness the power of dragons that they can breath fire and do more with their breath weapons than actual dragons. That and the ability to determine what powers a magic item has for free and at will is pretty nice.

I always found them more interesting than DFAs, just because I prefer Outsiders to Dragons as BBMs.

DFA fluff is pretty vague. You imitate dragons so hard you can breathe fire. Wait, what? "You channel neither arcane nor divine magic, but the raw magic of dragons." If it's not arcane or divine, then what exactly is it? :smallconfused:

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 06:55 AM
What's stopping me from refluffing warlock to be another sorcerer variant? At least, I see little difference between zapping them with an EB or a magic missile. :smallamused:

Nothing at all really, still just find the DFA's out of the box fluff to be more interesting, and wish they'd been given half the support Warlocks were. Dragon Magic had more Warlock only invocations in it too. :smallsigh:


I always found them more interesting than DFAs, just because I prefer Outsiders to Dragons as BBMs.

DFA fluff is pretty vague. You imitate dragons so hard you can breathe fire. Wait, what? "You channel neither arcane nor divine magic, but the raw magic of dragons." If it's not arcane or divine, then what exactly is it? :smallconfused:

I've got no problem with either Outsiders or Dragons as boss type monsters, but its the fact that its supposed to be only evil outsiders or fey that you get your powers from. If they'd had angelic warlocks as something other than a refluffing (and changing a lot of the powers and effects) with out needing a Code of Conduct PRC, or Inevitable-locks, I'd have found it more interesting.

Heck, just getting rid of the angst parts of the fluff would help. :smalltongue:

I don't remember that line, but its late for me. Dragons are supposed to be arcane magic and the DFA invocations have ASF, so I just figured they were using arcane magic. :smallconfused:

Runestar
2010-04-02, 07:13 AM
"Pretend everything is fine" is a really 'old-guard' way of doing business. With the ease of spreading information around these days, you can't hide it if your product sucks anymore, nor can you stick your head in the sand and hope nobody finds out. The best option now from a PR standpoint is to face the problems head-on, address them, and deal with them.

I don't think dnd can be compared with Toyota.

For all its perceived flaws and shortcomings, 3.5 is still very much playable from lv1 to lv20+. True, some classes are clearly stronger than others, and imbalances abound all around, but despite it (or perhaps, because of this), people are still able to have fun playing it. Just because you can break the game by chain-gating solars or simulating pun-pun does not mean you must.

Conversely, with things like cars, it is simply not possible to houserule your way around a faulty vehicle. It either works or it doesn't. You cannot just say "it is not an issue because I houserule otherwise" and carry on.

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 07:16 AM
I don't remember that line, but its late for me.

I'll quote it for you - it's even online. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2)


Dragonfire adepts have no arcane or divine magic, nor are they masters of martial prowess. Instead, they draw upon a direct link with the nature of draconic existence, infusing their soul with the raw magic of dragons. The most obvious incarnation of this link is their breath weapon, but as they gain experience, dragonfire adepts learn powerful invocations that allow them to access different draconic abilities.

It's just so vague. The source of the link with dragons is never explained - it's not racial, since any race can be a DFA, though that might be because Dragons sex up everything with a pulse and your mom ancestor probably had a close encounter of the scaly kind at some point in your history.

And DFAs do things that even real dragons can't do. I don't know of any true dragons with Identify as an SLA, or Dispel Magic (Voracious, Devouring or otherwise.) They're cool abilities, but they seem to me to be just nabbed from the Warlock list for padding.


EDIT:

I don't think dnd can be compared with Toyota.

Not D&D - WotC. And I compared them to Domino's also.


Conversely, with things like cars, it is simply not possible to houserule your way around a faulty vehicle. It either works or it doesn't. You cannot just say "it is not an issue because I houserule otherwise" and carry on.

I never said you could do that. :smallconfused: I think you missed my point.

When there is a problem, the modern company admits there is a problem, and releases a new product that incorporates the lessons they learned from those problems. That's exactly what WotC did with 4e.

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 07:21 AM
I'll quote it for you - it's even online. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2)



It's just so vague. The source of the link with dragons is never explained - it's not racial, since any race can be a DFA, though that might be because Dragons sex up everything with a pulse and your mom ancestor probably had a close encounter of the scaly kind at some point in your history.

And DFAs do things that even real dragons can't do. I don't know of any true dragons with Identify as an SLA, or Dispel Magic (Voracious, Devouring or otherwise.) They're cool abilities, but they seem to me to be just nabbed from the Warlock list for padding.

Okay, thats... not surprising for WotC...

I don't know of any true dragons with ten different breath weapons either. :smalltongue: And again, I wish WotC had given the DFAs some more love. Thats my biggest issue with the class.

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 07:22 AM
And characters with the 'tragic misunderstood outcast' backstory are popular too. Doesn't make them good. :smallamused:

First off, "tragic misunderstood outcast" can be done well. At least I think it can. I've always played Sorcerers (and other classes, but Sorcerers are my favorite) who are completely happy to be different, because when being different means you can make the laws of physics your bitch, well then I think I want to be different.

Anyways I kind of see your point, but I think Warlocks can be played without that kind of thing. Mechanically I think both are less fun than a spontaneous caster, but there you go. We have different opinions.


When there is a problem, the modern company admits there is a problem, and releases a new product that incorporates the lessons they learned from those problems. That's exactly what WotC did with 4e.
I'm not sure that is what they did. 4e is different enough to seem like a whole new product, less of a "let's fix this" than a "let's scrap this and replace it with something better". And not everyone even thinks it's better. For all 3e's flaws, there are several things I like better about it compared to 4e, even if 4e is infinitely better balanced.

Runestar
2010-04-02, 07:26 AM
When there is a problem, the modern company admits there is a problem, and releases a new product that incorporates the lessons they learned from those problems. That's exactly what WotC did with 4e.

Yeah, after having covered it up for like...how long? And only because wotc knew they had milked 3.5 for all it was worth, so it was time to introduce another cash cow. :smallannoyed:

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 07:26 AM
First off, "tragic misunderstood outcast" can be done well. At least I think it can. I've always played Sorcerers (and other classes, but Sorcerers are my favorite) who are completely happy to be different, because when being different means you can make the laws of physics your bitch, well then I think I want to be different.

Anyways I kind of see your point, but I think Warlocks can be played without that kind of thing. Mechanically I think both are less fun than a spontaneous caster, but there you go. We have different opinions.

I know they can, but the fact that they try to beat you over the head with it that puts me off of the class. I really don't want to play a full caster character of any kind. Too much book keeping for my tastes. :smallyuk:

And I know its almost a crime, but I like playing Warmages. Its a blaster caster with out the book keeping. :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 07:28 AM
I don't know of any true dragons with ten different breath weapons either. :smalltongue:

I have no problem with the breath weapons. That's the consistent bit of fluff; DFAs revere all dragons, even though they might identify more with one variety, or more with chromatics etc. So it makes sense that they have access to multiple breath weapons, and mechanically it gives them an advantage when they run into immune enemies.

I'd also be fine giving them some of the Warlock Invocations to buff their list a bit, like the one that lets you counterspell.


I'm not sure that is what they did. 4e is different enough to seem like a whole new product, less of a "let's fix this" than a "let's scrap this and replace it with something better". And not everyone even thinks it's better. For all 3e's flaws, there are several things I like better about it compared to 4e, even if 4e is infinitely better balanced.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Out with the old.

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 07:31 AM
They have some good invocations already (geas as a standard action, free identify, etc... Not that more invocations would be bad), but I'd rather see more ACFs, magic items and maybe a PRC or two for them.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 07:50 AM
First off, "tragic misunderstood outcast" can be done well. At least I think it can.
I agree that it can. But when an entire class (or worse, an entire race) has as its default fluff that they're all oh-so tragic misunderstood outcasts, then whoever wrote that book is doing something wrong.

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 07:54 AM
They have some good invocations already (geas as a standard action, free identify, etc... Not that more invocations would be bad), but I'd rather see more ACFs, magic items and maybe a PRC or two for them.

Point; so would I. Yes, they can get by in the invocation department, although I still find it sad that they have 50% less invocations than Warlocks do, who are already starved as it is.


I agree that it can. But when an entire class (or worse, an entire race) has as its default fluff that they're all oh-so tragic misunderstood outcasts, then whoever wrote that book is doing something wrong.

Were Warlocks fluffed that way? The impression I got was that they embraced their dark heritage, and that the CG rebels are decidedly rare. :smallconfused:

Morthos sure doesn't look like he intends to fight for a world that hates and fears him.

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 08:00 AM
Point; so would I. Yes, they can get by in the invocation department, although I still find it sad that they have 50% less invocations than Warlocks do, who are already starved as it is.



Were Warlocks fluffed that way? The impression I got was that they embraced their dark heritage, and that the CG rebels are decidedly rare. :smallconfused:

Morthos sure doesn't look like he intends to fight for a world that hates and fears him.

Has anything been homebrewed?

And they went with the 'use their powers for evil because they were rejected' anti-hero or villan vibe, which is, IMO, much more annoying.

Remember, as annoying as D'rzzt clone #5982852 is, its still better than having a party member who does nothing but screw everyone else over or treat them like crap the entire campaign.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 08:11 AM
Were Warlocks fluffed that way? The impression I got was that they embraced their dark heritage, and that the CG rebels are decidedly rare. :smallconfused:
Not 3E warlocks per se; however, nowadays there are way too many tragic misunderstood outcasts in D&D (such as most good Drow, as well as emolings). Heck, The Noob had a comic about a guild where everybody tries to out-ham everyone with their tragic backstory of having their family murdered in the past.

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 08:17 AM
Not 3E warlocks per se; however, nowadays there are way too many tragic misunderstood outcasts in D&D (such as most good Drow, as well as emolings). Heck, The Noob had a comic about a guild where everybody tries to out-ham everyone with their tragic backstory of having their family murdered in the past.

Hey, being an orphan can be a good thing in D&D. The DM can't use your characters parents to screw you over if they're undeniably dead. :smallwink:

I just used 'It happened when I was too little to remember them.' to explain why my character didn't angst over it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-02, 08:19 AM
No, just no.

It was just a new system for martial characters. No different to any of the five other new magic systems they released. There is no use reading any further into it.

The only thing 4th edition actually kept from Tome of Battle was the idea of giving martial characters something analogous to spells - it doesn't "largely mirror" the maneuver system at all (in fact, fundamental elements of Tome of Battle are completely inimical to some pretty key elements of 4th edition).

I think you have that precisely backwards, actually; we know from dev interviews and such that they were already planning for 4e for about 2 years before it was announced, so I'd say that all of the late-3e systems were test runs for new mechanics with ToB being just another one of them, rather than none of them being anything more than cool ideas. Think about it--taking every system into consideration with the general internet consensus, you have:
Vancian casting, a general slot-expenditure mechanic, which people found to be too powerful and abusive
shadowcasting, a spell-specific slot-expenditure mechanic, which people found to be good as long as you increase the number of uses
psionics, a point-expenditure mechanic, which people dislike for the flavor much more often than for mechanics (and in fact people like it being different)
incarnum, a point-allocation/slot-allocation mechanic, which most people just didn't get at all
truenaming, a skill-based mechanic, which is just completely nonfunctional in the way it was presented
binding, an automatic-recharge mechanic, which people liked for its amazing flavor but didn't find too mechanically novel once a vestige was bound
maneuvers, an active-recharge mechanic, which people liked for giving martial characters options more than the actual mechanic (though in general the increase in per-encounter/per-combat stuff for martial characters over per-day was much appreciated)
invoking, an at-will mechanic, which people liked for its simplicity rather than its power

So 4e took the three systems that people liked for their mechanics and made them into the 4e system (shadowcasting -> per day, maneuvers -> per encounter, invoking -> at will), and it took the parts of systems people liked for their "feel" and incorporated them into various classes somehow (binding flavor -> warlock pact, ToB stances/incarnum essentia investment -> [Stance] powers, psionics augmentation -> psionics augmentation).

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 08:20 AM
And they went with the 'use their powers for evil because they were rejected' anti-hero or villan vibe, which is, IMO, much more annoying.

To be fair, "use their powers for Evil" doesn't HAVE to be Stupid Evil.

An evil Warlock can be a social mastermind, using Beguiling Influence and Charm to talk his way into power, and crafting/deceiving an array of trinkets to keep himself there - only being a bastard when necessary.


Not 3E warlocks per se; however, nowadays there are way too many tragic misunderstood outcasts in D&D (such as most good Drow, as well as emolings). Heck, The Noob had a comic about a guild where everybody tries to out-ham everyone with their tragic backstory of having their family murdered in the past.

Neither 3e nor 4e ones. In fact, 4e fluff makes it possible to become a Warlock just by study, rather than cosmic roulette. (This is most common for Starlocks; reading books they shouldn't and what have you.)

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 08:41 AM
we know from dev interviews and such that they were already planning for 4e for about 2 years before it was announced, so I'd say that all of the late-3e systems were test runs for new mechanics with ToB being just another one of them, rather than none of them being anything more than cool ideas.
Yes. You can see many bits of 4E design in the later years of 3.5 design; a good example being having your equipment grow back automatically after being hit by a Rust Monster.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-02, 09:53 AM
All of this makes me sad really. Warlock never really gathered much interest for me. 'Your great-great-great-great grandfather made a deal with a demon/devil/daemon/fey, so you get all these nifty powers and a tragic-misunderstood outcast backstory?':smallconfused::smallannoyed:

Just to say, I thought that Warlocks dealt with their various patrons directly, rather than inheriting stuff. Perhaps confusing them with the whole planetouched thing? Or is that how Warlocks roll in 3.5?

Matthew
2010-04-02, 09:58 AM
Oh yeah, I started that thread: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809).

Obviously, to some degree, that is an overblown claim. As with any human endeavour the errors are partly unexpected results of elements never anticipated to interact and partly misjudgements as to how elements interact and are perceived. The PHB is perfectly clear that the classes are intended to be balanced against one another, but the reality is that they are not. Some of that will come down to decision making in a character build and playgroup style, but there are certainly designed inequalities in the game system, which is to say the "sneak" skill is generally a better investment of your skill points than "rope use", and the designers knew that up front.

They did not realise at the time that they had made spell casters a lot more potent than in previous incarnations of the game, and non-spell casters a lot weaker. That was learned afterwards.

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 10:12 AM
Oh yeah, I started that thread: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809).

Obviously, to some degree, that is an overblown claim. As with any human endeavour the errors are partly unexpected results of elements never anticipated to interact and partly misjudgements as to how elements interact and are perceived. The PHB is perfectly clear that the classes are intended to be balanced against one another, but the reality is that they are not. Some of that will come down to decision making in a character build and playgroup style, but there are certainly designed inequalities in the game system, which is to say the "sneak" skill is generally a better investment of your skill points than "rope use", and the designers knew that up front.

They did not realise at the time that they had made spell casters a lot more potent than in previous incarnations of the game, and non-spell casters a lot weaker. That was learned afterwards.

Right, it's obvious that the whole "spellcasting = awesome" thing wasn't intentional. At least I don't think it was. But they must have realized how many feats/skills/etc. were absolute traps. Toughness, any feat that does nothing but enhance skills, two-weapon fighting without a source of bonus damage, all but a handful of skills, etc.

How were the classes balanced in previous editions? My experience with BD&D is minimal, and my experience with AD&D is nonexistant, were spellcasters overpowered then as well? If not, why not?

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 10:19 AM
How were the classes balanced in previous editions? My experience with BD&D is minimal, and my experience with AD&D is nonexistant, were spellcasters overpowered then as well? If not, why not?

In short, (1) wizards required more XP to level, (2) casting was not instantaneous, but could be interrupted by any nearby attacker, (3) no concentration skill, so interruption means you lose your spell, (4) many spells had drawbacks or limitations that were removed from 3E, and (5) saving throws were not dependent on caster level, so high level monsters would usually save.

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 10:21 AM
But they must have realized how many feats/skills/etc. were absolute traps. Toughness, any feat that does nothing but enhance skills, two-weapon fighting without a source of bonus damage, all but a handful of skills, etc.

I think making those feats give skill ranks would have made them worthwhile. Spend a few feats qualifying for a PrC, or another feat, or an item.


How were the classes balanced in previous editions? My experience with BD&D is minimal, and my experience with AD&D is nonexistant, were spellcasters overpowered then as well? If not, why not?

Spellcasting was a lot easier to disrupt, and there were some fluff-based drawbacks to magic (like Haste making you age) but Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards was still very much in effect.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Kurald, but his post leaves the impression that Wizards weren't the most powerful class in 2e just like they are now. (Hint: they were.)

Matthew
2010-04-02, 10:48 AM
Right, it's obvious that the whole "spellcasting = awesome" thing wasn't intentional. At least I don't think it was. But they must have realized how many feats/skills/etc. were absolute traps. Toughness, any feat that does nothing but enhance skills, two-weapon fighting without a source of bonus damage, all but a handful of skills, etc.

How were the classes balanced in previous editions? My experience with BD&D is minimal, and my experience with AD&D is nonexistant, were spellcasters overpowered then as well? If not, why not?

Pretty much as Kurald says, plus a bunch of other things, such as memorisation time, and the emphasis being on the game master having responsibility for spell availability (all the spells in the book are optional, and the book then basically says "if you include spell X and it is too powerful, then it is your fault"; harsh, but emblematic of the toolbox design approach to second edition).

Some of the above did not apply universally. Originally, spell casters were made too powerful in OD&D (1974-1977), and AD&D (1977-1989) implemented the above efforts to correct that, but found that there were still problems. D&D (1981-2000) took a different path, limiting spells and slots more severely, but I am not overly familiar with how it plays at high levels. The second edition of AD&D (1989-2000) basically made all of the above available and some more, and left it up to you to figure out what was balanced for your game.



Spellcasting was a lot easier to disrupt, and there were some fluff-based drawbacks to magic (like Haste making you age) but Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards was still very much in effect.

Arguably, haste could be fatal. It went from the best spell to the worst with one stroke of the pen, and an interesting anecdote lies behind that.



EDIT: Ninja'd by Kurald, but his post leaves the impression that Wizards weren't the most powerful class in 2e just like they are now. (Hint: they were.)

They were certainly the class with the most potential to be powerful, but the degree to which they were the most powerful class was considerably less. So, I am going to add that it is also somewhat misleading to say "just like they are now".

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 11:08 AM
They were certainly the class with the most potential to be powerful, but the degree to which they were the most powerful class was considerably less. So, I am going to add that it is also somewhat misleading to say "just like they are now".


I have to agree with you there. a Fighter facing off against a Wizard was a pritty hard fight but wasn't nearly bad as it is now.

It really came down to dice rolls or who had advantage.

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 11:20 AM
So let me get this straight. If I understand correctly, Wizards were always overpowered, but in the past there were severe drawbacks that kept them from dominating like they do in 3e. Is that more or less correct? It would explain why so many people are trying to balance 3e spellcasting by throwing in drawbacks, which seems like insanely poor design to me, but maybe the AD&D designers found a way to make it work.

On another note, it is my understanding that prior to 3e Clerics were largely limited to the healbot role but had their spell list expanded in 3e which is why we have CoDZilla. Is that correct?

Another question: In my copy of BD&D Wizards (they aren't called Wizards, but I don't have my copy nearby and I can't remember what they are called...) have healing magic. Was that true in AD&D? What was the rational for removing that?

Starbuck_II
2010-04-02, 11:24 AM
Arguably, haste could be fatal. It went from the best spell to the worst with one stroke of the pen, and an interesting anecdote lies behind that.


No, it went from okay to best spell. It became a save or die for enemies when they aged. System shock rules! :smallbiggrin:

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 11:28 AM
So let me get this straight. If I understand correctly, Wizards were always overpowered, but in the past there were severe drawbacks that kept them from dominating like they do in 3e. Is that more or less correct? It would explain why so many people are trying to balance 3e spellcasting by throwing in drawbacks, which seems like insanely poor design to me, but maybe the AD&D designers found a way to make it work.

On another note, it is my understanding that prior to 3e Clerics were largely limited to the healbot role but had their spell list expanded in 3e which is why we have CoDZilla. Is that correct?

Another question: In my copy of BD&D Wizards (they aren't called Wizards, but I don't have my copy nearby and I can't remember what they are called...) have healing magic. Was that true in AD&D? What was the rational for removing that?

i belive they where called magic users which encompassed clerics to if i remember correctly.

TheYoungKing
2010-04-02, 11:29 AM
I love how he doesn't know what a Timmy card is in that quote.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-02, 11:34 AM
So let me get this straight. If I understand correctly, Wizards were always overpowered, but in the past there were severe drawbacks that kept them from dominating like they do in 3e. Is that more or less correct? It would explain why so many people are trying to balance 3e spellcasting by throwing in drawbacks, which seems like insanely poor design to me, but maybe the AD&D designers found a way to make it work.

That's essentially correct, though it wasn't so much that the wizard had all these terrible drawbacks but rather that the fundamental core of the game made casting less powerful (noncasters having amazing saves, spells being slower than weapons, magic resistance resisting all spells, mages taking longer to level than fighters who took longer than thieves, etc.)


On another note, it is my understanding that prior to 3e Clerics were largely limited to the healbot role but had their spell list expanded in 3e which is why we have CoDZilla. Is that correct?

In 1e, there was no spontaneous casting, so yes, clerics would be forced a bit more into the healbot role in that they had to prepare a good number of healing spells. On top of that, most of the staple offensive and buff spells of 3e weren't all there yet, and they were limited to non-bladed weapons and weaker armor.

2e added in some but not all of the offensive and buff spells of 3e, and also set up a spheres system which differentiates spell lists by god (picture taking 3e domains, setting them up so the Fire domain has all fire spells, the Good domain has all the good spells, etc., and making those your entire spell list--though there were only a dozen or so spheres to choose from). That way, if you wanted to play an offensive priest you picked a god whose spheres let you blast, if you wanted to be a melee priest you picked a god of war, and if you wanted to be a healbot you could choose to do so.


Another question: In my copy of BD&D Wizards (they aren't called Wizards, but I don't have my copy nearby and I can't remember what they are called...) have healing magic. Was that true in AD&D? What was the rational for removing that?

I don't recall any healing magic in 1e or 2e core, though of course there were spells like synostodweomer in the expansions and setting books that added that. I couldn't say what the rationale was, but my guess would be that as the priest's spell list grew closer to the wizard one, making both classes able to specialize in a variety of different areas, they chose to reserve healing and rejuvenating magic more and more for the priest while the mage got the better pure offensive spells.

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 11:40 AM
They were certainly the class with the most potential to be powerful, but the degree to which they were the most powerful class was considerably less. So, I am going to add that it is also somewhat misleading to say "just like they are now".

That's fair, if a bit on the semantic side.


So let me get this straight. If I understand correctly, Wizards were always overpowered, but in the past there were severe drawbacks that kept them from dominating like they do in 3e. Is that more or less correct? It would explain why so many people are trying to balance 3e spellcasting by throwing in drawbacks, which seems like insanely poor design to me, but maybe the AD&D designers found a way to make it work.

Well, you have to understand their audience. People who play tabletop games are more drawn to the idea of brains trumping brawn. Having the Fighter wipe the floor with the Wizard every single time just reinforces the "jocks are superior" stereotype that many of us play games to get away from.

In short, designers identify with wizards, thus wizards get bonuses. It would've been easy for TSR to make a magic system like Conan's, where magic is extremely impractical, highly dangerous and invariably corrupt. I have few doubts that not doing so was a conscious choice.


I love how he doesn't know what a Timmy card is in that quote.

There's a little more to them than big creatures but nothing Kurald said was wrong. How would you define it?

Philistine
2010-04-02, 12:00 PM
There's a little more to them than big creatures but nothing Kurald said was wrong. How would you define it?

I read the 'he' in the post you quoted to refer to Monte Cook.

EDIT: I don't see why people get bent out of shape over the "default fluff." Isn't that the stuff you're supposed to be changing anyway, in making your own character? I mean, according to the Barbarian fluff in the PHB, nobody who is born in a city can get angry and start hitting things harder. It seems to me that, more often than not, the "default fluff" is just silly.

Matthew
2010-04-02, 12:09 PM
So let me get this straight. If I understand correctly, Wizards were always overpowered, but in the past there were severe drawbacks that kept them from dominating like they do in 3e. Is that more or less correct? It would explain why so many people are trying to balance 3e spellcasting by throwing in drawbacks, which seems like insanely poor design to me, but maybe the AD&D designers found a way to make it work.

Yeah, sort of. A lot depends on what power curves you are looking at as "optimum" for your game. If you think the fighter should be the baseline, then you are going to end up lowering the power level of many classes.

The most basic limitation in AD&D are the spell casting rules. Each round actions are declared (in some versions only spells need be declared before initiative). Initiative is then rolled, highest on 1d6 (or sometimes 1d10) wins initiative and "strikes first". If the spell caster is hit and damaged then he loses his action and the spell he was about to cast. In the "advanced" rules a modifier is added to the die roll, usually equal to the level of the spell, but sometimes different. So, the higher level or more powerful the spell the more likely the caster will go after his enemies and thus be interrupted. In cases where characters have more than one attack routine (not just attacks, but attacks with the same weapon) they automatically go first and last in the round. Arguably, this means they always interrupt spell casting, which is significant in AD&D because bows always attack twice per round.

There are even more rules involving weapon speeds and movement that change the probabilities above, of course, and there were spells created afterwards specifically to give the caster a "fighting chance" (stoneskin, armour, and a host of others). All in all, it is a bit of an arms race at times, but the best bet a magician has if he is in any danger at all is to rely on magical items over spells, as they cannot be interrupted.



On another note, it is my understanding that prior to 3e Clerics were largely limited to the heal-bot role but had their spell list expanded in 3e which is why we have CoDZilla. Is that correct?

Yes and no; the cleric is often a second rate combatant and spell caster, whose primary group benefit is to heal. On the other hand, the ability to turn undead is terrific, and he is the second best fighter available with some nifty divination spells of important use in dungeon delving (such as augury). The propensity for save or die effects at high levels makes spells like remove poison indispensable. There was (and perhaps is) a strong tendency to not want to play the cleric, though, as apart from the above you could theoretically have NPCs and deities bossing you about, and nobody likes that. :smallbiggrin:



Another question: In my copy of BD&D Wizards (they aren't called Wizards, but I don't have my copy nearby and I can't remember what they are called...) have healing magic. Was that true in AD&D? What was the rational for removing that?

You may be thinking of Mystics, perhaps?



No, it went from okay to best spell. It became a save or die for enemies when they aged. System shock rules! :smallbiggrin:

Ha, ha; yeah, I forgot about that. :smallbiggrin:

TheYoungKing
2010-04-02, 12:09 PM
There's a little more to them than big creatures but nothing Kurald said was wrong. How would you define it?

No, I'm referring to the Monte Cook quote. Cook obviously has no idea what a Timmy card is.

hamishspence
2010-04-02, 12:34 PM
I mean, according to the Barbarian fluff in the PHB, nobody who is born in a city can get angry and start hitting things harder. It seems to me that, more often than not, the "default fluff" is just silly.

There was an article in Dragon about urban barbarians- so it looks like they thought the fluff could be modified, as well.

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 12:34 PM
Okay, I pulled out my rules cyclopedia. The Wizard is called a Magic-User. There are two types of spells, Magical and Clerical. They are completely different, there is apparently no such thing as a spell being on both classes lists. Rather, a couple spells are on both lists, but are described twice for some strange reason. Also Clerical Spells only go up to 7th level. Anyways, Magic-Users have something called Heal, which is a 9th level spell identical to the Cleric Spell Cureall (Clerics don't even have a spell called heal). This appears to be their only healing spell, but there you go. I never understood why Magic-Users don't have healing magic.

Also, Haste in this version is if anything more powerful than in 3.5, with no apparent drawbacks, affecting an absurd number of targets, and doubling their attacks per round, while lasting for half a freaking hour. Doesn't help spellcasters at all though, so it's just for buffing your allies.

Initiative seems to work differently in this version than either 3e or what you described. Each party in the conflict rolls initiative, and then the whole party acts simultaneously. I can't find whether spells can be interrupted or not.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 12:41 PM
Okay, I pulled out my rules cyclopedia. The Wizard is called a Magic-User. There are two types of spells, Magical and Clerical. They are completely different, there is apparently no such thing as a spell being on both classes lists. Rather, a couple spells are on both lists, but are described twice for some strange reason. Also Clerical Spells only go up to 7th level. Anyways, Magic-Users have something called Heal, which is a 9th level spell identical to the Cleric Spell Cureall (Clerics don't even have a spell called heal). This appears to be their only healing spell, but there you go. I never understood why Magic-Users don't have healing magic.

Also, Haste in this version is if anything more powerful than in 3.5, with no apparent drawbacks, affecting an absurd number of targets, and doubling their attacks per round, while lasting for half a freaking hour. Doesn't help spellcasters at all though, so it's just for buffing your allies.

Initiative seems to work differently in this version than either 3e or what you described. Each party in the conflict rolls initiative, and then the whole party acts simultaneously. I can't find whether spells can be interrupted or not.

There are multiple versions of dnd before 3rd ed.


OD&D Bd&D(i belvie they where seperate)
D&D first ed
2nd ed
2nd ed revised
there where changes in the rules for all of them

I think im missing one.

Matthew
2010-04-02, 01:11 PM
Okay, I pulled out my rules cyclopedia. The Wizard is called a Magic-User. There are two types of spells, Magical and Clerical. They are completely different, there is apparently no such thing as a spell being on both classes lists. Rather, a couple spells are on both lists, but are described twice for some strange reason. Also Clerical Spells only go up to 7th level. Anyways, Magic-Users have something called Heal, which is a 9th level spell identical to the Cleric Spell Cure all (Clerics don't even have a spell called heal). This appears to be their only healing spell, but there you go. I never understood why Magic-Users don't have healing magic.

Interesting. In AD&D "heal" is a 6th level cleric spell, but does not appear in OD&D as far as I can see.



Also, Haste in this version is if anything more powerful than in 3.5, with no apparent drawbacks, affecting an absurd number of targets, and doubling their attacks per round, while lasting for half a freaking hour. Doesn't help spellcasters at all though, so it's just for buffing your allies.

That sounds about right; the "abuse" of the haste spell was what led to its drawbacks in AD&D, apparently.



Initiative seems to work differently in this version than either 3e or what you described. Each party in the conflict rolls initiative, and then the whole party acts simultaneously. I can't find whether spells can be interrupted or not.

See page 32 of the Rules Cyclopedia.



There are multiple versions of D&D before 3rd edition:

*snip*

I think I am missing one...

The official lines look something like this:

OD&D (1974-77)
D&D (1977)
AD&D (1977-1989)
D&D (1981-2000)
AD&D (1989-2000)

The books they correspond to are these, more or less:

OD&D (Gygax/Arneson Original D&D, 1974) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/box3rd+.html)
HBD&D (Holmes/Gygax Basic D&D, 1977) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic4th.html)
AD&D/OAD&D (Gygax Original Advanced D&D, 1977-1979) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/phb8th.html)
Moldvay B/X (Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, 1981) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic8th.html)
Mentzer BECMI (Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, 1983) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic12th.html)
AD&D 2e (Cook Advanced D&D, 2nd Edition, 1989) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/phb2-a.htm)
RC (Allston Rules Cyclopedia, 1991) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/cyclopedia.html)

Kurald Galain
2010-04-02, 01:17 PM
OD&D Bd&D(i belvie they where seperate)
D&D first ed
2nd ed
2nd ed revised
there where changes in the rules for all of them

Hm, looks like TSR is as bad as counting to three as Capcom is... :smalltongue:

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 01:19 PM
The official lines look something like this:

OD&D (1974-77)
D&D (1977)
AD&D (1977-1989)
D&D (1981-2000)
AD&D (1989-2000)

The books they correspond to are these, more or less:

OD&D (Gygax/Arneson Original D&D, 1974) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/box3rd+.html)
HBD&D (Holmes/Gygax Basic D&D, 1977) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic4th.html)
AD&D/OAD&D (Gygax Original Advanced D&D, 1977-1979) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/phb8th.html)
Moldvay B/X (Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, 1981) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic8th.html)
Mentzer BECMI (Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, 1983) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic12th.html)
AD&D 2e (Cook Advanced D&D, 2nd Edition, 1989) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/phb2-a.htm)
RC (Allston Rules Cyclopedia, 1991) (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/cyclopedia.html)

is AD&D (1989-2000) the black book covered one?

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 01:37 PM
Okay, my understanding is that there was OD&D, then they revised it as BD&D, which only covered 3 levels. People who played BD&D were supposed to switch to AD&D, which came out later that year, but poor communication meant that the two games were entirely incompatible, so they split into separate games. BD&D was expanded several times until it accounted for 36 levels and you could in fact go beyond that with the immortals rules. Eventually everything except the immortals rules was compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia, which is what I have. AD&D evolved separately and was eventually revised into AD&D 2nd Edition. Later 2nd edition saw a revision sometimes called 2.5 but officially the same edition. Finally TSR collapsed and WotC bought them out and released 3rd edition, which was a continuation of the AD&D line rather than the BD&D line but they dropped the "Advanced".

Matthew
2010-04-02, 01:48 PM
Is AD&D (1989-2000) the black book covered one?

Yeah, the content is almost exactly the same between the two versions of second edition, just the art was changed and some very small pieces of errata added. Basically:

TSR 2100 Dungeon Master's Guide (1989) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/dmg2.htm)
TSR 2101 Player's Handbook (1989) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/phb2.htm)
TSR 2140 Monstrous Manual (1993) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/mm2nd.htm)
TSR 2160 Dungeon Master's Guide (1995) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/dmg3.htm)
TSR 2159 Player's Handbook (1995) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/phb3.htm)
TSR 2140 Monstrous Manual (1996) (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/mm2nd.htm)



Okay, my understanding is that there was OD&D, then they revised it as BD&D, which only covered 3 levels. People who played BD&D were supposed to switch to AD&D, which came out later that year, but poor communication meant that the two games were entirely incompatible, so they split into separate games. BD&D was expanded several times until it accounted for 36 levels and you could in fact go beyond that with the immortals rules. Eventually everything except the immortals rules was compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia, which is what I have. AD&D evolved separately and was eventually revised into AD&D 2nd Edition. Later 2nd edition saw a revision sometimes called 2.5 but officially the same edition. Finally TSR collapsed and WotC bought them out and released 3rd edition, which was a continuation of the AD&D line rather than the BD&D line but they dropped the "Advanced".
Not quite. OD&D was the progenitor, but legal difficulties between Gygax and Arneson seem to have ensured that the game went in two different directions in 1977. The Holmes version of D&D (1977) is his take on OD&D, and has a smattering of references to AD&D, introduced at an editorial level, making it a sort of introduction, but also radically different game. AD&D was released in 1977-1979 in its full form (PHB, DMG, MM, one each year). Then in 1981, another version of D&D was released different again from OD&D and Holmes D&D, along with an "expert" set. In 1983 this was released again, after heavy editing by Frank Mentzer, eventually making BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal). The 1981 and 1983 rules are almost identical. Then in 1993 these were all collected into the Rules Cyclopedia, the line being discontinued somewhere in the mid nineties, though in fact multiple boxed sets were released afterwards as "introductions".

Magic the Gathering was a run-away success in the mid to late nineties and caught most of TSR's demographic. Desperately trying to get that market back they released the collectable games Dragon Dice and Spell Fire, both of which sucked and were under supported in terms of production values in any case. TSR went up for sale, WotC bought the company, which was already planning a third edition. The design crew were encouraged to make significant changes to the game, and they powered through to almost unbelievable success in 2000. Around about the same time, Richard Garfield sold everything to Hasbro. he stayed on for a while, then departed to play in his money pool. :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2010-04-02, 02:07 PM
Magic the Gathering was a run-away success in the mid to late nineties and caught most of TSR's demographic. Desperately trying to get that market back they released the collectable games Dragon Dice and Spell Fire, both of which sucked and were under supported in terms of production values in any case. TSR went up for sale, WotC bought the company, which was already planning a third edition. The design crew were encouraged to make significant changes to the game, and they powered through to almost unbelievable success in 2000. Around about the same time, Richard Garfield sold everything to Hasbro. he stayed on for a while, then departed to play in his money pool. :smallbiggrin:

Leading to MaRo's Evil MaRo's reign of terror. :smalltongue:

lesser_minion
2010-04-02, 02:13 PM
I think you have that precisely backwards, actually; we know from dev interviews and such that they were already planning for 4e for about 2 years before it was announced, so I'd say that all of the late-3e systems were test runs for new mechanics with ToB being just another one of them, rather than none of them being anything more than cool ideas.

It is still rather odd to assume that their main intent was to 'test' an idea that was already in the pipeline for 4th edition.

They call it 'Research and Development' for a reason. They look for improvements that can be made to the game as a whole, certainly, but they didn't do so any more for the later material than they did for the earlier material. Bear in mind that most of the designers had a much better idea of what they were doing that late in the game.

I'm arguing against the idea that WotC decided what to do in 4th edition and then released it disguised as support for 3rd edition, not against the idea that they looked for things that worked in 3rd edition and embraced them in 4th.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 02:15 PM
At the same time, it is still rather odd to assume that their main intent was to 'test' an idea that was already in the pipeline for 4th edition.

They call it 'Research and Development' for a reason. They look for improvements that can be made to the game as a whole, certainly, but they are still trying to support their existing product.

Wasn't it also said that star wars saga was a test for 4th ed?

It did seem like 2 years before 4th ed they did try a bunch of different systems.
Incarnum, TOB, TOM, etc

lesser_minion
2010-04-02, 02:25 PM
Wasn't it also said that star wars saga was a test for 4th ed?

Again, that wouldn't have been the primary intent.

We do know that they started work on 4th edition within a few months of releasing 3.5, but we also know that they were already planning 3.5 when 3.0 was released.

It's less "let's throw something out there and see if people like it" and more "people liked this, let's implement it".

TheCountAlucard
2010-04-02, 02:30 PM
Hey, being an orphan can be a good thing in D&D. The DM can't use your characters parents to screw you over if they're undeniably dead.Yep... unless... ZOMBIE PARENTS! :smalleek:

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-02, 02:38 PM
I'm arguing against the idea that WotC decided what to do in 4th edition and then released it disguised as support for 3rd edition, not against the idea that they looked for things that worked in 3rd edition and embraced them in 4th.

But that's just it--I don't think either the "Heh heh heh, we know how 4e will work, let's put some 4e in their 3e!" theory or the "Hey, this cool idea happened to have worked, let's use it in 4e!" theory is right. The most likely possibility is that during the early development of 4e, the devs weren't sure what to do about the caster/martial disparity and batted around a bunch of ideas to see what would work, and when they couldn't figure out what would work best, they turned their ideas into 3e variant systems, wrapped them in fluff, and published them to see what the public would like.

Even assuming that all of ToB, ToM, and MoI weren't one big testbed for 4e, WotC was working on R&D for 4e before any of those was published; they weren't combing through those books looking for ideas, they knew full well ahead of time that 4e was on the horizon, so it's only logical to use new and different mechanics to test for the next edition. Plus, the fact that 2e Player's Options material was fairly transparently a bunch of new mechanics that didn't really fit 2e all that well and were subsequently used in 3e after WotC bought D&D (indicating that TSR was probably looking into a revamp of 2e to stop themselves from going under) might have given WotC inspiration to do the same for the 3e -> 4e transition.

All of that implies to me that it was much less likely that WotC actually recognized the problems with 3e after all this time and were trying to legitimately fix things, than it was that they set out from the start of the Tomes to test out 4e stuff. The resemblance of 4e material to late 3e material is too much for them to have just implemented what people liked after seeing the sales on those, after all the work they'd already done for 4e.

Kris Strife
2010-04-02, 02:49 PM
Yep... unless... ZOMBIE PARENTS! :smalleek:

Eh, kind of hard to be emotionally torn over zombies of people you never met before, even if they were your parents. :smallwink:

snoopy13a
2010-04-02, 02:49 PM
Why must classes be balanced in the first place? The players aren't usually competing with each other and table top games aren't MMOs where inferior classes have trouble getting into pickup groups.

lesser_minion
2010-04-02, 02:53 PM
All of that implies to me that it was much less likely that WotC actually recognized the problems with 3e after all this time and were trying to legitimately fix things, than it was that they set out from the start of the Tomes to test out 4e stuff. The resemblance of 4e material to late 3e material is too much for them to have just implemented what people liked after seeing the sales on those, after all the work they'd already done for 4e.

They would have followed the supplements, sure. Again, I think that they were intended as support for 3rd edition, without any hidden agenda.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be taking notes after releasing the supplements, I'm saying that that wasn't their sole purpose.


Why must classes be balanced in the first place? The players aren't usually competing with each other and table top games aren't MMOs where inferior classes have trouble getting into pickup groups.

It depends on what you think balance means.

Sure, a game doesn't have to be balanced on a knife-edge, but it should be fair, it should be consistent, and it shouldn't be prone to abuse.

If a class is significantly more powerful (on average) than the other classes, then a player using that class will gain a disproportionate amount of importance, and the other players will enjoy things less.

It can also be hard to bring things back under control - making encounters harder doesn't really help, because now the players with the weaker characters are going to die most sessions. And doing nothing isn't really an option, because otherwise the game becomes too easy for everyone.

In 3rd edition, the problem is that some classes are actually dominant - as in, given a choice between using a wizard or a monk to solve a problem, you can always get better results using the wizard, no matter the problem.

That simply isn't a good way to play.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 03:07 PM
They would have followed the supplements, sure. Again, I think that they were intended as support for 3rd edition, without any hidden agenda.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be taking notes after releasing the supplements, I'm saying that that wasn't their sole purpose.

hmm. I don't know is there any thing that you can show that these where intended fixes rather then test material. It is very odd that alot of the mechanics kinda made there way into 4th ed.

I was always under the impression that these where testbeds for 4th ed including starwars saga.

I do belive that PHB2 was supposed to help melee types by giving them better feats. I belvie that was mentioned some where... if i find the article ill let you know My google fu is failing me right now. :(

Starbuck_II
2010-04-02, 03:12 PM
I liked that CM and PHB 2 were the only books with choose your spellcasting action spells:
Swift, move, standard, full action, etc for better effect.
Examples:
Channeled Life-theft, Channel Sonic Blast, Channeled Divine Health, Channeled Divine Shield, and Channeled Pyroblast.
The longer you held the spell's casting the better the effect.

I guess they were trying them out. I wish they had added a few to Spell Compendruim.

lesser_minion
2010-04-02, 03:19 PM
hmm. I don't know is there any thing that you can show that these where intended fixes rather then test material. It is very odd that alot of the mechanics kinda made there way into 4th ed.

I said they were intended as support, not as fixes.

You can't exactly patch existing material short of errata. It's not like you can tell everyone to forget that you ever wrote something.

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 03:23 PM
They would have followed the supplements, sure. Again, I think that they were intended as support for 3rd edition, without any hidden agenda.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be taking notes after releasing the supplements, I'm saying that that wasn't their sole purpose.



It depends on what you think balance means.

Sure, a game doesn't have to be balanced on a knife-edge, but it should be fair, it should be consistent, and it shouldn't be prone to abuse.

If a class is significantly more powerful (on average) than the other classes, then a player using that class will gain a disproportionate amount of importance, and the other players will enjoy things less.

It can also be hard to bring things back under control - making encounters harder doesn't really help, because now the players with the weaker characters are going to die most sessions. And doing nothing isn't really an option, because otherwise the game becomes too easy for everyone.

In 3rd edition, the problem is that some classes are actually dominant - as in, given a choice between using a wizard or a monk to solve a problem, you can always get better results using the wizard, no matter the problem.

That simply isn't a good way to play.

No, their sole purpose is to make money. If they can test out 4e concepts and make money supplementing 3e at the same time, well I can see why they were keen on that plan. Not many companies can make money by testing their products.


Why must classes be balanced in the first place? The players aren't usually competing with each other and table top games aren't MMOs where inferior classes have trouble getting into pickup groups
Several reasons, some of which won't apply to every group. For one thing maybe they are competing, and in that case it would be nice if everyone got an equal footing. For another even if the players aren't in competition it kind of sucks when you and your buddy are both the same level and supposedly equal partners in the game world but he can alter reality at his whim and you can't. When the Wizard or CoDZilla mops the floor with everyone and solves all the problems on their own the Fighter and the Rogue kind of feel left out.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-02, 03:28 PM
I said they were intended as support, not as fixes.

You can't exactly patch existing material short of errata. It's not like you can tell everyone to forget that you ever wrote something.

didn't they do that with divine power in 4th ed. I heard they replaced they way or added to paladins. Divine sanction specificaly. It kinda feels like a patch.

Your single target mark that does dmg once isn't good enough heres divine sanction!

Drolyt
2010-04-02, 03:38 PM
didn't they do that with divine power in 4th ed. I heard they replaced they way or added to paladins. Divine sanction specificaly. It kinda feels like a patch.

Your single target mark that does dmg once isn't good enough heres divine sanction!

4e was designed differently. Instead of there being core rules and supplements they are essentially treating everything as core, so it's entirely possible patch things like that.

Runestar
2010-04-02, 09:04 PM
Another of wotc's stealth errata - the god-blooded template in MM5 mentions that effects which disable players altogether should have a fairly short duration, ideally 1 round at best, while status effects which impose only a penalty can afford to have a longer duration because the players can still act.

This after years of having to contend with mindflayers stunning you for 3d4 rounds and sea hags dazing you for days on end. :smallyuk:

JaronK
2010-04-02, 09:10 PM
Why must classes be balanced in the first place? The players aren't usually competing with each other and table top games aren't MMOs where inferior classes have trouble getting into pickup groups.

And yet feeling like your character has no business being there is lame. If the other players can do what you can do far better and then do more than that, you're not one of the stars of the story, you're a mook on the sidelines. People want to play Conan next to Catwoman and Gandalf, not Redshirt #3 next to Batman with a Green Lantern Ring and the second coming of Zeus in a mecha suit riding the World Turtle.

Or at least if they're going to play a mook, they should be informed in advance so they know that's what's coming. Unbalanced classes is fine if you let people know in advanced which is the stronger class. Games like Exalted are fine because they tell you straight out that a Solar Exalted is more powerful than a Lunar Exalted, so you'd only chose to play a Lunar in a game full of Solars if you wanted to play something weaker. But claiming that a Fighter leads the party and needs to protect the Cleric is deceptive and leads to people playing characters that weren't the ones they wanted to play.

JaronK