How were 1E and 2E balance tested?

[Endarire]

Some people swear that D&D 1E or/and 2E were far more balanced than 3.x. I'm curious how TSR balance tested these editions.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think part of it's by virtue of the sheer unbalancedness of 3.x that this supposition is made, to the point that anything would be more balanced.

[GreyMantle]

They weren't.
[/thread]

[Sinfonian]

They weren't.
[/thread]

Indeed, they really weren't. Most of my experience between the two comes from 2E, but it may have some bearing on first edition. It should be noted that many of these things were quite often houseruled, even as they are today, so experiences may vary greatly.

They relied very much on the idea that you would be rolling your character, and that those scores would define how you built your character. For instance, you could only be a paladin or bard if you'd rolled quite well. In return, the bonuses for those attribute scores were often less of an impact on the game, but they still could stop you from being the class you'd originally wanted to be. They did account for and expect for players to regularly be playing with scores well below 10. This is a minor point, since 3.X also has random dice rolls and the expectation of higher scores is in large part a player creation (aside from minimum attribute scores to cast spells, which I don't recall existed then).

In the early editions, mages were very much still "start off sucky, own later". They'd have a single spell per day at level one (or two if a specialist), and then be relegated to shooting a crossbow for the rest of the day. They wouldn't even have the boost from max HP at level one, or the cushion between 0 and -10 before death. At later levels, they were still stopping time and throwing around magics that quite thoroughly altered the landscape of the game (often literally). Among magic users, there wasn't even an attempt at balance, with clerics and druids gaining access to level 7 spells, while mages still had level 9s.

One of the big differences between 2E and 3.X is the leveling system, which didn't even pretend to be fair. Classes didn't level up at the same time, as they used GREATLY different xp tracks. I recall that thieves (not rogues!) leveled rather quickly pretty much steadily; while classes like the mage started off much slower, sped up in the middle levels, and slowed back down at upper levels.

Additionally, your race had an impact on the highest level you could attain, demi-humans all had hard caps, while humans alone could reach any level in any class. In some classes, to ascend to the next level you had to challenge and defeat (often kill) members of your own class so that there was room for you to advance. For example, there could only be one druid of level 14 or higher in the world; monks and assassins had similar issues.

Really, the game didn't make an attempt to balance itself, I think it instead relied upon the implicit system they'd created that would have players stuck in roles that they would have to follow: the fighter-mage-thief-healer paradigm. I really believe that they didn't feel that they needed to balance things, so long as each class was able to fill the role in the party it would fill. And sometimes they didn't really try to do that much, it was almost an assumption that some classes were designated "5th men", like the bard.

Edit: Added more stuff.

Edit2: Another thing I was just reminded of by another thread was that players were often more limited by their own imaginations than by the mechanics. I think the default assumption in 3.X is more on the side that you can't do something unless you have something that says you can (see: feats, skill tricks, spell effects, etc.). In 2E, you still had defined things that you could do, but this was not really as restrictive. Sure, things off the beaten path were left to DM adjudication, but I would say that the philosophy there is fundamentally different. As such, a character's power and ability to contribute was then (even more than now) up to how creatively a player used what they had.

[a_humble_lich]

I think a big part of the "balance" of 1st/2nd edition was due to a change in expectations. In older editions maintaining balance was much more the role of the DM instead of the rules. There was no WLB, so PC didn't expect that they would have a certain level of items, or even that all their items would be equivalent. At least in games I played in, if a character was weak, they they would generally be given some kind of magic item to even it out.

[Jude_H]

Edit2: Another thing I was just reminded of by another thread was that players were often more limited by their own imaginations than by the mechanics.
It's very much this. The rules weren't as intensive. There weren't feats or powers saying "your character can push someone else," so there were no assumptions that characters without those feats/powers couldn't push someone else.

The balance wasn't great, but there were rarely characters who literally couldn't do anything useful, because the game basically assumed that even if your warrior just couldn't hit the monster, it could do something else - climb up its back and stab its vulnerable spots or drop a chandelier on it or catch it on fire or something.

My experiences with bad balance in WotC editions have been where that doesn't transfer and characters with few explicit options were restricted to those restricted options (the "Fighters can only Fight" paradigm). The mentality of adjudication in later editions defaults to "No, unless...," in place of earlier games' "Sure, if..."

When Complete Scoundrel and Tome of Battle came out, you could see 3e internet communities frothing at the mouth at the sudden realization that they could use skills in ways that weren't initially listed in the PHB or do more with an attack than the explicit damage of their weapons. This was completely alien to me as a primarily BD&D player; what 3e players considered freedom just looked like more things that suddenly couldn't be done without a specific Build.

[Talakeal]

Wasn't the crossbow option for wizards not added until 3.0?

[Tengu_temp]

The idea of game balance in RPGs didn't really appear in the industry until late 1990s. And yes, I know that a good DM will make sure everyone has fun an nobody is outshining anyone else, but lack of balance is still a bad thing. Would you rather your DM focused on keeping the game balanced, or if he focused on actual DMing, knowing well that the system does the former for him?


Wasn't the crossbow option for wizards not added until 3.0?

They could use slings before. And darts.

[Xefas]

In older editions maintaining balance was much more the role of the DM instead of the rules..

This is very much the case. I don't know much about 1e, but I played 2e extensively. And, really, if you wanted to do anything beyond "I move and attack", anything whatsoever, that was the purview of the DM. You had entire special abilities whose function was "The DM decides what this does."

Which, in a way, made this a better game for my group than 3rd ed. Because it basically didn't have a functioning ruleset to speak of, nor any coherent game design philosophy, you were basically playing freeform with a die thrown in whenever the DM said, and some experience guidelines for character growth. If you had an amazing group, then you would have an amazing time. If you had anything less than an amazing group, you got horror and awful. We fell into the former.

It also meant that transferring between groups meant everything played differently. A Fighter might go from being a stone cold badass in one group to being a pathetic weakling in another just because the DMs adjudicate ability checks and nonweapon proficiencies differently.

[Jude_H]

Wasn't the crossbow option for wizards not added until 3.0?
Yeah. There was a lot more dagger throwing. Both were pretty much equally ineffectual.

[Sinfonian]

Wasn't the crossbow option for wizards not added until 3.0?
You're right, I misremembered. The other posters were right, it was slings/darts. I don't remember much dagger throwing, since players were often afraid of losing any dagger that was actually worth throwing. Either way, it was the recourse to something almost surely doomed to failure.

[Telok]

I recall one D&D game I played, as an elven fighter with a 12 strength. Level four or five I think.

We had, as trade goods for some reason, a wagon with a bunch of stuff. Including about twenty 15lb kegs of lamp oil with 12 pints of oil per keg. I quickly ended up with a heavy leather mitt, a torch, and lots of rocks wrapped in oil soaked rags.

Goblin ballistas? Burned.

Two headed troll? Burned.

Gelatanous Cube? Burned.

No problem couldn't be solved by breaking a couple kegs of oil on it and lighting a fire. Gads but that was fun. You just can't do that in these modern versions.

[Yuki Akuma]

...Wha?

No, you really can in fact break open casks of oil and set them on fire in the modern versions. At least, in third edition - does fourth still have rules for nonmagical fire?

Third edition even has rules for burning wooden objects! (Although technically nonmagical fire does absolutely nothing to wood, but there are some updated rules somewhere... Sandstorm?)

[LibraryOgre]

As mentioned, generally, they were not balance tested in the modern conception of it. However, it did wind up being pretty balanced, because of some heavy restrictions, and with some heavy caveats.

Wizards at low levels needed to be very careful in what spells they chose for the day; rememorizing was more or less unheard of, and at higher levels, would take way too long (since preparing spells was 10 minutes per spell level, per spell). This longer preparation time really reduced the willingness of wizards to do the 15 minute work day, since recovering from a large expenditure of high-level spells could take days, if not weeks, to rememorize everything. Couple this with generally better more effective saving throws (saves were almost entirely dependent upon the level of the target, not the level of the wizard), less-abundant minor magical items (scrolls and wands), and generally more restricted spell lists, and high-level wizards were less of an "I win" button.

Thieves had the advantage of a good XP table, but had a lot of issues, themselves. While 2e allowed you to be fairly competent at one or two areas to start (a dwarven "box man" with his points in F/RT and OL was pretty useful, and elves and halflings could make good sneaks), backstab was A LOT more restricted than sneak attack, with multiple interpretations on how restricted it actually was. Usually seen as pretty weak, a thief took a lot of doing to play well (without multiclassing). They had a lot of abilities, though, so a creative player could make good use of them.

Clerics were really quite powerful, though some of their better spells (like Sound Burst, which is my C&C group's favorite spell) were not there. At 3rd level, a cleric REALLY hit his stride, as there were no core healing spells in 2nd level spells... suddenly, you can toss a Hold Person or a Silence to take out the enemy wizard. In modern terms, they were very much buffers/debuffers, since their weapon options were usually decidedly inferior to fighters (their "best" was arguably the warhammer; d4+1/d4 and a 4 WS, it worked out to a slightly inferior short sword). They could play an anvil, but they were not, ironically, that good as hammers.

In all this, you're probably wondering about fighters. In many ways, what fighters have in earlier editions is what was given to other classes in later editions, thus reducing some of the uniqueness of the fighter. Fighters had a 1/1 ThAC0 improvement, and while clerics were better than they are in 3.x (having a 2/3 in 2e), everyone else is worse... rogues were 1/2, and wizards were 1/4 (might be 1/5). Add in that fighters were the only people who got multiple attacks (3/2 rounds at 1st level with weapon specialization), and bonuses being a lot fewer and harder to get, and fighters were fairly dominant at the fighting game, and could stand up well in a fight. Also, depending on the rules in use, fighters had a tendency to get faster as they leveled up, while wizards top-end spells slowed down; usual casting time on a spell was spell level (+3 for priest spells), while fighter WS dropped according to the plus on the weapon.

Generally, the main factor contributing to balance in earlier editions was niche protection. It was much harder for a wizard or cleric to take over the place of a warrior or rogue. Bonuses were fewer on the ground, meaning they tended to have more effect; the +1 to hit and +2 to damage from Weapon Specialization was great (the combat equivalent of going from a 15 strength to an 18), though the extra attacks were of greater impact.

[hamlet]

What Mark said.

Plus, balance in prior editions was not a matter of mathematical formulae or equivalencies, but a thing instituted by the DM and of, if you'll forgive the word choice, balances.

It was up to the DM to make sure that no one player outshone all the others and became the be all and end all of the party all the while making sure that everybody is having fun. That was the crux of being a DM and it requires a tremendous amount of skill, style, and finesse.

[MeeposFire]

...Wha?

No, you really can in fact break open casks of oil and set them on fire in the modern versions. At least, in third edition - does fourth still have rules for nonmagical fire?

Third edition even has rules for burning wooden objects! (Although technically nonmagical fire does absolutely nothing to wood, but there are some updated rules somewhere... Sandstorm?)

Yea you can burn things in 3e and 4e but especially in 3e burning things tends to become quickly obsolete whereas these sort of strategies stayed effective in 1e and 2e due in large part to DM fiat and lower hit points of monsters (no con mod for most monsters since most monsters did not have ability scores).

[hamlet]

. . . DM fiat . . .


You know, I really loath that phrase.

No comment on your argument, just observing that, personally, I despise that phrase.

[Yuki Akuma]

You know, I really loath that phrase.

No comment on your argument, just observing that, personally, I despise that phrase.

...What would you rather be used?

[hamlet]

...What would you rather be used?

One of the reasons I hate the phrase (aside from misuse, use as a curse word, and others) is that there really isn't a "better" alternative.

I've always preferred, though, "DM Adjudication." It's more neutral and gets at the heart of what a good DM is all about.

[Jude_H]

I don't remember much dagger throwing, since players were often afraid of losing any dagger that was actually worth throwing.
In Basic, Daggers were the only weapon Magic Users had. It was awesome.

[MeeposFire]

One of the reasons I hate the phrase (aside from misuse, use as a curse word, and others) is that there really isn't a "better" alternative.

I've always preferred, though, "DM Adjudication." It's more neutral and gets at the heart of what a good DM is all about.

So are you asking me to be a little more politically correct:smallwink:? I could call it rule 0...

[hamlet]

So are you asking me to be a little more politically correct:smallwink:? I could call it rule 0...

No, I'm not asking you to be more politically correct. Personally, I hate that concept. Nobody has the right not to be offended.

I'm merely exercising my right to gripe.:smallwink:

[Just_Ice]

Mark pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The "balance" of 1E and 2E was probably mostly accidental, really. I don't think there was an easy way to get around needing most of the spell components, either.

On the flipside, it wasn't really balanced party versus monsters. Drows, for instance, I think had spell immunity, and were pretty vicious fighters to boot.

[hamlet]

Mark pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The "balance" of 1E and 2E was probably mostly accidental, really. I don't think there was an easy way to get around needing most of the spell components, either.

On the flipside, it wasn't really balanced party versus monsters. Drows, for instance, I think had spell immunity, and were pretty vicious fighters to boot.

Not accidental, just conceived of far differently than it is today.



Psst: this is private property. You do not actually have a right to gripe. >.>;



<old man voice> Get off my lawn you damned kids!</old man voice>

[Yuki Akuma]

No, I'm not asking you to be more politically correct. Personally, I hate that concept. Nobody has the right not to be offended.

I'm merely exercising my right to gripe.:smallwink:

Actually considering a web forum is private property... :smallwink:


<old man voice> Get off my lawn you damned kids!</old man voice>

No fair quoting posts I deleted to re-write!

[hamlet]

No fair quoting posts I deleted to re-write!

I have mad skillz yo.

[LibraryOgre]

In Basic, Daggers were the only weapon Magic Users had. It was awesome.

Daggers were a good "first choice" for wizards. They could be used ranged, they could be used melee, and you usually didn't have to fight anyone for magic versions. At 6th level, you usually wanted to look into a staff, since magic staves weren't too far away. Slings were the brave man's choice... the person who was convinced his line would hold, and that he could snipe from the back with impunity.

Re: DM Fiat

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1970-1979/1974-Fiat-124-Spider-Red-Front-Angle-st.jpg

More seriously, however, "fiat" has negative connotations because it implies arbitrariness, or at least a degree of disconnect. I tend to go with "DM ruling" or "DM judgement".

[hamlet]

More seriously, however, "fiat" has negative connotations because it implies arbitrariness, or at least a degree of disconnect. I tend to go with "DM ruling" or "DM judgement".

Precisely.

And you talk tough for a guy who drives a Fiat, dude.:smallwink:

[Matthew]

Also you have to remember that the games developed organically, they were not the product of design teams as much as the product of people playing the games. Consequently when there were balance issues they came out of people playing the game differently and pushing the boundaries of what was possible. In some cases you get clearly traceable reactions, such as the restrictions on spell casting that come into force in AD&D (1977-) as opposed to D&D (1974-77). The system shock roll for haste directly arose out of player abuse in Gygax's own campaign, for instance. So, there were no "tests" exactly, but there was plenty of play.

[Tengu_temp]

How was spellcasting less restricted in old DND? It's the edition I'm least familiar with.

[The Big Dice]

How was spellcasting less restricted in old DND? It's the edition I'm least familiar with.

The term "old" D&D is a bit of a misnomer. But in D&D (as opposed to AD&D, which is what most people mean by 1st and 2nd edition) there were minimal constraints other than spells per day on casters. Of course there were only 12 Magic-User and 8 Cleric spells per level, which helped. Swords and Wizardry and Dark Dungoens have a pretty complete and representative spell list and magic system for D&D if you want to check it out to make the comparison. Get OSRIC for a look at how AD&D handled things.

[Matthew]

How was spellcasting less restricted in old DND? It's the edition I'm least familiar with.

Perhaps the biggest change was increased definition of what was permissible, but spell casting times come in a close second, which allowed for the spoiling of spells from missile or melee attacks, or other methods of disruption.

[Greylond]

Older editions were written and playtested, at least until Lorriane Williams took over, at the TSR Offices. Abilities, Levels, Spells, Treasure, etc, etc was "balanced" based on how it worked in actual play by the people who created the game. Then recommendations were written into the DMG. Then it was up to the DM to understand all the rules and run the game so that it fit the play style of the group.

For example, for encounters: In the 1st Edition DMG there were Random Encounter Charts per "Dungeon Level", which was equal to the average party level. As a DM, you could look at that chart and either roll a random encounter or see what kind of encounters were considered appropriate for the level of the party. There was no formula or other guidelines to tell you, you just had to read the book and understand how the system was written.

[Sinfonian]

Perhaps the biggest change was increased definition of what was permissible, but spell casting times come in a close second, which allowed for the spoiling of spells from missile or melee attacks, or other methods of disruption.

I really miss that aspect of combat. Next time I run a 3.5 game, there will probably be some houseruling in that department.

[ken-do-nim]

Also you have to remember that the games developed organically, they were not the product of design teams as much as the product of people playing the games. Consequently when there were balance issues they came out of people playing the game differently and pushing the boundaries of what was possible. In some cases you get clearly traceable reactions, such as the restrictions on spell casting that come into force in AD&D (1977-) as opposed to D&D (1974-77). The system shock roll for haste directly arose out of player abuse in Gygax's own campaign, for instance. So, there were no "tests" exactly, but there was plenty of play.

I'd summarize that as saying that D&D and AD&D were heavily playtested. Unearthed Arcana strikes me as the first book that was not, and it shows. Core 2E was once again heavily playtested, but the Complete class supplements were not aside from the first few, and once again that shows.

I think there might also be a different playtest atmosphere between TSR and WOTC. TSR playtesting was done after hours in ongoing campaigns that were done for fun as well. WOTC playtesting, I think, were done as part of the job.

[Greylond]

Gygax is on record about the 1st Ed Unearthed. He said that it was rushed out and he wasn't happy about it. They published it without his final approval. I think that was about the time he was in Hollywood pushing the Cartoon and other projects.

[Matthew]

Gygax is on record about the 1st Ed Unearthed. He said that it was rushed out and he wasn't happy about it. They published it without his final approval. I think that was about the time he was in Hollywood pushing the Cartoon and other projects.

Hmmn. That is not really accurate. What he said about UA was that like OA it was rushed out at a time when the company was in crisis and he was back in the driving seat (for a very short lived period as it turned out). There was a need to generate funds quickly because so much had been squandered under the leadership of the Blumes. UA consists largely of his articles for Dragon dressed up and sent out into the world. Frank Mentzer has said that the project itself was not particularly rushed, so likely the design and development was at an incomplete stage. As for play testing of UA, virtually all of the material was in use in Gygax's campaign one way or the other, but it definitely was not published in ideal form.

[SPoD]

In terms of niche protection, I'd like to point out that before 3rd Edition, only thieves (and in 2e, bards) could make Listen checks.

I think that bears repeating. The only mechanical support for the concept of "hearing things that might be sort of quiet" went to the two rogue classes. Anyone else? They could only hear things that were loud and clear. So of course an adventuring party that wanted to succeed needed a thief. If they didn't have one, then they were just going to stumble into ambush after ambush. The game created hard-and-fast niches that couldn't be blurred, so that even if the thief was third-rate in a fight, he was supreme in his element.

Likewise, ONLY a thief could climb a wall. At all. Or hide (though the ranger got this in 2e, too). The balance for this was that once a day, maybe the magic-user could cast Spider Climb or Invisibility and then someone else could climb or hide, but it was sharply limited in how often you could do that. Memorize Invisibility, and that's one less Melf's Acid Arrow you can fling. It's not like you had scrolls or potions whenever you wanted them back then.

Then comes 3e, and everyone can listen or climb or hide, even without skill points in it. And hey, that's realistic, but it makes one less reason to play a rogue or bard or ranger. But what's worse is, they didn't take away the ability to cast Spider Climb or Invisibility or what have you. So rather than having a situation where the thief was the only one who could do something and the wizard can sort of fake it once in a while, we got a situation where everyone can do it, and the wizard can be better than anyone else at it once in a while. Because there's nothing that make a 3e rogue actually better at hiding than another character other than number of skill points, class skills, and presumed armor usage--all of which can be circumvented easily.

[Yuki Akuma]

Rangers are in fact better than Rogues at hiding - because they get Hide in Plain Sight and Rogues don't.

[SPoD]

Rangers are in fact better than Rogues at hiding - because they get Hide in Plain Sight and Rogues don't.

Absolutely, though that's only 3.5. But yeah, I think everyone knows that "sneaking around hidden" is supposed to be one of the rogue's best tricks, and not only is the ranger better at it, but even the ranger would rather just have Invisibility cast on him.

I think if I were going to rewrite the rules, one of my first choices would be to take out every spell that can duplicate something a skill can do, only better: Find Traps, Spider Climb, Invisibility, Comprehend Languages, Knock, etc. Or at the very least, let these spells be a scaling bonus to a trained skill use rather than an automatic success.

[hamlet]

In terms of niche protection, I'd like to point out that before 3rd Edition, only thieves (and in 2e, bards) could make Listen checks.

I think that bears repeating. The only mechanical support for the concept of "hearing things that might be sort of quiet" went to the two rogue classes. Anyone else? They could only hear things that were loud and clear. So of course an adventuring party that wanted to succeed needed a thief. If they didn't have one, then they were just going to stumble into ambush after ambush. The game created hard-and-fast niches that couldn't be blurred, so that even if the thief was third-rate in a fight, he was supreme in his element.

Likewise, ONLY a thief could climb a wall. At all. Or hide (though the ranger got this in 2e, too). The balance for this was that once a day, maybe the magic-user could cast Spider Climb or Invisibility and then someone else could climb or hide, but it was sharply limited in how often you could do that. Memorize Invisibility, and that's one less Melf's Acid Arrow you can fling. It's not like you had scrolls or potions whenever you wanted them back then.

Then comes 3e, and everyone can listen or climb or hide, even without skill points in it. And hey, that's realistic, but it makes one less reason to play a rogue or bard or ranger. But what's worse is, they didn't take away the ability to cast Spider Climb or Invisibility or what have you. So rather than having a situation where the thief was the only one who could do something and the wizard can sort of fake it once in a while, we got a situation where everyone can do it, and the wizard can be better than anyone else at it once in a while. Because there's nothing that make a 3e rogue actually better at hiding than another character other than number of skill points, class skills, and presumed armor usage--all of which can be circumvented easily.

Ah, the old "only thieves could sneak" meme.

{Scrubbed}

Actually, there were rules in the DMG for non-theives of all races hearing noises and for climbing walls.

What theives had was qualitative difference. A thief's sneaking was actually moving in complete silence while others were just moving quietly. A thief could scale smooth and shere surfaces that would baffle others. Thieves could detect noises that would otherwise be undetectable to normal people.

[Toofey]

One of the reasons I hate the phrase (aside from misuse, use as a curse word, and others) is that there really isn't a "better" alternative.

I've always preferred, though, "DM Adjudication." It's more neutral and gets at the heart of what a good DM is all about.

In your opinion. especially when you consider that 1st and 2nd ed explicitly and repeatedly in the books said the DM could use the rules they want and it was their game to decide when things happened that were not covered by the rules.

I can't imagine why I would ever think this Board is populated by people who want to tie my (as a DM) hands.

anyway a few notes wizards Thac0 improved 1/3 (still dismal) but at lower levels they could be effective without spells (assuming a sufficient supply of darts which they could throw 3/round) even without resorting to using their skills. I've written long posts on here before about playing wizards at 1-4th level and not being useless. as mentioned wizards only had access to dagger, darts, staff and sling (the players option materials also gave them the chance to select signature spells)

I think most of the balance of it came in the abstract, a lot of what Gygax used to balance the early systems was Actuarial math from his day job as an insurance actuary. Most of this (in fact both versions of the game ) break down at about 9th level, which is when Gary assumed people would want to pack it in (in spite of having written spells that kept advancing well beyond this point) Also i would point out that to Gary a lot of the fun was in the dying the early materials are just insanely dangerous, especially for 1st level characters which was how Gary saw the game. Also to see the balance you have to remember that a lot of the non-weapon profs were relevant in battle and distributing these was part of his math balancing the classes.

Wizards and Clerics could get a little out of hand because the spells were not written in a way that he could incorporate in his actuarial math, so he assigned spell casting values and set up the spells so it was very hard for wizards to do the type of sustained damage fighters could (so fighters always had a role in combat even at higher levels)

I think he did an ok job, I think the biggest problem with the older eds is that Gary really didn't think people would want to play higher level characters, which seems quite silly from today's perspective. Also he wasn't smart about that, if you look at some of the older **** by the time in 1st ed someone got to be a druid a party they were with would be up to about 7 levels so you have 1 person starting their career as a druid while the rest were 2 levels from when Gary recommended retirement.

ps. I don't mean to be too familiar with Mr Gygax, but as his junk fills a bunch of closets in my brain I feel like I can just call him Gary.

[Jude_H]

In your opinion. especially when you consider that 1st and 2nd ed explicitly and repeatedly in the books said the DM could use the rules they want and it was their game to decide when things happened that were not covered by the rules.

I can't imagine why I would ever think this Board is populated by people who want to tie my (as a DM) hands.

:smallconfused: I get that it would take away your springboard to vent, but it looks like he agrees with you.

[Matthew]

I think that bears repeating. The only mechanical support for the concept of "hearing things that might be sort of quiet" went to the two rogue classes. Anyone else? They could only hear things that were loud and clear. So of course an adventuring party that wanted to succeed needed a thief. If they didn't have one, then they were just going to stumble into ambush after ambush. The game created hard-and-fast niches that couldn't be blurred, so that even if the thief was third-rate in a fight, he was supreme in his element.

As Hamlet says, this is just basically incorrect. Indeed, the thief abilities for "hear noise" are based on the rules for listening, which are present even in the original 1974 version of the game. The rules for surprise similarly work with or without the thief.

[SPoD]

Ah, the old "only thieves could sneak" meme.

{scrubbed}

Putting a wink after this doesn't make this any less belittling, just so you know.


Actually, there were rules in the DMG for non-theives of all races hearing noises and for climbing walls.

What theives had was qualitative difference. A thief's sneaking was actually moving in complete silence while others were just moving quietly. A thief could scale smooth and shere surfaces that would baffle others. Thieves could detect noises that would otherwise be undetectable to normal people.

Yes, and if you had a DM that decided that anything quieter than normal speaking volume was "undetectable to normal people," as every DM I ever had did, then functionally, only the thief could hear noises. It came down to the fact that the DM decided what could and couldn't be heard by a non-thief.

At any rate, I never DM'ed First Edition or read the DMG, given that I was about 9 when I started, so my observations are based solely on how it played at the actual table. And my experience was, if you weren't a thief, you didn't get to hear anything until it jumped out at you.

[The Big Dice]

As Hamlet says, this is just basically incorrect. Indeed, the thief abilities for "hear noise" are based on the rules for listening, which are present even in the original 1974 version of the game. The rules for surprise similarly work with or without the thief.

If you can call "Roll a D6, if there's anything to hear, you hear it on a 1 unless you're not a human. In which case you hear it on a 1 or 2. Oh, Undead never make any noise" rules :smalltongue:

Edit: And Theif wasn't even a class back then, either. So the rules such as they were work fine without them.

[hamlet]

Putting a wink after this doesn't make this any less belittling, just so you know.



Yes, and if you had a DM that decided that anything quieter than normal speaking volume was "undetectable to normal people," as every DM I ever had did, then functionally, only the thief could hear noises. It came down to the fact that the DM decided what could and couldn't be heard by a non-thief.

At any rate, I never DM'ed First Edition or read the DMG, given that I was about 9 when I started, so my observations are based solely on how it played at the actual table. And my experience was, if you weren't a thief, you didn't get to hear anything until it jumped out at you.

So, essentially you're arguing from ignorance and presenting a personal bad experience as representative of the whole.

What it boils down to is that there were, indeed, rules for listening for non-thieves and your original statement is entirely, factually, incorrect, your personal experience with a DM you believe to be unfair notwithstanding.

[Matthew]

If you can call "Roll a D6, if there's anything to hear, you hear it on a 1 unless you're not a human. In which case you hear it on a 1 or 2. Oh, Undead never make any noise" rules :smalltongue:

Edit: And Theif wasn't even a class back then, either. So the rules such as they were work fine without them.

Sounds like virtually every rule for an RPG ever. Assign a probability, roll the dice. :smallbiggrin:

[hamlet]

Sounds like virtually every rule for an RPG ever. Assign a probability, roll the dice. :smallbiggrin:

Sounds like a great rule, actually.

Short, to the point, easy to remember . . .

What's not to like?

[Matthew]

So, essentially you're arguing from ignorance and presenting a personal bad experience as representative of the whole.

What it boils down to is that there were, indeed, rules for listening for non-thieves and your original statement is entirely, factually, incorrect, your personal experience with a DM you believe to be unfair notwithstanding.

Symptomatic of the way age groups have experienced RPGs, I would say. A lot of people played as children without really reading the rules, then as young adults they played newer editions that seem to have rules for things they remember not having rules for (because they did not read them). It is really, really common. Indeed, I was just such a person. :smallbiggrin:

[hamlet]

Symptomatic of the way age groups have experienced RPGs, I would say. A lot of people played as children without really reading the rules, then as young adults they played newer editions that seem to have rules for things they remember not having rules for (because they did not read them). It is really, really common. Indeed, I was just such a person. :smallbiggrin:

There'd be an interesting study into the psychology behind edition wars I think.

[The Glyphstone]

There'd be an interesting study into the psychology behind edition wars I think.

Besides the fact that none of us have really grown up?:smalltongue:

[a_humble_lich]

Symptomatic of the way age groups have experienced RPGs, I would say. A lot of people played as children without really reading the rules, then as young adults they played newer editions that seem to have rules for things they remember not having rules for (because they did not read them). It is really, really common. Indeed, I was just such a person. :smallbiggrin:

I remember when I started playing, for a long time I thought it was too much work to bother with all of the memorizing spells rules. So when we played, a wizard could just choose whatever spell they wanted when the cast it (basically in modern terms all spells were spontaneous).

In older editions in general it seems the rules were much more "flexible" then people take them to be now and each group would play differently. There were no official rules for critical hits/fumbles (that I can remember at least) but many groups played with them. And I never saw anyone play using the huge table of modifiers to hit based on weapon type and AC in 1st ed.

[hamlet]

Besides the fact that none of us have really grown up?:smalltongue:

Just what are you implying?:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[John Campbell]

I think if I were going to rewrite the rules, one of my first choices would be to take out every spell that can duplicate something a skill can do, only better: Find Traps, Spider Climb, Invisibility, Comprehend Languages, Knock, etc. Or at the very least, let these spells be a scaling bonus to a trained skill use rather than an automatic success.

I think this only really becomes a problem when combined with 3.x's cheap and easy to buy or make items and stupid amount of money assumed to be in PC hands. If you've got two 2nd level spell slots, are you really going to prepare knock so you can twice a day unlock a door like the thief can do all day every day, or are you going to prepare web or levitate or glitterdust or Tasha's uncontrollable hideous daughter or something so that you can do things that no one else in the party can do?

On the other hand, when you can go down to the Magic*Mart and buy a wand of knock for a small portion of your rules*-guaranteed WBL and unlock the next 50 doors you come to without touching your intrinsic spellcasting ability, and when you finally run out of charges, just go buy another one with an even smaller portion of all the loot that was behind all of those locked doors...

__
* Well, they're really more like guidelines. But they're guidelines that'll completely wreck any semblance of balance remaining in the game if you don't follow them, not to mention that your players will whine constantly about it.

[Telok]

Tasha's uncontrollable hideous daughter

I need that spell, so much screaming from my group.

[LibraryOgre]

Precisely.

And you talk tough for a guy who drives a Fiat, dude.:smallwink:

I don't. However, I see DM Fiat, and my brain goes to Car Talk. I blame my old Scoutmaster, who listened to it on camping trips. :smallbiggrin:


In terms of niche protection, I'd like to point out that before 3rd Edition, only thieves (and in 2e, bards) could make Listen checks.

As mentioned, this is demonstrably untrue by reading the rulebooks. Thieves, assassins, and bards were the only ones who improved in these tasks as a function of leveling, but stealth, climbing, and listening were all part and parcel of everyone's abilities.


There'd be an interesting study into the psychology behind edition wars I think.

Douglas Adams beat you to it:



I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

[technoextreme]

No, you really can in fact break open casks of oil and set them on fire in the modern versions. At least, in third edition - does fourth still have rules for nonmagical fire?

No but then again they try and actively beat into your head that there is room for DM flexibility and the rules aren't necessarily the end all.

[MeeposFire]

No but then again they try and actively beat into your head that there is room for DM flexibility and the rules aren't necessarily the end all.

I think that is page 42 where it contains rules for actions not covered by the standard rules.

[Telok]

I think that is page 42 where it contains rules for actions not covered by the standard rules.

Attack vs Reflex for two rounds to do 3d6 fire damage, save ends or spend a standard action to put it out.

Don't bother.

[nyarlathotep]

Things that majorly kept earlier editions balanced:

Lowwer HP totals: Seriously the by having lowwer hp on players and monsters alike fighter types retained relevance and thief backstabs were likely to kill things instantly. It also meant that a large number of lowwer level enemies still posed a threat. This was the worst change for balance in 3.0.

Casting time: In early editions a wizard started casting at the beginning of the round and if he was hit during casting his spell was lost. This was removed in 3.0 resulting in the "wizards don't care" problems/

Cleric self buff spells were weaker: A cleric was even with buffs usually worse than a fighter at fighting.

Fighters could full attack after moving and attacks after the first suffered no loss in ability to hit.: This worked out amazingly yet every suggestion to just give pounce or the equivalent for free to fighters in 3.5 is for some reason seen as "overpowered".

[JonestheSpy]

One of the big differences between 2E and 3.X is the leveling system, which didn't even pretend to be fair. Classes didn't level up at the same time, as they used GREATLY different xp tracks. I recall that thieves (not rogues!) leveled rather quickly pretty much steadily; while classes like the mage started off much slower, sped up in the middle levels, and slowed back down at upper levels.



Wow, this seems completely back-asswards to me. The different amounts of xp needed to level were the big equalizing factor between classes. A paladin was better than a fighter in every way, but needed more xp to level up. Rogues could succeed at almost nothing except climbing walls early on, but they leveled up faster than anyone else.

I've thought for awhile that if something like this was adapted to 3.X it would help a lot in game balance.





Fighters could full attack after moving and attacks after the first suffered no loss in ability to hit. This worked out amazingly yet every suggestion to just give pounce or the equivalent for free to fighters in 3.5 is for some reason seen as "overpowered".

Well to be fair, fighters only got two attacks max anyway, and no feats to help them improve their chances to hit.

[nyarlathotep]

Well to be fair, fighters only got two attacks max anyway, and no feats to help them improve their chances to hit.

No with weapon specialization 3 was possible and also speed existed as a weapon enchantment. Additionally duel wielding was possible.

[MeeposFire]

No with weapon specialization 3 was possible and also speed existed as a weapon enchantment. Additionally duel wielding was possible.

Also if you used the punching specialization rules from the complete fighters handbook you could get an extra attack in addition to those from punching specialization which you could also combine with the cestus.

[hamlet]

Just a point, the paladin was not superior to the fighter in every way. Yeah, got lots of goodies, but the fighter got specialization when the paladin did not, and the fighter was not as tightly constrained by a moral code as the paladin was. Plus, fighters leveled a bit quicker.

Balance, many times, was a matter of trade offs. "Phenomenal cosmic power, and an itty bitty living space . . ."

[JonestheSpy]

Just to be clear for the youngin's, weapon specialization etc did not exist at all in the original AD&D rules, those were changes that came years later.

So yeah, in the original conception, leveling faster was the fighter's only advantage compared to Paladins and Rangers.

[Yuki Akuma]

And, you know, ability to be nongood.

[hamlet]

Just to be clear for the youngin's, weapon specialization etc did not exist at all in the original AD&D rules, those were changes that came years later.

So yeah, in the original conception, leveling faster was the fighter's only advantage compared to Paladins and Rangers.

Specialization was, IIRC, introduced originally in Dragon magazine, then again in the Unearthed Arcana book. So it was a part of 1st edition, just not in the original PHB.

[JonestheSpy]

Yes, as I said, years later after the PH was first published.

[hamlet]

Yes, as I said, years later after the PH was first published.

Yes.

I'm just being specific and pedantic.

It's the only thing left to me these days. Don't whiz on my cookies man.:smallwink::smalltongue:

[JonestheSpy]

Hey, I thought I was the one being specific and pendantic, dangit!

[hamlet]

Hey, I thought I was the one being specific and pendantic, dangit!

Get off my lawn you kids!

[MeeposFire]

Paladins were better but it was not that much better really. In fact considering your stat layout to make a paladin and the slower leveling rate I could see making a case that in most cases the fighter might be better than the paladin.

[JonestheSpy]

considering your stat layout to make a paladin

Sounds like you're assuming some kind of point-buy thing. Stats were rolled up back then, whippersnapper. Paladin was a class you had to be really lucky to qualify for in the first place.

[Shadowknight12]

Sounds like you're assuming some kind of point-buy thing. Stats were rolled up back then, whippersnapper. Paladin was a class you had to be really lucky to qualify for in the first place.

Not to make any undue assumptions, but I do believe that's exactly what he said. :smalltongue:

[hamlet]

Sounds like you're assuming some kind of point-buy thing. Stats were rolled up back then, whippersnapper. Paladin was a class you had to be really lucky to qualify for in the first place.

Darn tootin. And don't get me started on Bards!

[MeeposFire]

Sounds like you're assuming some kind of point-buy thing. Stats were rolled up back then, whippersnapper. Paladin was a class you had to be really lucky to qualify for in the first place.

Yea I am assuming you are rolling which means if you do happen to make a paladin in a legit way (which by the way was very, very, very rare if you did it in the rolling method of 3d6) what are the chances that you will also be able to put decent scores in your combat abilities if you have to "waste" a 17 you rolled in cha and then another highish score in wisdom when the fighter could take those same rolled scores and put that 17 in constitution for example (which is probably the single most important score for a fighter in reality). The chances of you rolling enough high scores with any of the standard methods to make the paladin have as good combat ability scores is so low you would almost have to assume the player is cheating (it is possible to roll it but really do you want to know the odds?). The only way a rolling stat method would likely lead to you having a more powerful stat line for a paladin over a fighter is if you roll stats in order (which is done but not all the time) and you rolled paladin minimums. That is very rare indeed.

[JonestheSpy]

The only way a rolling stat method would likely lead to you having a more powerful stat line for a paladin over a fighter is if you roll stats in order (which is done but not all the time) and you rolled paladin minimums. That is very rare indeed.

Ah, I see the confusion. You were assuming being able to arrange stats. Nope, old school is roll 'em up in order and keep them. So no, you wouldn't be "wasting" a high roll by putting into charisma (though I think in AD&D paladins were cool enough that many folks would so they could play one) And yes, paladins were supposed to be rare.

Yeah sure, there was fudging and 4d6 and rearranging even back in Ye Olde Dayes (tm), but the system was pretty much designed with the idea that you played with what you rolled.

[a_humble_lich]

Ah, I see the confusion. You were assuming being able to arrange stats. Nope, old school is roll 'em up in order and keep them. So no, you wouldn't be "wasting" a high roll by putting into charisma (though I think in AD&D paladins were cool enough that many folks would so they could play one) And yes, paladins were supposed to be rare.

Yeah sure, there was fudging and 4d6 and rearranging even back in Ye Olde Dayes (tm), but the system was pretty much designed with the idea that you played with what you rolled.

I disagree. I was just looking in the 1st ed. DMG earlier today and they recommend not rolling 3d6 in order to generate stats. They give 4 different alternate methods (of which 4d6 was one) and suggest the DM chooses one, and that 3d6 in order only be used for non-important NPCs.

Now in Ye Olde Olde Dayes (tm) (i.e. red box D&D) you were to roll stats 3d6 in order, but if memory serves there were no paladins in that era.

Edit: And personally, I'm not sure I ever played in a game where you had to roll 3d6 in order since I switched from D&D to AD&D, back in Ye Olde (bute not Olde Olde) Dayes (tm). :smallsmile:

[ericgrau]

Most comments surrounding the release of 3e were about how it was much more balanced than the horribly unbalanced 2e. There really wasn't even an attempt at balance, let alone any balance worth mentioning. People talk about 2e balance b/c they don't remember it and try to carefully select everything it has that 3e doesn't have.

4e discussion often revolves around how much damage the ranger does. Eventually I suppose they'll forget about 3e and talk about how much more balanced it is because all the martial classes are closer together, and b/c the 3e ranger isn't so overpowered.

[hamlet]

I disagree. I was just looking in the 1st ed. DMG earlier today and they recommend not rolling 3d6 in order to generate stats. They give 4 different alternate methods (of which 4d6 was one) and suggest the DM chooses one, and that 3d6 in order only be used for non-important NPCs.

Now in Ye Olde Olde Dayes (tm) (i.e. red box D&D) you were to roll stats 3d6 in order, but if memory serves there were no paladins in that era.

Edit: And personally, I'm not sure I ever played in a game where you had to roll 3d6 in order since I switched from D&D to AD&D, back in Ye Olde (bute not Olde Olde) Dayes (tm). :smallsmile:

Actually, the standard in 1st edition was 3d6 in order. Those methods in the DMG were optional and entirely at the discretion of the DM.

Same for 2nd edition actually, though it was highly recommended you go with an alternate method since the focus had shifted slightly towards more heroic play, though still much less powered than 3.x and on.

[nyarlathotep]

Actually, the standard in 1st edition was 3d6 in order. Those methods in the DMG were optional and entirely at the discretion of the DM.

Same for 2nd edition actually, though it was highly recommended you go with an alternate method since the focus had shifted slightly towards more heroic play, though still much less powered than 3.x and on.

As in ye olde days you started with 2 to 5 characters and henchmen under the assumption that only 1 would survive to higher levels.

[Lapak]

Most comments surrounding the release of 3e were about how it was much more balanced than the horribly unbalanced 2e. There really wasn't even an attempt at balance, let alone any balance worth mentioning. People talk about 2e balance b/c they don't remember it and try to carefully select everything it has that 3e doesn't have.As has been mentioned elsewhere, pre-3e 'balance' was expected to be handled by the DM as required, so you're right that there was no attempt at balance. Of course, since balance has proven remarkably difficult to achieve mechanically, it may not be a terrible thing to put on the referee's shoulders.

That said, people said that 3e was more balanced based on the same assumptions that the 3e designers made: that most people would play the restructured classes in the same way that they had played the old ones, with blasty wizards and healing clerics. And it IS better balanced mechanically under those conditions!

[ericgrau]

The blasty wizards and healbots are another false assumption. WotC encouraged battlefield control and other unusual spells almost immediately upon the release of 3e, or at least 3.5e. LogicNinja even stole one or two of their article examples at least 2 years later, the two main examples in one particular article in fact. It's almost as if WotC wrote those spells.

It's been said that batman casters are overglorified support casters. They really help the whole party shine so I don't have much issue with such casters even when overall party effectiveness goes up.

I think it's all relative. People are already complaining about 4e balance but I don't think it's capable of going as bad when it goes bad. 2e escapes the issue by putting it on the DM's shoulders and blaming it on him, but that doesn't excuse the natural tendency for it to be worse. And rule 0 applies to infinite chains and so on in any system, include 3e. They're too obvious for a DM to miss. In all 3 systems PCs and DMs avoid the obviously stupid stuff and more or less keep things under control. But I've played another unnamed system that puts more on the DM's shoulders and I can say so much DM fiat gets tiresome over time, because the DM can and does make mistakes. Nearly getting TPKed by a minor non-combat encounter b/c he set the numbers wrong can be a nuisance. 3e may be abusable sometimes if the PCs are jerks or don't realize they're playing with new players or w/e but at least encounters like the one I mentioned are rare.

[MeeposFire]

The blasty wizards and healbots are another false assumption. WotC encouraged battlefield control and other unusual spells almost immediately upon the release of 3e, or at least 3.5e. LogicNinja even stole one or two of their article examples at least 2 years later, the two main examples in one particular article in fact. It's almost as if WotC wrote those spells.

It's been said that batman casters are overglorified support casters. They really help the whole party shine so I don't have much issue with such casters even when overall party effectiveness goes up.

I think it's all relative. People are already complaining about 4e balance but I don't think it's capable of going as bad when it goes bad. 2e escapes the issue by putting it on the DM's shoulders and blaming it on him, but that doesn't excuse the natural tendency for it to be worse. And rule 0 applies to infinite chains and so on in any system, include 3e. They're too obvious for a DM to miss.

4e balance problems are on the range of comparing classes from tier 5 to tier 3. In 4e they don't have classes like 3e casters and everybody is limited to being in the same realm (no more casters can break the rules and warriors are stuck to it). This means that classes that do tier 1 or 2 stuff do not exist. They also lack tier 6 for sure since no class is a complete failure. You could make a case for tier 5 with assassins and the vampire. Tier 4s include the not so powerful classes that are still fully capable like the hexblade or executioner. The vast majority of classes reside in tier 3. So the complaints in 4e are based on how different the number send up rather than 3es problems which are based on casters being able to do something fundamentally different from what warriors do.

[a_humble_lich]

Actually, the standard in 1st edition was 3d6 in order. Those methods in the DMG were optional and entirely at the discretion of the DM.

Same for 2nd edition actually, though it was highly recommended you go with an alternate method since the focus had shifted slightly towards more heroic play, though still much less powered than 3.x and on.

Not to argue with elders, but I'm pretty old too :smallsmile:. Going back and looking at my old 1st edition books I discovered four things:

1. The PHB says nothing about how stats should be rolled. All it says is


The range of each of these abilities is between 3 and 18. The premise of the game is that each player character is above average--at least in some respects--and has superior potential. ... Each ability score is determined by random number generation. The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DMG. The DM will inform you as to which method you may use ... (Emphasis and abbreviations mine)

2. In the DMG it says it is possible to create "fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6" then it goes on to say why you shouldn't do it. It recommends one of 4 different methods (with 3d6 in order not being one).

3. Oriental Adventures talks about character creation and basically repeats the same words from the DMG but only talks about rolling 3d6 as a way for NPCs.

4. The condition of my 1st edition books is really bad. I remember Unearthed Arcana had a section on how to roll stats but I no longer have those pages. It seems I no longer have a lot of pages. :smallfrown:

If I recall correctly in the red box D&D you rolled 3d6 (I no longer have those books so I can't look that up), but by AD&D you were told not too. Now I fully believe many groups still rolled 3d6, as no two AD&D groups played the same game, but that's not how it was written.

[JonestheSpy]

2. In the DMG it says it is possible to create "fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6" then it goes on to say why you shouldn't do it. It recommends one of 4 different methods (with 3d6 in order not being one).



Well, I'd love to check this but my old DMG is buried either in my basement or attic, not sure which. Just out of curiosity, is this the classic DMG with the David Sutherland cover of the efreeti, or one of the later ones? I can't help wondering if a later printing had any changes aside from the art.

[Archwizard]

Not to argue with elders, but I'm pretty old too :smallsmile:. Going back and looking at my old 1st edition books I discovered four things:

1. The PHB says nothing about how stats should be rolled. All it says is

(Emphasis and abbreviations mine)

2. In the DMG it says it is possible to create "fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6" then it goes on to say why you shouldn't do it. It recommends one of 4 different methods (with 3d6 in order not being one).

3. Oriental Adventures talks about character creation and basically repeats the same words from the DMG but only talks about rolling 3d6 as a way for NPCs.

4. The condition of my 1st edition books is really bad. I remember Unearthed Arcana had a section on how to roll stats but I no longer have those pages. It seems I no longer have a lot of pages. :smallfrown:

If I recall correctly in the red box D&D you rolled 3d6 (I no longer have those books so I can't look that up), but by AD&D you were told not too. Now I fully believe many groups still rolled 3d6, as no two AD&D groups played the same game, but that's not how it was written.

I never had UA, but the condition of your books appears to be just fine. And yes, in good old Red Box, you rolled 3d6 in order. Most people had figured out that that was pretty harsh, and lead to people not playing characters they wanted, so Method I in AD&D was what most groups were doing anyway, 4d6 drop 1, arrange to taste.

And man, the idea of a paladin in Basic D&D is a chuckle. The Reb Box had: Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. Dwarf maxed at level 12, Elf 10, Halfling 8! Rules to max out demi-humans and to take humans to Level 14 were in the Blue Box Expert Rules.

[a_humble_lich]

This is the second printing of the DMG/PHB with the guy in robes opening the door with teaming hordes behind him. I was wondering too if there were any other changes besides the cover.

As to the condition of my books, I first spent 20 min sorting all the pages so they would be in order in the right books. I still have most of the pages....

[Matthew]

The confusion above likely stems from 3d6 in order being the standard way in second edition [i.e. Method I]. Quite why they changed it is not clear, but probably has something to do with second edition resembling Basic or B/X when all the options are left off.

[Archwizard]

The confusion above likely stems from 3d6 in order being the standard way in second edition [i.e. Method I]. Quite why they changed it is not clear, but probably has something to do with second edition resembling Basic or B/X when all the options are left off.

Heh, good catch. I completely forgot that 1E Method I = 2E Method V. I just always used that method (and had been playing D&D for years when 2E came out), so I pretty much ignored the "how to roll stats" section of the PHB.

[The Big Dice]

And man, the idea of a paladin in Basic D&D is a chuckle. The Reb Box had: Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. Dwarf maxed at level 12, Elf 10, Halfling 8! Rules to max out demi-humans and to take humans to Level 14 were in the Blue Box Expert Rules.
The Companion set, the green one, introduced Paladins, Knights and Avengers as Fighter variants. And Druids as Cleric variants. But none of them were available until 9th level.

[hamlet]

Not to argue with elders, but I'm pretty old too :smallsmile:. Going back and looking at my old 1st edition books I discovered four things:

1. The PHB says nothing about how stats should be rolled. All it says is

(Emphasis and abbreviations mine)

2. In the DMG it says it is possible to create "fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6" then it goes on to say why you shouldn't do it. It recommends one of 4 different methods (with 3d6 in order not being one).

3. Oriental Adventures talks about character creation and basically repeats the same words from the DMG but only talks about rolling 3d6 as a way for NPCs.

4. The condition of my 1st edition books is really bad. I remember Unearthed Arcana had a section on how to roll stats but I no longer have those pages. It seems I no longer have a lot of pages. :smallfrown:

If I recall correctly in the red box D&D you rolled 3d6 (I no longer have those books so I can't look that up), but by AD&D you were told not too. Now I fully believe many groups still rolled 3d6, as no two AD&D groups played the same game, but that's not how it was written.

I'm always open to this kind of correction. Especially when you back it up.

I often get these things wrong from memory, which is why I look them up in game as needed.

They say memory's the second thing to go . . .

[Matthew]

Heh, good catch. I completely forgot that 1E Method I = 2E Method V. I just always used that method (and had been playing D&D for years when 2E came out), so I pretty much ignored the "how to roll stats" section of the PHB.

Right, never even really knew there were viable different ways from 3d6 in order and 4d6 assign as desired until I was out of my teens. :smallbiggrin:

[LibraryOgre]

We mostly did 4d6 drop the lowest, though once I moved to college, my DM at home got to thinking about 3d6 games being awesome.

[GreyMantle]

The blasty wizards and healbots are another false assumption. WotC encouraged battlefield control and other unusual spells almost immediately upon the release of 3e, or at least 3.5e. LogicNinja even stole one or two of their article examples at least 2 years later, the two main examples in one particular article in fact. It's almost as if WotC wrote those spells.


That is, quite simply, not true or at least partially false. I distinctly remember reading several playtest logs done by WotC in which wizards were blasters and clerics were healbots, and little else. That was usually how highlevel enemies like balors and mariliths were being played as well.

In fact, a lot of 3E's balance problems can be traced to the fact that WotC just copied a lot of spells and such straight from 2E without stopping to consider how 1) most errything had significantly more hitpoints, making blasting a Bad Idea, and 2) it was now totally possible to make people fail their saves on SoDs.

[Jay R]

Getting back to the original question, which was "How were 1E and 2E balance tested?" (Yes, it really was. Go check.)

A lot of rules were tested by being published as a magazine article first, and then included in the next edition if people liked them.

For instance, The Strategic Review introduced Rangers, Bards, and Illusionists. Dragon #3 had a Dwarf-specific class. (My group loved it, but it disappeared.) Lots of monsters appeared as Creature Features. So in a very real sense, we were all beta-testers for a lot of AD&D rules.

[Matthew]

Getting back to the original question, which was "How were 1E and 2E balance tested?" (Yes, it really was. Go check.)

A lot of rules were tested by being published as a magazine article first, and then included in the next edition if people liked them.

For instance, The Strategic Review introduced Rangers, Bards, and Illusionists. Dragon #3 had a Dwarf-specific class. (My group loved it, but it disappeared.) Lots of monsters appeared as Creature Features. So in a very real sense, we were all beta-testers for a lot of AD&D rules.

Definitely, and in the early development stage it is known that Gygax used college groups for play testing and had lengthy phone conversations with the game masters regarding what had transpired. That seems to have become less common practice as TSR became a "real" company.

[kyoryu]

Well, I'd love to check this but my old DMG is buried either in my basement or attic, not sure which. Just out of curiosity, is this the classic DMG with the David Sutherland cover of the efreeti, or one of the later ones? I can't help wondering if a later printing had any changes aside from the art.

The efreeti version has the same text.

[Archwizard]

The Companion set, the green one, introduced Paladins, Knights and Avengers as Fighter variants. And Druids as Cleric variants. But none of them were available until 9th level.

Yeah I know. Sorry, when I said "Basic is a chuckle" I meant literally just the Red Box, not pre-AD&D Basic which included all 5. The game kind of went off the rails I think at higher levels. I used to have all 5 boxed sets, but I haven't been able to find the Master Black Box set lately. I'm very bummed about that.

[The Big Dice]

Yeah I know. Sorry, when I said "Basic is a chuckle" I meant literally just the Red Box, not pre-AD&D Basic which included all 5. The game kind of went off the rails I think at higher levels. I used to have all 5 boxed sets, but I haven't been able to find the Master Black Box set lately. I'm very bummed about that.

That wasn't pre AD&D. That's a common source of confusion. D&D was a parallel and separate line from AD&D. Both were in print at the same time. In my opinion, it was a far superior game, not having the clutter and complexity for it's own sake that cvame with AD&D. And Weapon Mastery was inspired. Powerful, but pretty certain to put Fighters on a par or even ahead of casters.

[Archwizard]

That wasn't pre AD&D. That's a common source of confusion. D&D was a parallel and separate line from AD&D. Both were in print at the same time. In my opinion, it was a far superior game, not having the clutter and complexity for it's own sake that cvame with AD&D. And Weapon Mastery was inspired. Powerful, but pretty certain to put Fighters on a par or even ahead of casters.

Well, if we're going to get pedantic about it, Red Box actually was pre-AD&D. Red Box is from 1977, AD&D is from 1978.

[JonestheSpy]

If we're being pendantic? Haven't you been paying attention?

[LibraryOgre]

Well, if we're going to get pedantic about it, Red Box actually was pre-AD&D. Red Box is from 1977, AD&D is from 1978.

AD&D Monster Manual came out in 1977, along with me and Star Wars.

[The Big Dice]

Well, if we're going to get pedantic about it, Red Box actually was pre-AD&D. Red Box is from 1977, AD&D is from 1978.

Actually, no. The first red box was the Tom Moldvay edition in 1981, followed in 1983 with the famous Frank Mentzer written red box. The one with That Cover by Larry Elmore, and that had Frank Mentzer go on to write the following four coloured box sets.

The 1977 edition was a blue booklet that came in a colour box. There was a module, too. Sometimes B1: In Search of Adventure, sometimes B2: The Keep on the Borderlands. The second being the one I had. Complete with a sheet of dice chits instead of dice.

[Fhaolan]

The 1977 edition was a blue booklet that came in a colour box. There was a module, too. Sometimes B1: In Search of Adventure, sometimes B2: The Keep on the Borderlands. The second being the one I had. Complete with a sheet of dice chits instead of dice.

Which had some odd differences from the red-box edition. Enough of a difference that the Expert set and whatnot were difficult to use with the earlier blue-book set.

And then of course there's the even earlier white-box set, which also had Paladins and the like as a kind of primitive form of Prestige Class.