My Current Final Answer to Caster/Martial Disparity

[Democratus]

What I find amusing is how well balanced the magic and martial classes were in the original D&D - and how player demand has moved things further away from that mark with every edition.

[Xervous]

What I find amusing is how well balanced the magic and martial classes were in the original D&D - and how player demand has moved things further away from that mark with every edition.

Could you qualify what was so well balanced about it?

[Democratus]

Could you qualify what was so well balanced about it?

Sure thing.

There were fewer levels in early editions. Some capped at 10 and others at 14 - a function of the structure of dungeons, which typically had up to 10 levels. This meant you were never seeing spells above 5th-6th level.

There were no cantrips. Every spell cast was a used slot. At level 1 a magic-user would have a single spell for the adventuring day. At 3rd level it was a whopping 3 spells. Limited resources was the core of early editions. It's from this era that the Sleep spell got its nasty reputation. If you have one spell...it better count!

The upshot of this was that martial classes shone brightly for the first half of any campaign, while magic classes came into their own in the latter half of the campaign. This was a fun kind of balance. Did you go with a wizard, knowing that you would struggle until level 5 or so? Or did you take a fighting man and lead the charge in the early levels?

Neither type of character was ever totally eclipsed by the other at any point because:
1) Power levels never got so high that it would be a problem
2) Play style encouraged by early D&D was delving, exploring, avoiding unnecessary fights, and stealing treasure - rather than a series of set-piece battles with cash prizes.
3) Challenges focused much more on players, rather than characters. A player of any class could do something clever, without ever invoking combat or magic rules.

[Willie the Duck]

Could you qualify what was so well balanced about it?

Not Democratus, but I can give my take (EDIT: ninja'd, I see). Magic Users and Fighting Men of oD&D fit a definition of balanced in that one could not dominate or make-irrelevant the other. I mean, you could play a party with no Magic Users, but it would be a significantly harder slog. Magic users had a plethora of 'we win' buttons, both in battle and in dungeon delving (Sleep, Charm Person, Knock, Pass-Wall), many of which were more effective than the same spells have become, often simply based on the assumptions of the time (much of the game was spent at low levels, in dungeons, etc.). However, you did not have a huge number of them (the general assumption was that you could not go out and rest for the night mid-dungeon, also that was back when you prepared a specific loadout and might have prepared a Sleep spell only to discover that the dungeon was mostly undead), and you were incredibly vulnerable (you had about 0.6D6 hp per level, likely nothing from Con, and importantly probably had AC 9 your entire career -- no mage armor, no bracers, a lot fewer defensive spells like blink or mirror image). So a Magic User was an incredible asset, but not one that overshadowed everyone else. In battle much of the time they were standing behind the 2+ rows of fighters+henchmen+hirelings, clutching their daggers (no crossbows or cantrips for them, although people quickly figured out that they could throw flasks of oil as well as anyone else), and waiting for the battle to look like a good time to blow their couple of prepared combat spells. Out of combat they also had a few (pre-prepared, so who knows how applicable) spells which might completely wipe away a given challenge, but because of the limited resources they certainly never made anyone else irrelevant.

So, they certainly qualify as a form of balanced. It also certainly fits the 'balance X powerful thing by making it frustrating' definition (although certainly not the height of it for the game. The Greyhawk expansion and then AD&D added things like not knowing every spell and having to find them through adventuring, spell disruption (and 1e's mage-punitive initiative system, if you used it), high power spells causing aging, taking 10 minutes per spell level to prepare spells, magic item creation requiring DM-gated ingredients (and costing a Con point, through Permanency), and the like.

[Xervous]

Forgive me if I am butchering your presentation of the details but this is the impression I am getting.

wizards are one pump wonders but otherwise deadweight until they become powerhouses but that swing of balance doesn’t matter because you don’t use those rules all that often.

Seems to be a preference for a more free form storytelling system no?

[Democratus]

Forgive me if I am butchering your presentation of the details but this is the impression I am getting.

wizards are one pump wonders but otherwise deadweight until they become powerhouses but that swing of balance doesn’t matter because you don’t use those rules all that often.

Seems to be a preference for a more free form storytelling system no?

Not at all. What early editions of D&D had was a more balanced approach to the various pillars of the game (combat, exploration, interaction). It also emphasized resource management to a much greater degree. The fighting man focused extensively on the combat pillar. The rogue on the exploration pillar. The magic user bridged the gap between these two, as well as having tools for the third (interaction).

When a fight actually happens, you will be glad for the fighters no matter what level you are. The were masters of that domain, and had very good saving throws in case of enemy shenanigans.

When needing to sneak around, listen for enemies behind a door, pop a lock, or deal with nasty traps you had a rogue. The rogue was poor in combat, but great in exploration. It also advanced in levels much faster than other characters.

For the "special occasions" you had the magic user. Spells like Continual Light, Wizard lock, Water Breathing, Clairvoyance, Massmorph, Passwall, and others let the party overcome challenges that would otherwise either be impossible or use more resources than they wanted. If you were so inclined you could also affect the interaction pillar with Charm Person/Monster, spells with a duration in days rather than minutes. In combat there were the obvious spells that have generally survived into current editions.

However, the magic user couldn't be ready for all of these all the time. Spell slots meant that you needed to pick and chose what kind of wizard you would be for the day. Scouting and research were common activities before heading out to an adventure in order to insure better selection of spells.

For the most part, no class would dominate the entire game. And no class had a lock on "power" due to the varied specialties and limitations of each.

[BlacKnight]

What's the degree of negative? You're right, I don't want spellcasters to suffer for casting a spell. I also don't want warriors to suffer for making an attack or using whatever other feature they have. I don't like 5E berserker barbarians suffering exhaustion for using their rage ability. That's why I will never play one. I don't want anyone to suffer for doing whatever it is their character is supposed to do. For any game system that uses that mechanic as a balance feature, I won't like it and won't want to play. If you absolutely hate a PC casting a spell, get rid of the spell. If you hate PCs casting any spells, that's your taste and don't play games where PCs get to cast spells. That doesn't mean the game should get rid of spellcasters or make them suffer for being one.

To be fair any character gets punished when they fail.
If the fighter misses the enemy will have another chance to strike back.
If the rogue fails the Stealth check consequences can be catastrophic.
So where's the difference with the wizard failing to summon a demon and suffering from it?

Or maybe you are against having to pay a price in advance, whatever the outcome of the action is?
But why the Berserker getting exhaustion is bad, but the wizard expending spell slots is not?

[prabe]

To be fair any character gets punished when they fail.
If the fighter misses the enemy will have another chance to strike back.
If the rogue fails the Stealth check consequences can be catastrophic.
So where's the difference with the wizard failing to summon a demon and suffering from it?

Or maybe you are against having to pay a price in advance, whatever the outcome of the action is?
But why the Berserker getting exhaustion is bad, but the wizard expending spell slots is not?

The issue with this analogy is that people are talking about consequences for succeeding. If the Fighter succeeds with their attack/s, he may still not kill the opponent, which will then have an opportunity to attack, and might be more likely to attack the Fighter, so the Fighter seems to be facing a consequence for success. Now, the Wizard summoning a demon might face consequences for doing so, but those consequences likely to be quite different form those the Fighter faces, and there aren't likely to be consequences for successfully casting, say, teleport.

[Jay R]

One of the major balancing factors was that, while wizards had the most powers, they also had the most weaknesses. But a lot of those weaknesses have been removed or nerfed or solutions provided.

Fewer hit points are a major balancing factor — but only if PCs sometimes die. Area effect damage kills the wizards first.

The ability of players to come up with clever solutions is a balancing factor — until you replace that with an INT check.

The limited number of spells is a balancing factor — until you can buy the exact wand you want to have.

The inability to buy armor is a balancing factor — until you can buy bracers of defense.

The requirement that all casters must choose spells in advance is a balancing factor— until you introduce spontaneous casters.

And the fact that wizards start off very weak is a balancing factor — if you start at first level.

I have played off and on since 1975. And it has seemed to me that the game was moderately (not perfectly) balanced by the various weaknesses of the wizards.

But those weaknesses have been slowly erased or minimized over the course of several decades.

[Pex]

To be fair any character gets punished when they fail.
If the fighter misses the enemy will have another chance to strike back.
If the rogue fails the Stealth check consequences can be catastrophic.
So where's the difference with the wizard failing to summon a demon and suffering from it?

Or maybe you are against having to pay a price in advance, whatever the outcome of the action is?
But why the Berserker getting exhaustion is bad, but the wizard expending spell slots is not?

A wizard can fail by missing with his attack roll or the monster makes his saving throw. Failing at something is not punishment. Punishment is your character is worse off doing something than if he hadn't done it. Resource management is a tool. A wizard is not closer to death or vulnerable to something or worse at doing things after casting a 2nd level spell. A berserker barbarian suffers exhaustion for using his rage power - disadvantage on all skill checks and needs to long rest to get rid of it. If he rage powers again his exhaustion becomes worse. He's suffering a penalty for doing what he's supposed to be doing. That's punishment.

[KaussH]

One of the major balancing factors was that, while wizards had the most powers, they also had the most weaknesses. But a lot of those weaknesses have been removed or nerfed or solutions provided.

Fewer hit points are a major balancing factor — but only if PCs sometimes die. Area effect damage kills the wizards first.

The ability of players to come up with clever solutions is a balancing factor — until you replace that with an INT check.

The limited number of spells is a balancing factor — until you can buy the exact wand you want to have.

The inability to buy armor is a balancing factor — until you can buy bracers of defense.

The requirement that all casters must choose spells in advance is a balancing factor— until you introduce spontaneous casters.

And the fact that wizards start off very weak is a balancing factor — if you start at first level.

I have played off and on since 1975. And it has seemed to me that the game was moderately (not perfectly) balanced by the various weaknesses of the wizards.

But those weaknesses have been slowly erased or minimized over the course of several decades.

Exactly this. Over time martal weaknesses have stayed the same or gotten worse (loosing weapons, needing weapons/armor, and their saves have tanked. High level fighters used to have fantastic saves.) But over time almost every single caster issue has been hand waved away. Not keeping track of components, limited spells, limited spell choices, ect.
Honestly if I dont want to play a class with limitations (old paladins, Cavaliers, casters, ect) then I wouldn't play that class. But over time the feeling seems to be that all classes should have as few built in disadvantages as possible and if someone really doesn't like a "requirement " it is fluff and should be reskined.

Now that all said, neither edition is "wrong" it's all swords and sorcery, high and low magic and all game types can be handled with a little gm control.

But the games are front loaded for the fantastic casters to be more awsome then the normal fighters.

As for balance, back in the day we used to say this (1st/2nd ed) a high level wizard can kill an army, a high level fighter can kill that wizard.

[InvisibleBison]

Not at all. What early editions of D&D had was a more balanced approach to the various pillars of the game (combat, exploration, interaction). It also emphasized resource management to a much greater degree. The fighting man focused extensively on the combat pillar. The rogue on the exploration pillar. The magic user bridged the gap between these two, as well as having tools for the third (interaction).

When a fight actually happens, you will be glad for the fighters no matter what level you are. The were masters of that domain, and had very good saving throws in case of enemy shenanigans.

When needing to sneak around, listen for enemies behind a door, pop a lock, or deal with nasty traps you had a rogue. The rogue was poor in combat, but great in exploration. It also advanced in levels much faster than other characters.

For the "special occasions" you had the magic user. Spells like Continual Light, Wizard lock, Water Breathing, Clairvoyance, Massmorph, Passwall, and others let the party overcome challenges that would otherwise either be impossible or use more resources than they wanted. If you were so inclined you could also affect the interaction pillar with Charm Person/Monster, spells with a duration in days rather than minutes. In combat there were the obvious spells that have generally survived into current editions.

However, the magic user couldn't be ready for all of these all the time. Spell slots meant that you needed to pick and chose what kind of wizard you would be for the day. Scouting and research were common activities before heading out to an adventure in order to insure better selection of spells.

For the most part, no class would dominate the entire game. And no class had a lock on "power" due to the varied specialties and limitations of each.

It sounds to me like you're saying that most of the time most players weren't participating, which doesn't sound all that fun.

[NigelWalmsley]

Not at all. What early editions of D&D had was a more balanced approach to the various pillars of the game (combat, exploration, interaction).

The approach you are describing is less balanced, not more. Having each player have a minigame they are good in and they suck the rest of the time is garbage design. The reason the Fighter is bad is that he doesn't have anything to do when there are challenges where "fight" is not an appropriate solution. Making every class like that would make the game worse, not better.

Fewer hit points are a major balancing factor — but only if PCs sometimes die. Area effect damage kills the wizards first.

The Wizard still has less HP. Also, while older versions of D&D were higher lethality, the expectation was in large part that you would churn through Fighting Men and get Magic Users because they were more powerful later on.

The ability of players to come up with clever solutions is a balancing factor — until you replace that with an INT check.

That's not a balancing factor. It's just as possible that the Wizard's player will be creative as the Fighters (in fact, my experience is that people who are good at coming up with clever solutions typically gravitate towards the class with a variety of options). Also, allowing people to solve puzzles by making intelligence checks is good. How else are you supposed to fulfill the fantasy of playing a character who is smarter than you?

The limited number of spells is a balancing factor — until you can buy the exact wand you want to have.

Then why is the Sorcerer still way better than the Fighter? The fact that the Wizard can have exactly the spell he wants is a much-hyped thing, but mostly just having spells that are good is entirely sufficient. And if your solution to imbalance is "stop the Wizard from having abilities that are good", I am prepared to state that it is a categorically bad solution.

The inability to buy armor is a balancing factor — until you can buy bracers of defense.

Again, Wizards are still super squishy in melee. The fact that your AC can now be five better does not give you meaningful ground when monsters are swinging at +25 by 12th level.

The requirement that all casters must choose spells in advance is a balancing factor— until you introduce spontaneous casters.

And yet spontaneous casters are almost universally worse than prepared casters. It seems to me that if you have Wizards > Sorcerers > Fighters, it is somewhat unlikely that the Sorcerers are the ones causing problems for the Fighters.

And the fact that wizards start off very weak is a balancing factor — if you start at first level.

Power now for power later is a garbage design paradigm. If smoothing the power curve, or starting at a level other than 1st causes problems with your balance paradigm, it is a bad balance paradigm.

I have played off and on since 1975. And it has seemed to me that the game was moderately (not perfectly) balanced by the various weaknesses of the wizards.

The perception of game balance in AD&D mostly comes down to lack of knowledge. The vast majority of gaming groups will experience a roughly equivalent level of balance regardless of what edition they play. If you had the same number of people hammering on AD&D as were hammering on 3e, you would have the same level of perceived imbalance. Well, there'd probably also be a lot of "the rules are incomplete, contradictory, or nonsensical".

[Telok]

The approach you are describing is less balanced, not more. Having each player have a minigame they are good in and they suck the rest of the time is garbage design. The reason the Fighter is bad is that he doesn't have anything to do when there are challenges where "fight" is not an appropriate solution. Making every class like that would make the game worse, not better.

See, that's not representative of OD&D/AD&D 1e at all. Well, at least not where I was playing. Your descriptions sound more like my experiences with 3e and 4e.

There weren't really separate minigames and no class was innately incompetent outside their area of expertise (unless you count having the ability to cast spells as one of those areas). Traps were mainly description based, social bits were mainly role play, environment.exploration was mostly resouces and planning, everyone had a chance to sneak up on enemies, etc., etc. They didn't make fighters incapable of anything by dint of being fighters. If you weren't using the optional proficiencies then any "skill" roll was 1d20 or 3d6 or something under a relevant stat, or maybe a save. Even with the proficiencies you were still rolling 1d20 under a stat. Now the thief skills were definitely badly explained and widely misapplied, but they weren't the only ways to climb, sneak, deal with traps, or open doors.

It wasn't 3e+ where you had to have a special class-limited skill or proficiency to find a trap or open a lock, and you didn't have to a an 18+ dex trained skill monkey to have any chance at all to sneak up on someone. There wasn't a "roll to find and disarm traps" minigame, talking to npcs wasn't a "charisma caster rolls social skills" minigame. Was a thief better at climbing than a fighter? Yes, they could scale sheer walls without equipment. That doesn't mean the rest of the party couldn't climb stuff. Was a ranger batter at exploring the wilderness than a magic user? Yes, because they had class features geared towards that. It didn't make mages incompetent at it. The reaction roll tables meant that you just wanted someone with an above average charisma doing the talking at first, not that you needed a 16+ charisma and proficiency in diplomacy to avoid sticking your foot in your mouth every third time you spoke.

[Satinavian]

See, that's not representative of OD&D/AD&D 1e at all. Well, at least not where I was playing. Your descriptions sound more like my experiences with 3e and 4e.

There weren't really separate minigames and no class was innately incompetent outside their area of expertise (unless you count having the ability to cast spells as one of those areas). Traps were mainly description based, social bits were mainly role play, environment.exploration was mostly resouces and planning, everyone had a chance to sneak up on enemies, etc., etc. They didn't make fighters incapable of anything by dint of being fighters. If you weren't using the optional proficiencies then any "skill" roll was 1d20 or 3d6 or something under a relevant stat, or maybe a save. Even with the proficiencies you were still rolling 1d20 under a stat. Now the thief skills were definitely badly explained and widely misapplied, but they weren't the only ways to climb, sneak, deal with traps, or open doors.

It wasn't 3e+ where you had to have a special class-limited skill or proficiency to find a trap or open a lock, and you didn't have to a an 18+ dex trained skill monkey to have any chance at all to sneak up on someone. There wasn't a "roll to find and disarm traps" minigame, talking to npcs wasn't a "charisma caster rolls social skills" minigame. Was a thief better at climbing than a fighter? Yes, they could scale sheer walls without equipment. That doesn't mean the rest of the party couldn't climb stuff. Was a ranger batter at exploring the wilderness than a magic user? Yes, because they had class features geared towards that. It didn't make mages incompetent at it. The reaction roll tables meant that you just wanted someone with an above average charisma doing the talking at first, not that you needed a 16+ charisma and proficiency in diplomacy to avoid sticking your foot in your mouth every third time you spoke.

So the famous "balancing" of early D&D was basically nearly everything you actually did in game being decided by random rolls agains (also random) attributes and DM arbitration. And classes being balanced because class features were mostly secondarry anyway.

While i understand the appeal and many modern rules-light systems do similar, i am not really a fan.

[BlacKnight]

A wizard can fail by missing with his attack roll or the monster makes his saving throw. Failing at something is not punishment. Punishment is your character is worse off doing something than if he hadn't done it. Resource management is a tool. A wizard is not closer to death or vulnerable to something or worse at doing things after casting a 2nd level spell. A berserker barbarian suffers exhaustion for using his rage power - disadvantage on all skill checks and needs to long rest to get rid of it. If he rage powers again his exhaustion becomes worse. He's suffering a penalty for doing what he's supposed to be doing. That's punishment.

Everything is just a matter of probability.
The exhausted barbarian can do the same things that he could do before, he's just more likely to fail.
Similarly a wizard short on spell slots is not restricted from solving a problem (like beating a monster) but he's more likely to not have the right spell and thus failing.
A character low on HP is more likely to die in combat.

But that's just part of the game. Characters use their resources and become weaker.

[Ignimortis]

Everything is just a matter of probability.
The exhausted barbarian can do the same things that he could do before, he's just more likely to fail.
Similarly a wizard short on spell slots is not restricted from solving a problem (like beating a monster) but he's more likely to not have the right spell and thus failing.
A character low on HP is more likely to die in combat.

But that's just part of the game. Characters use their resources and become weaker.

I don't see it that way. Using spell slots doesn't make you worse than you would be without using a spell slot - it's an exchange of a resource for an effect, which leaves no lasting consequence other than you don't have that resource anymore. Berserker's rage, however, does - not only you spend a bonus action to make that extra attack, but you also suffer a negative effect that lasts far longer than the benefit did, and impacts not only your future attempts at doing that same thing, but other things as well.

I can understand where you're coming from, but it just doesn't work out that way. Imagine if spellcasters gained a level of exhaustion per spellcast, but still needed to spend spell slots to actually do that? That's how that works for Berserkers.

[Democratus]

It sounds to me like you're saying that most of the time most players weren't participating, which doesn't sound all that fun.

Not sure where you're getting that from. By that logic you could say that most players in a modern game aren't "participating most of the time" because combat is turn-based and it isn't their turn the entire span of a fight.

RPGs are collaborative. The level of participation for each person at the table is up to the individual sitting in each chair. If 'the spotlight' is on one player for a given moment, rather than feeling cheated by not being the center of things, one can instead support and enjoy another player's moment to shine. This is also participating. It has the additional benefit of being a good sport and a good friend.

[Cluedrew]

On Balance & Fun: Games not being balanced can detract from a game being fun. But balance is not enough to make a game fun. For instance getting rid of classes and a lot of the mechanical variation within the remaining template makes balancing characters much easier. But that strikes me as boring (depending on exactly how much mechanical variation we are talking about) because I really enjoy diversity.

So if the player skill focus of early D&D or heavy niche protection isn't how you want to balance your game that's fine. Some might not like playing blood mage whose last dich option is to pay blood and cast one last ultra spell before passing out, but I could see haven't a lot of fun with that character. (Assuming it is all implemented well.)

[Tanarii]

As far as "head explodes" magic systems, those are meant to be grimdark settings where magicis more typically a thing of NPCs, usually corrupt and evil ones, but given the tone of the setting of course players can choose to play one. Certainly that's the case in Warhammer FRP. Warhammer 40k psykers are a weird one, because they feel like a setting thing that started off as "screwed up empire bases itself on unstable headsploding power because it must" and then players immediately said "yes please can I play one?"

Calling D&D casters rules unfun is by comparison ridiculous. Getting hit shuts down the spell, long memorization times, and limited resources were balancing factors for ridiculous levels of power. It meant the party needed fighters and clerics and weren't a one man show. Even at high levels you were a glass cannon.

Then groups ignored the limitations as unfun, and complained magic users were broken. Then came the edition that removed the limitations as unfun, and people complained wizards were broken. Even now, as unlimited cantrips and no-OA/interruption casting is a thing, it causes some lingering problems.

Something similar happened with ranged weapon attackers and light weapon attackers btw. Their limitations were removed on firing into melee being random as unfun, provoking OAs were unfun, not being able to make melee attacks was unfun so now we have finesse, AC is set so it's almost as good to be lightly armored with Dex because otherwise it's unfun. Oh hey look, Dex is king!

When the "it's unfun" people complain about balance, my response is: What did you expect to happen?

I can understand where you're coming from, but it just doesn't work out that way. Imagine if spellcasters gained a level of exhaustion per spellcast, but still needed to spend spell slots to actually do that? That's how that works for Berserkers.

It'd be fine if the benefit was commensurate with the penalty. So call it if they gained exhaustion for casting a 6th level slot.

[Max_Killjoy]

While the thread didn't appear to be D&D specific, it seems headed that way as usual around here.

One of the things that makes this issue stand out in D&D is that not only does balance need to be done across several classes, it has to be done for every level, and along a steep power gradient that takes the game from "heroes of the everyman" to "might as well be demigods".

[BlacKnight]

I don't see it that way. Using spell slots doesn't make you worse than you would be without using a spell slot - it's an exchange of a resource for an effect, which leaves no lasting consequence other than you don't have that resource anymore. Berserker's rage, however, does - not only you spend a bonus action to make that extra attack, but you also suffer a negative effect that lasts far longer than the benefit did, and impacts not only your future attempts at doing that same thing, but other things as well.

I can understand where you're coming from, but it just doesn't work out that way. Imagine if spellcasters gained a level of exhaustion per spellcast, but still needed to spend spell slots to actually do that? That's how that works for Berserkers.

Of course casting spells make you worse. A wizard with few spells is less powerful than a wizard with more spells.
It seems to me that the problem isn't that, but it's simply that the Berserker rage costs too much for what it offers. But that's just a problem with the specific feature.

Regarding wizards getting exhaustion from casting spells: in Ars Magica it works like that. In older D&D editions certain spells have even worse prices, like aging you.
But wizards are still kings in those games, because the spells are just that good.
It's a matter of appropriate prices (and risks) for appropriate rewards.

[Pex]

Everything is just a matter of probability.
The exhausted barbarian can do the same things that he could do before, he's just more likely to fail.
Similarly a wizard short on spell slots is not restricted from solving a problem (like beating a monster) but he's more likely to not have the right spell and thus failing.
A character low on HP is more likely to die in combat.

But that's just part of the game. Characters use their resources and become weaker.

Again, not the same thing at all. Failing at a task is not punishment. Being attacked by the enemy is not punishment. Unfortunate things happening to a character is not punishment. Spending a resource pool to activate abilities is not punishment. A resource pool is a limitation, and a limitation is fine as a means of balance. Punishment is a type of limitation I don't approve of.

Punishment is your character suffers a penalty as a cost to do its thing. Loss of hit points to activate the ability so you're closer to death. A minus number to something that makes you more vulnerable to attacks than you were. A minus number to dice rolls to do other things or being unable to do other things at all such as losing turns of play. I don't care if it's a warrior or spellcaster. I don't like punishments as a means of balance.

[HouseRules]

Again, not the same thing at all. Failing at a task is not punishment. Being attacked by the enemy is not punishment. Unfortunate things happening to a character is not punishment. Spending a resource pool to activate abilities is not punishment. A resource pool is a limitation, and a limitation is fine as a means of balance. Punishment is a type of limitation I don't approve of.

Punishment is your character suffers a penalty as a cost to do its thing. Loss of hit points to activate the ability so you're closer to death. A minus number to something that makes you more vulnerable to attacks than you were. A minus number to dice rolls to do other things or being unable to do other things at all such as losing turns of play. I don't care if it's a warrior or spellcaster. I don't like punishments as a means of balance.

Lose Hit Points in order to tank?

[Zarrgon]

What I find amusing is how well balanced the magic and martial classes were in the original D&D - and how player demand has moved things further away from that mark with every edition.

Things were just fine and balanced in 2E too. The problems start with 3E.

Could you qualify what was so well balanced about it?

1.No skill system or maybe a lite vague skill system if you felt like using it.

2.Few mechanical utility spells, and no skill based spells(as there is no skill system).

3.DM control: the DM says your blue is gray, it's final, the game rolls on.

4.Lots more weird, strange reality and magic that is completely non rules mechanical.

5.Lots of negative effects game wide, plus a ton of specific magical ones.

6.No super easy access to creating magic items at will and a great many such items being very broken like scrolls and wands.

Now, the Wizard summoning a demon might face consequences for doing so, but those consequences likely to be quite different form those the Fighter faces, and there aren't likely to be consequences for successfully casting, say, teleport.

Unfortunately after 3E the gaming culture is focused on only the game rules and nothing else matters. A lot of things do, in fact, have negative effects even more so for magic. But only in the fluff text. And the rules only culture ignores fluff text.

In the Old School Culture even summoning one demon or casting one teleport can be dangerous and have negative effects: using either several times and things will get bad for a character fast.

In the Rule are the Game Culture they can summon 1,000's of demons and cast 1,000's of teleports, and it's all safe and has no negative effects.

One of the things that makes this issue stand out in D&D is that not only does balance need to be done across several classes, it has to be done for every level, and along a steep power gradient that takes the game from "heroes of the everyman" to "might as well be demigods".

The big problem with D&D has always been the upward power curve. The game rules mention it all the time, but only in a vague way...and just about never has any mechanical rules other then the vague "monsters get harder...sort of".

As the characters go up in levels, so does...or should...the game. Unfortunately many game cultures choose not to play the game with the upward power curve. And such a curve is a huge balance to the game. A skilled character can unlock any lock, but the wizard can't knock open a door if the game has no doors.

Punishment is your character suffers a penalty as a cost to do its thing. Loss of hit points to activate the ability so you're closer to death. A minus number to something that makes you more vulnerable to attacks than you were. A minus number to dice rolls to do other things or being unable to do other things at all such as losing turns of play. I don't care if it's a warrior or spellcaster. I don't like punishments as a means of balance.

Are you fine with things as long as people don't say they are "for balance"?

Just compare the two cultures: You'd say the way to do it is to say a character can use the ability X number of times a day. The other way is a character can use the ability at will, but takes damage: so this player can 'take a chance' and 'push' as they will at a cost...or not.

I think that giving the player the choice: you can do this sure, but you will get a negative effect is the right game culture. If a player wants to be safe, they can simply choose not to do it...or even maybe find a away around it.

[BlacKnight]

Again, not the same thing at all. Failing at a task is not punishment. Being attacked by the enemy is not punishment. Unfortunate things happening to a character is not punishment. Spending a resource pool to activate abilities is not punishment. A resource pool is a limitation, and a limitation is fine as a means of balance. Punishment is a type of limitation I don't approve of.

Punishment is your character suffers a penalty as a cost to do its thing. Loss of hit points to activate the ability so you're closer to death. A minus number to something that makes you more vulnerable to attacks than you were. A minus number to dice rolls to do other things or being unable to do other things at all such as losing turns of play. I don't care if it's a warrior or spellcaster. I don't like punishments as a means of balance.

Your distinction between limitations and punishments is completely arbitrary and doesn't really make sense.
Consider this: losing HP (in D&D I presume) doesn't give you a penalty to any roll. So why do you list it as a punishment?
Yes, a character with fewer HP is more likely to die. But the same is true for a wizard with fewer spell slots.

[Ignimortis]

Of course casting spells make you worse. A wizard with few spells is less powerful than a wizard with more spells.
It seems to me that the problem isn't that, but it's simply that the Berserker rage costs too much for what it offers. But that's just a problem with the specific feature.

Regarding wizards getting exhaustion from casting spells: in Ars Magica it works like that. In older D&D editions certain spells have even worse prices, like aging you.
But wizards are still kings in those games, because the spells are just that good.
It's a matter of appropriate prices (and risks) for appropriate rewards.

In part, yes, that's the question about the price being too steep for the effect provided. But the wizard with less spells is worse at only one thing - spellcasting. All of his other capabilities are untouched. The berserker who just used his rage is worse at things that are not necessarily related to combat.

Your distinction between limitations and punishments is completely arbitrary and doesn't really make sense.
Consider this: losing HP (in D&D I presume) doesn't give you a penalty to any roll. So why do you list it as a punishment?
Yes, a character with fewer HP is more likely to die. But the same is true for a wizard with fewer spell slots.

Because HP in general isn't bound to any resource-expenditure mechanics, and is a resource that you don't choose to use - you just get hit or not. Therefore, any mechanic that makes you spend HP to achieve an effect, introduces an active way to spend a resource that wasn't designed to be spent actively, and is in fact more paramount to your survival than any other resource.

[Pex]

Lose Hit Points in order to tank?

It's not about what the bad guys do to you. It's only about what ever it is your character does, your actions, your abilities, your powers. A bad guy hits you, and you take 1d8 + 3 damage. That's not punishment. You activate an ability to do a Cool Thing, but you lose 1d8 + 3 hit points for doing it. That's punishment.

Are you fine with things as long as people don't say they are "for balance"?

Just compare the two cultures: You'd say the way to do it is to say a character can use the ability X number of times a day. The other way is a character can use the ability at will, but takes damage: so this player can 'take a chance' and 'push' as they will at a cost...or not.

I think that giving the player the choice: you can do this sure, but you will get a negative effect is the right game culture. If a player wants to be safe, they can simply choose not to do it...or even maybe find a away around it.

It doesn't matter if they say balance or not. All abilities are optional. A berserker barbarian doesn't have to use his rage power, but if he doesn't use it because he doesn't want exhaustion then he essentially doesn't have the ability at all and it's a waste of space. That's the punishment. Hurt yourself or don't do anything is not a good choice. If a spellcasting rule was cast a spell but lose hit points every time you do so (i.e. that old Sega Star Wars game), if I never cast a spell because I don't want to lose hit points then why am I playing a spellcaster (why bother playing a Jedi if I don't use the Force because I'll kill my own character)? Use my abilities and die or don't use my abilities. That's not really a choice.

Your distinction between limitations and punishments is completely arbitrary and doesn't really make sense.
Consider this: losing HP (in D&D I presume) doesn't give you a penalty to any roll. So why do you list it as a punishment?
Yes, a character with fewer HP is more likely to die. But the same is true for a wizard with fewer spell slots.

The distinction is quite clear. Hurting yourself to use an ability is punishment. Losing hit points hurts you because you're closer to death. A bad guy hitting you is just the bad guy hitting you. Losing hit points to use an ability is hitting yourself. A resource pool - spell slots, mana, X uses per day is just a limitation. I don't object to all or having limitations. I only object to limitations that hurts yourself for doing it. It has no bearing whatsoever on what any opponent does for his action for anything and everything. The opponent is irrelevant. It is only about whatever it is your own character does. If you're killing yourself or making yourself vulnerable or making yourself not be able to do anything else to do whatever ability you're supposed to be doing, that's the punishment.

[Zarrgon]

It doesn't matter if they say balance or not. All abilities are optional. A berserker barbarian doesn't have to use his rage power, but if he doesn't use it because he doesn't want exhaustion then he essentially doesn't have the ability at all and it's a waste of space. That's the punishment. Hurt yourself or don't do anything is not a good choice. If a spellcasting rule was cast a spell but lose hit points every time you do so (i.e. that old Sega Star Wars game), if I never cast a spell because I don't want to lose hit points then why am I playing a spellcaster (why bother playing a Jedi if I don't use the Force because I'll kill my own character)? Use my abilities and die or don't use my abilities. That's not really a choice.

It's two very different gaming cultures.

If your character does not all the time, at least when you want them too, use the ability that you feel is the only and defining characteristic about the character then your unhappy and don't feel your playing the character. This is very much the 4E D&D mindset and the classic complaint that if a wizard is not casting a spell they are not a wizard.

The other gaming culture is much more open and counts anything the character does as playing the character just fine. Does my wizard throw daggers at the goblins: fine with me. I'm still playing the game and having fun (and I'm not in any way playing the numbers game where I'm going to complain that thrown daggers do less damage then (some of) my spells.)


And the big, big, big difference between the two cultures above is the burn out and the 15 minute day. In just a couple encounters, your Ability Use Culture character will burn out and run out of abilities when they use them in every encounter. And this leads directly to the 15 minute day as player complain that they "must" play the game only at full power always. On the other hand the It's All Fine Culture knows they have to save their abilities for big "important" events and fights. They are not tossing a fireball at the first giant rat they see during the day.

And just look at how much that creates the Caster/Martial Disparity.

[NigelWalmsley]

Not sure where you're getting that from. By that logic you could say that most players in a modern game aren't "participating most of the time" because combat is turn-based and it isn't their turn the entire span of a fight.

There's a pretty obvious difference between "people declare actions in sequence" and "most characters don't have abilities that are relevant to most encounters". People like to be able to do things and take character actions. There's a reason "hanging out with a group of people who are playing D&D" is less popular than "playing D&D". Actively participating is part of the experience.

Warhammer 40k psykers are a weird one, because they feel like a setting thing that started off as "screwed up empire bases itself on unstable headsploding power because it must" and then players immediately said "yes please can I play one?"

Nothing in Warhammer makes any sense at all because it's a satire written by people who've stopped realizing it was a satire. It's like if someone made a new edition of Paranoia that was totally straight "high tech secret agents" game, but kept all the tropes and setting material from the previous games.

Calling D&D casters rules unfun is by comparison ridiculous.

No it isn't. The fact that there are games where casting is more punishing than D&D doesn't mean D&D casting isn't too punishing.

Then groups ignored the limitations as unfun, and complained magic users were broken. Then came the edition that removed the limitations as unfun, and people complained wizards were broken.

The limitations on casters in AD&D are mostly some combination of still present, not meaningful, or bad design. Fighters were still bad before 3e, the game was just played in a way that did not reward having useful abilities as much, and was not subject to the same scrutiny as 3e was. The biggest balance issues aren't even anything that happened to casters directly, but changes to monster HP and magic items.

When the "it's unfun" people complain about balance, my response is: What did you expect to happen?

I expected the designers to design a game that was both balanced and fun. Is this supposed to be some kind of hard problem? Because there are plenty of games out there that are balanced but still fun.

Things were just fine and balanced in 2E too. The problems start with 3E.

No, they don't. The overwhelming majority of problems people have with 3e casters were present in 2e. Casters were always better than Fighters at high levels. People have nostalgia for AD&D, but almost all the changes made in the transition were good.

3.DM control: the DM says your blue is gray, it's final, the game rolls on.

The great virtue of a cooperative storytelling game: giving one participant unassailable veto authority, and relying on them to patch mechanical problems. Truly, moving away from that was a great tragedy.

In the Rule are the Game Culture they can summon 1,000's of demons and cast 1,000's of teleports, and it's all safe and has no negative effects.

Yes, actions have predictable consequences and players can make informed decisions. This is an objectively good thing. The idea that Teleport should sometimes kill you because you pissed off your DM is inexcusable, and if you were relying on that for game balance, you deserve an imbalanced game.

I think that giving the player the choice: you can do this sure, but you will get a negative effect is the right game culture. If a player wants to be safe, they can simply choose not to do it...or even maybe find a away around it.

How could they possibly "find a way around it" when "it" is something that doesn't exist until the DM decides it does? If you want the players to figure out clever solutions to problems, what you are asking for is to have problems be defined in mechanical terms.