I've been getting more and more interesting in Game Design and my pet project of designing D&d 5th edition, and i've been trying to figure out what class balance actually is. I get 3rd edition balance issues, and I've been looking into 3rd party systems alot to see how they work. I got into D&D in 3rd edition and while I hate 4th edition, I understand how it works, but more and more I find myself looking back at AD&D and marveling on how much I really like it, in particular the writing, which is far better than most 3rd edition has to offer. So, does anybody know how they can explain class balance to me in 2nd edition and how it worked, or link me to some article that does? I have played D&d since I was 7 however I am not a mathematical or mechanical person, so understanding the details of the Balance has been very hard for me, as I'd much rather focus on the fluff. So, what I am asking is
1) Class Tiers for 2nd Edition, what are they?
2) Did Marshal Classes have any advantages over non marshal classes due to some of the rules? For example, i know that concentration checks and movements were different in 2nd edition which is a big deal and Wizards had to learn each spell individually. And simultaneous actions were around did that make marshal classes much better?
3) Anything from 2nd edition that might help improve class balance or at least make things more interesting?
Thanks alot
from
EE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, there wasnt much balance back in 2nd ed either. Fighters fought, thieves were sneaky, as long as they understood their role, everything was fine. Wizards, well they were special. They had both greater strengths and weaknesses than their 3rd ed cousins. For example, each spell you wanted to prepare took you 10 minutes per spell level to prepare, so a 9nth level spell took an hour and a half. They started with fewer spell slots and there was no such thing as bonus slots. Thanks to how constitution and hit dice worked back then, the best possible wizard could have a maximum of70 hp by 20th level while an average one would have between 30 and 40 hit points by 20th. But a lot of spells were seriousl nerfed from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. Direct damage in 3rd ed is silly due to the insane ammounts of hp some creatures (and players) can have, and there are too many ways to avoid taking damage, not so much in 2nd ed. There were even more save or die spells as well as just die spells, some classes were always doomed to fail those saves. You could say that the time it took to prepare spells would balance the thing a bit, but prepared wizards use their free time to prepare whatever spell they might need. On the other hand, it was much more difficutlt to gain new spells, leveling up granted you no new spells, the only way was either finding them in scrolls or taking them from another wizard's book, with a very cheap DM, you could've had 3rd level slots but only 1st level spells on your spellbook.
Considering that last thing, it was probably easier for the DM to wait untill he saw right for the wizard to aquire new spells.
P.S: Silly me, I forgot that each class had their own XP table, while pretty much everyone got to be 20th level at the same time, wizards had a very hard time leveling up during their first 10 levels or something.
So let me get this straight on the whole "Nerf the Wizard" concept
Pros (meaning things 3E might consider) The ones i've put * by means i'm considering these as possible ways of balancing hte Wizards
1) Wizards take a long time to prepare spells, meaning that the Batman wizard effect is harder to handle. *
2) Wizards have no bonus spells or bonus spell slots, theirfor are far less able to be annoying little buggers
3) Wizards have far less hit points than you can get in 3rd edition, so if a Wizard can get attacked....he dies *
4) (I'm not sure if this is true), wizards almost automatically get their spell interrupted if attacked *
5) Combat rounds were simultaneous, meaning that faster Melee classes could hurt him *
6) Different XP system, meaning a wizard will take ALOT longer to level up
7) Wizards havea much harder time to get new spells
Cons
1) Save or Die spells were even more "HA HA" than in 3rd Edition
2) It was harder to resist magic
3) Spells were....even more absurdly over powered
Do i have that right?
from
EE
Yup, as far as I remember though, I might be overlooking something, for example, even if they had no bonus slots, I do think they had more slots than 3rd ed wizards, for the lower level spells at least.
Spell casting time was added to your initiative (and lower numbers got first). Initiative was decided with a d10, so an enemy with a dagger (init +1 i believe) had pretty good chances to disrupt a wizard casting a powerful spell.
Saw link on GitP...
I don't think magic was harder to resist in 1st and 2nd ed. Saving throws for high level character were better, on average. Top level fighters had the best saves in almost every category.
Also, melee was one attack per round per weapon, with significant penalties for two weapons. Fighters got multiple attacks (3/2 rounds at 7th, 2/round at 13th, 5/2 rounds at 19th) and mopped up 0 level or less than 1 hit die creatures with 1 attack per level!
Yes, wizards got significantly more slots, and they kept getting more with increasing levels. No stagnation.
Post a Comment