Perceived Class Balance in AD&D, Levels 1-20

[genghisdon]

Well I am guilty of auto pilot posting too often, but I'll do what I can.

I think the "problems" were not well addressed in 2e, one might as well stick to pre UA 1e(& tweak that should it be desired). Most will say AD&D breaks down past L14 or so, and they have valid views.

The wizard or MU starting weak & finishing strong is a feature, not a defect. The "balance" of AD&D is long term and more subtle than 3 or 4e. All HL spellcasters are quite mortal considering rest/memorisation rules (DMG pg 40). Spell descriptions & rules are not a strong point of 1e; changes or bannings are likely wise, although that's a huge topic on it's own merits. Some method of reigning in spell damage at extreme levels may be another good idea. MR ceases to perform this function past L20.


Some find the fighter to be a bit boring at any level. Magic items are assumed to provide interest(especially things like elemental command rings & the like), as well as provide quick combat resolution at VHL (vorpal & sharpness blades, girdles of giant strength)

A key point so many miss, especially those starting after 1e, is that level comparisons are useless at HL. The comparison is of XP totals. If your L1-20 game halts when the first characters hit L20, you get Thieves at just over 2,000,000 base XP(and +10% for 16+dex). This is compared to fighters of L16/17, clerics of L17/18, mages of L15/16. The 1e subclasses fit interestingly into this mix. A L20 MU is far " higher level" than other classes(who are in mid to high 20's by that point) & the game system is getting shaky at that point.

I hope that was of some help Irda Ranger.

[Irda Ranger]

Most will say AD&D breaks down past L14 or so, and they have valid views.

The wizard or MU starting weak & finishing strong is a feature, not a defect.

I appreciate your thoughts, but do you see the problem with the two sentences above when read together? How am I to resolve this tension that the game breaks down just as the M-U is really starting to grow into his power? I've been telling this guy all through the low levels "Be patient. Your day will come" and then what? We retire the characters at the height of his effectiveness because the game can't handle it? That blows.

Some find the fighter to be a bit boring at any level. Magic items are assumed to provide interest (especially things like elemental command rings & the like), as well as provide quick combat resolution at VHL (vorpal & sharpness blades, girdles of giant strength)

I'm aware. One of the things I really liked about 3E/4E is that they make the Fighter interesting without the need for items. Feats, powers, etc. I don't like having to build a character (I hate, hate, hate it, which has driven me back to AD&D), but at the same time I don't like that a Fighter without his gear can be pretty helpless/useless. I'm not sure how to solve this problem though.

A key point so many miss, especially those starting after 1e, is that level comparisons are useless at HL. The comparison is of XP totals.

Yes, certainly. But that's why I included the XP comparisons between the Fighter sub-classes. Most of the time they're the same level or only 1 level behind (and at some levels the Ranger actually levels up faster!). It's only past 17th level that the Paladin really starts to fall behind, which (as you mentioned) is well past where most campaigns break down. So a level-to-level comparison is actually pretty fair.

I'll probably get rid of the different XP tables for the Fighter sub-classes and just use the Fighter table for them all. It's just simpler and makes my job as a "fixer" a little easier.

[thedungeondelver]

I hate feats, I hate character builds. As to whether or not a fighter is "useless" - that's up to the player. Honestly? If you want to see the dividing line between good player versus good numbers, run a group through A4. Doesn't mean you have to put them on the railroad and grind through A1-3, just put them in A4 "as a test of their abilities".

Fighters sans equipment, magic-users sans (most) spells, and clerics likewise...that's when you'll either see people giving up in frustration or a high degree of creative play come in to measure.

De-emphasize the builds, de-emphasize the whole idea of the fighter as an item actuator. In this way you'll get more ROLE playing versus ROLL playing without having to take a monkey wrench to the game.

[Falconer]

This thread was long and involved, so I didn't read it all, but here are my observations in response to the original post:

I ran a campaign that lasted probably about 4 years, and went from levels 1 to about 12. All my players (about nine of them) were very different people and had very different play styles. One of them started as a fighter and only ever played that fighter for the entirety of the campaign. That player will never enjoy playing anything other than a fighter. It's just his style. He has no interest in the finer aspects of rules and strategy, and just enjoys the roleplay and hacking with his sword. Well, he was kick-ass at 1st level and kick-ass at 10th level (his current level), I mean really a very prominent character and THE major dealer and taker of damage.

No-one else in the campaign (remember, there were 8 other players) ever really played a fighter. My point is, Fighter is all-around the most powerful class, but it's not for everyone.

Magic-user starts out weak and ends up powerful, that's a calculated risk and tradeoff that anyone undertaking to play a Magic-user knows they're in for. It's also true to the literature.

Clerics, Druids, and FIghter Subclasses are stable like Fighters, but they trade off a little power for some unique chances to shine due to special abilities such as spells.

Monks and Thieves have to be very aggressive players who like to hog the stage a little bit and use a lot of skills that aren't necessarily always powerful but are guaranteed to be "neat" and to thwart the DM a lot. I'm not a huge fan of the Thief, but it worked out especially well at lower levels for a player of mine who had a strong personality and tended to take a lot of initiative and was the usual Caller. If a non-Thief is the Caller, it's not so great, as they tend not to think in terms of using the Thief as much if they're not one. I personally find the Monk a lot of fun to play, and it was also great for another player of mine who tended to really hog the stage, in a sort of "Stand back--it's the John Show!" sort of way. Which sucked for the rest of us when he was a Magic-User, but was great when he was a Monk.

So over time everyone settled into comfortable roles and there was a great balance in the party. I am always surprised at DMs who don't tend to think in terms of these sort of party dynamics, as they are pretty much central to keeping the game fun. I think a lot of people approach it as if everyone plays the same way, which is just not true. (Or have you found it so?) Regards.

[Irda Ranger]

Falconer - I really appreciate your feedback. Could you tell me what rules you used? This is an AD&D forum but you mentioned a Caller which I think is OD&D only, isn't it? Also, did you have Weapon Specialization?

Thanks!

[Falconer]

Could you tell me what rules you used? This is an AD&D forum but you mentioned a Caller which I think is OD&D only, isn't it?

Heya--

No, it was AD&D 1e. Check out the Players Handbook, p. 106, column 2, paragraph 2: “Assign one individual as leader. This character will ‘call’, i.e. tell the referee where the party will go and what they will do.” Also see on the same page, column 1, paragraph 2, and I'm sure you'll find more references in this section. (If you have any questions about the caller please feel free to start a new thread about it.)

Also, did you have Weapon Specialization?

Yes, that was one of the few things from Unearthed Arcana that I did use. (No “Double Specialization” though.) In the early days of my campaign, I was feeling my way backwards from 2e, and so this rule was introduced right off the bat. Needless to say, it improved the fun of the game for Fighters and Rangers! I eventually wanted to remove it because I just saw it as annoying power inflation, but of course the players who already had it wouldn’t have liked that, so I left it in.

What I don’t like about it is 1) It makes it a lot less exciting to find a magic weapon. If the Fighter/Ranger does not happen to be specialized in that particular weapon, his bonuses from specialization probably outweigh the bonuses from the weapon's magic! Lame. And, 2) It makes non-Fighters/non-Rangers completely pathetic in combat by comparison. Especially in a large group, the specialized character getting first and last attack every other round, and those attacks having +1 to hit and +2 to damage, is a HUGE advantage over the other characters, who have one lame attack per round. Regards.

[Irda Ranger]

I guess I missed the part about the AD&D caller. My group is too small though to really need one, so I don't miss it, but thanks for the heads up.

What I don’t like about [weapon specialization] is 1) It makes it a lot less exciting to find a magic weapon. If the Fighter/Ranger does not happen to be specialized in that particular weapon, his bonuses from specialization probably outweigh the bonuses from the weapon's magic! Lame.

Don't weapon proficiencies generally cause this problem? I have the AD&D1e DMG and MM, but for the PHB I'm using OSRIC, so maybe I'm getting this wrong, but my understanding is that any weapon you're not proficient in is a -2 to attack (I think, even my OSRIC is at home and I'm at work). Fighters only start with 4 WP, so that places a hard limit on what items they can profitably use.

And, 2) [weapon specialization] makes non-Fighters/non-Rangers completely pathetic in combat by comparison. Especially in a large group, the specialized character getting first and last attack every other round, and those attacks having +1 to hit and +2 to damage, is a HUGE advantage over the other characters, who have one lame attack per round. Regards.

Yeah, the "take turns having fun" problem. That's why 4E make Thieves into Ninjas in all but name and Clerics and Magic-Users into at-will "magic laser gunslingers." I don't particularly like their solution, but it's a real problem that deserve attention. A good alternative that leaves Fighters and Rangers the "king of battle" without making it quite so obvious may be a slightly better (and level scaling) damage bonus without the extra attacks, but that's just one idea among many.

[genghisdon]

I'd avoid the UA like mummyplague, it causes more problems than it ever could fix.

I don't end campains as soon as most. I often have trouble with folks who ignore house rule effects HL & my concerns for "fixes" are almost always for HL games(other than L1, another weak spot perhaps, but one easily ignored, you aren't there long) I have never forced retirement on anyone & truthfully, less than a handful of my player's characters ever have. They seem to be much as you in attitude there. Of course this means they end up dead (for good) at some point...

Others can & do have valid concerns about HL play, because they are uncomfortable with, dislike it or are ignorant of how to run it. Nothing is for everyone. Thankfully.

I have played plenty of 3/3.5 & a bit of 4e. I had fun. They are different games. Not important for 1e. If you mean to play a lower treasure game( far less magic items &/or less powerful) you need to get a bit creative. The simplest way I can think of offhand is asigning damage bonus to characters, akin to the monk ability. Fighters get +1 damage/2 levels, clerics & thieves +1/4 levels mages +1/6 levels to reflect fighting skill improving damage(Level capped classes need some special dispensation near max level

[genghisdon]

AC could also be increased via combat skill, at about half the damage rate.

You are off on your XP/ level comparisons, but nontheless, in 1e the subclasses are a potential reward for those lucky enough to have the high attributes in the correct places. They are MEANT to be better. They aren't so much so, that the game breaks down however. Trust me. I know the allure of everyone must always be equal at all moments that 3 & 4e strived for. It's not all it's cracked up to be, not at all.

[genghisdon]

I hate feats, I hate character builds. As to whether or not a fighter is "useless" - that's up to the player. Honestly? If you want to see the dividing line between good player versus good numbers, run a group through A4. Doesn't mean you have to put them on the railroad and grind through A1-3, just put them in A4 "as a test of their abilities".

Fighters sans equipment, magic-users sans (most) spells, and clerics likewise...that's when you'll either see people giving up in frustration or a high degree of creative play come in to measure.

De-emphasize the builds, de-emphasize the whole idea of the fighter as an item actuator. In this way you'll get more ROLE playing versus ROLL playing without having to take a monkey wrench to the game.

While I agree with your sentiments, some folks aren't ready for cold turkey.

and A1-3 need not end in railroad. the party can be allowed to duke it out. They probably loose, but then it's on to A4. If not, then the DM has a little work to do. and the PC's get some well earned swag.

I also like the idea of designing your own "helpless" adventures. Shipwrecked or lost in a desert sound like easy choices in addition to captured by foes. The old mods are a good start point, but it's better to learn to make your own adventures.

[genghisdon]

We never used a caller, I think all my players would have quit decades ago had we. glory/spotlight hogs I wonder what it's like.