Likes and Dislikes Part 3
Levels, Experience Points, and Multiclassing
So many people think that balanced classes are a requirement.
I agree just a little.
Too much balance gets you a bunch of classes that are more or less the same. Maybe slight differences in flavor, but they’re all very bland.
In 1E/2E they attempted to balance classes by varying the XP required to go up levels, and to put mechanical and role-playing limitations.
In 3E/4E they attempted to balance classes level by level with equal XP required, and somewhat less strict mechanical and role-playing limitation.
As I’ve stated previously, balancing classes is not going to happen thanks to the mentality a lot of gamers have.
They will find loopholes and combinations of skills/powers/abilities to give them an advantage over the DM or even the other players.
Then there’s the DM, who just simply wipes away rules that they or their players don’t like. Suddenly more balance issues appear.
Multiclassing in all versions of D&D have been one of the biggest sources of balance issues.
In 1E/2E you could combine the pros of classes and mitigate the cons. When combined with a DM ignoring rules about armor vs. spellcasting or demi-human level limits and you could pull off some nasty stuff.
In 3E, well the multitude of options in 3E threw any concept of balance out the window. Between the large number of classes, prestige classes, races, and feats to choose from and you have yourself a recipe for player domination.
In 4E, they limited multiclassing so much that it seemed pointless to bother with it to me unless you found the right combination of feats and powers. And wouldn’t you know it, the day the game was released and someone made a PC that could get infinite turns. (Those powers were fixed quickly with errata.)
Side note: I only saw dual-classing happen once when someone made a 1E bard. I did it once on a gold box PC game, and that was only to trick the system into allowing my magic-user to cast spells and wear armor.
So of all the options for multiclassing, I personally prefer the 1E/2E version, mainly because a single-classed caster would get the higher levels spells and such sooner.
Yes, some lower level spells are amazing (and probably over-powered) that a multi-classed PC can get many of, but that’s minor in comparison to the wrecking balls that 3E/4E classes can do at equivalent levels.
Combat speed
Perhaps it’s nostalgia.
Perhaps it’s a different level of game from when I started playing.
Perhaps I’m right.
1E combats speeds were fast (10-20 minutes).
Only casters slowed things down (and even then, competent players could speed up the combat by removing factors from the combat).
2E combats were about the same as 1E, depending on whether or not you added a bunch of options. (10-20+ minutes)
3E combats were not bad at low levels and then slowed to a halt as levels increased. (30 minutes at level 1, add 5-10 minutes per level).
4E combats started off as taking too long, and didn’t improve. (1 hour at level 1, add 15 minutes every 5 levels)
There were modifiers to the times as well:
Miniatures always adds time (or removing them reduces time)
Special combat maneuvers adds time
Overly complicated abilities adds time
Well prepared players reduces time
New players adds time
Complex encounter designs adds time
If you like buffs, you’re adding time
I understand that 4E wanted to give each player something special to do, but in the end it turned everyone into a caster.
But after a little while, everyone having their special powers kind of meant no one had special powers.
Your 4E PC is unique, just like every other 4E PC.
Treasure and its use
1E treasure was pretty random, and a large source of your XP
2E was pretty much the same, with more clear suggestions given.
3E treasure was smoothed out a bit by scaling the amount of treasure given out to match the difficulty of the challenge.
4E treasure had very little randomness, with each encounter designed to hand out semi-pre-determined parcels of treasure
With each edition it appears that the randomness is reduced.
Or less chaos and more order if that sounds better.
Hmmm…why have dice? They’re too random.
Now spending treasure differed with each edition as well.
In 1E you had to spend gold to level, to upkeep your gear and skills when not adventuring, and when you were high enough level you were able to build a stronghold of some kind.
In 2E, I really don’t recall what you spent your gold on. Did buying magic items become more main stream or was it the same as 1E?
In 3E you bought magic items or made them
In 4E you bought magic items, made magic items, or bought materials to cast rituals.
I’m sure it starting to feel like the latter editions focused a lot more on combats than what led up to the combats.
Leading up to the combats (i.e. role-playing)
One of my biggest mistakes of running 4E (and 3E I suppose) was that I slowly sacrificed more and more role-playing from the game to allow more time for combats.
In 1E I did very little role-playing because I was a teenager and wanted more fighting, leveling, and magic items.
Role-playing was what you did to figure out the clues about the module.
In 2E I changed to a little of both.
Role-playing was what you did to goof around, and eventually figure out the clues about the module.
Note: 2E did add a huge amount of role-playing information to the game. I’d give it more credit for that if that information wasn’t a lot of copy/paste information, or generally just junk stuff I’d not read unless I was supremely bored.
In 3E my preferences changed back to combat (to fit more in), but the role-playing was definitely prevalent.
Role-play in lower levels. Not so much in higher levels. No time for that.
In 4E I supplied just enough role-playing to get the party where I wanted them to be.
Role-playing was done for fun…or the dreaded role-playing skill challenges.
Really?!? Reducing role-playing to dice rolls?
“Hey king, you’re an idiot. But I rolled a nat 20 and have +30 to my skills, so you’re going to smile and give me stuff.”
Horrible
I mean who in WotC’s chain of command thought this was a good idea?
It almost seemed like they wanted to remove the need for a DM entirely from the game.
So many people think that balanced classes are a requirement.
I agree just a little.
Too much balance gets you a bunch of classes that are more or less the same. Maybe slight differences in flavor, but they’re all very bland.
In 1E/2E they attempted to balance classes by varying the XP required to go up levels, and to put mechanical and role-playing limitations.
In 3E/4E they attempted to balance classes level by level with equal XP required, and somewhat less strict mechanical and role-playing limitation.
As I’ve stated previously, balancing classes is not going to happen thanks to the mentality a lot of gamers have.
They will find loopholes and combinations of skills/powers/abilities to give them an advantage over the DM or even the other players.
Then there’s the DM, who just simply wipes away rules that they or their players don’t like. Suddenly more balance issues appear.
Multiclassing in all versions of D&D have been one of the biggest sources of balance issues.
In 1E/2E you could combine the pros of classes and mitigate the cons. When combined with a DM ignoring rules about armor vs. spellcasting or demi-human level limits and you could pull off some nasty stuff.
In 3E, well the multitude of options in 3E threw any concept of balance out the window. Between the large number of classes, prestige classes, races, and feats to choose from and you have yourself a recipe for player domination.
In 4E, they limited multiclassing so much that it seemed pointless to bother with it to me unless you found the right combination of feats and powers. And wouldn’t you know it, the day the game was released and someone made a PC that could get infinite turns. (Those powers were fixed quickly with errata.)
Side note: I only saw dual-classing happen once when someone made a 1E bard. I did it once on a gold box PC game, and that was only to trick the system into allowing my magic-user to cast spells and wear armor.
So of all the options for multiclassing, I personally prefer the 1E/2E version, mainly because a single-classed caster would get the higher levels spells and such sooner.
Yes, some lower level spells are amazing (and probably over-powered) that a multi-classed PC can get many of, but that’s minor in comparison to the wrecking balls that 3E/4E classes can do at equivalent levels.
Combat speed
Perhaps it’s nostalgia.
Perhaps it’s a different level of game from when I started playing.
Perhaps I’m right.
1E combats speeds were fast (10-20 minutes).
Only casters slowed things down (and even then, competent players could speed up the combat by removing factors from the combat).
2E combats were about the same as 1E, depending on whether or not you added a bunch of options. (10-20+ minutes)
3E combats were not bad at low levels and then slowed to a halt as levels increased. (30 minutes at level 1, add 5-10 minutes per level).
4E combats started off as taking too long, and didn’t improve. (1 hour at level 1, add 15 minutes every 5 levels)
There were modifiers to the times as well:
Miniatures always adds time (or removing them reduces time)
Special combat maneuvers adds time
Overly complicated abilities adds time
Well prepared players reduces time
New players adds time
Complex encounter designs adds time
If you like buffs, you’re adding time
I understand that 4E wanted to give each player something special to do, but in the end it turned everyone into a caster.
But after a little while, everyone having their special powers kind of meant no one had special powers.
Your 4E PC is unique, just like every other 4E PC.
Treasure and its use
1E treasure was pretty random, and a large source of your XP
2E was pretty much the same, with more clear suggestions given.
3E treasure was smoothed out a bit by scaling the amount of treasure given out to match the difficulty of the challenge.
4E treasure had very little randomness, with each encounter designed to hand out semi-pre-determined parcels of treasure
With each edition it appears that the randomness is reduced.
Or less chaos and more order if that sounds better.
Hmmm…why have dice? They’re too random.
Now spending treasure differed with each edition as well.
In 1E you had to spend gold to level, to upkeep your gear and skills when not adventuring, and when you were high enough level you were able to build a stronghold of some kind.
In 2E, I really don’t recall what you spent your gold on. Did buying magic items become more main stream or was it the same as 1E?
In 3E you bought magic items or made them
In 4E you bought magic items, made magic items, or bought materials to cast rituals.
I’m sure it starting to feel like the latter editions focused a lot more on combats than what led up to the combats.
Leading up to the combats (i.e. role-playing)
One of my biggest mistakes of running 4E (and 3E I suppose) was that I slowly sacrificed more and more role-playing from the game to allow more time for combats.
In 1E I did very little role-playing because I was a teenager and wanted more fighting, leveling, and magic items.
Role-playing was what you did to figure out the clues about the module.
In 2E I changed to a little of both.
Role-playing was what you did to goof around, and eventually figure out the clues about the module.
Note: 2E did add a huge amount of role-playing information to the game. I’d give it more credit for that if that information wasn’t a lot of copy/paste information, or generally just junk stuff I’d not read unless I was supremely bored.
In 3E my preferences changed back to combat (to fit more in), but the role-playing was definitely prevalent.
Role-play in lower levels. Not so much in higher levels. No time for that.
In 4E I supplied just enough role-playing to get the party where I wanted them to be.
Role-playing was done for fun…or the dreaded role-playing skill challenges.
Really?!? Reducing role-playing to dice rolls?
“Hey king, you’re an idiot. But I rolled a nat 20 and have +30 to my skills, so you’re going to smile and give me stuff.”
Horrible
I mean who in WotC’s chain of command thought this was a good idea?
It almost seemed like they wanted to remove the need for a DM entirely from the game.
posted by BlueBlackRed at 12:37 PM
0 comments
