D&D 2E 2e AD&D PHB Balance

[dmhelp]

To me most of the paladin and ranger powers are fluff. Like by the time you can cast spells the usefulness of their spell levels aren’t that great (this is why they gave spells earlier and increased them to 5th level in 5e). So you tack on roleplaying restrictions just to have an inferior fighter that advances slower. At least 1e rangers had weapon spec (in ua when it existed) and 1e paladins had true pro evil (the osric gives them spec).

The thing is fighters are already much better in combat if they are attacking 5/2. They will probably get any strength items first. So even if everyone auto hit the fighter is still going to be doing much more damage. Combat is a big part of the game. This mainly applies to the single classed thief since other non warriors have spells.

I view the “don’t play a single classed thief” as a class balance problem. Fighter thac0 and sneak attack helps fix that. For sneak attack I’d do 1d6 at 1, 2d6 at 5, 3d6 at 9, 4d6 at 13, plus 1d6 per 2 levels after 13. That way when multiclass thieves start falling behind because xp to level no longer doubles the single class thief starts getting a deadlier sneak attack.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

After the wisdom from all of the editions thru the years…. What changes should have been made for better race and class balance in the PHB?

Balance is a crock of sewage. Balance is STAGNATION. Imbalance is dynamic.

 

[billd91]

I allowed rangers to specialize (paladins, no - rangers needed the boost compared to paladins) and fighters to specialize in more than one weapon.
Ranger favored enemy sucked so it needed to be a broader class than just ghouls or something that specific. Humanoids, giants, dragons, undead, etc. I also applied it to damage.

If I were to pick up 2e on a regular basis again, I'd remove level limits and give humans a specific benefit (like 3e did) to make them attractive to play rather than default to.

 

[el-remmen]

After the wisdom from all of the editions thru the years…. What changes should have been made for better race and class balance in the PHB?

Remove dual classing from the game? Let humans multiclass?

Back near the end of playing 2E we allowed humans to multi-class and non-humans to dual class. Personally, I love dual-classing and like 3E/5E style multiclassing the best (which is similar to dual classing).

Remove level limits but give humans something else (+1 to 3 different stats???)?

Unless your game is regularly getting to super high levels I'd just remove the level limits period.

Give paladins and rangers weapon spec?

No, keep it special for fighters.

Give thieves sneak attack with melee weapons instead of backstab?

I mean, if you want.

Give non warriors a chance to hit at high level?

I don't understand this one.

More spells for low level casters?

Yes.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I view the “don’t play a single classed thief” as a class balance problem. Fighter thac0 and sneak attack helps fix that. For sneak attack I’d do 1d6 at 1, 2d6 at 5, 3d6 at 9, 4d6 at 13, plus 1d6 per 2 levels after 13. That way when multiclass thieves start falling behind because xp to level no longer doubles the single class thief starts getting a deadlier sneak attack.

This is a BX/BECMI solution, so some modifications may need to be done to account for things like specialization and non-weapon proficiencies. However, we have never had trouble with an alternate thief who is merely a fighter in every way except limited to AC 7 armor (leather in BX/BECMI, studded I guess in AD&D 2e) and then granted the thief skills.

 

[Lanefan]

Back near the end of playing 2E we allowed humans to multi-class and non-humans to dual class. Personally, I love dual-classing and like 3E/5E style multiclassing the best (which is similar to dual classing).

While dual-classing is mechanically OK it just doesn't make much sense from an in-setting perspective and therefore holds no appeal. 3e-5e multiclassing, ditto only even more so.

Your character doesn't just suddenly stop doing one thing completely and start doing another, when both of its skill sets are required in the field. A Fighter-Cleric doesn't stop curing just because she's advancing her Fighter this level, does she?

Re: weapon specialization:

No, keep it special for fighters.

Curious due to comments upthread: did Paladins get their combat matrix slowed down in 2e? In 1e it's the same as the Fighter, if memory serves; and post-UA Paladins had weapons of choice a la Cavaliers, which was an OK substitute for spec. What made them so inferior to Fighters in combat?

Rangers got hosed in 2e, yes; and they have yet to recover.

 

[TwoSix]

1) Change percentile strength into simply an 18(*), a special ability that warrior types can use. Use the row for 18/76-90, which is +2/+4.
2) Allow the dual stat split in S&P, or don't roll stats. Rolling is a major point of imbalance, and dual stats allow you to compensate for a mediocre main stat by giving a raise to the portion of the stat is important to your character.
3) Use Spells and Magic cleric as the base to build characters. You can build it with no magic whatsoever and make a pure warrior, a warrior with some magic or skills, or a pure caster.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd start with how ability scores work. AD&D has this bizarre lottery system where you roll for ability scores, but only scores in the upper percentile give you any kind of bonus. The higher the ability score, the more dramatic this bonus is. And with the Warrior classes, you have a special "bonus round" where (in addition to being the only class to get increased hit points for 17 Constitution and higher), they can as much as triple the bonuses for a Strength of 18. While already being the classes with the highest Thac0 progression, weapon selection, extra attacks per melee (barring some specialty priesthoods, like Anhur in the Forgotten Realms, but let's not talk about that just yet), and, in the case of Fighters (though that depends on your Kit), Weapon Specialization for more bonuses and attacks.

But let's look at another example. The humble Thief. At first level, a Thief gets 60 discretionary points to divide between all of his Thieving Abilities. A Thief with a 16 Dexterity gets...an extra 5 points.

A Thief with a 17 Dexterity gets an extra 25 points. With 18 Dexterity, an extra 50 points.

With a 19 (possible with some races, such as Halflings and Elves, who also gain bonus points- 25 for Halflings and 20 for Elves), you gain 75 more points. Given that you gain 30 additional discretionary points per level, a Thief with a 17 Dexterity gains 2/3 of a level over one with 16, and a Thief with 18 gets 5/6 of a level over one with 17, and a Thief with a 19 Dexterity gains an additional 5/6 of a level above that!

I played and loved AD&D for a very long time, and yet I never thought once about how this is a horrible way to balance a game. One lucky roll, and you can function as if you were levels higher than the baseline!

 

[dmhelp]

I don't understand this one.

At high level play if you are fighting things with -6 AC etc the fighter w weapon spec, magic weapon, and strength item goes hit hit hit. Everyone else w a magic weapon goes miss (including backstabs).

 

[James Gasik]

Consider three characters, we'll call them Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue. Each has reasons to get into melee combat from time to time (Fighter because, well, he fights, Cleric to be close so he can heal allies, Rogue to maneuver to backstab someone). We will give them all the same ability scores, 16 in everything (to avoid any discussion about exceptional Strength), and assume they all have +3 weapons. At 750,000 xp each, they are in Dragon Mountain, and fight a Stone Snake with an AC of -2. The Fighter is specialized in his weapon and is level 11. His Thac0 is 10, and he has +4 to hit. That means he hits the Stone Snake on a 8, and he can attack 2 times per melee. The Cleric is also level 11, has a Thac0 of 14 and +3 to hit, so he hits on a 13, and can attack 1 time per melee. The Thief is level 13, giving him the same combat ability as the Cleric, though if he can get behind the Snake and be undetected (perhaps due to Invisibility), he gets +4 to hit for that attack (he would ignore shield and Dex bonuses of the target, but 2e monsters didn't often have those, so it's AC remains the same), allowing him to hit on a 9 and deal x 5 damage...

Though given the creature's special defense (taking 1/4 damage from edged and piercing weapons) and the effects of it's bite attack (it has a Thac0 of 13, and those struck must save vs. petrification at -6 or slowly petrify over the course of 5 rounds), none of them should be in melee anyways, but you don't always get a choice...