However, I'm hardly representative of anyone but myself and I expect that, when Moore wrote this article he was speaking on behalf a sizable number of gamers who had a sneaking suspicion that some AD&D character classes were better (or worse) than others -- and he was going to prove it. Moore's analysis hinges on comparing the classes according to accumulated experience points, not level. His thesis is that, by examining the relative strengths and weaknesses of each class at certain XP benchmarks, he might get a sense of which classes are more (or less) potent than others. In doing this, Moore discovers that, for the most part, AD&D's classes are reasonably balanced against one another, with two significant exceptions, along with a third point of discussion.
The first anomaly concerns druids, which Moore says are unusually tough compared to other classes. Compared to clerics, they advance very quickly and, more importantly, they continue to gain full hit dice all the way to 14th level, which also nets them more Constitution bonuses as well. Druids thus wind up being comparable to fighters at mid-levels and even surpassing them at higher levels. Consequently, he recommends increasing the druid's XP requirements to compensate. The second anomaly concerns monks, which Moore says are too weak in terms of hit points for a class that is supposed to fight hand-to-hand. He recommends that they have D6 hit points. Finally, Moore says -- along with nearly every AD&D player I knew back in the day -- that bard, as presented in the Players Handbook, needs to go. He recommends Jeff Goelz's bard as a replacement.
In the end, "Charting the Classes" is actually a very modest and limited analysis of AD&D's character classes and Moore's suggestions are all quite reasonable. I believe I even adopted his recommendation regarding druids, as I know from experience that they were more potent than they had any right to be. Still, I largely find the idea of "balance" between the classes a Quixotic obsession that's played a lot of mischief with D&D in its later incarnations. But it is, unfortunately, a long and deeply held concern of many gamers and I don't expect it to ever go away.
He sort of misses the fact that after 11th level, druids have to fight their way into those positions, or they drop to the bottom of the level they just completed, losing all of that experience; AND they will always be fighting a druid one level higher than they are. Played strictly, it might take a lot of XPs to get to that next level, if you have at best a 50% chance of advancing every time.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes the case for giving monks a bump even stronger, since they also have this mechanic, and theirs starts a lot earlier.
The futile pursuit of "character balance" goes far beyond D&D and has tainted quite a lot of otherwise decent games over the years. Even self-described "narrative" games fall into the trap. I've seen many a PbtA playbook criticized and revised for being too good, too bad, or even nebulously unfun to play with. Very rarely does any of the "balancing" really pay off in any meaningful way, and when it does its primary utility is in being able to ballpark whether a given encounter is going to be challenging, deadly, or a cakewalk. Encounter balance is a whole other kettle of fish, but it often fails at a fundamental level because even theoretically balanced PCs aren't identical (or even broadly similar) in performance, and how do you weigh your NPCs and monsters against that kind of opposition?
ReplyDeleteAt this point I'd rather play games that admit they aren't even trying to make all PCs "equal" in some way and just lean into the rule of cool instead.
This is well said. Especially with D&D, aren't most features that make a class "unbalanced" easily solved with an adventure that doesn't let that feature fully shine?
DeleteIt may have been our pre-adol or teenaged perspective, but we could never get a monk to really harmonize properly with other adventurers and players and the gaming landscape itself. Sort of a you-played-the-notes-but-didn't-make-the-music kind of dynamic.
ReplyDeleteDruids were wonderful because we played D&D in the woods anyway and it just felt right.
The question of balance within classes - or marriages, or neighbors, or professional departments - seems to float like a butterfly. It's like the guy who walks into your office and says he's getting divorced and you say you're sorry and he replies that it will be in about eleven years, and you don't know exactly what to say next.
To judge the Druid vs Cleric don't you need to compare spells in some detail. If you get higher level and have better hit points but cant heal or deal good damage who cares? I'm not saying Druids can't heal or do good damage I'm just saying that would be a better point of comparison.
ReplyDeleteDruids also can't wear metal armor!
DeleteMoore was right about monks being too weak. As Beoric pointed out, druids have an additional way to lose XP, though a druid isn't fighting an NPC one level higher; he gains the new level first and keeps it if he wins.
ReplyDeleteThe PHB says as follows:
ReplyDelete“At such time as a druid class player character attains experience points sufficient to advance him or her to Druid (12th level), the corresponding powers are gained only:
“1. If there are currently fewer than nine other characters of Druid level, or
“2. The player character bests one of the nine Druid level characters in spell or hand-to-hand combat. If the combat is not mortal, the losing combatant drops the exact number of experience points necessary to place him or her in the beginning of the next lower level.”
Since we are only contemplating option 2, the operative words are, “the corresponding powers are gained only: … [when] The player character bests one of the nine Druid level characters in spell or hand-to-hand combat.” That is, having succeeded in the battle is a prerequisite to gaining the level, so the PC druid does not gain the level at the outset of the fight.
I can’t find anything in the DMG altering the plain meaning of this language, although it is entirely possible that in some issue of dragon there is a response to reader mail or a Sorcerer’s Scroll article modifying the plain language of the PHB. I also suspect it was a common house rule.
The Druid gains the level, but doesn't get the corresponding powers of that level until winning the combat.
ReplyDeleteAlso: "If the combat is not mortal, the losing combatant drops the exact number of experience points necessary to place him or her in the beginning of the next lower level.”
This sounds like they gain the level, and then if they lose the combat they lose the level. If the 12th level Druid loses, they fall back to 11th level. Your way would have them fight as if they were 11th level and then fall to 10th level if they lose.
Yes, isn't the reason druids advance faster than clerics is because druids have fewer healing spells and offensive spells and lots more spells like 'talk to plant' and 'mild rain'?
ReplyDelete