D&D General Do you care how about "PC balance"?

[Ruin Explorer]

One player is allowed to hit harder when another can be sneakier.

This is a less valid balance in D&D than some games, I should note, particularly in recent editions (3E onwards), given the sheer amount of value one is likely to have relative to the other (esp. as one PC being sneaky has limited value, typically), and that the difference between a PC with great stealth and one with okay stealth is likely to be fairly small, mathematically, whereas DPR differences can be staggeringly gigantic even between just "great" DPR and "okay" DPR.

Whereas in SR or something, a few good sneak checks might allow a PC to disable some stuff that got the rest of the party past a couple of combat encounters (theoretically could happen in D&D, but unlikely as all get-out - I can think of like, one or two times in the last decade or so).

One can be artillery when the other can only be a scalpel.

Whereas this is a more valid balance in 4E and 5E than previous editions, because the class roles are a bit more balanced, and casters toned down massively in terms of spells/day.

 

[Minigiant]

I also think there is a correlation between PC balance talk and the number of "one or two role" classes in the game.

Balance conversation tend to happen more when you have PCs that are only good at 1 or 2 things. Games and editions that have PC archetypes that have fewer options to be in the spotlight will force players to talk about hogging that spotlight.

If your class can only "Fight" and "Make Strength Checks" the second you add aaother class that can "Fight", "Make Strength Checks", and "Make Intelligence Checks", people will discuss PC balance.

This is why you see D&D focus on tightening stricter combat roles why making exploration and social roles more accessible in later editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fairly regularly, threads appear that are mostly interested in examining character options -- classes, mostly -- relative to how competent or powerful they are relative to other character classes, etc... The most common is martials versus casters, but there are lots of variations. The thing is, outside of message boards, I have never encountered a player that actually cares about these things relative to other PCs. I have encountered many players who are concerned about how they stack up to the adventure or the world, but that makes a lot of sense since (to use video game parlance) D&D is essentially a PvE experience.

So, do you, as a player, actually worry about how your character stacks up to other players' characters? If so, in what ways? What about it is important to you? By what metric do you judge? What do you do if you feel your choices aren't as good or your character isn't as competent?

Thanks.

It doesn't have to be perfect by any means, but I do like some mechanical parity in combat. If we're both playing melee types, and my buddy us running away with the door, I'm eventually going to get annoyed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fairly regularly, threads appear that are mostly interested in examining character options -- classes, mostly -- relative to how competent or powerful they are relative to other character classes, etc... The most common is martials versus casters, but there are lots of variations. The thing is, outside of message boards, I have never encountered a player that actually cares about these things relative to other PCs. I have encountered many players who are concerned about how they stack up to the adventure or the world, but that makes a lot of sense since (to use video game parlance) D&D is essentially a PvE experience.

So, do you, as a player, actually worry about how your character stacks up to other players' characters? If so, in what ways? What about it is important to you? By what metric do you judge? What do you do if you feel your choices aren't as good or your character isn't as competent?

Thanks.

In 5e? Not much. I think inter-class balance is a worthwhile design goal, and as a bit of an armchair designer, I like talking about such things academically. But in actual play? Eh, the classes are balanced enough that it’s not worth worrying about.

In past editions it has been a different story. And by past editions, I mean 3.Xe. It sucked playing a monk cause I thought it was cool and being overshadowed by literally everyone. It made me feel like I basically had to play a caster for my character to contribute meaningfully to the group. Rogues at least had a solid niche, but otherwise it was caster or bust.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no character building minigame (except in Traveller)

And Cyberpunk.

 

[Seramus]

For me, it really comes down to one player feeling considerably weaker than another character. Then I make a judgement call to see if the player is 'at fault' or if the build is 'at fault'.

Heck, It even happened in Critical Role, when Laura lamented that her character couldn't keep up with Keyleth at high levels (Ranger/Rogue vs Druid).

 

[nevin]

no.

And I'm not running games in systems that lock out GM agency and try to turn all players into rules lawyers. There is nothing about fantasy that requires balance. I can't think of any popular fantasy story where everyone was equal in effect, power or influence. I've seen lots of games where DM's hate certain things and that screws over certain classes or play types. Not a set of rules that'll fix that. As a certain superhero said. If everyone is special then no one is special. But every character should get thier special moments and that's always up to the DM.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If everyone is special then no one is special.

They can be, if they're special in different ways. That's the essence of niche protection.

 

[ccs]

So, do you, as a player, actually worry about how your character stacks up to other players' characters? If so, in what ways? What about it is important to you? By what metric do you judge? What do you do if you feel your choices aren't as good or your character isn't as competent?

In D&D? Rules-wise, mechanically? No.

I don't suffer "stat envy". I'm one of the people who's preferred method of character creation is random stat generation. Yes, I am always hoping for high rolls. But I'm also 100% fine with playing whatever #s result. Whatever I get, I'll make it work. Even if it's the very short end of the stick. If I weren't? Then I wouldn't be rolling.
Nor am I worried about how my chosen class's abilities stack up to another classes. If I were? I wouldn't have chosen the class I did.

My choices aren't as good how? That I've made poor choices? Or that the class offers poor choices vs some other class?
If it's the latter I either don't choose that class, or I obviously don't mind because I chose it anyways.
If I've made what turns out to be poor choices - feats/skills/spells/etc - & those are making things unfun for me? 1st I'll see if I can alter those through play. If things can't be salvaged I'll retire the character at a logical point within the story. I don't compare my choices to those made by others though. Just, did this result in me having fun - Y/N/NA

My characters competence;
As long as my character is fun to play I'm fine with them being of different competency from others (either way less, less, or greater).
In fact I've intentionally made some characters who're less to way less competent. Or could be seen as such depending on how you measure such things. I mean, take DPR for instance. Many think this is really important. Me? Well, I have an 8th lv Warlock who's max DPR is..... 8 @ range (sling + Dex) or 6 in melee (staff, -2str). Maybe someday the ranged will get up to 9? Or maybe the Str mod will get to +0? I intentionally chose to put a 7 in Str. as well as choosing to forgo damage causing effects/spells. Bree will never even compete in a DPR race.
But the character brings all sorts of other non-combat options, is an actual developed character, & is alot of fun to play.

And that leads to how I judge my characters. Am I having fun with what I've made?
If yes, continue playing them.
If no, see if I can change /adjust something to more fun.
If still no? Retire character. (this happened to a very well crafted Dragonborn Paladin last year. There wasn't anything mechanically wrong - stats/class/oath/party mix/etc - but he just turned out to be a boring character to play. So into the folder he went.)

 

[nevin]

They can be, if they're special in different ways. That's the essence of niche protection.

no by definition special is better than usual. If everyone is special then it becomes the new usual and it's by definition not special any more.