a question of balance

[Abisashi]

Balance facilitates good games; base D&D is pretty close to balanced. If balance is irrelavant to people, then they can just use/ignore balance house rules and not contribute to balance discussions. The most annoying thing is people coming into balance threads* and proclaiming that balance doesn't matter, only roleplaying, as if having a balanced character makes roleplaying worse.

Players shouldn't be punished for playing the character that they want, so balance is important.

*as I clarified below, I'm not referring to this one, sorry for the confusion

 

[Dimwhit]

The most annoying thing is people coming into balance threads and proclaiming that balance doesn't matter, only roleplaying, as if having a balanced character makes roleplaying worse.

Players shouldn't be punished for playing the character that they want, so balance is important.

Well, ya know, the poll in this topic asked how important balance it to us, so don't get huffy if we say it's not important and we don't like it. The OP asked.

And for what it's worth, I think it's great for players to play the character they want. We've had several guys create characters who were noticably weaker than the rest of the party, but they liked the character and the roleplaying that went along with it. And being weaker than the others didn't matter at all for the campaign. That's why I don't think balance is important. Play what you want, whether you're weaker or stronger. A good campaign can handle anything.

 

[Abisashi]

miscomunication

Well, ya know, the poll in this topic asked how important balance it to us, so don't get huffy if we say it's not important and we don't like it. The OP asked.

Sorry for the miscomunication; I wasn't refering to this thread. I meant the threads like "is Xfeat balanced?" or "fix the Xclass."

A good campaign can handle anything.

It can, but balance can't make it worse, and it could make it better.

 

[Dimwhit]

Sorry for the miscomunication; I wasn't refering to this thread. I meant the threads like "is X balanced?" or "fix the Xclass."

Ah, sorry. Thought you meant me.

It can, but balance can't make it worse, and it could make it better.

Well...I'll agree that balance can make it better. And it usually doesn't make it worse. I guess it depends on what you're playing and how the latest balance rules affect your character.

 

[Trickstergod]

Balance is important, but not of the utmost importance.

All that matters is that everyone gets to do something, and more or less regularly. If one character can do everything another one can, and something more, well, something's wrong, and that requires some tinkering with. Otherwise, so long as everyone gets to add something, then delightful.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure what you're asking. In the campaign I DM I like new PCs to be about 50% as powerful as the most powerful existing PCs. Is that balance? I like to make sure that all PCs can contribute usefully to the group. Is that balance?

 

[Beale Knight]

Well so long as there's not a Ranger and Wilderness Rogue in the same party everything should be fine!

(In-joke. That's exactly what we've got, along with a druid and sorcerer, for Alsiho2o's "out in the wilderness" game he's starting saturday. For the recorded, we think it's a fine mix).

On topic: One of the finest things about RPGs is that theGM can tailor the adventure to the party at the table. Sometimes this can be a load of extra work, if for example the group has no rogues and the adeventure was designed with a lot of locks and traps. But if everyone in the group is playing a character type they really enjoy, I'd rather work to alter the adventure than push some of the players to opt for a character they'd honestly rather not play.

That said, I'll add that if the players know the general type of adventure/campaign they're about to play in, it falls to them to make characters that are at least generally appropriate. In this case, we knew its a wilderness exploring game, so none of us were going to make up characters that focus in urban skills (one reason I asked to be allowed to use the Wilderness Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana).

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I think 'balance of fun' is the most important thing.

IME, some level of combat rules balance is normally needed for this, as most players in a Dnd game enjoy the combat side of it.

Certain character/player types can upset a game. If one player completely dominates every fight, that can be fine, as long as the other players/DM are not bothered about it?

So I'd say balance is important. But it isn't necessarily through combat ability. Depends on the players and the GM.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I assume you mean a balanced party - i.e., the iconic party of four featuring a fighter, cleric, magic-user and thief?

It's a nice to have, but is by no means necessary. You just have to have a DM that will adjust challenge ratings appropriately - several undead may be a small challenge for a party with a cleric that specializes in fighting undead, or a party with a cleric & paladin. But, in a party of all fighters, you just have to hack 'n' slash your way through them. Or, a party of all thieves will likely have problems if they get drawn in to a brawl out in the open, or against a horde of opponents that negate their flanking.

My current group is all low level and is a human ranger, an elf ranger, a human thief and a human cleric. Not too balanced, but not terrible. The DM's brother will join us in our next session as a human fighter.

 

[realmaster]

In our group we prefer that everyone have a chance to shine. As long as that is accomplished, balance is achieved. So I voted the second choice.

I agree with this. In the games i have played in and also the ones that I am the DM, each character has their moment in the game to be.... THE ONE.