Are we all becoming balance lawyers?

[Calico_Jack73]

Okay I have gripe about D&D 3.X and it is the assumption that all of the player classes should be balanced. Just scroll through the list of discussions and anyone can see that "Class Balance" is an important issue in most player's minds. I used to believe the same thing, that overall the classes should be balanced so that no class is any more powerful than another but then again I've had a revalation if you will.

What ever happened to just picking a character concept and playing what you want without regards to the "power-level" of the classes of the other characters? What ever happened to playing a character for the fun of playing and not getting all wound up about how powerful they are in combat compared to the other party members?

1e and 2e certainly didn't have "Balance"... just look at the Thief class for that. Yes, their skills were nice and all but nowadays when people discuss balance they are generally discussing combat effectiveness so I am looking at the Thief in that vein. In the earlier editions the Thief could only backstab if he successfully sneaked up on a foe. Once the backstab was made then that was it... no more backstabbing attacks for the rest of the encounter.

I was recently reading a discussion on how powerful Psions are when I came to the conclusion... Do I really care as a DM or as a Player? Not really...

As a DM I feel it is my responsibility to get a gauge on what the capabilities of my player's characters are so that I can challenge them but not overwhelm them. I have total control over an encounter... there is nothing a PC can dish out that I couldn't counter with the right enemy. So should I care that a Psion can pump their psi-points into some insanely powerful effects and then tag on a meta-psionic feat for added "umph"? Not in the least... my purpose isn't to defeat my players but to challenge them. If a player suprises me with an effect then good on them because they have taught me something that later on I can use on the party.

As a Player I've come to the conclusion after playing in numerous groups that many players get an ego-trip out of how combat powerful they can make their characters in comparison to the other players in their group. Should this concern me? Not anymore... I've come to the realization that as long as I am enjoying playing my character and am satisfied with it then why should I care how "Uber" another player has made their character. If they picked a class or class combination that made their character more powerful in combat than mine then good on them if it makes them enjoy playing their character more but it really shouldn't matter to me. I created my character for my own role-playing enjoyment... nobody elses.

Okay... I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[francisca]

Screw that. Balance schmalance.

Older editions were as balanced as the DM. All this talk of balance in 3e is to compensate for DMs who cannot maintain this balance at their table. Their are many reasons for this: inexperience behind the screen and really crafty rule twisting players being the primary two.

So, the primary beneficiaries of the "inheirent balance" in 3e are:
1) n00b DMs
2) spineless DMs who lack the ability to place their foot in the proper orafice of players who ruleslawyer the hell out of the game
3) Organized play, like the RPGA, where consistency is a must

For me, at home, with my laid back beer-n-pretzels group, the balance and all of the codification that go along with it is a hindrance. I question just how balanced it really is, anyway. Just because you can point to a formula that calculates the DC for a save doesn't make it balanced, for example.

 

[Janx]

I'll bite...

Imagine a campaign, where all the PCs are average, but one, we'll call him, Joe. Joe kicks butt.

In the first few adventures, the GM will be totally unprepared for Joe. Joe will dominate EVERY fight. Joe always wins initiative, and always hits, and always does max damage. Joe gets all the kills.

At this point, if you were one of the average PCs, would you be having fun? After all, you're not contributing, or making a difference (except as a target so Joe doesn't get all the attacks against him). You're abilities aren't coming into play, because Joe kills everything in the first 2 rounds. You're fancy non-combat skills don't matter, because any problem Joe can't solve by talking can be solved by setting it on fire and attacking it.

If the DM builds an encounter to thwart Joe, it'll likely be harder on the average PCs. And that trick gets old (oh look, another anti-Joe we have to fight).


Now I'm picking an extreme here, but my point is, it is a FACT that an overpowered PC (relative to the party) can inhibit the fun for everyone else.

I'd then say, it is open for debate on how much impact, and to what degree of overpower causes this problem?

Now I'm all OK with some variance in the PC classes, assuming they've got other fun abilities. But I expect everybody to do comparable damage to a generic monster in a 10 round period (maybe 50% difference). But if you got a fighter who can only crank out 10 damage a round, and a MunchkinClass who cranks out 40 damage a round, and they're both the same level...

In fact, there's your baseline. No other class (barring the DamageMongerClass) should be able to do more total damage in a 10 round period against set AC and Saves than the fighter. Since the fighter is all about combat, they ought to be the standard. Note I said, in a 10 round period. If the fighter does 10 a round, the wizard may be able to do more in a single round (fireball), but can't keep up that level of output every round.

I recognize that it's nigh impossible to truly keep the classes balanced. But the fact is, if there IS unbalance, somebody will exploit it, to the detriment of the campaign, and fun. Therefore, unbalance is something the designers have to continually correct, as they introduce new material.

 

[Eltharon]

I'm not a big fan of balance either. My players are horrible power gamers (as in, they can't powergame) except in incredibly nich characters (Dwarf fighters for one) so I don;t have to worry about that. We never even look at the rulebook for obscure combat rules and just do it the way we think it shold work.

 

[Quasqueton]

These arguments amuse me. If you don't care about balance between classes, then why do you care that the classes are balanced. Shouldn't you, by the definition of not caring, not care?

Would you rather the classes be imbalanced? Does not caring about balance mean preferring imbalance?

Quasqueton

 

[EricNoah]

They should be balanced for fun, not necessarily "damage" or combat effectiveness. They should all have fun things they can attempt during adventures. The DM does need to let his players know what kind of campaign he has in mind so players can select appropriate classes. A dungeon-heavy campaign will be less fun for a druid character, probably, but that doesn't mean the druid class isn't balanced, it's just more effective in certain situations (outside).

That said, two characters who are going to be involved in combat a lot should be relatively balanced against each other. There are a lot of factors that could play into it -- mobility, defense, offense, range, special effects/conditions one can inflict, etc. Ideally, yes, there should be enough balance so that one player isn't always outshining the others or being the only one who is effective in the game.

 

[Vigilance]

The biggest problem with balance discussions, imo, is the number of people convinced that they can "eyeball" balance.

I have written books and had people write me like a DAY after its release (ahh the wonders of PDFs) and tell me "feat X is unbalanced".

How the heck do they know that? *I* cant balance by reading something (as opposed to playtesting it) and I do this for a living.

So I think when most people say "balance" what they really mean is "it looks strange to me" or "that's unfamiliar so I instinctively fear it" or "I don't like it".

Chuck

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

To me the best part of 3.x focus on balance is less of a workload on the DM. Generically speaking I can plan an encounter for a group of 4 characters of level X without having to worry much about whether it will wipe them out...

It also lets me review character concepts for inclusion in the game relatively quickly as I only look to see if the character mechanics 'balance' against other classes of that level.

Pick up a published module, balance means less tweaking to get it to run smoothly out of the box.

francisca, while there is an advantage to new DM's, that advantage does not dissapear.. nor does reliance on the balance of published rules mean the DM is either a n00b or spineless. Its more a question of scope. In your game, your players know the house rules, tweaks, and expectations. In adhoc games or in online discussions, these HRs and expectations vary. The best base for discussion is then a commonly accepted floor... which in 3.x is 'balance'.

Just imagine trying to debate a HR that you intend on including into a heavily DM-tweaked game. At home with your group its easy. Here on the boards you would have to explain your game, your gaming style, other HR's that affect the rule in question..and then you might be able to get to talking about the rule. With 3.x's floor of balance you can discuss things with people who don't agree with your game style while still gaining benefit from posting.

But you are definately right, 'balance' in 3.x is an artform. The science behind it can make sense but still not fit well with others..

 

[EricNoah]

The biggest problem with balance discussions, imo, is the number of people convinced that they can "eyeball" balance.

I have written books and had people write me like a DAY after its release (ahh the wonders of PDFs) and tell me "feat X is unbalanced".

How the heck do they know that? *I* cant balance by reading something (as opposed to playtesting it) and I do this for a living.

So I think when most people say "balance" what they really mean is "it looks strange to me" or "that's unfamiliar so I instinctively fear it" or "I don't like it".

Chuck

That's the "reads bad, plays good" situation that I think was discussed in a WotC article recently...

Ah here it is: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060616a

I agree -- people are pretty quick to jump in and say "mystic theurge is unbalanced" without seeing it in action or thinking it all the way through...

 

[CarlZog]

Older editions were as balanced as the DM. All this talk of balance in 3e is to compensate for DMs who cannot maintain this balance at their table. Their are many reasons for this: inexperience behind the screen and really crafty rule twisting players being the primary two.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

At the surface I think challenge ratings and encounter levels were a well-intended means of providing guidelines to adventure design, but like any general guideline, it becomes problematic when folks start slavishly adhering to it.

As for ensuring that characters of one class aren't grossly outmatched by characters of another class on the same level, I think Francisca's right here too. The ever-growing plethora of feats and options offered up by 3.X makes it inevitable that some players will look for -- and find -- ways to create to ludicrously overpowered characters. That's the point where the DM has to be willing to say, "I don't care what's in the book, I'm not allowing that", and be willing to negotiate some compromise.

Carl