Are we all becoming balance lawyers?

[Primitive Screwhead]

Hmm.. I must have missed something. I thought the OP's complaint was the search for 'balance' in a generic sense, not when you define unbalanced as 'another class is more powerful in combat'

Just so happens that combat is the easiest area of the game to demonstrate balance as every game uses the same rules. Balance in social encounters varies because how the individual GM defines how to apply the rules and how much IC play counts towards the encounter.


I agree with francisca, all the options added into 3.x.. which was one of the main selling features when it came out.. allows for a more granular level of balance. Earlier editions were 'easier' to balance because there was less variance in characters. A 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter. Cookie cutterish.
In 3.x, two 5th level fighters can have widely variant sets of ability. This means looking at balance has to be a tighter, smaller consideration. If you dont understand, just look at the fuss over a LA +0 race that grants +2 to WIS...

To me, options and granularity is good. The ability to play a character concept that way I imagine it by gathering abilities from the various available classes, PrC or otherwise, make the game much more enjoyable.
Yes, more options means more of a chance for someone to find and exploit a rules loop-hole. Its not like this is new in 3.x, loopholes have been utilized in all versions of the game.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Hmm.. I must have missed something. I thought the OP's complaint was the search for 'balance' in a generic sense, not when you define unbalanced as 'another class is more powerful in combat'

When I look at other discussion threads about balance the posters aren't arguing over balance regarding skill point allocation or class skill selection. Typically when folks argue about balance it always tends to be about combat effectiveness. The thread about Psions compared to Arcane Casters was the thread that lead to the original post.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Check.. altho you did not state such. Just reading this thread alone the first mention of balance on combat capability was three posts up with your line of "Just please don't whine that another class is more powerful in combat than you and is thus 'unbalanced'."

I thought it was out of line with the discussion at hand. Balance should be about the game as a whole, combat, non-combat, skills, feats, and roleplaying. Really its about maintaining the enjoyment for all at the table instead of the one tweak with the 'uber cool' loophole exploiting character.

 

[Gansk]

I guess the question I have about this whole topic is:

Are players focused on balance within their group, or is balance just a theoretical messageboard discussion topic?

For example, do players insist/recommend that a DM use point buy in a campaign rather than rolling stats because they are afraid that one player could possibly gain an advantage over another?

I understand the extreme situation of one player dominating the group would cause less fun for the other players, but do the players react to the situation after they notice it or are they proactively trying to prevent it from happening in the first place as soon as the characters are generated? If it is a proactive approach, how do the players know?

 

[the Jester]

I'm calling BS on this one. Every game of 1st and 2nd edition I've played in... nix that, HEARD about, the fighters were completely obsolete past 10th level, same with the rogues. If you werent a wizard or cleric, you may as well not even show. Any game where you're effectively sidelined for the major portion of the campaign sucks.

I disagree. I had a ton of 1e gaming experience for many years, and some of our games got pretty damn high level; and the high-level fighters were cool and memorable.

Olitun Strongbow, my first bow specialist, was bitchin until he died somewhere around 12th level fighting an evil elven cavalier one-on-one. It was damn close, though!

 

[the Jester]

On the subject of being a balance nazi, yeah, I think I have become more of one over the years. But that's because I've become better at recognizing potential problems (e.g. interactions between rules in various books, how a new rule will subtract rather than add fun to a game, etc.)

I find that the emphasis on balance in 3e is good only if you are playing the type of game assumed in the core rules, including the wealth guidelines. The further you vary from those, the wackier your balance will be. But at least 3e pays attention to balance; no previous edition ever did near as much to try to balance the game! I think overall the attempt is pretty good. In fact, when I first read the 3e PH back in 2000, I was astonished by how balanced the races and classes seemed.

 

[Gundark]

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

This is a good point. Thanks for the laugh

 

[satori01]

I agree somewhat in principal with the sentiment of the initial post.
If the only warrior type in a party is say a Warblade, (to steal from recent threads), who really cares if it outrumps the NPC Fighters? The point is fun.

The counter point is eventually other classes disapear if this goes unchecked. People played theives in Basic D&D, I can remember one person playing a single class Rogue in 2e, otherwise it was always a multi class, likewise for Fighters. Once 1e Arcana Unearthed came out, the Fighter was but a part of the mulit-class combo, which masked the weakness of single classes. Why play a Fighter when you can be a Cavalier instead?

 

[Agent Oracle]

I'll take your word for it. I've never played Rifts.

Basically, Rifts was GURPS without forethought. The game wanted to be all genres to all players, as a result, you have things like Glitterboy pilots (who came with their Giant robots that had Anti-spacecraft rail guns) in the same starting position as Vagabonds (who barely started with clothes on their back). RIFTS also suffered from "Expansion-itis" that plagues GURPS and, to a degree, d20, where anything published by the company was officially cannon, regardless of how big a power creep it brought with it. This was in the time before eratta, so things were, less likely to be corrected if found in error.

The game was an exercise in self-breaking mechanics. If the GM was strong, he could keep players in line, but using any additional source material was asking for trouble, as the Atlantean undead slayer pointed out.

I agree somewhat in principal with the sentiment of the initial post.
If the only warrior type in a party is say a Warblade, (to steal from recent threads), who really cares if it outrumps the NPC Fighters? The point is fun.

Considering that one of the biggest pet peeves players have is "Pet" NPCs or GMPCs, i should hope that the straight fighter NPC isn't taking the spotlight off of the player with a warblade! However, the player of the warblade, had he instead decided to go straight fighter, and be of comparable level to the fighters, might be happy to know that he is in no way inferior to how he would be if he had gone and played a warblade.

 

[brehobit]

*DING* we have a winner. most crys i see about balance fall under this. I think vop actualy is the most reoccuring example i can think of. When will people realize its not unbalanced or broken as long as you roleplay. Sometimes though, i see unbalanced combinations or feats like greenbound summoning or venom fire, but most of the time feats are balanced, and if they are not, usaly a typo is to blame.

Mostly I agree. VoP, which I love btw, is pretty crazy good for druids and monks. To the point it ruins the fun for everyone else? Maybe for a well-played druid who can be a much better fighter than anyone else. But otherwise, not so much.

But you really don't want one character to be better than another in the vast majority of cases... That's no fun. And it can happen...

Mark