Balance - A Thing of the Past?

[airwalkrr]

As I said in another thread, D&D is essentially rigged. If every encounter is balanced so that the party can't possibly lose, then it's rigged in favor of the party. It's like playing a computer game on a skill level that allows you to beat the game every time.

That is a presumption of 3e I believe, one that I have grown to have some level of distaste for. IMHO, the world should be the world. It does not alter and shape itself according to the abilities of the PCs who adventure within it.

The campaign I will be starting shortly will be nothing like that. 1st level PCs might run into an EL 12 encounter in the first session. And they had better run.

By the same token, once they reach 10th level, they are going to have to hunt for challenges, because the typical adventures available won't even begin to threaten them. They will have to dive into the outer planes or start being really creative to prevent being bored. Of course, I don't expect this to happen for a couple years at least.

 

[Hussar]

How many people have made 3 out of every 4 of their melee characters centered around the spiked chain?

Count me in the "Never seen a spiked chain yet" club. Over 50 players in the last 3 years and not one spiked chain.

The campaign I will be starting shortly will be nothing like that. 1st level PCs might run into an EL 12 encounter in the first session. And they had better run.

Congratulations, you are running a campaign exactly as suggested in the DMG. Well done you. The idea that 3e encounters should always be beatable is a myth that has been buried and widdled upon far too many times, yet it always seems to come back.

Take a look at published WOTC and other company's modules. You will see more than a few unbeatable encounters.

 

[MerricB]

How many people have never had a character pick up a spiked chain becaue they find it to be the ultimate in cheese?

How many people have made 3 out of every 4 of their melee characters centered around the spiked chain?

Never seen it. 6 years of DMing *a lot* of 3e and 3.5e, 30+ players, and not one spiked chain.

And I'm a really permissive DM. If it's in a Wizards supplement, I allow it. Heck, I've even run an Level 14, Vow of Poverty Monk in a campaign. (Surprisingly non-broken, as well, given the amount of angst over it).

Cheers!

 

[wedgeski]

The only balance I care about, and I mean, the *only* balance I care about, is that no one PC in a group is more powerful, more center-stage, more essential than another PC of the same level. This is what I believe the designers set out to achieve and for the most part they succeeded (years of supplements notwithstanding). Such balance is inherent in the rules and only requires moderate DM time to enforce.

Everything else is a campaign decision. As long as the players understand the rules of the campaign, and the DM plays consistently within those rules, PC balance is the only balance that matters.

 

[Numion]

I've never used spiked chain on any of my characters. In our group one player did use it, but it didn't spoil anyones fun. We each got to shine in combat. Hence, not broken. There's still a lot of viable options in combat.

Remember that mystic theurge, back when it was announced? Everyone and their mother was crying "Bah-roken!!!11!!!one". It turned out to be a bit on the weak side. A bit like the african killer bees that never came [/michael moore]

I mean, many things have been declared broken to the extent of busting campaigns on the internet, while they don't seem to affect the average gamer much. Balance is overvalued, sure, but declaring balance dead is very much premature too. Granted, I haven't bought many 3.5E supplements (a lot of 3.0E, though), but I think the game is pretty much balanced. And I even run a gestalt campaign currently.

Only once have I deemed a character too powerful, a 20 or so level Sun Elf Spellcasting Prodigy 3.0 Archmage with full Spell Power. It was retired at the players request, who also thought it was too powerful. It did serve its purpose, though. The player wanted a character consumed by wanting to become the most powerful spellcaster, and that's what he pretty much got before retiring the PC.

 

[Numion]

The only balance I care about, and I mean, the *only* balance I care about, is that no one PC in a group is more powerful, more center-stage, more essential than another PC of the same level. This is what I believe the designers set out to achieve and for the most part they succeeded (years of supplements notwithstanding). Such balance is inherent in the rules and only requires moderate DM time to enforce.

A PC being more center stage or more essential is usually more of a factor of the player bothering to write a character background while others don't, than any mechanical doo-dat they conjure from the zillion splatbooks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That is a presumption of 3e I believe, one that I have grown to have some level of distaste for. IMHO, the world should be the world. It does not alter and shape itself according to the abilities of the PCs who adventure within it.

You believe incorrectly. RTM, get back to us.

We need to change the system to take the "Mother May I" power away from the DM (most of them are incompetent, anyway -- you're lucky to get a good one)! The system should enforce a certain percentage of fighting encounters as a rule.

A good game will be able to turn a poor DM into a relatively good one. 3e is definately moving in this direction, and part of how they're doing it is by "assuming a baseline." Which may very well include a certain percentage of fighting encounters as a guideline. Certainly most people need advice on how to run a good game, and suggesting how many fighting encounters a given night of gaming can have would be a good way to start determining what's good for your group.

Oh, and I hate anything too dangerous or "bummer inducing" (level loss, save or die, rust monsters chomping on my vorpal sword, et cetera). Bummer inducing stuff has got to go, too. Bummerism are not fun...

If I'm going to spend 4 of my precious hours in a week doing something, it had better not bum me out, because if it does, I won't do it for long. Mean things suck.

The concept of "balance" in D&D is a lot of a baseline. No one I know plays a "baseline game." No one I know plays with four characters (a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, and a rogue) using rules only from the Core, generating dungeons with the rules in the DMG and putting those dungeons near towns for refuelling stations and using minis on a map.

But the existence of a baseline is useful because it allows one to measure various qualities aobut your game and adjust them to a level you and your frineds will find fun. That baseline, then, should be balanced, it should provide options of roughly equal player benefit, so that when you're changing things about the baseline you can then trace the source of discomfort to it....if your party lacks a healer, maybe that's why there's a high mortality rate. If your party seems unable to handle the encounters, maybe it's because they don't have enough treasure.

 

[wedgeski]

A PC being more center stage or more essential is usually more of a factor of the player bothering to write a character background while others don't, than any mechanical doo-dat they conjure from the zillion splatbooks.

IMC it's simple: if you don't come up with some interesting character hooks or background, I'll come up with them for you. Either way, you're going to be as involved in the campaign as everyone else, like it or not!

But my point also applies on the micro level: a PC has to feel effective in a variety of encounters or else they'll just get bored.

 

[Hussar]

Something that confuses me greatly is the misuse of the term balance in the game by people. Balance is a specific element of game design and applies to specific parts of the game. In particular it applies to

• Power level between classes
• Power level of magic items
• Power level of character elements like feats and treasure.

Balance does NOT apply to placing monsters and encounter design. You can design encounters and have a reasonable expectation of how that encounter will play out BECAUSE of balanced design. If the game was not balanced, with given classes having much more or less power than expectations, then you could not create generic encounters.

To give an example. I ran Tomb of Horrors pretty much as written with a 2e party using the Tome of Magic and Faiths and Avatars. They blew past it like it was tissue paper. The books had unbalanced my game so far that challenging encounters weren't even speed bumps. Because the party had so many more options than a 1e party would have had, TOH was a joke.

Now, running TOH in 3e would likely be the same, 3e characters being considerably more powerful. However, because 3e is balanced (to a fairly decent degree), I can pick up a generic module like the World's Largest Dungeon, allow the players to use pretty much any supplement and still challenge the heck out of them. Even though, as a DM, I'm limited entirely to the SRD (with a few fudges), I still kill one PC every 4 sessions.

 

[Numion]

Balance does NOT apply to placing monsters and encounter design. You can design encounters and have a reasonable expectation of how that encounter will play out BECAUSE of balanced design. If the game was not balanced, with given classes having much more or less power than expectations, then you could not create generic encounters.

Church!

The DMG has long sections where it says you can have status quo encounters, tailored encounters, suggests that you should include ELs greater than party level +5, but still to this day we hear the detractors war cry:

BALANCE == EL CAN ONLY BE EQUAL TO PARTY LEVEL!!!!11!!one
NO ONE EVER DIES IN D&D!!!
EVERY ENCOUNTER ONLY TAKES 20% OF RESOURCES - EVAR!!!111!!eleven!!

I say: RTFM and STFU.

And yes, we do see threads where players complain that the DM made an encounter that was too difficult. This is not, however, a special feature of D&D. I remember arguing with my 1E group back in 88 whether every encounter should be winnable. Really, you can see those threads on forums for any RPG - maybe sans Cthulhu, where the EL can only be party level +10