Balance - A Thing of the Past?

[diaglo]

Feh.

You say this. But wander over to the necromancer games forum and hear what they have to say about Shackled City being too hard. And then ask me, I'll tell you how deadly Age of Worms can be.

You are likely to suffer minimal losses in a challenge of equal EL to party level. But that's by design, as a campaign management tool. Knowing is half the battle, as they say. You can face your party with any EL you like. If you want a cakewalk, that's on you (the DM). If you want a tougher challenge that risks a bloodbath, that's on you. But wanting one and getting the other is best avoided.

this is where i beat the dead equine too.

it is a DM or group thing not the rules that dictates whether SC or AoW is gonna be fatal.

i've played with DMs who refused to kill PCs even when they intentionally tried to commit sepaku in all editions of the game.

 

[Hussar]

It is obvious that there are weapons that are better at doing damage than others. People still fight with all kinds of weapons. I've seen the Greataxe wielding power attacker and the dagger wielding finesse fighter. Those two styles are obviously not balanced but people still choose them; not because of balance but because of flavor.

I disagree. Those styles are balanced. The greataxe wielding power attacker will hit far less often than the finesse fighter since he's trading attack bonus for damage. The finesse fighter will also likely have a much higher AC since his Dex should be higher. There is a tradeoff there.

While one might be better than the other, it's not a case of being so much better that you'd be stupid to do the other one.

In 2e, I'm sorry, but, anyone who chose to ignore two weapon fighting was deliberately handicapping himself. It was like using a longsword. Why on earth would you use anything else in 2e? It did more damage than any other single handed weapon by a long shot and did more damage than most two handed weapons. AND you got to put a short sword in your off hand. Plus it had the best speed factor for the damage meaning you usually attacked first.

Balance means that no single choice should be so overwhelmingly good that taking any other choice is a deliberate handicap.

 

[diaglo]

In 2e, I'm sorry, but, anyone who chose to ignore two weapon fighting was deliberately handicapping himself. It was like using a longsword. Why on earth would you use anything else in 2e? It did more damage than any other single handed weapon by a long shot and did more damage than most two handed weapons. AND you got to put a short sword in your off hand. Plus it had the best speed factor for the damage meaning you usually attacked first.

except against some undead. then you wanted the mace and the morning star in your hands.

 

[Hussar]

this is where i beat the dead equine too.

it is a DM or group thing not the rules that dictates whether SC or AoW is gonna be fatal.

i've played with DMs who refused to kill PCs even when they intentionally tried to commit sepaku in all editions of the game.

QFT.

I love getting players after they've had DM's like that. The look of shock and horror on their faces when I spread the intestines of their beloved PC's across the landscape is just worth it. Make me read three pages (front and back) of badly hand written background will you?

 

[D'karr]

I disagree. Those styles are balanced. The greataxe wielding power attacker will hit far less often than the finesse fighter since he's trading attack bonus for damage. The finesse fighter will also likely have a much higher AC since his Dex should be higher. There is a tradeoff there.

I disagree. Two characters with similar stats on their "good" ability are not going to even come close to the same amount of damage when you use those two styles.

While one might be better than the other, it's not a case of being so much better that you'd be stupid to do the other one.

There is no "mechanical" reason for anyone to use a dagger. However, lots of people still do. Like I said before, it is a matter of flavor. Mechanically a wizard at high level will far outstrip a fighter's damage potential. I still have not seen a game where everyone chose a wizard as their character.

In 2e, I'm sorry, but, anyone who chose to ignore two weapon fighting was deliberately handicapping himself.

Once again even with that "handicap", many people still chose to do exactly that. Mechanical advantages are not the end-all / be-all of the game. And there are probably more people out there that don't care about having the "power" scales leaning in their favor.

Balance means that no single choice should be so overwhelmingly good that taking any other choice is a deliberate handicap.

And people today, still choose to use weapons and styles that are "suboptimal". That is probably not explained by the mechanics. So the balance / no balance scale is not such a big deal. Game groups adjust to those "suboptimal" choices as well as the "optimal" choices.

We've become jaded in the "internet" community because there are so many people on boards like this that demonstrate that anything taken to the extreme can be "broken". (The right feat with the right skill and the right PRC = Broken) However I'd say (and this is my opinion only) that the vast majority of D&D players don't fall into that category. I'd even go as far as saying that the vast majority are run of the mill players that don't even look for those "uber-optimizations".

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is no "mechanical" reason for anyone to use a dagger. However, lots of people still do. Like I said before, it is a matter of flavor. Mechanically a wizard at high level will far outstrip a fighter's damage potential. I still have not seen a game where everyone chose a wizard as their character.

As a generalization, you would be wrong. There are good mechanical reasons for choosing a dagger in 3e. They are just not compelling to most PCs most of the time. But a dagger is attractive a few PCs all or most of the time, and most PCs in a few not exactly rare scenarios.

IME balanced design has tremendous advantages at no or little cost. It is a big time saver for the DM. It enhances the enjoyment of the game for those players who would like to explore character concepts without being forced to make a very large sacrifice in mechanical effectiveness.

It is entirely possible that balanced design has no benefit to a particular player or even a particular group. So? What would be the downside?

But for those who could see a benefit, the payout can be very, very big.

***

I have a specific real life example.

I was making a character for a 2e campaign. As a fan of the Arthurian tales, I wanted to play a "knight in shining armor". The DM thought this was a fine idea and would fit the party & campaign like a glove. How about a Paladin? Sure, I will give it a try.

The roleplaying parts worked out great. Both myself and the DM enjoyed that part.

The other parts, the combat, sucked completely.

While my comrades were Elven 18/XX Str Fighter/Wizards and similar ilk, my Human Paladin had to put his best stat in Cha, so I barely had sufficient Str to get a tiny bonus or even wear my heavy armor.

But once the combat began for me it was boring or frustrating or worse. I was the 5th level Fighter-type slugging it alongside a bunch of 4/4 multiclasses, but really I would have need to be at least 2 more levels higher than that to even carry my weight.

I tried to stick it out. Tried to figure out how different equipment or rejiggering stats a little might help. It was hopeless. The double whammy of a mechanically poorly designed multiclassing system and a mechanically poorly designed Paladin class was just absurd.

I told the DM that he either needed to revamp the Paladin class rules or I would have to abandon the character. Or I would have to hang back and let the other PCs do all the real fighting -- I would use my bow. Being in the thick of combat was too integral to the character concept, heck, it is practically required by the class itself. And hanging back would create all kinds of stupid intra-party friction.

The DM had to either decide lose a character that he enjoyed having in the campaign, or spend a bunch of time making houserules that he really did not want to have to make. That is a real cost of unbalanced design.

And I spent several hours of game where I could have easily been having great fun being frustrated instead. That is a real cost of unbalanced design.

My now 3.5 Paladin is a blast to play. He has his strengths. He has his weaknesses. Good fun all around.

***

I know that balanced designed has been a boon for me and my play group, and I am sure that it has been for others. Whether that would even cover the majority I do not claim to know nor care.

I do not see what the downsides would be.

If you are really are the kind of player/DM who not stoop to care about such tawdry things as balance, I find more than a little difficult to believe there could be a downside. Surely you are Fred Astaire when it comes to dancing past rules quirks, yes?

 

[diaglo]

Surely you are Fred Astaire when it comes to dancing past rules quirks, yes?

only if you are my Ginger for pointing them out.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

only if you are my Ginger for pointing them out.

And I can do it going backwards in high heels, buddy boy!

 

[Lanefan]

In 2e, I'm sorry, but, anyone who chose to ignore two weapon fighting was deliberately handicapping himself. It was like using a longsword. Why on earth would you use anything else in 2e? It did more damage than any other single handed weapon by a long shot and did more damage than most two handed weapons. AND you got to put a short sword in your off hand. Plus it had the best speed factor for the damage meaning you usually attacked first.

Example somewhat lost one me as I never played 2e.

I still say that player differences cause more balance problems than rules do.

Lanefan

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I still say that player differences cause more balance problems than rules do.

So why would you choose to start the game standing in a deep hole?

Yes, I certainly can believe that player differences are a bigger factor.

Yes, it is possible that balanced rules have no noticeable benefit to your group. But it can only help, not hurt.

If the DM genuinely has the skills necessary to handle the issue of "unbalanced" players, then he has the skills such that the realworld downsides of balanced design have zero impact (if such downsides actually exist).

Just follow you own argument to its logical end.