Balance and Rules

[moritheil]

How do you allow balance to interact with your rules? Of late, I have noticed a profound tendency for DMs to start with a concept of what balance ought to be and accept or reject material and rules accordingly, rather than working out what balance ought to be as a result of material and rules. What do you do, and why?

 

[frankthedm]

I look at the balances in the core rules. That is the bar nothing else allowed in can go above.

I then examine the core rules themselves looking for inequalties there in. Things notably too strong or weak are rebalanced with the middle ground in mind. If one class [or feat] is far stronger than the rest, you don't overpower all the other classes.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Everytime I think about making a change to the rules, I pause and take a very close look at how the change will affect other aspects of the game.

It's easy to make what you think is a minor change, but it turns out to hurt more than it helps.

And anyone who says "if anyone can do it, it's balanced" doesn't quite understand balance.

 

[mvincent]

I try to follow rules, as they allow (among other things) fairness, impartiality, common expectations and some measure of control for players.

However, no rule-set is perfect, and when I find something (legal) that threatens to be imbalancing I talk with the player about how to fix it without imposing new (untested) rules. The common practice is that if something is obviously broken, they get to use it once.

 

[Cedric]

If someone has a reasonable thematic reason to do it...I'll allow it. However, if their "thematic reason" boils down to "I want to do 1000 points of damage in a round" then my answer will always be no.

And that's regardless what is in the books.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problems with someone developing a very combat effective character. But it should have a theme that relates to the character not the character class, skills, abilities, etc.

My players find out quickly..they can get away with a LOT more if they have a strong backstory, especially a written backstory.

If a player tells me...I want to play a Lawful Good Paladin/Cleric/Assassin....your backstory better be seriously impressive and I want a tight code of ethics from your church too.

But if a player just says, I want to stack these 5 PrCs, 3 base classes and 8 feats so I can get 14 attacks a round against everyone in a 10' reach...my answer will likely be ..umm, no.

Cedric

 

[ValhallaGH]

I've always been fond of the "everything is equally broken" school of game balance. I don't use it, as someone always insists on playing something that isn't broken (probably just to annoy me), but I am fond of it.

 

[airwalkrr]

I strive for balance, but perfect balance is an unobtainable ideal. I try not to obsess over it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm astonished to find anyone selecting the last two options.

 

[starwed]

I'm astonished to find anyone selecting the last two options.

I'm not surprised on the last option; game balance doesn't really matter for a certain style of play. (I've read a good essay on why insisting on "game balance" can be bad for enjoying the game.)

 

[Venator]

I consider balance, but I also consider other factors.

Characters and character development is a very large factor. Like another poster said, our group is much more likely to allow things if there is an in game reason for wanting it, and a good one at that.

Many of the things we have decided not to use are based on the effects we have seen them have on other games. Other things we all agree not to use because we think it will take away from the fun factor of the game.

Its simply not very fun to come across a BBEG Warmage and have the Wilder Damp Power / Intelect Fortress his nuke and procede to one shot the guy on the same round. It subtracts from the fun factor of the game.

Its simply not fun to watch Clerics cast several 24 hours long buffs on themself and basically become invinsible. No one has fun when this is going on.

We have made changes to Benign Transposition and Snakes Swiftness because we feel the the spells are both very abusable.

We do not allow Disjunction because its retarded.

Those are some example of the things we have disscussed and changed. Each one is for a different reason and may or may not be viewed as "fine" by other groups. They are just some of the changes we have made in an effort to keep the game balanced and maintain the fun factor of the game.