Balance... does it really matter that much to you?

[BiggusGeekus]

Balance is a must for any published product, but it can go out the door if the DM feels like it.

When people buy modules/suppliments/whatever for use in their games there is a tacit assumption that they will be introducing something fun. "Fun" can be achieved many different ways. But one of those ways is that at some point there is going to be a roll of the dice that will determine the course of the game that is not certain. If all rolls were certain this would be a very different game.

 

[Liolel]

Balance is important to a degree. That degree varies from group to group but there is a degree for every group where some type of balance matters. An extreme example is a killer dm that doesn't balance encounters at all and each encounter is enough to kill the party three times over. Unless you find that fun as a player there is a degree of balance needed however small it maybe.

But thats just how I see it and what I see as factors that need balance others may not include in their definition of balance. Me myself I like enougth balance that I can have a character concept that involves a fairly standerd character for the class and still be able to participate meaningfully.

Being able to participate meaningfully of course varies from campaign to campaign so a lot of the balance is in the dms hand if he has a non standerd campaign (politcal intrige, a world of floating islands, etc).

The other part of balance that I like is that no one class and such no one character can do everything well. If a character can do everything he may be a jack of alll trades but if he can do everything well why does he need a party.

edit: An important thing I forget to say. Balance should never get to the point where everyone can do everything equally well. When Balance goes to the level where it takes away diversity it is to much.

 

[wedgeski]

Obviously combat effectiveness is what D&D balance should be measured against. D&D is structured to be a combat game. Deny it all you like but the entire XP system is structured to grant the greatest reward for going out and killing monsters. There are roleplaying rewards mentioned in the DM's guide but players always get more for combat. Most of the spells in the PHB are for use in combat. A lot of the replies have referred to overall balance but in D&D there is no such thing since combat plays such a large roll in character progression.

You're wrong, of course, in every respect except towards your own game (I assume). If you were right, then only combat-heavy campaigns would show the character progression recommeded in the DMG. Considering our game is split about 50/50 between combat/roleplaying (a convenient distinction if not a strictly correct one), and our PC's are hitting the conventional level progression pretty much to a tee, I can't agree with you.

Balance is a question of contribution, not 'effectiveness'. My game is balanced if all my players can feel they mattered at least once a session. Conversely, it's not unbalanced if the bard stayed the hell out of the way when the red dragon dropped out of the clouds, or the cleric did nothing except make sure his fighter buddy went the distance against the villain and her cohorts.

3ed is better than any previous edition of the game at giving the player the variety of options he needs to make a contribution in the course of a session - a *session* mind you, not a single combat. No class is balanced if the scope of your experiment is 60 seconds of game time.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I like seeing balance in options. I like seeing Shocking Grasp beefed up so there's a trade-off between Magic Missile (range, auto-hit) and SG (often more damage). I liked the changes to 3E that made the other martial weapons just as good as longswords. I like the changes that made 2-weapon style "better in some cases, not as good in others" rather than "always the best" as it was in the 2E fighters' book.
I even like the changes to Haste that makes it sometimes a good option but not always.

Variety is the spice of life. Balance makes it easier to choose different options without feeling that you're intentionally handicapping your character and the party.

As far as classes go, it's really dependent on the DM, as others have said. I do like the 3.5 Ranger more than the 3.0 Ranger, but because he's a little more different from the fighter than he used to be. A little more variety.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

There should be a balance, but said balance is really up to the DM. Knowing the PC's, their strengths and weaknesses, (s)he should make it so that every character, whatever their class, build, stats, has a place and time to shine. Every character should have his "area of expertise", or at least, situations in which he can be useful. Balance is not in how much damage one character may dish out in a round or day. Balance can't be defined by numbers.

There is balance, if, at the end of the session, everyone had fun.

AR

 

[Kanegrundar]

I voted for no. I find that the base classes are balanced well enough, and the minor differences in power can be dealt with simple DM care and planning.

Kane

 

[beaver1024]

Balance is important to me as a DM because if the core rules are balanced to begin with then my workload to ensure that every member of the party has fun is greatly reduced. I don't have to worry about tailoring my adventure and story line to fit the particular weaknesses of the system to ensure that everybody is involved and have fun. It's hard enough building and maintaining the adventure and campaign world let alone having to worry about whether players are having fun/involved/participating because the system has failed us.

 

[Treebore]

The most important thing to me in a game is fun. Everything else is secondary. The only time I worry about balance, in the way you posed your poll questions, is when it is someone new to the game.

Otherwise, I let the players design and create their characters in whatever way makes them happy. Then I spend the rest of the campaign making them sweat bullets, or whatever.

As for why there was such a mass exodus in 2e, it was because the DM's got so caught up in the minutiae they forgot the game was supposed to be about having fun. We DM's are the real key to making the popularity of this game spread. As long as we make people sit down and play "our way", the popularity is going to remain stagnant.

So all of those people out there who sit around and judge others as min/maxers, munchkins, powergamers, or whatever P.C. derogatory term they can come up with, just tells me who has forgotten what having fun is really about, or never knew to begin with.

Too many DM's are worried about control. What is that anyway? As long as I can create challenges for my players, and enjoy creating those challenges, and my players keep laughing and having a ball, everything is well and good at my gaming table.

To sum up I will quote Diaglo (I think), "Balance, shmalance."

 

[ManicFuel]

What Diaglo said. I don't want to talk about balance, I just want to play!

 

[Psion]

I'm starting to think that too much emphasis is being placed on balance these days. One class is too powerful or this class is too weak. Look at the 3E Ranger for example and all the discussion and adapting that was done to balance it with the other warrior classes because it was seen as being unbalanced in that it was too weak (not enough special abilities or combat effectiveness). Does anyone else think that the concept of balance should be thrown out the window?

Your poll... and this paragraph... are a false dichotomy.

Too much emphasis on balance? In some corners, perhaps. There comes a point at which dissimilar abilities cannot really be directly compared, and their true difference in power cannot be universally determined, as it falls beneath the random noise that is variance in campaign conditions.

Think it should be thrown out the window? No. If one doesn't minimize those blatant imbalances, some options lose their appeal, and players who like the lesser option has less fun because they contribute less and feel outclassed. Not to mention that some things can be a headache for the GM.


In my games, it really sort of depends. I let some things slide that I might flag in other games depending on the attitude of the players and the tone of the campaign.

In the Second World campaign I just (re)started, I am using Factory. As if to emphasize the weakness of point-buy style systems (which Factory sort of has for robots), the player bought robot options that put his spot at +33 at 4th level. Now normally I would smack this down as this is one of those things that can be a pain in the GM's neck. But I was in a mood to throw him a bone and it's not like the was compromising competancies of the rest of the group, plus I play a little more "fast-and-loose" when running a second world game, playing into its wilder "anything goes" feel. I probably wouldn't allow that in my classic high fantasy setting.


So I guess my final admonition is a combination of:
"Don't sweat the small stuff"

and

"Use at your own risk."