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

[Bendris Noulg]

What Diaglo said...

I've run several games where the PCs were not equal in a numeric sense (the highest and lowest level PCs had a difference of 8 levels in one), but each was capable of contributing to the over-all game. When a group is focused more on one or two aspects of the game, then balance in those areas is expected and perhaps even required. But considering the multitude of possibilities RPGs present, focusing balance on such a limited premise is almost a joke.

 

[Mark]

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.

Why say it twice when I can just say ditto?

Ditto.

 

[FireLance]

Like many posters before me, I agree that the main point of the game is to have fun.

Balance among the PCs helps very much in ensuring that fun is had by all. Fun can mean many things.

For the players, I believe fun means playing effective characters who can make a contribution to overcoming the problems in the game. Balance among the PCs helps ensure that overcoming problems is a group effort, each character gets his chance to shine, and no single character can hog the limelight all the time.

For the DM, I believe fun means presenting a good plot and appropriate challenges for the players. Balance among the PCs helps ensure that he has a wide variety of challenges to choose from. If the PCs are not balanced, some challenges appropriate for the stronger PCs may kill the weaker PCs. If one PC has a particular specialty but is weak in all other areas, the DM has to maintain an emphasis on that area to give that PC some glory time. Balance helps to cut down on work that some DMs may not enjoy.

That said, there is no need to go overboard on balance. By the 80-20 rule, it takes only 20% of effort to make the classes 80% balanced with each other. 80% balance should be "good enough" for most purposes. There is no need to spend another 80% of effort to make the classes 100% balanced. Unless you want to, of course, and you have the time and energy to do so.

 

[coyote6]

Basically . . .

Ditto.

What Mark said about what Psion said.

 

[Wormwood]

yes I said yes I will yes.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

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.

If I remember correctly the recommended XP bonus for Role-Playing in the 3.5 DMG is 50XP/Character Level. So a first level character that was roleplayed well should then get 50 XP. Now, if a 4 PC party goes out and fights a CR 1 creature that is good for 300XP split 4 ways for 75 each. Of course how often does a party face only one creature with a CR equal to the party average? Not too often in my campaigns or in any published adventure that I've read for that matter. Also how often do you have only one encounter with one creature at the CR of the party average in one game session. A good roleplayer of a 1st level character only gets 50 xp for roleplaying the entire session, guess where the rest of his XP comes from... combat.

Now obviously in anyone's campaign they can grant more XP for roleplaying and that is fine. My point is that the rules as written favor advancement through combat which makes combat ability the measure for character class balance.

Wedgeski, I don't think anyone is wrong... there are merely differences of opinion. My opinion is that as written, D&D favors a combat based game.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

I didn't vote for either, because neither agrees with me.

I beleive that there should be no classes weaker than other classes, but I realize that balance cna be very subjective, and that the classes should just try to be close to equal.

For example, one player in the group wants to be a dwarf fighter. That means he wants to be a fighter, not a fighter 4/rogue 3/ barbarian 2/ kensai 1/ exotic weapon master 1/ Munchkin lord 3/whatever.

That means, I should at least make some effort to amke sure tha he can play the concept he wants to, and not feel left out, unless that's his character concept, "The guy who is left out.", or "Elderly commoner 1", or some other such thing that people do to prove that they're better roleplayers than you.

 

[Psion]

If I remember correctly the recommended XP bonus for Role-Playing in the 3.5 DMG is 50XP/Character Level.

per hour.

Actually, that's the guideline for freeform XP, not roleplaying xp in general, not roleplaying awards specifically. The recommendation they give is that if you award for roleplaying and combat, you reduce the amount you award for each so the rate is about the same.

So if you want roleplaying and combat xp to be about equeal, you could half combat xp, and award an average of 25 xp x level per hour for RP.

My point is that the rules as written favor advancement through combat which makes combat ability the measure for character class balance.

Well, you yourself just pointed out rules written that dispense xp other than for combat. CR xp is just the default, and even then, it's not soley for combat; it's for meeting goals associated with potential harm. You can get the xp for acheiving the goal even if you don't engage in combat "as written." c.f., the minotaur example in the DMG.

That said, even though these are the default rules, it doesn't define the game AFAIAC. My daughter's bike came with training wheels on it. That doesn't mean that once she is ready to move beyond them and I take them off, it has any persistent impact.

 

[Vaxalon]

The bottom line is, everyone at the table should be having fun.

One of the biggest fun-killers I know of is the "doitall" character.

If one person at the table can deal with most of the situations presented by the GM, then there's a problem.

Every class should have something it doesn't do well.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Did it say per hour? If so I must have missed it... I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the info Psion!

Actually I instituted a "Hero Point" system with my group. At the end of every session each player gets two hero points they can grant to any other player (can't vote for themselves) and they are collected via secret ballot. The DM (me) also gets two votes. The votes are supposed to go to the people that roleplayed best and contributed the most to the overall enjoyment of the game session. The points are then distributed to the players prior to the next session and in addition to using them like action points they can cash them in for 100 XP per Hero Point cashed. It is helpful for players that are close to gaining a level and for spellcasters who use the points to offset the XP cost for creating items. I've found it works well and my players like it because they feel they have input into the rewards of the game.