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

[Psion]

Er, actually, it just occurred to me that the one I am thinking of says 75 xp per level per hour (which is about on par with the CR award system assuming 1 CR based challenge per hour.) I just confused it with the 50 xp bit because I scale my game back to 50 xp per level per hour.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Er, actually, it just occurred to me that the one I am thinking of says 75 xp per level per hour (which is about on par with the CR award system assuming 1 CR based challenge per hour.) I just confused it with the 50 xp bit because I scale my game back to 50 xp per level per hour.

Actually I kind of like the idea of XP being awarded based on time gaming. Is that in addition to XP granted for combat (I wouldn't think so)? As a DM it would free me up from having to keep track of what the party has fought and they'd get rewarded well even in the event that they don't do anything but socialize with NPCs. I think it would be well received while my players are low level but when they start taking on more difficult creatures I think they'd want a reward for it.

 

[Psion]

Actually I kind of like the idea of XP being awarded based on time gaming. Is that in addition to XP granted for combat (I wouldn't think so)?

No. As I mention above, it's an alternate.

As a DM it would free me up from having to keep track of what the party has fought and they'd get rewarded well even in the event that they don't do anything but socialize with NPCs.

My sentiments exactly. I run a game with a fair bit of investigation and roleplaying, but I still want to keep advancement brisk, and find the CR method a little tedious.

So what I do is start with a baseline of 50 xp/level/hour, and then award a percentage bonus depending on how difficult I feel the session was, as well as rewarding PCs for clever ideas, excellent roleplaying, keeping the DM (and other players) entertained, and similar factors by tacking on more % bonuses.

I still use CR/EL to eyeball difficulty of combat challenges, though.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

My sentiments exactly. I run a game with a fair bit of investigation and roleplaying, but I still want to keep advancement brisk, and find the CR method a little tedious.

So what I do is start with a baseline of 50 xp/level/hour, and then award a percentage bonus depending on how difficult I feel the session was, as well as rewarding PCs for clever ideas, excellent roleplaying, keeping the DM (and other players) entertained, and similar factors by tacking on more % bonuses.

That's it... I'm starting up a Midnight campaign soon and I think I'll use this system for XP. I'm still going to stick with my Hero point idea because it allows my players to reward roleplaying and quells any accusations of favoritism.

Thanks Psion!

 

[Dr. Harry]

I've seen a number of discussions where balance between classes becomes a hotly argued topic so I thought I'd open up a discussion on whether or not class balance is really that big a deal. How do you define balance?

I define balance as whether a large enough group of players will choose a roughly well-spread range of classes. If there is a class that no one will play, it is unbalanced, especially if there is another class that does all that the first class does, plus some more. (An argument can be made that the paladin and ranger provided this in earlier editions, with roleplaying limitations, which of course led to people whining about how they 'had' to play paladins because fighters were so underpowered, but they couldn't play chaotic neutral paladins ... This particular problem I do not feel exists any more.)

Prestige classes are unbalanced if no one in their right mind would *not* take a prestige class if they had the qualifications for it. (While I have not examined this myself, the Fists (?) of Raziel (?) class from BoED has been mentioned several times as really high powered.)

Here is my take on this:

Balance is an issue that game designers should pay attention to in a general sense, but exact balance is impossible to achieve unless one plays exactly the same type of campaign the designers do. A low-magic campaign can leave wizards (for example) as over- or under-powered, depending on campaign considerations. As long as all the classes start in the same zip code, and as long as the players are looking to play, and not "win" over the other PC's, balance is the fluid responsibility of the GM, and the definition of balance changes to "are all the players having fun?"

Let's start off on the same page. What does 'balance' mean to you?

 

[just__al]

Balance for character effectiveness is nice and I try to discourage anybody from trying to "break" the system or their character.

However, the most important balance is spotlight time or at least playing time. I absolutely hate spotlight hoggers that are constantly trying to monopolize the game time at the expense of other players.

I like to give every player at my table the opportunity to

Be the best person for the "job"
Be needed to work as a part of the team
Be totally out of their element

Ideally it would be 15% the first, 70% the second and 15% the third.

It's a balancing act, but I'm getting better at it.

I cannot wait for my turn to DM for the group. One more DM's turn before mine...

 

[Calico_Jack73]

If there is a class that no one will play, it is unbalanced, especially if there is another class that does all that the first class does, plus some more.

Explain the Bard then.

To tell the truth I don't know if there really is a good definition of balance. From reading various discussions it seems that overall the definition of balance is equal capability in combat. I still believe that D&D is primarily a combat focused game and I don't think anybody could change my opinion. Here is a rundown of balances for the classes:

Fighter - Extra feats make up for the abilties that Paladins and Barbarians have.
Paladins, Barbarians, Monks - Extra abilities to make up for the feats that Fighters have.
Rogue - Sneak Attack extra damage dice to make up for the better BAB and Feats of Fighters.
Rangers - Extra abilites, spell casting abilities, and a few extra feats (combat styles) to make up for the Fighter's feats.
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer - Enhanced Spell casting abilities to make up for the Fighter's feats.

 

[Treebore]

Balance is an important part of a game, but it becomes a problem when it becomes THE most important thing in a DM's mind. When it comes to being fun or having "balance", whatever that is, they choose balance over the fun.

That is a key difference and most people do not even realize they have crossed that "line". Then they wonder why their players aren't happy and why their campaign has lost, or never had, that "magic" we all want it to have.

So when you are asking yourself should i do this or that you shouldn't be qualifying your questions with is it balanced. You should be asking if it is fun. Then worry about balance.

As for class balance. They are balanced. Not perfectly, but close enough. The real balance problems come into play with the ability of the players. No group of people is ever "equal" when it comes to this. Hopefully they are "close enough" to each other that it doesn't matter. Or complement each other well, or both would be optimum.

 

[Squire James]

Actually, I think Spot and Listen are a LOT more important than Balance!

As for "game balance", I think it is important for a DM to know what is "normal". Playing a balanced game is like a long relaxing bike ride on a beautiful day. Playing a unbalanced game is like BMX racing. I see unbalanced games as having a lot of potential for increased fun, but also a lot more potential for crashing and burning (and when it happens it's worse). In other words, balance or the lack of it depends on the sort of DM and players you have.

 

[Dr. Harry]

If there is a class that no one will play, it is unbalanced, especially if there is another class that does all that the first class does, plus some more.

Explain the Bard then.

Ah, A refinement. "If there is a class that no one will play, it is unbalanced, especially if there is another class that does all that the first class does (edit: as well as another class, or nearly as well), plus some more.

Let us refine (or replace) some more.

In a campaign where players will play bards at the expense of wizards, then the DM will come to one of the following decisions:

1) Bards are overpowered

2) Wizards are underpowered

3) My campaign didn't need wizards anyway

All of which can be adjusted by the GM in play. The only real problem are those people (on other boards, of course ), who then post, "This class is stupid because it isn't balanced in my campaign, which everybody in the world should be following ..."