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

[Orius]

I voted yes. While balance probably isn't always easy to reach, it's certainly not good to have one class that is either clearly more powerful than or much weaker than another. Teamwork is important to the D&D party, and having a super-character that can do everything, or a weak character that can do nothing interferes with that teamwork. Plus it's not fun to either be outdone by an uber-PC, or to feel completely useless because one's playing a nerfed character.

 

[Orius]

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. [snip]
My opinion is that as written, D&D favors a combat based game.

I have to agree. While XP technically is awarded for overcoming challenges, how often in the game does overcoming challenges = killing things and taking their stuff. I would say damn near most of the time. And it's easier too, to say, "You killed the orc, you get x XPs," ad go by the book than trying to ad hoc story and role-playing awards. So, typically I've run my games in a way that does encourage hack-and-slash combat. Also, I'm not a huge role-player type that takes being in character all the time seriously, so I don't give out RP XP awards anyway. That really tends to penalize players that are not good at or comfortable with RPing, rather than reward the people who prefer in-depth roleplaying IMO.

 

[Ferret]

They don't need to be exact, because they can be played to strength or played poorly there is a margin of unbalancedness that they can take.

 

[Psion]

And it's easier too, to say, "You killed the orc, you get x XPs," ad go by the book than trying to ad hoc story and role-playing awards.

Actually, it's really not. I find things much easier since I started using the per hour guidelines and tweaking to taste.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Put me down for option B. If your concept is outshined in a particular area, then don't complain about balance. Accept it and adapt.

That is all very nice until you are outshined in your own character's specialty and the specialty is the character concept. That creates a dissonance between the roleplaying and the mechanics, and consequently destroys SOD.

There is really nothing to be done but create a completely new character.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That said, balance is not a necessity, but it is a highly desirable quality. The aim of the game is to have fun, and good balance makes that easier. Further, good balance greatly encourages character diversity, which is generally seen as another desirable quality. Finally, good balance has no negative effects on any game or gaming style that I can think of.
From these considerations, I find 3E's attention towards balance amply justified.

As for the idea of "throwing balance out of the window", IMO it is just irrational. Unless you tell me what I gain in return, and it better be something good - "more time to do something else" doesn't make the cut, that's just laziness or poor design skills talking.

Well said.

If you have a very strong campaign theme, I can see justification for making major tweaks and letting the chips fall where they may. Are we playing Ars Magica or Pendragon or something similar? Probably not.

IME, 1e/2e fell into a rut of character sameness only alleviated by the occasional bizarre and powerful magic item thrown in by the DM. That is not a tactic that ultimately saves the DM time or effort -- quite the opposite.

I have seen more character diversity in playing 3e than in 20 times the same tabletime in 1e/2e. It is not as if anyone invented new roleplaying concepts. The difference is the inherent balance of 3e encourages the players to experiment.