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

[Calico_Jack73]

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? If balance is effectiveness in a combat situation then obviously Barbarians and Fighters are seriously unbalanced compared to Bards. In earlier editions of D&D you went into playing a Thief knowing that you were going to be rarely called upon for your combat abilites (Fighters and Wizards had all the advantages in that department). Thieves also can't heal other characters which was the domain of the Cleric and Druid. If you were a thief you had a small niche to fill and most of the other classes were mechanically more powerful. You understood it but carried on if you in fact wanted to play a Thief.

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?

 

[diaglo]

balance schmalance

 

[Belen]

Yes and No. The problem is not the balance between the base classes. It is the problem with the player "options." The classes probably should be balanced, but the options are abused too easily, thus, if you have a fair amount of them, then the "balance" becomes a joke.

 

[Pseudonym]

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.

 

[Whisper72]

Nope, the effectiveness of a PC is IMHO more driven by the PLAYER and how effectively the player uses the skills/powers/characteristics of his or her PC and with how much creativity the PLAYER reacts to the encounters. All the skills, feats, powers in the world will not really balance a PC's usefulness if the player behind it is a moron.

Thus, the focus should be more in the building of the adventures such that the PLAYERS can all bring their skills and creativity to bear on the situation. PC balance is hence irrelevant IMHO.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

2

Your character is what you make of him.

another thing to keep in mind is that "balance" is inforced to make sure everyone is having fun. If something gets out of balance, and everyone sis till having fun, as long as they continue to have fun, there isn't a problem.

Balance is VERY overrated.

 

[jerichothebard]

I believe in balance of fun and time in the spotlight. If everyone is having fun, then everyone is balanced.

that being said, i think the classes should not be totally disparate in their powers and effectiveness.

I chose option 2, but I really think there should be a middle ground.

jtb

 

[reiella]

Most of time, yes balance is important, it just makes for a more dynamic game (for me/IMO).

If I want to play a game where balance isn't too relevant, I'd just turn to Rifts or a Supers game.

[ Add ]
And if you want adventures that take the PLAYER'S skills into account instead of the character's, you might as well play a LARP or such so that those skills can be adequately accounted for .

[ Add 2 ]
Ack, and I just noticed that you're asking two seperate questions here .

If balance is important to a campaign [Option 1], and if balance is more than "Balance in Combat" [Reverse of Option 2].

 

[LGodamus]

Balance is a very big part of the game, and I believe it is of much importance. Think of all the players that left the hobby in 2e.....why did they do so? Some because of TSRs business practices but most because of the direction the game went in....and when things werent fun anymore. Balance is what keeps the game fun for everyone , instead of the one guy who picks the BEST class , the best weapon etc.

You should be able to play a fun concept, and not worry about being outshined...admit it , in 2e how many people used a longsword? I thought so, because it was the most common magical weapon. Remember the complete book of elves....? I thought so, without balance that is what you get a bunch of crap that is like the complete book of elves.....

 

[Praeco]

Different power levels are OK, but characters that are not necessarily as powerful as others in a group should not be ignored because of it. There is usually something that only said player can do, and the GM should be cognizant of that and put it into play. Also there should also be an attempt to provide role-playing opportunities where the power level of the character doesn't mean anything. This way nobody is overshadowed.