Balance: How important in your game?

[S'mon]

PC-PC balance is important - all PCs need to be able to contribute meaningfully. PC vs world balance matters in that the GM needs to be able to design encounters that are challenging but probably won't kill anyone if the players play competently. If the line between cakewalk & TPK is razor-thin, that's a sign of an unbalanced game IMO.

 

[Celebrim]

I voted 'moderately important' but my real answer is probably 'other'. I feel very strongly that balanced mechanics are essential to prevent the mechanics of the game from distorting the story, but on the other hand I also feel that to a certain extent what I consider 'balanced' is admittedly skewed by my own biases about what is cool. In other words, even if it allows you to do something really powerful, if I think that its cool and that I can handle the consequences of player power, then its in.

So for instance...
Paladins automatically saving vs. fear... OUT as full immunities are almost always to powerful IMO.
Being able to detect evil, alignment, or lies with complete certainty... OUT as it makes it too easy to short cut complex storylines.
Fly spell... WEAKENED (fourth level spell) as ubequitous flight makes interesting dungeon design too hard.
Prestige classes... OUT as the violated the spirit of the game design, led to twinkism, and were too diverse to keep up with.
Various official shield feats... OUT because it seemed unflavorful to just treat being good with a shield as the ability to use it as a weapon.
Spells/Items that give big boosts to skills... OUT or WEAKENED because they end up making skills irrelevant.
Multishot and other powerful ranged feats... OUT because I've had problems with archers just seeming to be the answer to every tactical problem I present the player's.

On the other hand...
Additional bonus feats for many classes... IN because IMO cleric and rogue were too strong relative to the other classes especially at low levels, fighter had few reasons to go to high levels, and the other combat classes seemed to pale compared to fighters (people just splashed them to gain the front end benefits).
More powerful combat feats for high level fighters... IN because fighters seemed to peak at around 12th or so.
More powerful arcane feats for evokers, abjurists, and summoners... IN because those archaetypes seemed to suffer under 3rd edition (evokers because monsters had more hit points, more resistances, and evasion, abjurists because the concept was neglected, and summoners becauses the monster summoning spells were really weak on thier own) compared to enchanters, necromancers, and transmuters.

And in some cases....
Monks... OUT not because they are strong (they aren't) or because they are weak (though they are) but because they just don't fit.
Druids... OUT (ditto) and Shamans (Green Ronin) in.
Improved Unarmed strike and the associated feat trees... WEAKENED because they violate my suspension of disbelief as a swordsman. I don't care if you are Bruce Lee, the disadvantage you have versus an armed opponent of reasonable competance is enormous.

Much of what I allow would strike most DM's I'm sure as either exceptionally harsh or too generous depending on which ruling we looked at, and depending on what they were doing they'd probably be right. But my point is that balance very much depends on what you are trying to accomplish. In a hack and slash game, detect lie is probably too weak to be worth considering. In an intrigue game were everyone is hiding something, detect evil, detect lie, and such is overpowered.

 

[Mallus]

If the line between cakewalk & TPK is razor-thin, that's a sign of an unbalanced game IMO.

Odd, that's my idea of an 'ideally balanced game'...

Oh, and I only care about balance between PC's, which I freely admit I can't judge beforehand and prefer to dynamically adjust through the wonders of DM fiat.

 

[iwatt]

AFAIAC, there are two primary forms of balance:
1) PC vs. PC: Balance considerations of these sorts minimize player jealousy and spotlight stealing, and help mantain variety in the game by ensuring that there are a variety of viable options for any character design choice the players may make. If a certain feat or class comes along that is clearly the best, one should not be surprised when every sensible player takes that option.
2) PC vs. GM: Balance considerations of this choice help to ensure that it is not too difficult for the GM to challenge the party without negative consequences (e.g., excessive work on the GMs part, unbeleivable "metagaming" NPC behavior, killing half the party while leaving the rest unscratched.)

(1): maybe I'm just lucky, but player jealousy has never been an issue in the many games/groups I've been in. And when I DM I really try to alternate the spotlight to showcase each PCs strength.

(2): this is the hardest balancing act, IMO. But IME it can happen even when you only allow Core. Some people are just fiendishly capable of creating incredibly powerful character/combos, as witnessed by all of us in these forums.

 

[S'mon]

Odd, that's my idea of an 'ideally balanced game'...

? When the line is razor-thin, the game (almost) always falls off one side or the other, hence unbalanced. I guess a game that always managed to balance on the razor's edge would be ideally balanced, but thanks to the GM, not the rules.

 

[Thanee]

I definitely prefer a balanced game, but it's not so important, that it stands above everything else.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mallus]

I guess a game that always managed to balance on the razor's edge would be ideally balanced, but thanks to the GM, not the rules.

I do my best. And I err on the side of the players.

 

[Psion]

(1): maybe I'm just lucky, but player jealousy has never been an issue in the many games/groups I've been in. And when I DM I really try to alternate the spotlight to showcase each PCs strength.

Definitely. My points should be taken as "issues to consider" not "absolute prescriptions."

I once played a 12th level wizard in a group for which the rest of the characters were 6th level. It worked out okay because the rest of the players were okay with it and the GM was willing to do the extra work. That doesn't mean it's a good idea in general to have a big level split.

 

[francisca]

To me, balance is making sure everyone in the party has a chance to be effective and alter the outcome of events they are involved in. This idea being central to enjoying the game, yes, balance is important to me. However, CR, balancing the classes against each other, etc.. are simply tools to achieve this balance, and not the full story by a long shot. Balance is up the DM. He must challenge the PCs and give them a resonable chance to survive, with appropriate rewards, while assuring they all have a good time in the process. Doesn't matter if they are running the pre-fab 4 or a bunch of Kobold Adepts. It's always been that way with D&D, and always will be.

 

[Jdvn1]

When introducing rules, I think the most important factor in deciding whether or not to have it is "Is this cool? Will this add a new, interesting dimension to my games? Is it fun? Will players find it fun?" So, priority 1: Fun. Now, if it's unbalancing, that can very easily detract from Funness. That's where balance comes into play.