Discussions about "balance" at the table

[Driddle]

Somewhat ironically, I find the issue similar to what we experience in real life as well: We might moan and kvetch about how unfair the system is, or how much power/money So-and-So has because of his position, but, hey, we choose to do what we do.

In D&D, there's even less of a reason to complain -- You think a wizard is powerful? So play a wizard.

 

[der_kluge]

I don't think players complain about it outright, but I used to have one of the players who played the weakest character comment about how weak his character was compared to the rest, outside of the game.

Really, I think it's an aspect of D&D, which I really hate.

D&D is like a Christmas tree turned upside down, balancing on the star. Move one little ornament around, and the thing falls over. Everything is just really, really tightly integrated. I notice balance issues as a DM. Everything is built into D&D for a reason, and if you try to implant realism into it, like say allowing people to choose whatever skills fit their character idea, that's mucking with it too much.

 

[S'mon]

Well the advice in my 3.5 PHB specifically says to change skills etc to fit character concepts - it gives the example of an Enforcer Fighter with Bluff and Sense Motive, 4 skill points/level but a Rogue's armour & weapon profs.

 

[deltadave]

I think that the first thing to do is define what is meant by balance. does Player A have an all around better character or have they just focused on one aspect at the expense of others? MinMaxing is great and usually means an unbalanced character. If you have problems in one situation with the character, then set up the situation so that the weak area comes to the fore. IMHO that is our job as DM's - to make sure that every character and thus every player feels neccessary and thus has fun.

 

[dreaded_beast]

Speaking for myself and as a player, the only times I would complain about balance was whether or not the DMed decided to "nerf" the abilities of either my character or other players in the group. Sometimes they were justified, other times they were not, in my opinion. As a player, I didn't really care how strong or weak another player's character was in relation to mine. It just meant that my character had a better chance to survive an encounter.

On a side note, most of my DM's decision regarding balance and nerfing character abilities usually resulted from a knee-jerk reaction of reading on a messageboard about what could possible happen in a campaign, but had never occurred in our own game, IMO.

 

[Empress]

Is there really a need for all characters to be balanced? If one player plays a winged elf, that character can fly and mine can't. I don't expect any advantages to make up for it.

I think it's more important that players don't hog the spotlight, so that everybody participates euqally in the game. It's not important whether one is better than the other.

 

[Haradim]

There have been grumblings about character strengths in our group, and there have been some short exchanges about this or that aspect of the characters or rules in question. I would say that most of our players are sensitive to this issue, and want to be either better or simply roughly equal in terms of 'power-level' (or whatever).

That said, there are more than a few dodgy characters circulating about, so drastically different capabilities are not unusual, and it can become troublesome for everyone. Unfortunately, most of us tend to be more accepting of characters than we should be, in a group where we know at least one person either cheats outright, or has the best luck ever when it comes to character design 'mistakes'...

 

[IronWolf]

I haven't really heard it in games I play or DM. Different classes shine at different times and in different ways. Just because one character seems really powerful in one situation, doesn't mean they are like that in every situation. In games I have been involved in, everyone seems to understand that.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Is there really a need for all characters to be balanced? If one player plays a winged elf, that character can fly and mine can't. I don't expect any advantages to make up for it.

I think it's more important that players don't hog the spotlight, so that everybody participates euqally in the game. It's not important whether one is better than the other.

That sounds like the way I see it. Figure there's a balance of fun. If all the players are happy and have stuff they want to do then I'd view the game as balanced...


Only time I've really seen much whinging about balance was in 2nd ed. A player talked me into letting him use psionics, when I didn't understand the rules. Ooops.

 

[spider_minion]

I've had players complain obout character imbalances, and it really annoys me. Generally characters posses so vastly different capabilities that they're difficult to compare. The PCs are all on the same team (well, usually) so they shouldn't be so concerned with competing with one another. Minor balance issues often correct themselves in a few levels, when some ability isn't as good any more, or when other PCs acquaire new tricks.

For legitimate balance issues, I'd rather let the weaker character change some feats or levels around. I'd only force the unbalanced character to change if some excessive min-maxing was involved, or some rules loophole exploited. And dropping useful magic items for the weaker chacters is a subtle yet effective way to shift the balance of power.