Ed Stark on an unbalanced rule in Unearthed Arcana

[Estlor]

It seems like Unearthed Arcana, but its very nature, is almost impossible to balance as a whole. Each individual item changes an aspect of the game in a fundamental way, making the D&D game something different where different balance requirements exist. The early chapters - race and class adjustments - are fairly easy to balance since you have other races and classes to compare to, but how do you know spell points, legendary items, an injury system, or item familiars are balanced when nothing like that exists in the standard D&D game? And how can you balance an item in the book against the standard and still be sure it is balanced when other items in UA are put into the same game?

I suppose in this case it is entirely reasonable to ask the designers what their intention was behind certain variants in UA, just so we know what they consider to be a suitable game adjustment to cope with the new variant. I can see how items familiars need an environment where items face an equal threat of destruction as non-item familiars, kind of like adopting spell points as the norm diminishes the value of psionics (as currently written) in a campaign.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It seems like Unearthed Arcana, but its very nature, is almost impossible to balance as a whole. Each individual item changes an aspect of the game in a fundamental way, making the D&D game something different where different balance requirements exist. The early chapters - race and class adjustments - are fairly easy to balance since you have other races and classes to compare to, but how do you know spell points, legendary items, an injury system, or item familiars are balanced when nothing like that exists in the standard D&D game? And how can you balance an item in the book against the standard and still be sure it is balanced when other items in UA are put into the same game?

I suppose in this case it is entirely reasonable to ask the designers what their intention was behind certain variants in UA, just so we know what they consider to be a suitable game adjustment to cope with the new variant. I can see how items familiars need an environment where items face an equal threat of destruction as non-item familiars, kind of like adopting spell points as the norm diminishes the value of psionics (as currently written) in a campaign.

MOST of the variants are either
a) balanced
b) unbalanced, but TELL you that they're unbalanced, and how they're unbalanced.

Any rule should fall into either of those categories. The problem with item familiars is that they seem balanced and have no "this is unbalanced" disclaimer (meaning a DM will introduce them into a campaign without worrying about their effect, and rapidly have them make trouble).

Hell - for all I know, they actually ARE balanced, but people are seeing something else there...

 

[Ranger REG]

Not looking for a standard sense of balance. UA is not set up to be plugged into a standard D&D game. Some sections of it are meant to radically change the way the game is played. (e.g. Gestalt classes, the Injury (no hit points) system).

Well, if it is meant to radically change the game, I don't mind, just as long as they plug up any overt rules ambiguities.

I know, let's go down the line on the variant UA mechanics and list the benefits and flaws they might have and what is the fix (either stated in the UA book or house-ruled).

UA was an opportunity for the designers to give us a whole lot of interesting ideas without regard for a standard D&D campaign (which can be quite restricting in what it allows).

Yeah, it's like acquiring a cool automobile part, but you have to create your own gasket to make a perfect sealed fit.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Theory question: Can an optional rule be imbalanced?

 

[Rel]

Theory question: Can an optional rule be imbalanced?

IMHO, "Yes"

(This is my second reply to one of your posts in as many minutes, Sweeny Todd. Don't worry, I'm not stalking you. )

 

[Piratecat]

I'm thinking about taking that feat for my character in Sagiro's game; I'd love to make my "whip of the searing tongue" into an item familiar. If I do, though, we've agreed that it will work best with a balance between combat power increases and quirky fun power increases. For instance, I may spend one of my special abilities on giving the whip a real personality, or giving it enough knowledge to act as my religious conscience. I'll have to give it some thought.

 

[Will]

I think optional rules can be balanced or imbalanced.

Consider a rule that lets a character change 1/4 of class skills when first gaining the class. So you can be a more negotiator rogue, or a woodsy rogue.

Is it balanced? Pretty much, though it undermines some of the advance Experts have. For those who care about balancing PC and NPC classes.

Consider another option. Everyone gets an extra 2 skill points per level. Balanced? Probably. Sure, again, it undermines some of the niche of a rogue, but not a huge amount. It's pretty balanced, since everyone gets it.

Now consider an optional rule where if you are a cleric, you get to gain powers from a special item tied to your spirit, with no loss of ability. If you are any other class, however, gaining a special item requires a sacrifice of something (HD, skills, whathaveyou).

That's just not balanced, no matter what spin you put on it. And I'd be annoyed by having to do a huge DM song and dance number to MAKE it fair.

Unfortunately, IMO, that's exactly how the Legendary weapons rules work out. Check the Faith Scion. Everything a cleric has, and more! The Battle Scion, on the other hand, sacrifices a few bonus feats for the advantage of a legendary weapon.