Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="moritheil" data-source="post: 3502019" data-attributes="member: 30610">ENWorld is home to wildly differing views on what constitutes balance.  Most DMs and players have an idea of what is "typical" or "expected" in terms of hit points, saves, AC, and attack bonuses at certain levels.  However, what informs these typical values can differ greatly: a veteran of a low-magic setting may have values different from a character optimization regular, who in turn will have ideas different from someone who regularly studies monster manuals and relies on those for an idea of balance.So who's right?What should we consider balanced in an abstract, general discussion?I'll go ahead and detail my own approach, beginning with two assumptions that I think most people will not find objectionable.First, fundamental to any consideration of a norm is the establishment of limits.  That is, obviously, whatever your norm winds up being, it must be within the limits of what is possible.  Second, educated opinions are more accurate than uneducated opinions, and accordingly should carry more weight.  Having an informed perspective is crucial.  Having acknowledged those, there are logically two extremes in terms of power: very powerful and very weak.  A very weak build is not typically a natural occurrence, but instead is the result of someone deliberately trying to make a strange character (i.e. most people capable of grasping the rules and making a valid build have the presence of mind to not take Toughness for all their feat slots.)For a very powerful build, one can only turn to competitive powergaming to see what is possible.  Monster manual creatures and those in prefabricated adventures tend not to be built as brutally as possible, for fear of exterminating parties.  (There are many reasons for this, but I think economic interest is the most obvious one, followed by an unwillingness to spend extra time optimizing NPCs.)As a consequence of the two above assumptions, exploration of extremes is crucial to anyone who wishes to have an informed perspective on normative power levels.  Taking them to their logical conclusion, people who know nothing of min/maxing are the worst possible judges of what is or is not excessive.Under this approach to balance, it is not permissible to throw something out as broken simply in terms of power levels unless it is beyond the limits of what is theoretically possible within the rules.  "No infinite loops" is perhaps the most common formulation of this consideration.  The infinite stat increases of the Pun-Pun and cancer mage builds contradict the fundamental assumption behind assigning characters statistics.I acknowledge that there is another approach to balance that comes from a different paradigm: fiat.  Rather than seeing what is legally possible within the system, the fiat model begins with what should be possible (as envisioned by the DM) and bans all else.  I reject this as a fair model of balance because it smacks of inflexibility and heavy-handedness.  However, many board regulars have made impassioned arguments regarding the necessity of this method in actual practice.What I am curious about is the theoretical basis of the fiat paradigm.  Is there any way to justify it conceptually?  Or is it simply a dirty necessity?  How can its reliance upon an individual DM be reconciled with the fact that visions of balance differ widely?</blockquote>

Verification