Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="greywulf" data-source="post: 3283282" data-attributes="member: 4285">I agree. Balance means a lot of things to different people. It means a lot of things in the rules too; I think it's a overused and abused term overall, personally.When it comes to internal balance I agree with what you're saying, entirely. As a DM it's important I give each player roughly the same airtime in a game. I don't want the rogue getting bored during combat, or the druid to feel left out in an underground adventure, for example. The all need a time to shine.A large part of the balance comes from just that - the DM running the game for the players. It's important to take into account their characters and their gaming preferences. Internal balance is very difficult to achieve just looking at the character sheets simply because the characters don't level up at the same time. If the Fighter (for example) gains a level first, then he's going to be at least one feat (and probably two) ahead of everyone else. That's a significant edge, in the short term. I don't agonise over the fact that the balance is broken; a bigger and better Fighter benefits the party as a whole, and they'll all reach the same level soon enough.Even when the characters are at the same level, I'm not generally worried about internal balance either. If the Fighter is better in a combat situation than the rogue, so what? I provide enough traps and puzzles to keep the rogue happy too. The one rider to that is that some classes outside the Core books are significantly more powerful than their peers. Thankfully, no player has asked to play one of them yet; when they do, I'll review and nerf them appropriately. I think you know the classes I mean <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification