D&D General How do you define balance?

[Voadam]

In D&D I really want PCs of equal levels to be balanced in combat. Combat is the big one mechanically and for activity as a group and I handle a lot of non-combat stuff narratively based on character concept.

I don't want one PC in a combat to be effective and invulnerable while others are having a challenging fight while others are ineffective and cannot contribute meaningfully.

I think 4e did the best job of this in making characters roughly equally good at combat mechanically but lots of meaningful distinctions between the four combat roles, the different classes in those combats roles and individual power choices within a class.

5e did a decent job with bound accuracy and its setup but not as good as 4e.

3e had this as a design goal but a lot of opportunities for imbalance are in the system.

I never was a fan of older edition balance by rarity of rolls (for powerful classes), or by roleplaying restrictions (paladin, druid, cleric, etc.), or varying competence at different levels, or races with powers being limited by level caps.

I am really not a fan of balancing across the different pillars in D&D, everyone does combat, and generally everyone does it a lot. I want everyone engaging in combat and the other pillars, not focusing only on one and being terrible at others.

 

[nevin]

I think balance is just a red herring. The only metric I use is are all players getting equal opportunities to shine and advance thier story. If they are unhappy (for longer than a bad encounter) Then I begin to consider what needs to change.

 

[payn]

3e had this as a design goal but a lot of opportunities for imbalance are in the system.

I think much of it stems from letting the flavor rule the balance in 3E. For example, no barbarian pallys because of alignment, when really it was the mechanics mixing that created an imbalanced PC. Or, saying the pallys cool stuff and the fighters lack is due to all the restrictions pallys live under. The examples are endless, despite being one of my favorite editions.

 

[Undrave]

One version of balance, when it come to D&D, is that the DM does not need to know what you class is in advance.

Your DM should be able to bring ANY adventure to the table and you ANY character build and the only adjustment they would need to do would be to the narrative so it can relate to your character's backstory. None of this "oh they don't have a caster so I'll add magic items" or 'oh they don't have a Cleric, better add an NPC one in this village!". No mechanical adjustment, just maybe the enemies' tactics when in battle and narrative stuff.

Another version of balance is: don't punish the Player for their aesthetic choices. If I think the swordsman is cooler than the spellman, I don't want to feel like a second tier sidekick.

Balance in D&D is a dynamic range and it is not noticeable when it works well.

 

[nevin]

There was no Balance by design in 3e. The developers on multiple occassions said they just threw out ideas and it was up to the GM to incorporate what they wanted in thier game. It eventually caused a backlash because players would spend a lot of money on splat books and GM's would not let them play some of the bat sh**t crazy stuff in them. Then PF1 tried to fix it and did the same thing and now they are trying to sell us PF2e which is as balanced as any table top RPG i've ever seen. It just doesn't seem to be a hit with the players.

In my experience players want big unbalanced crazy games, they just don't want them with GM's who play against them. Those guys suck.

 

[Undrave]

I am really not a fan of balancing across the different pillars in D&D, everyone does combat, and generally everyone does it a lot. I want everyone engaging in combat and the other pillars, not focusing only on one and being terrible at others.

Same here!

 

[Laurefindel]

Optimist DM says: « balance is when everyone is equally happy. »
Pessimist DM says : « balance is when everyone is is equally unhappy. »
Sadist DM says: « balance is when everyone is suffering equally. »
the Karate Kid says: « eh, whatever mr. Miyagi said. »
The funambulist says: « balance is what keeps me alive. »
The diplomat says: « balance is what keeps them from killing each other. »
The surfer dude says: « balance is what makes it fun, man! »

i say it’s a bit of all the above.

 

[overgeeked]

There was no Balance by design in 3e. The developers on multiple occassions said they just threw out ideas and it was up to the GM to incorporate what they wanted in thier game. It eventually caused a backlash because players would spend a lot of money on splat books and GM's would not let them play some of the bat sh**t crazy stuff in them. Then PF1 tried to fix it and did the same thing and now they are trying to sell us PF2e which is as balanced as any table top RPG i've ever seen. It just doesn't seem to be a hit with the players.

In my experience players want big unbalanced crazy games, they just don't want them with GM's who play against them. Those guys suck.

Right. The players want big guns but don't want the DM to have big guns. It's really weird. It's like they are taking a game about power fantasy and wanting to just easily win all the time without even the hint of the threat of setbacks, limitations, or difficulty. They want it to be as boring as possible.

 

[Rabulias]

If everybody wants it, or believes they need it, or compare other things to it--then it's probably unbalanced.

And the corollary: "If, given the choice between multiple feats (or spells, magic items, character options, etc.), players debate and agonize over the decision, the options are probably balanced."

 

[HammerMan]

In D&D I really want PCs of equal levels to be balanced in combat. Combat is the big one mechanically and for activity as a group and I handle a lot of non-combat stuff narratively based on character concept.

I don't want one PC in a combat to be effective and invulnerable while others are having a challenging fight while others are ineffective and cannot contribute meaningfully.

I think 4e did the best job of this in making characters roughly equally good at combat mechanically

I agree with you to a point... and that point is only combat.. I still think 4e (and now my hopes for 6e) would be to be as balanced with social and exploration abilites as combat (skill powers in 4e and later utilities really started doing it)

I want a player that sits down to play a fighter (cause she likes being rough and tumble and big and strong) can be good at combat WITHOUT also sucking in the other pillars.