Is it really so important that everything is equal?

[Li Shenron]

I'd rather see some effort made to make character concepts balanced. I mean, really, it's just no fun to end up hosing yourself, just because you envision your character wielding a weapon that is suboptimal in game terms, using a not so good spell school or using a suboptimal fighting style.

This probably nails the question much better than I explained.

Should every character concept be equally effective in the game?

Obviously a character concept is made real by choosing classes, feats, skills, spells, etc, but I think this should have been a much better question!

Because for me the problem is twofold:

1) sometimes there are certain character options which are a bit too powerful. Usually I do not mind it as long as the players don't abuse them, meaning as long as a player doesn't start focusing on the same trick over and over because it's better than anything else he could do all the time

2) often I see instead gamers complain that a certain concept is not effective, and I don't see why every concept should be effective in the first place. I have no problems choosing to play something strange and end up weaker (although there is of course a limit...) than I would if I were playing an archetypal character one more time

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Every character concept should be balanced, or at least fall within a relatively wide band of power at every level. At the very least, no character concept - and I'm talking about 'character concepts you could conceivably have in a heroic fantasy game' - should effectively be a CR less than any other when the characters are the same ECL.

 

[3catcircus]

I've come to the realization that the DM needs to be just like St. Peter and guard the gates religiously.

I would urge every DM to allow his players to use *only* the PHB to start. If there is a campaign-specific book (FRCS, Player's Guide to Kalamar, etc.), then those are ok to start with too.

Do not allow *anything* from any other source until you've thoroughly read through it and spent a lot of time figuring out how it will affect your game. Do *not* allow variants from the DMG that seem like a good idea (discounts on magic items for creating restrictions on the item - i.e. must have x ranks in y skill, must be of good alignment, etc.) Do *not* award as much treasure and xp as the encounter indicates they should get. In essence, don't be me.

My situation (and this is *my* fault, not my players'):

I've allowed stuff from the Complete... books, BoED, BoVD, SSS's Advanced Player's Guide, Races of Books, *all* FR books - essentially almost every book and everything in it.

All of the PCs are currently at Level 6. I've got a human (Shaaran) Ardent/Elocater. I've got a dragon-wrought kobold wizard. I've got a human (Halruaan) Wizard. I've got a Shield Dwarf Fighter/Dwarf Fighter/Giant-Killer. I've got an Aasimar Cleric of Anhur.

Ok - this by itself is no problem.

The problems lie in the fact that they've got feats and have created magic items that allow them to base move at around 70, increase caster level a bunch, increase Spellcraft skill ranks, etc.

I've done the math and their *effective* levels make the party an EL 16 type of encounter for me to have to put monsters/npc's against.

By limiting everything at first, you will avoid a situation where your players take advantage of more powerful options (that don't stack, but end up affecting multiple aspects of their PCs) to the point that they aren't even remotely resembling what the rules say that their effective power level is.

 

[Ry]

If an RPG was a TV show, then balance is measured by the camera: If the camera stays on one character more than the others as an upshot of the mechanics, then those mechanics are unbalanced. This means that a character's actions can be too complex, or they can be too important relative to the group.

 

[LostSoul]

I think it depends on the group and the campaign. That's a pretty crap answer, but I think it's the truth.

 

[greywulf]

I'd say that there can be better and worse options, limits be damned.

Balance is a myth which is destroying D&D from the inside, out.

Different things are better depending on the situation. A fireball isn't much use underwater, etc.

Levels are relative only to themselves - a 5th level Rogue should be a better Rogue than a 1st level one, and that's all. Other comparisons shouldn't apply. Trying to balance the unlike (a 5th level Paladin with a 5HD monster, for example) is both counter-productive and pointless. That's where the whole debacle of CR/EL and Level Adjustments started. It should have been drowned at birth.

Simplify, don't obfuscate. That should be the mantra. Instead we have pointless stats that only exist to blur the meta-game. Silly, silly, silly.

Same with the whole BAB/Skill rank thing. What's the difference between a 1st level Fighter with STR18 and a 5th level Fighter with STR10? Both are at +5 to hit in melee (ignoring Feats), but only the 5th level dude with his +5 BAB can qualify for the majority of Combat based PrCs. Same for 8 Ranks in a skill vs. +8 total, wherever the source.

They only exist because it's wrong to say "Prerequisites: Must be 5th level Fighter or equiv."
or "Prerequisites: +8 or higher with Longsword and +8 or better Bluff skill".

Get rid of the concept of BAB and Skills Ranks, call 'em just bonuses and demote them from being some kind of all-important meta-stat, and it frees the game up some more.

And LA. Freaking LA. Balancing monsters using grey fog calculations. Yeh. Right.

All because of Balance. The Great Lord of All.

Rant over. I feel better now. Thanks for listening.

 

[el-remmen]

Some people want to play Pippin and others want to play Aragorn.

 

[Psion]

Well, I think if one option is obviously better in a majority of situations, the game loses variety because everyone is taking that one option. Those who have certain preferences get screwed because they feel they have to take suboptimal choices to play the character they want. Clearly better choices should be avoided (thus why I am not currently permitting Book of Nine Swords... Warblade is clearly better than the fighter to me.)

That said, I think that situations the PCs might encounter vary quite a bit so it's really impossible to perfectly balance everything. But overall, yes, I think the effort to make things approximately balanced is worthwhile.

Balance is not a myth. Perfectly anal balance is a myth, but not a requirement.

 

[diaglo]

depends on the group/campaign.

if i'm playing the only cleric and we are about to tackle the AoW. i'm not gonna take a skill focus feat( craft (underwater basketweaving)

 

[mathogre]

Is it really so important that everything is equally powerful and useful in the game?

No, there can be better and worse options (within certain limits)

I just created my first wizard, Korvin, a 7th level human. While he's an evoker, I found he had to carry spells that make him more of a member of the group than just a hitter. I'll play him for the fiirst time at our next gaming session, along side my other character, a 7th level female elf monk, Aerin. Ha! She's a cool character. She's aggressive, and gets right into battle. Still, in addition to having weapons with which she's proficient, she carries a morningstar; she likes 'em, despite the attack penalty of -4.

Neither of these characters are perfectly optimized, but they are powerful and heroic, and have a good chance of survival (as long as Aerin doesn't try to swim - again). They're also realistic in a way that I could imagine enjoying meeting these two in a real life D&D setting.