Is it really so important that everything is equal?
- Thread starter Li Shenron
- Start date
I don't think balance is an issue for anything really. Some feats can be more "powerful" than others, but it depends on the persons view of "powerful". I know some players that lover power attack, they use it non stop and think it is a "powerful" feat. On the other hand I have two players who would rather hit more often than land the big blows and they think that power attack is a weak feat.
I think feats, spells, etc. are balanced by the players and DM's that use them, as well as character classes. A smart player can make any class work and even seem powerful where an unskilled player could make a munchkin number crunched character look pathetic. Also it depends on the DM, if they actually play the monsters and NPC's with intelligence and use good strategy against the "powerful" players.
So I think balance is a combination of rules and how the rules are used by the players and DM.
I think feats, spells, etc. are balanced by the players and DM's that use them, as well as character classes. A smart player can make any class work and even seem powerful where an unskilled player could make a munchkin number crunched character look pathetic. Also it depends on the DM, if they actually play the monsters and NPC's with intelligence and use good strategy against the "powerful" players.
So I think balance is a combination of rules and how the rules are used by the players and DM.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
I view balance as important. Part of this is from my abysmal experiences in 1st and 2nd edition playing non-casters, and why I think those editions werent worth the paper they were printed on. You honestly may as well have not showed up to the session for all you'd contribute from your class abilities (RPing, problem solving, etc is something ANYONE can do). Being shown up at everything isnt particularly fun. In almost all cases, the people who find balance to be unimprotant were those who played clerics or mages in previous editions. Let them eat cake and all that jazz.
I dont expect everything to be equal, but it should be reasonably close. I grit my teeth every time I buy a book and see a class or feat thats OBVIOUSLY crap. Swashbuckler, Samurai, Hexblade, etc I'm looking at you. If I never see another half progression caster prc, or another sorry +2/+2 feat, that would be grand.
One thing to point out, is that there are intentionally 2 power levels for feats. You have your power attack type, and your toughness type. Toughness sucks. Combat Casting sucks. That's intended. The designers made bad feats on purpose, to use as punishers for PRC requirement. What's unfortunate is that people forgot that, and seem to think that anything thats better than crap like skill focus is broken. However (as was noted in the PHB 2 design interview), we have more than enough useless feats, so I'm glad we're seeing ones that are worth taking coming out.
I dont expect everything to be equal, but it should be reasonably close. I grit my teeth every time I buy a book and see a class or feat thats OBVIOUSLY crap. Swashbuckler, Samurai, Hexblade, etc I'm looking at you. If I never see another half progression caster prc, or another sorry +2/+2 feat, that would be grand.
One thing to point out, is that there are intentionally 2 power levels for feats. You have your power attack type, and your toughness type. Toughness sucks. Combat Casting sucks. That's intended. The designers made bad feats on purpose, to use as punishers for PRC requirement. What's unfortunate is that people forgot that, and seem to think that anything thats better than crap like skill focus is broken. However (as was noted in the PHB 2 design interview), we have more than enough useless feats, so I'm glad we're seeing ones that are worth taking coming out.
Last edited:
GreatLemur
Explorer
First off, balance--as has been pointed out--is not technically possible. In a game this deep, driven by plot and choice, and adjudicated by a human being, you're inevitably going to be comparing a lot of apples and oranges. You can't mathematically balance Favored Enemy: Magical Beasts against, say, Rage unless you know how often you're going to be running into enemies with the Magical Beast type.
That said, you definitely want to try to maintain balance--or the appearance of balance--as much as possible. You don't want the guy who picks an odd class and race combination because to end up feeling cheated when the game actually gets going and he doesn't get to do half as much cool stuff as the ultra-efficient min-maxer sitting next to him. Interesting characters are a good thing and should be encouraged.
Now, on the other hand, a game that starts from the beginning with some assumption of--and agreement upon--unbalanced characters, maybe that can work just fine. In Ars Magica, not everyone is playing a Magus at the same time. I think in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer game there's a campaign variant where one or two people play powerful supernatural ass-kickers (slayers and vampires) while everybody else plays their merely-human buddies. And, hell, then there's Rifts, where the characters ranged from cyberpunky lowlife to TOTALLY METAL GOD-DEMON FROM DIMENSION BADASS. So maybe one could successfully run a D&D game where half the players are dragons and the other half are their human riders, or something like that. As long as the players know what they're in for, I imagine it could work.
That said, you definitely want to try to maintain balance--or the appearance of balance--as much as possible. You don't want the guy who picks an odd class and race combination because to end up feeling cheated when the game actually gets going and he doesn't get to do half as much cool stuff as the ultra-efficient min-maxer sitting next to him. Interesting characters are a good thing and should be encouraged.
Now, on the other hand, a game that starts from the beginning with some assumption of--and agreement upon--unbalanced characters, maybe that can work just fine. In Ars Magica, not everyone is playing a Magus at the same time. I think in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer game there's a campaign variant where one or two people play powerful supernatural ass-kickers (slayers and vampires) while everybody else plays their merely-human buddies. And, hell, then there's Rifts, where the characters ranged from cyberpunky lowlife to TOTALLY METAL GOD-DEMON FROM DIMENSION BADASS. So maybe one could successfully run a D&D game where half the players are dragons and the other half are their human riders, or something like that. As long as the players know what they're in for, I imagine it could work.
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
I like balance in order to see some variety in the game.
In every earlier edition, the longsword was the best weapon. B/E/C/M (where it was "normal sword"), AD&D, 2E. So nearly every fighter used a longsword. Because fighters prefer to win their battles. In 2E, the longsword did 44% more damage to large opponents than a battleaxe. That, in my mind, is enough for a character to notice, and enough for an intelligent character to override cultural traditions. So dwarves would logically use longswords to fight giants.
After the Complete Book of Fighters came out, the Two-Weapon Style Specialization made that style simply better than any other style. And the katana became simply better than the longsword. Nearly every fighter carried two katana if he could get them, or two longswords otherwise. To do otherwise was to willingly go into battle using a clearly inferior combat style.
In 3.0, Magic Missile was by far the best 1st-level damage spell. Almost nobody ever used Shocking Grasp. 3.5 upped the damage of SG (for levels 2-12) so now it might actually see some use. Acid Arrow also paled in comparison to MM despite being a level higher (damage over time is usually less useful than damage done all at once), but in 3.5 they gave it the no-SR ability. I like 3.5's fixes here.
Making the battleaxe as good as the longsword -- just different -- makes it plausible that warriors would choose to use this weapon. Cultural preferences have a hard time holding up in the face of demonstrable inferiority of an option. Characters that intend to risk their lives in deadly combat on a regular basis will have a legitimate interest in doing everything possible to skew the odds in their favor. They will use the armor, weapons, tactics, and spells that will give them the best chance of victory. That's not power-gaming, it's role-playing.
In every earlier edition, the longsword was the best weapon. B/E/C/M (where it was "normal sword"), AD&D, 2E. So nearly every fighter used a longsword. Because fighters prefer to win their battles. In 2E, the longsword did 44% more damage to large opponents than a battleaxe. That, in my mind, is enough for a character to notice, and enough for an intelligent character to override cultural traditions. So dwarves would logically use longswords to fight giants.
After the Complete Book of Fighters came out, the Two-Weapon Style Specialization made that style simply better than any other style. And the katana became simply better than the longsword. Nearly every fighter carried two katana if he could get them, or two longswords otherwise. To do otherwise was to willingly go into battle using a clearly inferior combat style.
In 3.0, Magic Missile was by far the best 1st-level damage spell. Almost nobody ever used Shocking Grasp. 3.5 upped the damage of SG (for levels 2-12) so now it might actually see some use. Acid Arrow also paled in comparison to MM despite being a level higher (damage over time is usually less useful than damage done all at once), but in 3.5 they gave it the no-SR ability. I like 3.5's fixes here.
Making the battleaxe as good as the longsword -- just different -- makes it plausible that warriors would choose to use this weapon. Cultural preferences have a hard time holding up in the face of demonstrable inferiority of an option. Characters that intend to risk their lives in deadly combat on a regular basis will have a legitimate interest in doing everything possible to skew the odds in their favor. They will use the armor, weapons, tactics, and spells that will give them the best chance of victory. That's not power-gaming, it's role-playing.
A given feat, spell, weapon, whatever, will be the best for a particular situation, but rubbish in other situations. For example, if you have a magical item that allows you to walk on lava unharmed, it's very useful if you happen to be near a volcano that erupts on you, but it's a pretty piece of jewellry the rest of the time!
A good role-player is probably more interested in a character who is not absolutely optimal in every area, because they tend to be far more interesting characters to play. But they tend not to be the sort of people who obsess about 'balance' anyway.
A good role-player is probably more interested in a character who is not absolutely optimal in every area, because they tend to be far more interesting characters to play. But they tend not to be the sort of people who obsess about 'balance' anyway.
Except that we're not playing Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, or anything else. We're playing D&D, and part of what we're paying for is, well, balance.
I actually put that some options should be worse than the balanced norm, but none should be better. I chose this for two reasons:
1) Some options are inherently weaker, but are nice to have for roleplaying reasons. If a given feat or skill can't be made more powerful, I'd rather see it remain but be weaker than see it get cut entirely. And in some situations, that "weaker" skill or feat is actually stronger -- it's not flat-out weaker as much as hugely specialized for a niche situation.
2) If there's a clearly better choice, as noted, everyone who isn't die-hard roleplaying something else picks that choice, and that's bad. But if there's a clearly worse choice, then people who aren't yet great at numbers or minmaxing can still feel smart for realizing that a given weapon is weaker than all the other ones. They get to pick something else and say, "Hey, I'm catching on!" It's sort of like a confidence booster. And the crazy minmaxers end up picking that weapon every now and then to show that they can make a powerful character even with that weak weapon, and the crazy roleplayers get to show that they're roleplayers. It is, essentially, an easy roleplaying choice and a sort of low-level "Here, look, here's something clearly weaker" introduction for new players. (In Magic:the Gathering, these would be the lousy cards that the player feels smart for discarding.)
I actually put that some options should be worse than the balanced norm, but none should be better. I chose this for two reasons:
1) Some options are inherently weaker, but are nice to have for roleplaying reasons. If a given feat or skill can't be made more powerful, I'd rather see it remain but be weaker than see it get cut entirely. And in some situations, that "weaker" skill or feat is actually stronger -- it's not flat-out weaker as much as hugely specialized for a niche situation.
2) If there's a clearly better choice, as noted, everyone who isn't die-hard roleplaying something else picks that choice, and that's bad. But if there's a clearly worse choice, then people who aren't yet great at numbers or minmaxing can still feel smart for realizing that a given weapon is weaker than all the other ones. They get to pick something else and say, "Hey, I'm catching on!" It's sort of like a confidence booster. And the crazy minmaxers end up picking that weapon every now and then to show that they can make a powerful character even with that weak weapon, and the crazy roleplayers get to show that they're roleplayers. It is, essentially, an easy roleplaying choice and a sort of low-level "Here, look, here's something clearly weaker" introduction for new players. (In Magic:the Gathering, these would be the lousy cards that the player feels smart for discarding.)
Treebore
First Post
I don't have to worry about it anymore. In my games everyone has every feat (that is combat oriented), its just that they have to roll a successful check to attempt it, which is DC 15+HD of opponent against whom the feat will be used, or highest HD of a group against whom the feat will be used against.
Plus the game goes faster, for my group, because they only start using feats in tough fights.
Even back when I used feats as per the 3.5 rules my answer would have been "no".
Plus the game goes faster, for my group, because they only start using feats in tough fights.
Even back when I used feats as per the 3.5 rules my answer would have been "no".
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
I suppose my thought about a player choosing a weaker option is that the character needs a good motivation for that choice -- that is also a part of role-playing, explaining why the character is going with a clearly sub-optimal choice.
Example: a fighter uses a greatclub and wears scale mail. "I want him to be different" is a player reason, but not a character reason -- this fighter says "Being unique is more important than being alive." An interesting personality, to say the least.
Now suppose the character is Raal the Savage, even more primitive than the barbarian, who views iron-working as a demonic art. Raal has crafted scale armor equivalent from a monster he killed. Now the choices make sense in-character.
The player still gets to be playing something different, but the character isn't (at least in the character's mind) deliberately handicapping himself.
Example: a fighter uses a greatclub and wears scale mail. "I want him to be different" is a player reason, but not a character reason -- this fighter says "Being unique is more important than being alive." An interesting personality, to say the least.
Now suppose the character is Raal the Savage, even more primitive than the barbarian, who views iron-working as a demonic art. Raal has crafted scale armor equivalent from a monster he killed. Now the choices make sense in-character.
The player still gets to be playing something different, but the character isn't (at least in the character's mind) deliberately handicapping himself.
Similar Threads
