Is it really so important that everything is equal?

[Li Shenron]

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

Does it really matter if a feat or is slightly less powerful compared to others, or a spell compared to other spells with the same level?

Are gamers really so obsessed by efficiency that they don't take a sub-par feat or skill if they can take something more powerful?

Are you constantly bothering your DM to bump certain sub-par options/combinations up?

I was just thinking that in our gaming group everyone always takes something which has little use, such as a couple of feats or skills, sometimes even a level in a second class, without thinking too much about whether it is a powerful choice or not. It doesn't mean we don't look for usefulness and power, just that we're not obsessed by wasting an opportunity. After all, that's what happens to almost everyone in real life too...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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

I think the more crunch-oriented your group is, the more weight balance issues have. So you do see the pursuit of balance quite often with a crunch-heavy system. Some degree of balance is necessary, but I think it can get taken to an extreme, and becomes a distraction.

Things like this aren't an issue in my game, so me for me, the answer to your question is "no."

 

[Herzog]

It all depends on the (other) players....

If you have even one crunching player, he or she tends to pick all the 'good' stuff, leading to an inbalance in the party.

In the long run, other players will find that no matter how much fun their choice of feats, classes and skills is, if a single character will 'fix' almost all of the chalenges the DM presents to you, you start to look out for the 'good' stuff too, optimizing your character, replacing roleplaying aspects of your character with oppertunities to 'win'.

Which, eventually, leads in my opinion to a much less interesting game.

Still, I voted 'No, there can be better and worse options (within certain limits)', but only as long as the players ALL tend to pick both better and worse options...

Herzog

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yes, every option should be equally good.

 

[The Human Target]

Yes, every option should be equally good.

Though said goodness may very well be situationally dependent.

And exact balance may be impossible.

 

[Starglim]

Yes, it is that important.

 

[airwalkrr]

"Balance" is this mythic quantity that game designers strive for, but by definition are never able to achieve. The only way to make the game balanced is to make each feat do exactly the same thing, each spell do exactly the same thing, each class look identical, etc.

D&D is a conditional game. Even a character who rules combat is going to have very little to do in a campaign of political intrigue where combat is not an option. Even a bard who is witty beyong compare will find himself ill-equipped when trying to talk his way out of a dungeon. I like to think of D&D as a more complex version of paper-rock-scissors. There is a counter and a mechanism for getting through everything in the game, you just have to have the right tool to do it. If you are fighting vrocks and the wizard has fly prepared, your fighter takes it to them. If the wizard does not and you lack an archer, the party is in for a rough time. That doesn't mean fly is a broken spell or more powerful, merely that it makes the game easier in some situations.

 

[FireLance]

Making all options exactly equal is, as airwalkrr pointed out, practically impossible without making everything exactly the same.

That said, options that are "more equal" benefit casual players (or players less concerned with mechanical superiority). While options that are "less equal" benefit more "skilled" players (or players more concerned with mechanical superiority).

So, the real "balance" question is, how much better should the character of a "skilled" player be than the character of a casual player? Once you answer this question, you will be able to determine how much power variation you are prepared to accept.

A secondary consideration is, how easy is it for the DM to make a less powerful option just as useful as a more powerful option? The DM's ability to present challenges in which a technically less powerful option is more useful than a technically more powerful option can make the relative power of the options irrelevant.

This is why, when I DM, I encourage the players to give their characters different specialities. This way, I find it easier to tweak the challenges so that all of them have a chance to shine.

 

[Gold Roger]

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.

 

[Turanil]

Does it really matter if a feat or is slightly less powerful compared to others, or a spell compared to other spells with the same level?

Are gamers really so obsessed by efficiency that they don't take a sub-par feat or skill if they can take something more powerful?

I have always seen players discard weaker stuff (equipment, spells, feats, etc.) in favor of the best available.