Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 3206530" data-attributes="member: 9254">D&D, as a system, implies a degree of balance.  Number of feats & skills are balanced against combat and magical abilities.  Races have level adjustments so that the characters of similar level are explicitly balanced.  Wod (new or old) and Palladium made no such promise, tacitly or implicitly.  It is still an issue (Palladium drove me nuts) but it is not one that the system puts a high level of importance on.  Therefore there is an expectation of balance in d20 by players and DMs because the system tells you it is important to be balanced.  The big problem with d20 is that it has generic and specific mechanics.  Generic mechanics are lowest common denominator rules; they are internally balanced and should not cause a significant degree of imbalance in any specific situation; if they do the specific should have an exception or override built in.   The PHB/DMG/MMs are generic mechanics. Specific mechanics are intended, AFAIK, to be balanced internally, which may rely on setting-specific RP factors as much as setting-specific mechanics.  They may replace generic mechanics entirely or just add a new case. In a different setting, there is no confidence that the ability will continue to be balanced in either direction.  FR, Eberron, etc are specific mechanics.  Then you have the 3rd party sources that may be generic or specific.  All in all, it's more of a massive sprawling mass of mechanically-similar games than one homogenous game.  It's really no different to mix FR & Eberron than mixing Runequest and Call of Cthulu.  I don't believe in absolute balance, each game will be run differently even within the same setting or same gaming group.  RP and campaign focus is an unpredictable factor.  Balance will always have a range.  IMO as long as the expectations for a ruleset's use are stated clearly in some fashion ("Bleak Tidings an undead-plagued land in the midst of a civil war with violence around every corner....") then you can judge the relative internal consistency.  From an internal consistency standpoint, Eberron and Tome of Battle are fine.  From an "integrate it into my long-running Krynn campaign" point of view, neither work worth spit.  Is that Eberron & ToB's fault or mine?  Controlling balance is always the DMs responsibillity.  It is a personal decision how tightly balance needs to be controlled and consensus will never be achieved.  However, any DM that complains about the game balance has only themselves to blame.  I DM mostly and I don't let anything hit the table until I've thoroughly digested it and probably run a one-shot using it to see how it feels in play.  My players know  this and they know that I may not allow the cool thing they want or I might write my own campaign-specific version of said cool thing if I also like the flavor but hate the mechanics or I could rewrite the flavor to match my campaign.  So far my game has run from 1st-20th level with no concerns that any one character is overpowered or underpowered.  It requires work but it eliminates regrets and recriminations.</blockquote>

Verification