Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Brian Gibbons]

In this context, if possible, I would like to enquire a bit into the apparent desire to move the game into the direction of 'per encounter' balancing, which at least from the looks of things on these boards, grates a significant number of people in the wrong way.

Personally, I think balancing classes on an encounter-by-encounter basis is a big step in the right direction.

Prior to 3e, classes and races were often explicitly balanced on an "over the lifetime of the PC, on average" basis. (E.g., better to be an elf at 5th level, but better to be a human at 15th; magic-users' strength at high levels being considered balanced by their weakness at low levels.)

Unfortunately, this assumes a lot about the way a campaign would work, most of which was rarely true. Moreover, that type of balance is often unsatisfying.

3e made a big step in attempting (with varying degrees of success) to balance things on a level-by-level basis.

However, PCs are still largely balanced on an "over the course of a day, on average" basis--a fighter can generate X level of power all day long, while a wizard can be significantly powerful in one encounter at the cost of being much less powerful in others.

Unfortunately, this assumes a lot about how a day in a campaign will happen, some of which is not always true. Moreover, this type of balance is also often unsatisfying.

Yes, such a change would have an impact on adventure design, but I think the trade-off of being able to jettison the concept of PCs making camp at 11 AM, so they can refresh their abilities, is worth the cost of not being able to grind PCs down with pointless battles where half the party is on the sidelines, scared of wasting their abilities.