[Poll] What aspect of balance causes the most problems?

[FireLance]

I was thinking a bit about balance issues lately, specifically, the problems they cause and how DMs have dealt with them.

Offhand, I can think of three aspects of balance:

1. Option vs Option: One or more options (races, classes, feats, spells. etc.) is significantly weaker or stronger than the rest.

2. PC vs PC: One or more PCs is significantly weaker or stronger than the rest.

3. PCs vs Challenges: PCs either find it too difficult or too easy to overcome challenges.

The three aspects are linked - a very strong option could result in a very strong PC, which could make it too easy for the PCs to overcome challenges, but even in a situation where the options are fairly well balanced, one PC could end up more effective than the rest simply because of the cumulative effect of picking the slightly better options. On the other hand, even if there are unbalanced options, there might not be a PC vs PC balance problem or a PCs vs challenges problem if all the PCs pick the stronger options and the DM is able to scale the challenges accordingly.

So, which aspect of balance causes the most problems for you in your games? If you managed to fix the problem, how did you do it?

 

[frankthedm]

I view option 1 as the root problem that leads to the other two.

 

[el-remmen]

Oops! I chose "PCs vs. Challenges", but meant to choose "I don't have balance problems."

And I don't. If anything ever suddenly seems to be way overboard or super-weak (and it'd have to be super weak - as I believe in making sub-optimal choices sometimes) then I'd discuss it with some of my players for suggestions and then I'd make a ruling and change it.

 

[C.W.Richeson]

PC v. PC. I think the vast majority of balance problems are actually problems related to the spotlight. If two characters are notably unequal, but both receive the same screen time and overcome interesting challenges, then it's likely neither player will have a problem.

In D&D many challenges are combat focused. Because of this, if one PC is notably superior at combat (say a Character Optimization build vs. Joe, the new guy's Fighter) that character is going to receive a lot more screen time.

 

[Ourph]

I voted "other"

Player ingenuity is the most problematic aspect of balance.

 

[Arnwyn]

then I'd make a ruling and change it.

Oh, so you do have balance problems, then.

No idea why you'd assume "problem" = "I can't change it".

 

[el-remmen]

Oh, so you do have balance problems, then.

No idea why you'd assume "problem" = "I can't change it".

No, mine was a hypothetical situation should a problem arise.

We have had no problems of note regarding "balance" since. . . well, since ever. .. even in 2E

 

[Ealli]

Number three is right out. It is the easiest to modify and can be done practically invisibly. (Congratulations on defeating that challenge. Here's your next one.)

The PC vs PC is the most troubling one. That is the one that leads to one player feeling like he's having less fun and then feeling resentful and hurt. Some of this may originate in Option vs Option, but as long as every player is happy, generally from every player feeling like he is a meaningful part of the game, then it works out.

 

[Ibram]

PC vs PC is the most troublesome, because it is the hardest to compensate for.

PC vs Challenge can be compensated by scaling the encounters (up or down)

Option vs Option seems to be more a subset of the PC problem, rather then an independent issue.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Option vs. Option because that means we have to weigh what we use be it feats, spells, classes or whatever. It means players can't just make a PC assuming anything goes, but have to make sure with the DM that it is allowed if they have any questions about it. This doesn't hamper in game play, but it does make everything take a bit more time. I can't imagine it would ever go away, though, so it isn't really much of a problem.