Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 1327611" data-attributes="member: 10825">See, I'm all about a party seriously over-powering and beating the crap out of much, much lower CR monsters, and the same applies to my players. Way back when I was running one of my first 3rd edition games, one of my friends commented, with some ire, how those knights, town watchmen, and generic humanoid monsters always seemed to level up with the characters, and that the PC's never really get a chance to be the big dog, no matter where they go. They never get to appreciate that they're higher level, and for all intents and purposes, they may as well have stayed at first, because things were more or less just as challenging then as now. I assured him that the town watchman suddenly popping up from a 1st level warrior to an 8th level fighter when the characters went from 1st to 5th level (because it always seems those NPC's are a bit bigger than the PC's) just wasn't going to happen. So in that regards, balance? Bully to that. My PC's get to enjoy the fact that 10th level is a heck of a lot more powerful than 1st, and only an idiot would mess with them. Usually. On the other hand, I've seen players get wicked pissed when I've thrown them up against a challenge that was far, far beyond them. Even when I hadn't intended the PC's to fight it or really have much effect on it. I can only imagine how those folk would react were I to put them into a fight against a monster that was at least four or over their Challenge Rating. I've no intention of stopping with the high CR monsters where the characters aren't supposed to fight, or where the PC's do something really, really dumb (and I've already made it clear how powerful the NPC or monster is), but a random, massive CR monster just isn't going to happen. That's not fun, and not conducive to a continuous campaign. So in that respect, some balance is needed. As others have said, there's also the "I still do something in the party" kind of balance. This holds particularly true in the case of prestige classes, in my opinion, which often aren't balanced with the base classes. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem were it not for the fact that there's not a prestige class that fits every single PC, or even most, I've found. Nor will there ever be a time that every PC has a prestige class which fits. There’s also a difference between running a game, and writing books for the game. If you’re running a game where the party wants to play an Aristocrat/Fighter, a Rogue who focuses on Diplomacy and Gather Information, a Wizard/Bard and a pacifist Druid who uses no weapons…well, a DM should, at least in part, allow for that. I think the idea of party balance just detracts from role-playing. Needing a Warrior, Priest, Wizard and Rogue is just obnoxious. I rarely find that out of four players, each one wants to fill one of those different niches. I usually find there’s some degree of overlap. Generally, I’ll have two PC’s who both do the same thing. On the other hand, that’s just running a game. Writing books for one, though, should take into account balance. I’m of the opinion this is where most complaints crop up; if you have a group of friends that are all about fighting a fire giant at third level…hey, awesome. But a CR 3 in a monster book should, roughly, be an appropriate challenge to a generic party of a Warrior, Priest, Wizard and Rogue. Roughly, mind you. The same goes for spells, prestige classes, etc. The mechanics in a d20 book should be roughly comparable with the Core books. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have a common starting point to work off of – the better you can gauge just how powerful something is or isn’t, the better you can make use of it. Or alter it to your needs. A common starting point is a good thing. Now, that is hard to attain at times, but it should be strived for within books. As for running a game itself, I generally just go for what makes sense. Which doesn't always match up with balance.</blockquote>

Verification