Should all things be created equal ?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

From the given option, 2 fits best for what I want.

But the real "balance" is not related to 1:1 death matches. You could balance a game around it, but this is not a major part of a regular D&D game. The party works together to solve a problem (often enough, the problem is a group of monsters in their way to the McGuffin/Treasure/Virgin Sacrifice.)

The goal of good balance is that every member of the group meaningful contributes to the solution. In some ways it is about "DPS" ("Damage per Seconds"), but not always in the direct sense. As an example: The Bard in 3.x doesn't contribute much DPS by fighting with a sword or bow. He contributes the DPS indirectly by granting a bonus to attack and damage of others. (But the Bard is underpowered because he doesn't contribute enough. He can give a damage bonus around 5-20 % to one or two members that benefit from his abilities, but he needed to reach something around +100 %. The Warlords "Feather Yon Oaf"-ability seems to come closer to it, since it seems to grant extra attacks). A healer contribute by reducing the enemies effective DPS by healing their damage.
There do also exist abilities that are harder to adjucate - what's the "DPS" contribution of a Wall of Stone or Glitterdust or a rushed Diplomacy check, or having a Range of 150 ft instead of 100? But harder doesn't mean impossible (though it might imply "less exact then weapon damage", because we might use a simplified model for projecting the effects.
It's becoming a bit more complicated outside of combats. There is no clear analogon for damage/hit points in these cases, so you can't balance by DPS. You could start with something like "Succeeds at set goal in n checks á m minutes with x % chance" and work from there.

It's not that bad if a Wizard can cast Knock to open doors. It's just bad if this means he needs less resources (money, time, skills/feats/powers) then another character.

Another part of balance is "fun balance". Even if every class is guaranteed to have equivalent DPS per combat encounter, that doesn't mean that it's equal fun. A Spellcaster that always casts one spell for 1000 points of damage and is then unable to act for 90 % of the combat isn't as "fun" as the Fighter that dealt the same damage over 10 rounds, by cleverly combinging trips, disarms or charge attacks or using other powers at his disposal.

From what I saw so far, I think the D&D 4 team has identified both aspects of balance and is trying to achieve it. We'll see if what they devised works...

 

[Li Shenron]

If duels were the only way to compare the fun and effectiveness of classes, I would have never played this game...

 

[Aus_Snow]

I've heard this kind of argument before, several times (but only online.) It falls apart in the worst way, after just a 'what if' or two.

What if a 1st level Fighter started with 500 HP, +200 in all saves, +100 BAB, fifty feats. . . and so on. . . with all other classes as is, from the PHB?

What if a 1st level Wizard started with the full spellcasting capability and power of a 50th level (epic) caster, with saves etc. all through the roof as well, with each other class as is, from the PHB?

Yes, they are extreme examples, to get to the point of the argument's collapse the more quickly. There will always be a point, and that will simply move from person to person. But it will always be there.

Besides which, just because a thing cannot be accomplished *perfectly* does not mean it cannot be accomplished *at all*. Also, just because a thing cannot be accomplished perfectly does not mean it should not be attempted.

Balance does matter, and is a worthy - and necessary - design goal.

 

[Simon Marks]

I know people who have done this and it works. The system is merely a guide DM makes all the ruling and gives outcomes, players merely tell DM what they are doing , dice and stat sheets are put away.

In short I'd describe it as group storytelling

Chris Engle's Matrix Games do this in the most elegant way I've ever seen.

Sure isn't D&D tho'


Here's my statement - All Players should have equal opportunity to affect the game.
In the end, that generally means that the classes need to be roughly equal - or that the 'weak' classes need to be flagged up and totally optional.

Of course, a game where 'warriors' are flagged up as both much weaker than mages and optional looks a lot like Ars Magica. Which sure isn't D&D either.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And yet option 3 is an abbreviated form of that very sentiment

No it isn't. Option 3 is the exact opposite.

 

[Phasics]

No it isn't. Option 3 is the exact opposite.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I know what I meant when I wrote it, if you've intreperted the opposite then I guess thats why I never scored high in english exams I could never capture my ideas wholey on paper and rarely as I intend them.

Although this has turned into an interesting thread about what I orginally intended (pitty my personal view was not understood,
however its clear the poll is meaningless since everyone has clearly intreprested the poll options differently.

 

[Umbran]

Balance, to me, has absolutely nothing to do with how well one potential PC does against another in a fight. Or even how a group of PCs does against another group of PCs.

Balance is about everyone having a chance to be effective in a general sense, to get spotlight time, and be important to the flow of events in the game over the course of a varied campaign.

 

[WizarDru]

Since your poll appears to make the assumption that balance is represented by inter-party combat effectiveness, I couldn't really say. As has been pointed out, characters are balanced versus their effectiveness in a group against the campaign environment, not against each other. Under 3e, with the emphasis on offense, a victory can come down to who won initiative, as opposed to effectiveness. This is heightened at lower levels and higher levels and only really balances out at the mid-levels (after low hit-points but before insta-death).

An example would be the cleric: often decried as being considerably more powerful and loaded...but in actual play, the cleric spends much of his time doing support work for the other players, which is why he's given more class benefits to make him more attractive.

Frankly, I don't take it as a given that any of your options are even mutually exclusive. DM input can change everything, but to my mind that doesn't mean you throw out all hope of balance. The DM should be there to fine-tune, not constantly monitor, IMHO.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I voted 3 because I think any other option understates the DM's importance.
Even if all classes are designed equal, some players will take more advantage of the abilities.

In 3.0 and 3.5, I've seen druids and clerics be generally ineffective background characters and rogue/fighters be the powerhouses. I've seen a bard (Brb1/BrdX) be a party's best warrior. I've seen rangers and monks be supremely effective, and wizards who generally cast buffing spells. And of course I've seen ineffective bards and powerhouse druids, as you'd expect.

Game balance depends on the DM. It cannot be hard-wired into the system to an extent that the DM's judgment is unnecessary.

 

[Simm]

To be honest, in reading much of what has been said about 4e, I;m beginning to wonder if balance is a desireable concept.

In my three longest running 3.x campaigns (from first to 12th, 15th, and 16th levels) I have never seen anyone pull out a really broken character; a simple social contract prevented it. I have, however seen many characters at a variety of different relative strengths for their level and my observation is that as long as a class is capable of doing things that no other character is the player will usually enjoy playing it.

I've found this to be the reason why most fighter/wizard types are unsatisfying, even if they are mechanically balanced, you're overshadowed in combat by the fighters and in spell casting by the wizard.