The Question of Balance

[ashockney]

I find this thread interesting in part because of the debate to define balance. That's a tough starting point.

I think that what's been discussed hits a few key highlights.
1. A product that exceeds the 'average' or 'comparable' damage, defense, or ability of an existing core rules model.
2. A product that affected the level of enjoyment of the players or DM.

Both of these balance tests are quite subjective. I often think that there are some who are better at identifying and exploiting balance questions, and that to these people the 'obvious' balance issues (as illustrated in point 1) are overlooked in products.

My personal experiences that meet this criteria are largely front-loaded from the last five years as most d20 pulishers have gone away or stopped releasing 'add-on' content. I could highlight several experienced including Relics & Rituals, R&R2, Rokugan, BoEM, and so on. I could also site as many examples from WoTC material however including the Dervish, Mystic Theurge, an Archer, Vorpal Swords, the Templar, a Mantle of Mind Blank, touch attacking rogues, slimewaving a tarrasque, and Red Wizard/Archmages.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think it basically comes down to the following.

WotC products are, theoretically at least, semi-official. As such, Wizards usually tries to playtest new elements they come up with alongside other elements they've introduced.

So you won't get something horribly unbalanced by using a class from Complete Adventurer alongside a feat from Complete Arcane. Both supplements are, of course, tested for "balance" alongside the Core Rules.

Third-party supplements are usually NOT considered by WotC when they introduce a new product. Wizards' playtesters may miss some odd combinations in their own stuff, but they're not even paying attention to a feat introduced in a Malhavoc product. That doesn't mean Malhavoc doesn't test it against what's available when the product comes out, but it does mean their stuff probably isn't considered when WotC introduces something new later on.

That means that if you stick to WotC products, it's at least possible a certain element was considered in playtesting. A third-party product probably wasn't. Since WotC products are more available, many people duck the issue by choosing to ignore 3rd-party publishers.

I find that the products fall into the following categories:

Core Rules (PHB and DMG)
Supplemental Rules (Setting specific stuff, supplemental magic rules, psionics, etc.)
Expert/Advanced Rules (Class Books, Race Books, Savage Species, PHB II, and similar)
Mature Gamers Only (Epic Level Handbook, Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exalted Deeds, Unearthed Arcana, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and Iron Heroes)

Anytime you start monkeying with fundamental principles of the core rules, like the magic system, the acquisition rate of feats, or any of the bizarre variants in Unearthed Arcana (like Gestalt characters, recharge magic, spell points, or what have you), you run the risk of messing with the balance. Stuff like the Advanced Player's Guide, True Sorcery, and certain settings (like Midnight and Black Company) also falls into the last category.

Third Edition D&D is a lot more robust than people think and will bend a lot before it breaks. But the more variants you use and additions you make, the greater the risk of something getting wonky. A good DM should just disallow any combination that upsets his game.

If you have reasonable players, the best idea is to admit something provisionally and see how it works in play. But reserve judgement and level with your player if you feel it's upsetting things. If it isn't, leave it in, but if it is, take it out. Some things read stronger than they play (like the Mystic Theurge), and others read fine, but can be abused horribly.

My two cents.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I have to disagree with you, PAP.

Whether it's achievable or desirable, the fact of the matter is that D&D itself is very concerned with balance across a given character level. Maintaining this balance is part of what the WotC development team does for a living. Sure, D&D has some choices that are more optimal than others, but I don't think any of them are so blatantly obvious and superior that they are a no-brainer choice (e.g., elven F/M-U's or cavaliers in 1e). Or, at least, there's more than just a handful of paths to "optimal."

Ergo, I can understand being concerned with add-ons that throw balance too far out of whack. They start messing with the fun, and that's just not acceptable.

Interesting that you equate "balance" with "fun".

(I'm reminded of this week's OOTS cartoon where the druid remarks to the rogue, "I have special abilities more powerful than your whole class!"... that doesn't mean that rogues aren't fun to play.)

 

[Crothian]

Interesting that you equate "balance" with "fun".

It looked to me add ons were being equated to fun. :\

 

[Storyteller01]

My campaign uses almost nothing but third party sources (we still have the base three books). It works out well.

I've noticed a wide spread need to only use WotC products, even with free 3rd party material available. I don't know why.

I've also noticed that a large portion of my powergamer's strategies always use WotC material, even when I allow him to use other sources. He couldn't get the systems to mesh well.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I use vastly more 3rd party material as a GM and at least as much as a player. When I've had stuff rejected, it's been for thematic reasons (like steampunk tropes in a standard fantasy). I certainly would walk away from a table that banned 3rd party material 'on principle,' and have had occasion to do so in the past.

I find 3.0 books in general less balanced than 3.5 simply because the people designing the content were less familiar with the system. By late 3.0 and the entire 3.5 period, most books, 3rd party and WotC alike, have mostly been well balanced with the core rules.

Most books (either type) have one or two OMGWTF!?!!11 moments where they push the limits - sometimes they push them because the old limits were badly set, sometimes not, and in the latter case the material is genuinely badly balanced.

Most books (either type) also have one or two (or more!) prestige classes and feats that push the limits in the opposite direction: down into pathetic weakness. These rarely get commented on, but I actually find them MUCH more problematic, because players who can't shake the class=job mentality often want to take ones with thematically appropriate names and then can't understand why their single-classed or wisely-multiclassed counterparts (to say nothing of their enemies) seem so much more powerful.

 

[pawsplay]

WotC and third party products seem to be similar in introducing new abilities and creatures. Where they differ, I think, is in stinginess. Third party products often "give away the store," like variant wizards who can cast all the wizard spells and get faster feat progressions, and have additional benefits besides (AEG Magic has two) or monk variants who can do some really amazing melee damage, and so forth. Whereas WotC tends to be stingy with what they hand out; Swashbucklers and Samurai are supposed to be thematic, but except in certain specific builds, they just don't measure up.

There are a couple of times WotC has left the door open: Clerics got all the good stuff in 3e, and Warblades seem well-loved by the designers, too. But for the most part, WotC makes you pay for that +1 or that bonus spell or whatever. Whereas third party stuff tends to say, "Haven't you always wanted X for a feat?"

The result is, WotC stuff is about as likely to unbalance a game with new elements, but far less likely to unbalance a game with general feats, than a third party product, in general. If a WotC design screws up, you can usually see it coming.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So you won't get something horribly unbalanced by using a class from Complete Adventurer alongside a feat from Complete Arcane.

Not true! There might be combos like that exist (I'm sure someone with a lot more supplements than I have can point some out), but I'm going to look at a different area.

I got a playtesting credit for the XPH. I wasn't given a library of other WotC products, nor did I have a clue what was in products being developed at the same time or a bit further behind in development. It's not reasonable to say WotC products get playtested together. If I did get such a library, it would require me to playtest the XPH for years to take those things into account. I don't blame WotC for not giving me a library either - how much would that cost, exactly?

An author working on, say, Complete Mage might look at a spell in the Spell Compendium and think, hey, this spell will work great with that spell. They don't have the time to think about how it's going to interact with spells in the massive number of WotC supplements that have already been printed. As a result, some broken combo will crop up, and hopefully the DM who buys them both will decide that maybe strict adherence to the RAW isn't always a good thing.

 

[buzz]

Interesting that you equate "balance" with "fun".

Only because D&D itself does.

"Balance" = "player input." If a mechanic prevents a player from being able to impact the game to the same degree that everyone else at the table can, it's making the game less fun for that player. Ergo, in D&D, balance has a lot to do with fun.

 

[wayne62682]

WotC and third party products seem to be similar in introducing new abilities and creatures. Where they differ, I think, is in stinginess. Third party products often "give away the store," like variant wizards who can cast all the wizard spells and get faster feat progressions, and have additional benefits besides (AEG Magic has two) or monk variants who can do some really amazing melee damage, and so forth. Whereas WotC tends to be stingy with what they hand out; Swashbucklers and Samurai are supposed to be thematic, but except in certain specific builds, they just don't measure up.

I think you hit the nail on the head; everyone has it ingrained now that if you get anything you have to give up something else, because that's exactly how WotC operates. Now, I'm no expert on 3rd paty things (I don't own any because my gaming group will not allow them) but if what you're saying is true, then 3rd party material doesn't seem to worry about "If we give this class Ability Y, we need to take away Ability Z and limit Special Power X so it's not overpowered", while WotC does the exact opposite with their stuff and spend so much time (or so it seems) balancing and counter-balancing things that the finished result is a shell of what it should be to appease the masses.