What type of balancing do you prefer?

[Roman]

I am wondering what balancing method for classes (and races, creatures, templates and indeed abilities in general) most people prefer:

Long-term balancing: Frequencies of use of abilities are determined on a longer-term basis, such as per day, or per full moon, or simply have long/variable recharge times (could vary by ability) or long/variable casting times (could vary by spell/ability), etcetera (e.g. Wizard)

Explicit per encounter balancing: Frequencies of use of abilities are per encounter, durations are per encounter, etcetera (e.g. Factotum)

Implicit per encounter balancing: Frequencies of use of abilities are determined by need for actions, in-game times, or are at will, but this is all done in such a way that it will balance on a per encounter basis implicitly (e.g. Warlock)

Class-variable balancing: Different classes are balanced using different methods (and the balance of each class is approximated to each other through converting the balancing methods to one another on the basis of empirical averages of play) to provide for diversity and differential strength and weaknesses (e.g. Current D&D system of class-balancing)

Multiple balancing: Multiple balancing methods are used, but each class is balanced with respect to other classes in all the balancing methods

Roleplaying balancing: Classes are not explicitly mechanically balanced, but roleplaying restrictions, codes of conduct, taboos, etcetera are supposed bring them into balance

No balancing: Classes are not balanced at all

Other: Some other balancing system (please post it below)

 

[Roman]

For the explanation of my 'no balancing' and 'other balancing' vote: I find systems that use differential rates of advancement to balance classes to be viable. I also find systems that do not balance classes to be reasonable in those cases where this is explicitly the aim of the system for reasons such as flavour being more important than balance.

 

[FireLance]

I'm in favor of:

1. Mostly (say, 60-80%) implicit per encounter balancing, with some abilities/points that are refreshed less often, say once per day or per level. Examples of the latter could include hit points, lay on hands and similar healing abilities, action points, magic items with daily charges, etc.

2. Multiple balancing for the basic classes, class-variable balancing for advanced classes (by "advanced class" I don't mean prestige classes, but any class that requires more experience to play or to DM for), and some explicit discussion of the assumptions made during class-variable balancing and the circumstances under which this might break down.

3. Working role-playing balance into mechanical balance, similar to the knight's code in PHB2, or providing a small benefit (e.g. a karma/action point) each time the PC gives up an advantage because of his code.

 

[Baby Samurai]

If only they would balance the next edition of D&D around "per encounter" (ala ToB and Star Wars: Saga Edition).

...I would be a very happy little rumper.

 

[S'mon]

I voted "explicit per encounter", but I'm thinking of the Turn concept from Classic D&D, where you had 60 combat rounds per 10 minute Turn, but all encounters took 1 Turn including after battle rest/recharge/recovery, binding wounds to avoid further hp loss, searching bodies etc. It's a small point, but it effectively avoided 3e's many timing problems with PCs adventuring for 5 minutes (50 combat rounds) per day, then resting overnight! In hindsight, 3e discarding the 10 minute Turns was IMO a huge mistake.

I think return to Turns and a 'per Turn' limiter, with an injunction that encounters always take approximately 1 Turn, is the way to go.

 

[Starglim]

I don't like the feel of per-encounter balancing - too much instant gratification and pandering for me. I think it limits the chance for a player to shine by 'winning' an encounter. PCs should balance on a slightly longer scale, such as per game session, per Act (a definable section of an adventure) or maybe per character level.

 

[S'mon]

BTW I think previous editions' "per adventure" balancing, where an adventure was a single day-long trip down the dungeon, generally worked fine. The important thing there was that at high levels, most encounters did not seriously challenge the party, and warrior types had an effective resource in their hit points. 3e's "most encounters must challenge the party and use up 20-25% resources" approach is intended to make every battle exciting on the battle-grid, since there's a real chance of PC death, but strongly discourages a 1e style approach. What usually happens is that Fighters lose lots of hp, spellcasters use up their best spells, and everyone rests after 1-2 encounters. It's bad design for a dungeon crawl game IMO.

Edit: So, I'd advocate balancing per Turn or per Session.

 

[FireLance]

I don't like the feel of per-encounter balancing - too much instant gratification and pandering for me. I think it limits the chance for a player to shine by 'winning' an encounter. PCs should balance on a slightly longer scale, such as per game session, per Act (a definable section of an adventure) or maybe per character level.

I find this to be a rather intriguing perspective. How is per-encounter balancing "instant gratification" or "pandering", and balancing over a longer scale, not?

 

[hong]

I don't like the feel of per-encounter balancing - too much instant gratification and pandering for me.

I do not think these words mean what you think they mean.

 

[shilsen]

Adaptive balancing - Ban or modify particularly egregious (according to me, of course) rules issues and otherwise balance individual characters against each other by providing a variety of challenges that allow all of them to shine to approximately the same degree.

A lot of the balancing by adventure or encounter is meaningless to my game, since I eschew dungeon crawls and usually have one or at most two encounters in a given day in-game.