D&D General Worlds of Design: A Question of Balance

Some people think that every character class must be equally balanced with every other class, but why is that necessary? Are they competing with the other players in a co-operative game?
aquestionofbalance.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay
The Destination or the Journey?

When approaching a discussion of class balance, it's worth asking the question: is an RPG session a destination or a journey? Or to put it another way, is an RPG session "mental gymnastics" or an "adventure"? I think the latter in both cases. Consequently, shouldn't character classes be about different ways to succeed, not about "power" (or whatever it is that has to be "equal" between each character)?

The concept of asymmetry--different starting capabilities and assets on each side--is very important in some kinds of games, like historical strategy games. It's hard to sensibly reproduce history symmetrically, in which all players start at the same level of power; for an example of how this is handled in a board game, see Risk. There's good reason for this. One of the easiest ways to achieve "balance" in a game is to make it symmetric, with everyone beginning "the same."

The need for symmetric play has spilled over in video game design, with all classes being balanced against each other, even in single-player. That style of game development has influenced modern tabletop games for similar reasons: keeping all players equal smooths out the game's design. But I think something is lost in forcing symmetric design in a tabletop role-playing game.

What's Class Balance, Anyway?

The first problem is that "class balance" is a fungible metric. Presumably, all classes are "equally powerful" but what does that mean, really? If play is all about the individual, the game turns into a competition between players to see who can show off the most. For games where personal power is important, this can make sense--but I don't find it conducive to the fundamentals of teamwork Dungeons & Dragons was built on. If D&D is about cooperation, flattening out every character's power implies that they're in competition with each other.

When the game is about the success of the group as a whole, about co-operation, then there may be compensations for playing a less powerful class. In fact, some of the classes by their very nature are inherently unbalanced for a reason. Jonathan Tweet's most recent article about The Unbalanced Cleric is a perfect example. And there are opportunities for creativity in how your "less powerful" character copes with adventuring.

Variety is the Spice of Life

There's also something to be said for the variety that comes from characters of differing capabilities. It doesn't matter to me if some characters are more powerful than others, whether it's because of class, or items owned, or something else. Different characters with different power levels creates a form of interesting play.

Here's a real life analogy: The soccer striker who scores a lot versus one who makes many chances/assists and helps the team maintain possession. But in a profession where it's so hard to score, the one who scores a lot will usually be regarded as a better player ("more powerful"), or at least the one who is paid more. Yet both are equally valuable to the team. And offensive players tend to be more highly regarded than defensive players.

Magic is Not Balanced

Then there's the issue of magic. In earlier versions of D&D, magic-users did much more damage than anyone else thanks to area effect spells (I tracked this once with the aid of a program I wrote for a Radio Shack Model 100!). In a fantasy, doesn't it make sense for the magic users to be the most powerful characters? Heroes in novels, who often don't wield magic, are exceptions in many ways: without a lot of luck, they would never succeed.

Designers can avoid the "problem" of character class balance by using skill-based rules rather than rules with character classes. You can let players differentiate themselves from others by the skills they choose, without "unbalancing" them. And shouldn't each character feel different? There are certainly archetypes that character classes often follow, yet those archetypes exist for reasons other than "play balance!"

Still, won't magic use dominate? A GM/game designer can do things to mitigate the power of magic. For example. magic can be dangerous to use, and the world can be one of low rather than high magic, e.g. like Middle-earth more than like The Wheel of Time.

The Value of Combined Arms

In the only RPG I've designed--which is intended for use with a board game, so that simplicity is paramount--I use a classless system. But for a bigger game such as D&D, multiple classes help provide both differentiation and opportunities for cooperation ("combined arms"). And I enjoy devising new character classes. Whether you need a dozen or more classes is open to question, however. Nor do they need to be "equal."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
However, you can achieve a lot more with ingenuity, intelligence, creativity and a large toolkit of powerful tools. The more, and better tools you have, the more they multiply the ways you can apply your ingenuity etc.
When it comes to screwing in things, opening paint pots, and stabbing people, you can turn to either workman. For almost anything else, you'll be turning to the workman with the large and varied toolkit.
The player that control the Wizard that teleport the party may poorly contribute to the fun of the session if he do it mechanically.
but the player who control the champion fighter may save the session by telling us how important is this mission, and giving some meaning and sense to the next fights.

the evaluation of the contribution of a player to a session is not only the spells cast by its character, or the number of skill check he succeed, or the damage done.
it may also be how much fun he give to other player and the dm, or the occasion he give to other to shine in different aspect of the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The need of optimal choices to play DnD is exaggerated.
I'd hoped I was clear - sub-optimal or 'poor play' may be undesireable, but it's non-viable that's the flag for imbalanced.
there is also a difference between cooperate to perform in a combat or goal driven mode, and cooperate to help each other to role play better its character.
There is, the latter is just not relevant to whether a given choice is balanced.
Absolutely, short-term balance.

Sure, great, your Gandalf character takes on the Balrog. But, the other 600 pages of the novel, he's basically not even worth mentioning.
Other than that 550 of that page count is him spouting exposition, of course.
Oh, and he's a 5th level MU ...hur, hur, never gets old...
...oh, wait, long white beard, nevermind...

RPG's are not a spectator sport.
Critical Role?

That's where game balance comes in. The old AD&D MU character was balanced on long-term. Only problem was, that meant you wound up with multiple points of boredom while the MU just had nothing to contribute and, frequently, the campaign ended before the payoff occured.
TBF, a lucky MU starting with the right spell contributed significantly in one encounter/day (and a 'day' could be a little over 4hrs, depending on how your DM read the rules - 'lucky' also heavily depended on that), by 3rd you likely got a spell that could be a bit of a game-changer used 'cleverly,' and by 5th you were fine... by 9th, watch out. Sure, past name level the MU went totally insane with power, but, everyone also just stopped playing. Those high-level MUs were likely mainly meant to be baddies. Like the EHP.

Long term balance is just multiple points of imbalance with a tiny, tiny sweet spot in the middle that may or may not ever actually occur.
Balance at a point or balance on a razor's edge might be a better way of putting it than 'long term balance.' Balance-of-imbalances also works, or rather, conveys how poorly it works. ;)

I feel there is a distinction between co-operative storytelling and RPG.
… sure, like, well, rules for instance.

The rules for the former might be "Say 'yes, and...'" and maybe 'stay in genre.'
The rules for the latter: :thunk!: "this is volumes I-XIII, there'll be a test, later"
;)
 
Last edited:

Lucas Yew

Explorer
Just try to avoid the Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit situation (unless agreed upon Session Zero) and then at least individual sessions should be salvaged from crashing.

And no, after growing up with bountiful Wuxia influences despite not being a Chinese, I just flatly refuse to see "martials" as an inherently inferior concept to "spellcasters".
 

Hussar

Legend
The player that control the Wizard that teleport the party may poorly contribute to the fun of the session if he do it mechanically.
but the player who control the champion fighter may save the session by telling us how important is this mission, and giving some meaning and sense to the next fights.

the evaluation of the contribution of a player to a session is not only the spells cast by its character, or the number of skill check he succeed, or the damage done.
it may also be how much fun he give to other player and the dm, or the occasion he give to other to shine in different aspect of the game.

But, most of that is orthogonal to the game. ANYONE could be the one to "save the session". It could be that champion fighter, or it could be the guy who's controlling the spotlight in every other scene as well. You cannot balance the game based on the notion that "well, it's okay that you aren't really contributing most of the time so long as your contribution has nothing to do with the game itself".

Game balance means that a given choice isn't so overwhelmingly superior that any other choice is no longer logical. There is no real logical choice to play a 3e fighter. The class was just so badly overshadowed by the other classes that, by fairly low level, that fighter was pretty much so much baggage to be dragged along. Sure, you could, if you were really good and your DM allowed you to use a bunch of splat books, just barely keep up with the Tier 2 classes, so long as the players of those tier 2 classes weren't very good at making optimal class choices. But, compared to a Tier 1 class, you were back to Angel Summoner and BMX bandit.

Yes, you could "save the session" with that fighter, but, you could also just as easily "save the session" with a cleric or druid and STILL shine all the other times as well.

THAT'S what class balance is all about.
 

As usual, someone criticizes "balance" and then (a) only ever talks about strawman versions of the concept, and (b) talks up all the positives of allegedly avoiding "balance" without ever considering the many, sustained, and significant downsides of being completely blind to balance.

To paraphrase HL Mencken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Game design is a complex problem. Platitudes like "variety is the spice of life" and "it's a cooperative game, stop trying to make it competitive" are an example of a clear, simple, and wrong solution.

Because it's totally irrational to (a) define the goals you intend a system to support, (b) establish metrics by which you can check how well you've met those goals, and (c) iteratively design until those goals have been met. That's what "balance" means. But of course, it must always be cast as taking the toys away, as killing the magic, as turning players against one another. Nobody ever got upset or felt left out when a cooperative game failed to let them cooperate the way they wanted to, so if anyone does it must be because they're the bad guys! They're ruining our cooperative feel-good fun with their competitive, gotta-be-the-best attitude!
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Absolutely, short-term balance.

Posit a campaign that is 100 sessions long. (I'm picking a number out of a hat, just for the sake of conversation). Now, a class that only shines, say, 1 session in 3, means that that player is riding the pines, not doing much more than observing 2/3rds of the time. Sure, 1/3 of the time, he's a freaking rock star. Fantastic. But, the other couple of hundred hours of play, he might as well not even be at the table.
So if each class can shine 1 session out of three and be support for the other two, then balance - right?

Meanwhile, the short term balance players, while they might not be shining 100% percent of the time, are at least shining every single session. There's a reason for that character to be at the table every single time. That character MATTERS. Sure, great, your Gandalf character takes on the Balrog. But, the other 600 pages of the novel, he's basically not even worth mentioning.

Which means that that player is bored out of his skull most of the time.
Or is finding ways to contribute notwithstanding.

RPG's are not a spectator sport.
The Critical Role gang might beg to disagree on that. :)

We don't need a character or a player that isn't engaged most of the time. We don't need a relief pitcher in an RPG. We need workhorse classes that are needed all the time.
Here I disagree, to the extent that I take it as a given there's going to be some sessions where I have little to nothing to do and other sessions where I'm at the center of everything. To me it's just part of the game.

That's where game balance comes in. The old AD&D MU character was balanced on long-term. Only problem was, that meant you wound up with multiple points of boredom while the MU just had nothing to contribute and, frequently, the campaign ended before the payoff occured. Yay, I just wasted a hundred hours of play watching everyone else have a great time while I got to throw my sleep spell once every ten hours. Whoopee!
I put that right back on you. A MU of the sort of level that only gets one spell a day is (relatively speaking) quite capable in melee*, and in theory has enough intelligence to pull off all sorts of other things outside of combat e.g. planning, tactics, negotiation, etc.

* - I know this because gawds know I've played enough of 'em. :)

Long term balance is a myth. All long term balance actually is is multiple points of imbalance with a tiny, tiny sweet spot in the middle that may or may not ever actually occur.
There's another version of long-term balance that often gets ignored, on the per-adventure level.

A Druid in a wilderness adventure is likely to be gobs more useful than he'd be in an underground dungeon crawl. An Illusionist is likely to be gobs more useful against a bunch of dumb Ogres than she is against a crypt full of mindless undead. And so forth, meaning it's largely on the DM to make sure there's a variety of different adventure types crop up such that everyone gets their star turn.
 

The need of optimal choices to play DnD is exaggerated.
there is also a difference between cooperate to perform in a combat or goal driven mode, and cooperate to help each other to role play better its character.
Cooperating to roleplaying the characters and increasing the fun of the session is usually unrestricted by class or game mechanics. Thus its not really relevant to a discussion of class balance.
You have to assume the player capabilities are equal. You cannot assume that the player who ends up with a "big toolbox" class is going to be bad at the non-mechanical aspects of the game, in order to make sure that the player with the "screwdriver class" is the one who shines at them.
Frankly, I think that it is quite likely that a player who is creative and a good problem-solver is going to be attracted to a "big toolbox class" because they probably value creativity and problem solving, and thus pick a class that it good at it.

The player that control the Wizard that teleport the party may poorly contribute to the fun of the session if he do it mechanically.
but the player who control the champion fighter may save the session by telling us how important is this mission, and giving some meaning and sense to the next fights.
The player that control the Wizard that teleport the party may also save the session by telling us how important is this mission, and giving some meaning and sense to the next fights.
But the player who control the champion fighter may poorly contribute to the fun of the session if he does not do it non-mechanically, because being able to reliably get 25 on a Str(Athletics) check is not going to get the party across the continent before nightfall.

the evaluation of the contribution of a player to a session is not only the spells cast by its character, or the number of skill check he succeed, or the damage done.
it may also be how much fun he give to other player and the dm, or the occasion he give to other to shine in different aspect of the game.
Again, arguing that players are unbalanced is not an argument against making the classes unbalanced.
If you're having to assume that it is always the player of the more mechanically-capable class who is less non-mechanically capable, you may need to rethink your line of argument.

Just try to avoid the Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit situation (unless agreed upon Session Zero) and then at least individual sessions should be salvaged from crashing.

And no, after growing up with bountiful Wuxia influences despite not being a Chinese, I just flatly refuse to see "martials" as an inherently inferior concept to "spellcasters".
Problem is, in the D&D ruleset, you need to use magic to do a lot of what is depicted in wuxia. So the "martials" don't get to do that stuff by the game mechanics.
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
Yeah, players being unbalanced should be addressed by class complexity. Which means offering easy-to-play-but-still-efficient classes/subclasses as well as complex build-your-own-kit classes/subclasses.

In terms of toolboxes: One the one end of the scale, you give your player a complete, functional toolbox and tell them how to use it. On the other end of the scale you let the player pick their own toolbox of roughly the same size from a large variety of tools and let them use it the way they see fit. That's balance in general to me.
 

To paraphrase HL Mencken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Game design is a complex problem. Platitudes like "variety is the spice of life" and "it's a cooperative game, stop trying to make it competitive" are an example of a clear, simple, and wrong solution.

One major issue is that balance is very poorly defined.

My definition is very different from many poster's here. I'm not interested in combat balance nor spotlight sharing. I want classes that bring a unique way to solve problems to the table. The fighter fights; the cleric turns level-draining undead the fighter can't handle and heals the fighter's wounds; the thief scouts to make sure the fighter doesn't get into too much trouble; and the wizard has the Oh-S*** buttons to ensure that if any of the other three f*** up, at least one of the characters survives.

If your definition includes combat roles, our definitions and metrics won't align. One game you might find balanced, but I won't. Another game, I might find balanced and not you. We both might even be right.
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
One major issue is that balance is very poorly defined.

My definition is very different from many poster's here. I'm not interested in combat balance nor spotlight sharing. I want classes that bring a unique way to solve problems to the table. The fighter fights; the cleric turns level-draining undead the fighter can't handle and heals the fighter's wounds; the thief scouts to make sure the fighter doesn't get into too much trouble; and the wizard has the Oh-S*** buttons to ensure that if any of the other three f*** up, at least one of the characters survives.

If your definition includes combat roles, our definitions and metrics won't align. One game you might find balanced, but I won't. Another game, I might find balanced and not you. We both might even be right.

Well, your description only applies to old-school dungeon scenarios...

I understand your general idea though, but what you describe is essentially not about balance, but about interdependancy. To make sure a party needs each other in order to survive.
 

Well, your description only applies to old-school dungeon scenarios...

I understand your general idea though, but what you describe is essentially not about balance, but about interdependancy. To make sure a party needs each other in order to survive.

Why must it apply to dungeons? We've used BX to play court intrigue, wilderness exploration, military campaigns, plane-hopping adventures, and seafaring games - all without problem.

How is interdependancy different that balance?
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
Interdependancy is needed in order to "force" the party to cooperate.

Balance is needed in order to let everyone have their share and contribute "equally".

You can easily imagine a balanced game with no interdependancy. (i.e. a game where every class has such a broad and equal toolkit that they don't necessarily need each other in most situations)

Or you can imagine a heavily interdepedant game without balance (i.e. a game where you need a certain class to deal with traps, and traps are a common obstacle, but that class is useless in any other situation)

Oh and my comment was a bit nit-picky as the situation you described was a 1:1 OldSchool dungeon scenario. -> What would the "undead-turning, healing" cleric do in a social court/intrigue situation? What can a fighter contribute?
 

But the player who control the champion fighter may poorly contribute to the fun of the session if he does not do it non-mechanically, because being able to reliably get 25 on a Str(Athletics) check is not going to get the party across the continent before nightfall.
One of the best sessions I have recent was due mostly by a accumulation of failed skill checks. Our poor roll put the story line in an very unexpected situation for players as well as Dm. instead of blaming our skill bonus we emphasis the situation by role play and explaining ourselves our incapacities.
 

Or you can imagine a heavily interdepedant game without balance (i.e. a game where you need a certain class to deal with traps, and traps are a common obstacle, but that class is useless in any other situation)

Oh and my comment was a bit nit-picky as the situation you described was a 1:1 OldSchool dungeon scenario. -> What would the "undead-turning, healing" cleric do in a social court/intrigue situation? What can a fighter contribute?

What's so imbalanced about the trap finder? If someone thinks playing one is fun, then the can and will continued to the success of the group. If it's no fun, no one can play one, and then the party can avoid adventures where traps are common. Or they can hire one instead of playing one. I see no problem as far as balance is concerned.

In the intrigue, the fighter handled duels and was useful for intimidating rivals. The cleric dealt with the church and was allowed special privilege due to his ability to perform miracles. Healing the sick also made for solid reputation with the common folk.
 

Cooperating to roleplaying the characters and increasing the fun of the session is usually unrestricted by class or game mechanics. Thus its not really relevant to a discussion of class balance.
You have to assume the player capabilities are equal. You cannot assume that the player who ends up with a "big toolbox" class is going to be bad at the non-mechanical aspects of the game, in order to make sure that the player with the "screwdriver class" is the one who shines at them.
Frankly, I think that it is quite likely that a player who is creative and a good problem-solver is going to be attracted to a "big toolbox class" because they probably value creativity and problem solving, and thus pick a class that it good at it.
We play a role playing game, not a problem solving game.
Impersonating a character inspired by X-men wolverine or Conan the barbarian should be dull, and reserved to less skilled players? While impersonating a Charles Xavier should be more fun because of a larger skill set?
 

Game balance means that a given choice isn't so overwhelmingly superior that any other choice is no longer logical. There is no real logical choice to play a 3e fighter.
Honestly there is no such bad choice in 5ed. Even tagged weak sub class such As monk way of elements are not desperated case.
Dnd is not a wargame, we should not expect a precision of balance required by those games.
By default ability scores are rolled, and starting a character with two 13 or two 18 should fit in the game expectation and not should produce feeling of underwhelming or imbalance.
you may feel otherwise, but the game goal and expectation have been built with that level of imprecision.
 

Honestly there is no such bad choice in 5ed. Even tagged weak sub class such As monk way of elements are not desperated case.
Dnd is not a wargame, we should not expect a precision of balance required by those games.
By default ability scores are rolled, and starting a character with two 13 or two 18 should fit in the game expectation and not should produce feeling of underwhelming or imbalance.
you may feel otherwise, but the game goal and expectation have been built with that level of imprecision.

I don't know. I think a dragonborn wizard with 8 INT might not be the best option, regardless of subclass.
 


We play a role playing game, not a problem solving game.
Roleplay doesn't need to interact with the rules mechanics. However other aspects of the game do. A lot of D&D involves problem solving, whether the problem is "how do we fight off these orcs", "how do we get past the guard" or "how does my character go about achieving his ambitions"

Impersonating a character inspired by X-men wolverine or Conan the barbarian should be dull, and reserved to less skilled players? While impersonating a Charles Xavier should be more fun because of a larger skill set?
Exactly! Now you're starting to get it.
 

Lylandra

Adventurer
What's so imbalanced about the trap finder? If someone thinks playing one is fun, then the can and will continued to the success of the group. If it's no fun, no one can play one, and then the party can avoid adventures where traps are common. Or they can hire one instead of playing one. I see no problem as far as balance is concerned.

In the intrigue, the fighter handled duels and was useful for intimidating rivals. The cleric dealt with the church and was allowed special privilege due to his ability to perform miracles. Healing the sick also made for solid reputation with the common folk.

If said trap finder is only good at finding and disarming traps, and traps make up for ~5% of the total game, then that is, by definition, an imbalance of relevant game time. At least in terms of games-y interaction. But I believe that we need to design games in a way that the DM's subjective jurisdiction can be taken out of the equation. Because oftentimes DMs play "by the rules" and little more.

(And yep, I'd totally hate playing Shadowrun with the Decker problematic. Even if the Decker usually has more to do than just roll two dice and be done for the next hour or so)

Also, what you describe is a good example of DMing done right - you considererd the background of your player's classes and let them fill their social niche regardless of skillset. Healing the sick for reputation, for example, is not how the "hard rules" expect you to impress people. At least in D&D. And I guess if you asked for a skill roll, then your rather unskilly cleric would likely screw it up.

Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to say that you're doing it wrong, on the contrary. I just had my fair share of situations where I got an interesting/fitting idea that should have totally worked, only to be limited by "rolling too low" or "not having the required skill". Putting too much faith in good and fair DMing is not a good sign for a game's design philosophy.
 

Epic Threats

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top