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
Why do you define balance as equal focus?

Umbran may not, but let's face it, reasonably equal focus between players is probably the most important balance there is in an RPG. To use TV show/movie terminology, you don't want a game to be a star vehicle for one player, they should all be ensemble productions. Relative balance in class/character abilities can help promote equitable focus, but many of the techniques a GM will need to use to promote focus balance will be external to class/character ability mechanics. It's also one reason that a GM can run a game that feels reasonably balanced even if playing with Thor and Hawkeye or Superman and Elongated Man in the same superhero organization.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

D&D is also about combat, and lots of it.* My suspicion is that "class balance" doesn't come up much if it's not in a D&D context, and it's not very useful to apply it across the board (no pun), anyway.

So, is class balance needed in D&D? As ninjayeti points out: yes. A D&D player isn't going to have much fun if his or her character doesn't do something interesting or productive, in combat, as often as the other PCs do. A DM is free to take the focus off combat (and away from the concept of class balance), but then you'll have an entire class (pun intended) of PCs scratching their heads, wondering why they're playing fighters, barbarians, monks, etc

I dont deny the importance of combat in your game,
but base of what I see in rules and official comments the importance of combat is lower than the expectation of some posters here.
There is also a great difference between the competitive needs and the cooperative needs. This rules set have been design on a cooperative point of view, cooperation between players and With the Dm. If you look for a more competitive or challenging play style, you will be disappointed in some rules sharpness and balance.
 

I dont deny the importance of combat in your game,
but base of what I see in rules and official comments the importance of combat is lower than the expectation of some posters here.
There is also a great difference between the competitive needs and the cooperative needs. This rules set have been design on a cooperative point of view, cooperation between players and With the Dm. If you look for a more competitive or challenging play style, you will be disappointed in some rules sharpness and balance.
5e's balance in combat isn't ideal, but most classes seem reasonable close to each other in terms of most characters being generally able to make a valued contribution in combat.

I find that it is in the other two pillars of the game where there are more severe balance issues that impact player enjoyment and engagement in terms of classes and game mechanics.
 

I think a more generally accepted meaning of balance when discussed by those familiar with the topic, is that there should be reasonable parity between any two given concepts. It doesn't mean they necessarily need to be perfectly equal in all things. Even 4e, arguably the best balanced version of D&D, never did that.
There's also the question of balance in the short- or immediate-term (can I contribute equally in every combat or even in every round) vs balance in the long-term (this class will shine in this adventure, that class in the next one, etc.; or this class will suck at low levels but make up for it later).

Orignally, long-term balance was all that was required and-or considered. More recently, short-term balance and immediate-term balance have become central to design; IMO too much so.

The example of the soccer player who scores lots of goals vs the one who gets lots of assists is an apt one. However, if there is a third player who is functionally just running back and forth across the field, effectively just watching the game despite trying to contribute, that's a real issue of balance.
And there's the fourth player, who doesn't run around much and (almost) never scores but who is often every bit as important to the team as the striker or the playmaker, and that's the goalkeeper. Also, that third player who is "just running around" today might be vital in the next game as a central defender.

And that's just it: in a given game it's very unlikely all four will contribute equally, for any number of reasons (e.g. quality of opposition and-or marking, nagging injury, manager's tactics for the match, or even simply one of them just having an off day). But over a whole season they'll all chuck in their share, and the team will be as good (or bad!) as they make it.

Single game = short-term balance. Whole season = long-term balance. Which matters most, over a campaign?
 

5e's balance in combat isn't ideal, but most classes seem reasonable close to each other in terms of most characters being generally able to make a valued contribution in combat.

I find that it is in the other two pillars of the game where there are more severe balance issues that impact player enjoyment and engagement in terms of classes and game mechanics.
In games I play, the social pillar focus a lot on character personality, goal, bond, flaws. In this aspect character class and even level don’t influence that much. The social pillar is not only succeeding charisma check.

in my opinion the exploration pillar cover the classic dungeon crawl exploration, but also all discussion on tactics, mission goal, storyline understanding, evaluation of threats. Skill monkey and casters may be advantaged, but any classes could help and partcicipate actively.
 

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.
Sounds like 4E.
 


Let me get a bit anecdotal here. My first character in D&D, coming from a DSA thief-like char, was a 3.0 bard. I loved the "fantasy" of being a bard, I loved my character background and everything. Still, after hours of play. I hated my class. Why? Because I just felt like I could not contribute. My character was a burden.

Yep, I could do "inspire courage" which added a whopping +1 to attack and damage to "I attack" players (of which we had one). Also, I could fire a bow with 1d8+1 damage (+ some magical enhancement at some point), while the wizard 10d6 fireballed his way. I also had spells up to level 6 max which were either buff spells (our wizard could buff better) or healing spells (we had no cleric, but our pally could lay on hands) or charms which had rather low DCs and didn't work well against planar foes (this was Planescape, mind you) or you usual dungeon denizens.

So I tried to talk to the antagonists/NPC/whatever (that charisma needed to be worth someting, amirite?), but the DM just called for initiative. Again and again. Didn't help that his antagonists oftentimes were wizards or sorcerers, thus more ready to connect to our OP wizard and surrendered to him after he had proven his point with his 4 spells per round at epic level. Oh and did I mention time stop?

Yes, he played a fantastic concept as well, thought about his char's motivation and all, and I loved that wizard but I wasn't just allowed to shine and take my share.

So I totally agree with Umbran. I'd risk playing a low-powered char if I knew the DM knew exactly what they were doing. In most of the cases, they are not equipped to handle it though.
 

The thing about balance is that it's need to be the more finely tuned the more similiar the things are. This is why small differences in DPR become so noticeable.

If a game offers you two choices: 1)Bad ass warrior or 2) Regular guy who turns into a bat, these things are both very different and therefore hard to balance in any meaningful way. How useful is being a badass warriors compared to turning into a bat? Difficult to say and will depend a lot on the individual game.

But if a game offers you three different ways to be a badass warrior than you better make damn sure they're pretty closely balanced, because they're directly comparable.
 

He didn't define balance as equal focus. He did so very explicitly in the very text you quoted. He stated balance makes sharing of focus easier. That doesn't define balance as equal focus. If I say "eggs make baking cookies easier", that doesn't mean I define eggs as chocolate chip cookies!

Sorry to engage in non-linear conversation, but, one definition of balance I ran across that seemed to work really well for RPGs was something like:

"a game is better balanced the more choices it presents the player that are both meaningful and viable."

Why would you quote something someone says, then immediately ask "why are you saying something you didn't say?"
Because it's the internet. ;)

There is also a great difference between the competitive needs and the cooperative needs. This rules set have been design on a cooperative point of view, cooperation between players and With the Dm. If you look for a more competitive or challenging play style, you will be disappointed in some rules sharpness and balance.
If anything, balance (above underlined definition) is more important in a cooperative game than a competitive one.

In a competitive game, fairness is quite adequate. Equally weighted choices can be of varying value in a competitive game, it just makes those choices part of the competition. First make the best choices, then put in the best performance with them, and you win. As long as every player has access to all the same choices, it's fair - balance be damned.

Balance is a higher standard, and, in a cooperative game, the performance of every player contributes to victory, so underperformance whether due to a sub-optimal or non-viable choice, or due to poor play, is undesirable. Thus, non-viable choices presented in a cooperative game aren't real choices, they'll be eschewed by better players - and by players taking advice from those they're cooperating with, in favor of viable choices. They might as well not exist.

Less obviously, it matters if choices are meaningful, as well, because, well, players are making them, and if there's nothing to choose between them, again, it's not a real choice. The reduction ad absurdum of 'perfect balance' - everyone plays exactly the same thing with exactly the same stats - thus isn't balance, at all.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top