Balanced or Unbalanced game?

[Xtomjames]

Here's my beef; D&D is designed to be "balanced" so that all characters classes are roughly at the same power level as every other character of the same level. But the fact is both in reality and in game characters aren't going to be balanced. In the Rift's system this is made inherently obvious. They intentionally didn't balance the game characters.

Each D&D character has special capabilities that make them able to do certain tasks. This is why I hate people who say "of the wizard is broken because they have gate spells and polymorph and this and that spell". That is what a Wizard is for.

For me playing in a game where the players play their characters to what the character is good at is the most fun, I don't care about balance so long as the game is fun to play.

This is why I also dislike people who say power-gaming (or to some munchkining) breaks the game. It doesn't, it means you're utilizing your character to the character's fullest potential. Does power gaming a character when no one else is doing so in game going to unbalance the game, sure. Yet it's the DM's job to make things more challenging for the power gamer while letting the other players play at their pace.

What are your guys' take on this?

[Flickerdart]

It is usually impossible to challenge a single power-gaming player without making the lower power level characters completely useless for the encounter. This is fun for nobody.

It is usually impossible to let a single low-powered player shine when the rest of the party is much stronger - any challenge he could contribute to, the others will find trivial. This is fun for nobody.

Caring about only fun is fine and dandy, but balance within a party lets everyone have fun, including the DM who no longer needs to figure out how to challenge the Incantatrix and let the Samurai shine in the same encounter.

[Kaeso]

I think the problem isn't that some characters are good at one thing and others good at the other, but that some characters are good at everything. I get your point, you say that while a sorcerer may be better than barbarian, it's unlikely he'll ever übercharge. The real problem with DnD is that some classes (tiers 5 and 6) are uncapable of doing anything, while others (tier 1) can do everything, sometimes at the same time (the classic bear riding a bear while summoning bears, buffing the bears, healing the bears and firing a bear-ray out of his bear crotch).

[Xtomjames]

That's the thing though, I think it's perfectly possible to meet the needs of both a power gamer and other gamers at different speeds. Just as it's possible to have a party with different character levels and ECLs working together. It's about the degree of separation rather than pure balance or not.

Each character class has it's flaws and it's strengths so why not play to them rather than try to balance out the game to such a degree that there is not separation in power?


It is usually impossible to challenge a single power-gaming player without making the lower power level characters completely useless for the encounter. This is fun for nobody.

This is a sign of a person with no imagination. It's not impossible, it's not usually impossible. All characters have their use and abilities. If you presume the players can't use their imaginations to use their characters as they are is silly.


It is usually impossible to let a single low-powered player shine when the rest of the party is much stronger - any challenge he could contribute to, the others will find trivial. This is fun for nobody.

Again not so, a low level character could still play a valuable part and shine and gain xp if the group would actually plan on ways to use the character's strengths.


Caring about only fun is fine and dandy, but balance within a party lets everyone have fun, including the DM who no longer needs to figure out how to challenge the Incantatrix and let the Samurai shine in the same encounter.

However it's the job of the DM to figure that out and it's the Job of the players to work that out as well.

We're talking about the difference between 2 dimensional game play and 3 dimensional characters. Level should have less impact on game play than the character's personality and actual function within the group.

[Flickerdart]

This is a sign of a person with no imagination. It's not impossible, it's not usually impossible. All characters have their use and abilities. If you presume the players can't use their imaginations to use their characters as they are is silly.

Imagining you're playing a Wizard instead of a Fighter will not make the Fighter suck any less. "All" characters certainly do not have use.



Again not so, a low level character could still play a valuable part and shine and gain xp if the group would actually plan on ways to use the character's strengths.

You're familiar with the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit video, right?



However it's the job of the DM to figure that out and it's the Job of the players to work that out as well.

We're talking about the difference between 2 dimensional game play and 3 dimensional characters. Level should have less impact on game play than the character's personality and actual function within the group.
Job =/= fun.


Essentially, the problem with your argument is you are suggesting people should enjoy D&D in spite of the system, not because of it. That is very strange, considering that playing D&D without playing D&D is not playing D&D at all, and makes one wonder why you needed D&D to begin with.

[Ravens_cry]

And yet, despite this, there is people play D&D, with Fighters and Wizards in the same group, and yet, despite these seemingly unassailable obstacles, actually have fun. Crazy, I know, but true from my own personal experience.
Obviously we must be missing something here.

[Kojiro]

It's possible, but it's not necessarily a certainty. Depends on the players; someone playing Vaarsuvius isn't going to overshadow the rest of the party as much as a "Batman" Wizard or one abusing Simulacra for infinite whatever. Likewise, a Druid who behaves like... Well, like a Druid, isn't as bad as the aforementioned bear army, or one who thinks it's perfectly fine to do everything by himself and use the rest of the party as his personal audience. Or, heck, a new player who just chooses what turns out to be a really effective Wild Shape because it looked awesome. Sometimes, accidentally or intentionally, people can take a majority of the focus to themselves and leave the others feeling useless (mainly because, with that character around, they are).

[Shadowknight12]

We're talking about the difference between 2 dimensional game play and 3 dimensional characters. Level should have less impact on game play than the character's personality and actual function within the group.

The entirety of your argument (but especially this) can be summed up as "People who care about mechanical balance are missing the point! Balance is superfluous! Players should not care about contributing equally to combat! They should care about roleplaying!"

You will find that this opinion is not widely shared among your peers. And I would advise, quite amicably, that you might want to phrase your arguments better in the future, to avoid giving off the idea that you hold opposing views with disdain. It really comes off as though you believed that those who see things differently are not enlightened enough.

[Ravens_cry]

It's possible, but it's not necessarily a certainty. Depends on the players; someone playing Vaarsuvius isn't going to overshadow the rest of the party as much as a "Batman" Wizard or one abusing Simulacra for infinite whatever. Likewise, a Druid who behaves like... Well, like a Druid, isn't as bad as the aforementioned bear army, or one who thinks it's perfectly fine to do everything by himself and use the rest of the party as his personal audience. Or, heck, a new player who just chooses what turns out to be a really effective Wild Shape because it looked awesome. Sometimes, accidentally or intentionally, people can take a majority of the focus to themselves and leave the others feeling useless (mainly because, with that character around, they are).
If they are willing to follow the Gentle-beings Code of Gaming Ethics, these problems can be alleviated quickly and with a minimum of fuss. Put simply, don't be a jerk, remember that helping other people have fun adds to your fun, and leave it at the table.
No, it is not certain, but for me, such a simple code, even just the first rule, is sufficient in 3.X.
Don't be a jerk.
Follow it and your game is hard-pressed to fail.

[Flickerdart]

If they are willing to follow the Gentle-beings Code of Gaming Ethics, these problems can be alleviated quickly and with a minimum of fuss. Put simply, don't be a jerk, remember that helping other people have fun adds to your fun, and leave it at the table.
No, it is not certain, but for me, such a simple code, even just the first rule, is sufficient in 3.X.
Don't be a jerk.
Follow it and your game is hard-pressed to fail.
Let us suppose there are three novice players, Dean, Fred and Timmy. Dean took the Druid class, and a bear companion, because bears are cool. At fifth level, he gets Wild Shape, and turns into a bear. Finding that this makes him good at fighting, he takes Natural Spell at level 6 so he can use his spells while being a bear.
Fred is a Fighter. Dean's bear is as powerful as Fred's character.
Timmy is a Truenamer. His abilities fail most of the time, and when they do, they are not as powerful as Dean's spells by a long shot.
Is Dean being a jerk? No. But he's still contributing more to the game than both his party members put together, unless he takes pains to gimp himself intentionally ("sure, bears are cool, but I'll take a Hawk so you can fight; sure, spells are cool but I won't cast any so you can Utter").

[Fox Box Socks]

"Balance" in 3.5 is largely dependent on DM bannings, how the DM reacts to the material, and the social contract. In the case of, say, Divine Metamagic, either the DM forbids the guy playing the Cleric from using it, the guy playing the Cleric agrees not to take it, the DM has the universe conspire to somehow cast Dispel Magic / Greater Dispel Magic on the Cleric between two and four times every day, or the Cleric proceeds to tear the campaign in half.

[Ravens_cry]

Let us suppose there are three novice players, Dean, Fred and Timmy. Dean took the Druid class, and a bear companion, because bears are cool. At fifth level, he gets Wild Shape, and turns into a bear. Finding that this makes him good at fighting, he takes Natural Spell at level 6 so he can use his spells while being a bear.
Fred is a Fighter. Dean's bear is as powerful as Fred's character.
Timmy is a Truenamer. His abilities fail most of the time, and when they do, they are not as powerful as Dean's spells by a long shot.
Is Dean being a jerk? No. But he's still contributing more to the game than both his party members put together, unless he takes pains to gimp himself intentionally ("sure, bears are cool, but I'll take a Hawk so you can fight; sure, spells are cool but I won't cast any so you can Utter").
The fighter can still contribute as a fighter. So what if he isn't the only melee type? I was in a group with three front liner types, not including a rogue and a primarily bow ranger that also could, in theory, step up and take a hit. We all did out part to keep the squishies from being squashed.
Truenamer I admit is a terminally bad class. But hey, depending on optimization levels, it could, in theory, work well enough for that group. It can potentially be a good challenge for someone who finds a lot of fun in optimizing for the sake of it in an otherwise low optimization group, taking an abysmal class and making it work well enough for your group.
And that is just the mechanical side.
While D&D is a combat focused game ,I can say from personal experience my favourite moment required no rolling of dice.
It was a wedding between my character and an NPC my PC had been building a relationship with the whole darn game. It was culmination of a goal my character had carried throughout almost the entire campaign. Yes, any PC can have wonderful role playing moments. But that is just it, any PC, regardless of optimization, high or low, can have wonderful role playing moments. It is a potentially universal joy and it created my favourite session ever.

[Psyren]

Here's my beef; D&D is designed to be "balanced" so that all characters classes are roughly at the same power level as every other character of the same level.

Not sure where you got this notion but I can't agree with it. I saw casters as always being intended to end up better than melee - the "late bloomers" that would require protection in the early levels so they could turn around and buff the party to heroic heights in the lategame. The Magikarp (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagikarpPower), if you will.

Obviously, it didn't work out that way - casters may need some protection early on, but they take over much earlier than WotC thought they would. And some casters (e.g. the Cleric and especially the Druid) never have a magikarp phase - they can hold their own at all levels and only grow less balanced with the melee classes as the game progresses.

Now, to answer your question:


Yet it's the DM's job to make things more challenging for the power gamer while letting the other players play at their pace.

What are your guys' take on this?

This is not possible to do unless your other players are totally oblivious. Nobody - or perhaps I should say no adult - likes feeling that they are being pandered to with a reduced challenge while their cool wizard buddy gets to do the real work. And the wizard probably won't feel good either unless he's an attention-hog.

A better solution is to have your powergamer take a weak/low-tier class, and optimize the hell out of it to equal the other party members. He wants to be a wizard or sorcerer? Give him a RAW Shadowcaster instead. He wants to be a Druid? Give him a Wildshape Ranger. Factotum? Savant. If he's truly an optimizer - rather than a munchkin - he'll relish the challenge while still being in line with the others.

[Flickerdart]

The fighter can still contribute as a fighter. So what if he isn't the only melee type? I was in a group with three front liner types, not including a rogue and a primarily bow ranger that also could, in theory, step up and take a hit. We all did out part to keep the squishies from being squashed.
Truenamer I admit is a terminally bad class. But hey, depending on optimization levels, it could, in theory, work well enough for that group. It can potentially be a good challenge for someone who finds a lot of fun in optimizing for the sake of it in an otherwise low optimization group, taking an abysmal class and making it work well enough for your group.
And that is just the mechanical side.
While D&D is a combat focused game ,I can say from personal experience my favourite moment required no rolling of dice.
It was a wedding between my character and an NPC my PC had been building a relationship with the whole darn game. It was culmination of a goal my character had carried throughout almost the entire campaign. Yes, any PC can have wonderful role playing moments. But that is just it, any PC, regardless of optimization, high or low, can have wonderful role playing moments. It is a potentially universal joy and it created my favourite session ever.
Even an optimized Truenamer works terribly poorly. I'm sure you've read zaq's journal, and if you haven't, you should.

The rest...yes, when you aren't using the mechanics, the mechanical disadvantages of most classes disappear. Funny how that works, eh?

[Ravens_cry]

Even an optimized Truenamer works terribly poorly. I'm sure you've read zaq's journal, and if you haven't, you should.
By what standards? No group has the same performance requirements.I agree there is something wrong with a class that can eventually not use its class abilities simply by virtue of levelling. A Fighter at level 20 can still potentially hit things with their weapon of choice.


The rest...yes, when you aren't using the mechanics, the mechanical disadvantages of most classes disappear. Funny how that works, eh?
So? That was exactly my point. The part that used mechanics is only a part of the game.
Like I said, this is a potentially universal joy. Optimized or unoptimized, we can all role play.

[Fox Box Socks]

Here's my beef; D&D is designed to be "balanced" so that all characters classes are roughly at the same power level as every other character of the same level.
No.

Well, no in 3.5. If this is what you're looking for in an RPG, 4th Edition probably has more of what you want than 3.5.

[Flickerdart]

By what standards? No group has the same performance requirements.I agree there is something wrong with a class that can eventually not use its class abilities simply by virtue of levelling. A Fighter at level 20 can still potentially hit things with their weapon of choice.

By the standards of a challenge rating appropriate encounter. Potentially hitting things is all well and good, but at that level, most monsters have a better full attack unless the Fighter really optimizes. Fighter walks in, attacks, and then gets chopped into a fine paste. Against a stronger threat (consider a Fighter 20 versus a lone Nightwalker, a CR16 encounter) the Fighter stands practically no chance.




So? That was exactly my point. The part that used mechanics is only a part of the game.
Like I said, this is a potentially universal joy. Optimized or unoptimized, we can all role play.
Well, unless you didn't take the social skills to do so, or can't afford the mental stats you want...if you are ignoring these things, then you are swapping between D&D and freeform. And while there is nothing wrong with freeform, it has nothing to do with D&D, which this is the forum for, and which this thread addresses.

[JackRackham]

What about pacing? Restrict the ability to rest (this can be accomplished through storyline, rather than DM fiat). Then, have a number of smaller, easier encounters in which the fighters and rogues of the campaign can thrive, followed by a big encounter, where the wizards and druids can stretch their legs. The higher tier characters, usually casters, still have a limited number of spells and will want to save them (at least the higher level ones) for more challenging encounters. Everyone need not feel useful in every battle (they won't, unless they're all tier 1, which would really be kind of lame), so long as everyone feels useful in the campaign as a whole.

This is my theory. Take it for what it's worth.

Also....yeah, role-playing too.

Edit: LOOOL, I accidentally put barbarians (rather than druids) with wizards. Fixed.

[Larpus]

Also depends on the mindset of the players.

I've already being a dumb dum Barbarian a party with a Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid and a Bard, they all were more intelligent than me and could also do more things than me; however I knew what I was getting into, I like Barbarians and as much as I know they blow when compared to Wizards, I still enjoy to play them, so I was fine with my short comings and was able to have fun, simply 'cus I knew my limitations.

However, I've seen the opposite happen, this time around I was a Duskblade, the rest of the party was a Wildshaper Ranger, a Sorcerer, a Cleric and the Barbarian...now the guy got pissed at me and the Ranger for being "better than him" at melee combat (mind you he wasn't that optimized despite claiming that he was the Barbarian master) and that the Sorcerer and Cleric could handle out of combat much better than him...still, what did he expect? He was a veteran 3.5 player, so how come he actually thought a Barbarian could be so much better than everyone else at everything?

Another thing is the aforementioned "don't be a jerk" as in, if there's a meleer in the party, refrain from summoning the dragon who outdamages him, just 'cus you can doesn't mean you should.

However, the system is a freaking unbalanced mess, it's beyond salvation, mainly because the designers seemingly put too much faith on AC, BAB and HD, but failed to balance it properly with spells; then on top of that you have the poorly designed versatility of melee vs. magic, since melee needs a bazillion feats to be good at either 2H, TWF, S&B or Archery, while magic doesn't need any feat to be able to use all the spells at disposal.

I agree that there are ways to work around the system so the imbalance doesn't hurt (so much), but that alone is already a sign of how bad the problem is, which usually hurts new players more than experienced ones, as Flickerdart pointed out.

Seriously, how many new players you know who are completely ok with being a useless Fighter who watches the Wizard tear reality apart and back together while the Druid and Cleric do any and everything they want to with ease including melee which was supposed to be his specialty?

[Ravens_cry]

By the standards of a challenge rating appropriate encounter. Potentially hitting things is all well and good, but at that level, most monsters have a better full attack unless the Fighter really optimizes. Fighter walks in, attacks, and then gets chopped into a fine paste. Against a stronger threat (consider a Fighter 20 versus a lone Nightwalker, a CR16 encounter) the Fighter stands practically no chance.
Following the CR system to the letter is a recipe for a TPK
What, but the most optimized party of level 9 could take on an Adamantium Horror? It is a far, far better thing as a DM to look at what your players can handle and adjust encounters accordingly.


Well, unless you didn't take the social skills to do so, or can't afford the mental stats you want...if you are ignoring these things, then you are swapping between D&D and freeform. And while there is nothing wrong with freeform, it has nothing to do with D&D, which this is the forum for, and which this thread addresses.
I am sure this varies by group, but I find it hard to believe your characters roll Diplomacy every time they say hello. Yes, I am talking about freeform, but in a game of real D&D experiences and not merely the hypothetical number crunching, a significant part of D&D is freeform. Even the DMG, in contrast to what it refers to as the 'Kick in the Door' style of play, talks about games where this is the emphases and how most games will include this in part.

[Yora]

I think the most what a game should try to attempt in regards of balance, is to give all characters options to meaningfully contribute to the parties achievements.
When a thief is a non-combat character who can shine during other parts of the game, I don't consider that to be a problem. When the wizard makes the thiefs "unique" abilities meaningless, that's a big problem.
When the rogue sets an ambush, the mage traps the enemies, and the warrior goes for the killing blow, everyone plays an important role. Then I don't care that the rogue does not deal massive damage or that the warrior can not trap large numbers of enemies.

[Dienekes]

One of my first games I was GMing I had 2 new players, one was a Druid the other a Fighter.

It became pretty obvious that the druid was doing better, so the fighter challenged the druid's animal companion to a duel. He lost the duel against a class feature.

His response was to say "this sucks" and roll up a new character. When a classes entire purpose is to go in a fight and kick ass and yet is worse at that than a class that can also do a ton of other things, I can't help but feel that that was terrible game design. Sure, he could still roleplay, and did rather well, but in my experience people don't like to suck at the one thing their class was designed to do.

[LordBlades]

The fighter can still contribute as a fighter. So what if he isn't the only melee type?

But would the fighter player still have fun once he realizes the following: all his character can do is fight(he might be more or less good at it depending on optimization skill); the druid not only can fight better than he does, but still has a whole lot of other things he can do (cast spells, bring useful skills to the table, animal companion), things a fighter can only dream of?

[Ravens_cry]

But would the fighter player still have fun once he realizes the following: all his character can do is fight(he might be more or less good at it depending on optimization skill); the druid not only can fight better than he does, but still has a whole lot of other things he can do (cast spells, bring useful skills to the table, animal companion), things a fighter can only dream of?

Considering I have played the role of the Big Dumb Fighter, and seen others do it as well, I would say yes from personal experience.
Look, if playing a Fighter does not reach ones optimization requirements, play a different class.
I am not against optimization.
I just dislike the implication that playing a Fighter or other 'Low Tier' class it is somehow impossible to have fun or that those who do are somehow doing D&D wrong.

[LordBlades]

Considering I have played the role of the Big
I just dislike the implication that playing a Fighter or other 'Low Tier' class it is somehow impossible to have fun or that those who do are somehow doing D&D wrong.

It's not that it's impossible to have fun while playing a low tier class. A low tier class is perfectly viable (IMO of course) and fun in a game that involves other low-tier classes and challenges scaled down accordingly.

The problem comes when you mix <insert low-tier class here> in a game with high-tier classes. In such a game you're only going to contribute as much as they let you because pretty much any situation you could make a meaningful contribution to, they could turn into a non-issue with 1-2 spells.

[Kojiro]

People are not saying that it's impossible to have fun as such; just as you as saying that it is in fact possible to play a spectacularly weak class and still have fun, they are saying that it is possible (and rather likely) that a player in such a situation, where the only thing their class can do halfway well is overshadowed by a mere feature of another class, as their contributions are more or less irrelevant. They are also saying that, even though there are ways to "work around" or just ignore this, that the massive gulf between the classes is in fact a design problem. And I agree; when it takes a effort for a player class to equal one of the weaker class features of a different class, even if the latter player isn't particularly trying to be super-powerful, there is a balance problem.

Really, Larpus more or less said what I think several posts ago. Etiquette and concern for your fellow players is important and all, but that doesn't mean that the imbalance doesn't exist; when certain classes have to try to not overshadow their allies, something is wrong.

[SITB]

I am sure this varies by group, but I find it hard to believe your characters roll Diplomacy every time they say hello. Yes, I am talking about freeform, but in a game of real D&D experiences and not merely the hypothetical number crunching, a significant part of D&D is freeform. Even the DMG, in contrast to what it refers to as the 'Kick in the Door' style of play, talks about games where this is the emphases and how most games will include this in part.

If you are talking about freeform you might as well play GURPS or Exalted or FATE etc. Saying that the Fighter class is mechanically useful because it can contribute to the group in a non-mechanical way seems very odd to me, I mean, by that point you may as well play a commoner (Or a Warrior, or a Warblade) and roleplay the same.

It's not that people can never have fun with Fighters, EVER. It's that the fighter class mechaniclly does not contribute to the party in the same scope a higher tier class can. Which in turn, can cause friction when one player upstages the other. Disassociate the Player from the character (Fighter) for a moment, can the Player not roleplay just as well with another class?

[Ravens_cry]

It's not that it's impossible to have fun while playing a low tier class. A low tier class is perfectly viable (IMO of course) and fun in a game that involves other low-tier classes and challenges scaled down accordingly.

The problem comes when you mix <insert low-tier class here> in a game with high-tier classes. In such a game you're only going to contribute as much as they let you because pretty much any situation you could make a meaningful contribution to, they could turn into a non-issue with 1-2 spells.
That can be a problem in a group that doesn't work together to have fun and is instead in competition with itself out of character. I am willing to admit even in a cohesive group, it can happen if care is not taken.

This, once you get past the chest pounding rhetoric, is the whole idea behind the much revered Batman wizard. They don't solve problems themselves, they pump their friends up and nerf the enemy with debuffs and battlefield control, so they can do their job that much more efficiently, choosing spells that lead the way to a team victory.
@Kojiro:
While classes could be more balanced, they are (for the most part) balanced enough that it is possible to have fun without much more than some teamwork. To me, that is sufficient.
If it isn't for you, than I suppose it is design flaw for your game. There is classes with more options that can fill a melee niche and classes that fill a magic user niche with less options.
If it is that important to you, play those instead.
***
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
I have seen high tier and low tiers co-exist under fire, I have seen druids and fighters shiver in the dark near the dark dungeon gates.
All those moments, played in their time. Lost, but not forgotten.
Time to play.

[Morty]

I don't get why people say 3rd edition D&D isn't designed to be balanced. It is. It's just that it doesn't always work as it should.
And on another note, aside from Rifts I think you'd be really hard-pressed to find a game where there's supposed to be no balance at all. Look at World of Darkness or other White Wolf products - various supernatural things are firmly above mortals in terms of power and vary in strength between each other, but when players create a group consisting of Vampires, Mages or Solar Exalts, they can expect the choices they make about their characters to be as valid as the other players'. Which of course they sometimes aren't, but here that's the disparity between the intentions behind the design and its actual results.

[LordBlades]

That can be a problem in a group that doesn't work together to have fun and is instead in competition with itself out of character. I am willing to admit even in a cohesive group, it can happen if care is not taken.

It's easier than you think with some characters. You don't have to be in an OOC competition, in some cases (like CoDzilla vs. fighter for example) all you need to do is play your class reasonably well (without going the extra mile to make sure you're not stepping on anyone else's toes) and you can already be seriously overshadowing people.


This, once you get past the chest pounding rhetoric, is the whole idea behind the much revered Batman wizard. They don't solve problems themselves, they pump their friends up and nerf the enemy with debuffs and battlefield control, so they can do their job that much more efficiently, choosing spells that lead the way to a team victory.

It all depends on what you consider fun. If I was playing a fighter in a group with a batman wizard, I'd know that he's going out of his way to make my char able to do stuff, not only by not solving encounters himself despite being able to, but also buffing my char/debuffing the opposition(often with much larger expediture of resources). I'd know that my char isn't really needed and he could summon/bind/dominate/animate something that's a better fighter and doesn't want a share of the treasure. And for me that wouldn't be fun. I want my char's skills to be something the group needs IC, not something that's redundant but still allowed to tag along due to OOC reasons (we're all friends having a game)

[ArcanistSupreme]

And just because it's possible for a game with a huge tier disparity to run smoothly, the opposite is also definitely true. When I was young and naive, I was the monk, and most encounters I just watched my buddy the sorcerer fireball the baddies into a charred crisp or hit them with hideous laughter (both of which he took because they looked cool). My main contribution was missing about 10 times with my flurry of blows ability. Sure, I still had fun, but man were there times that I resented my friend's character. Just because a tier disparity works out for you doesn't mean it will for everyone, especially for newer players with zero system mastery.

[Ravens_cry]

Of course it is possible. Without due care and consideration, it may even be likely.
But in my opinion, even in a much more mechanically balanced game, like 4th Edition, if you are not working together to make the game fun for everyone on some level, the game isn't fun either. 1st and second edition were even less balanced in many ways,with features added wily-nilly. And yet, people still had fun. They just had to work for it, just like in 3.X, even more so in fact.

[SITB]

So your point is that people can have fun despite the system being unbalanced? Because if so, then yeah, obviously.

But that doesn't mean that D&D3 is balanced.

[Ravens_cry]

So your point is that people can have fun despite the system being unbalanced? Because if so, then yeah, obviously.

But that doesn't mean that D&D3 is balanced.
Did I say it was?
I don't think so. I merely said it was enough to have fun. Since that is the only over-arching goal in this game, then, depending on personal preferences, it is enough.

[SITB]

But you can have fun in a multitude of ways, while generaly going into a game with inncorrect assumptions ("In D&D characters are balanced") and then finding out that your character is superfluous, or worse useless, is not fun.

I mean, you can have fun in D&D despite the mechanical differences, but I generally don't see people praising the ability to play a 'worse'* character (in the mechanical sense) in a party with from any other PC who are better then you (in the mechanical sense) while being that 'worse' PC thmselves.

*Worse is obviously subjective to each group, a Fighter in a group with 'God' Wizard and C-zilla and D-zilla is probably worse mechanically from the other PC; while in a group with standard healbot-Cleric, fireball-Wizard and corpsetrapfinding-Rogue he can fit right in.

[Ravens_cry]

I think I have said mostly what I came to say, several times over by now, I would just like to add that for one, balance is not an all or nothing thing. A game can be more or less balanced. Two, a game with a plethora of options, like the way D&D 3.X does classes or a point buy system like Mutants and Masterminds, is much harder to balance. Three, there is even at least two different kinds of balance, both of which are very different, player verses player and player verses environment. Technically 3.X can do both kinds of game, but players verses environment is overwhelmingly predominant. One that is quire balanced in the former is going to not be balanced at all in the latter.
Just some thoughts before we all bow down at the alter of balance.

[MachFarcon]

Dnd will always be unbalanced. Magic is like that. But, that does mean that you can't have fun. Each class has it's own benefit. Sure, casters can take what ever your class does and do it better, but only a certain amount of times [I]per day[I]. Especially at lower levels. A fighter on the other hand, keeps on swinging.

Personally, if a dungeon and all of it's evil, murderous inhabitants calmly wait until your casters recharge, there is something inherently wrong with them. Wizards only have so many spells for a reason. Granted, once they get higher levels, they can get around that (I assume, since they can do almost anything).

However, I play mostly of low level games and as such, the wizards and reality aren't good friends yet.

So, for the first 10 levels or so, the game is balanced. After that, the small valley quickly becomes a bottomless abyss that is also a portal to the Warp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterium_%28Warhammer_40,000%29)

[Gnaeus]

And on another note, aside from Rifts I think you'd be really hard-pressed to find a game where there's supposed to be no balance at all. Look at World of Darkness or other White Wolf products - various supernatural things are firmly above mortals in terms of power and vary in strength between each other, but when players create a group consisting of Vampires, Mages or Solar Exalts, they can expect the choices they make about their characters to be as valid as the other players'. Which of course they sometimes aren't, but here that's the disparity between the intentions behind the design and its actual results.

Actually, White Wolf is my favorite example in balance discussions. They do have play options that are intentionally vastly over/underpowered. I played a Kinfolk in a werewolf game for years, and every other player was far stronger than I was. New players were stronger than I was after years of play and earned xp. And I loved that character.

Many people don't want balance, almost everyone wants predictability. Kinfolk works fine, because it is clear that it isn't as strong as a Werewolf, so when you play it, crunch matches fluff, and the roleplay follows logically. Fighter or Monk are terribad, because their crunch (Not being very good at combat by comparison with other options) is does not match their fluff (master warriors or martial artists). Logically, roleplay then suffers.

"If you are the master of combat guy, how come you get your backside kicked all the time?....."
"Why do we give you an equal share of the treasure, when you never pull your weight? Why don't we replace you with someone who can fight what we fight"
or my favorite
"Hey Mr. Fighter, an opportunity to roleplay"... Deceased fighter slowly pretends to decompose in a corner.


Dnd will always be unbalanced. Magic is like that. But, that does mean that you can't have fun. Each class has it's own benefit. Sure, casters can take what ever your class does and do it better, but only a certain amount of times [I]per day[I]. Especially at lower levels. A fighter on the other hand, keeps on swinging.

So, for the first 10 levels or so, the game is balanced. After that, the small valley quickly becomes a bottomless abyss that is also a portal to the

Actually, it can easily break by level 5-7. By that point, Clerics and druids can outfighter the fighter all day with Persisted Divine Power and Righteous might or wildshape. Honestly, A druid+animal companion combo can outfighter the fighter starting at level 1.


Personally, if a dungeon and all of it's evil, murderous inhabitants calmly wait until your casters recharge, there is something inherently wrong with them. Wizards only have so many spells for a reason. Granted, once they get higher levels, they can get around that (I assume, since they can do almost anything).

Sometimes that is true, sometimes it isn't. Intelligent humanoids will act as you describe. But there are lots of threats that won't. Unless the DM is intentionally nerfing casters by keeping time pressure on the party at all times, there is no reason for a wizard over 4th level to face more than one wilderness encounter per day unless he wants to. There are lots of situations that an adventuring party could logically face (Ancient trap filled tombs and the like) where a 1 encounter day does not harm the party at all. And of course, wizards can have 4 encounter ending spells per day prepared at level 1...

[LordBlades]

Dnd will always be unbalanced. Magic is like that. But, that does mean that you can't have fun. Each class has it's own benefit. Sure, casters can take what ever your class does and do it better, but only a certain amount of times [I]per day[I]. Especially at lower levels. A fighter on the other hand, keeps on swinging.

Personally, if a dungeon and all of it's evil, murderous inhabitants calmly wait until your casters recharge, there is something inherently wrong with them. Wizards only have so many spells for a reason. Granted, once they get higher levels, they can get around that (I assume, since they can do almost anything).

However, I play mostly of low level games and as such, the wizards and reality aren't good friends yet.

So, for the first 10 levels or so, the game is balanced. After that, the small valley quickly becomes a bottomless abyss that is also a portal to the Warp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterium_%28Warhammer_40,000%29)

It's not about doing stuff all day long. It's about doing stuff enough times per day to handle all encounters (default assumption of the game is 4 encounters/day). Wizards can do that from level 1 with a bit of optimization (you can get 4 and even more 1st level spells per day as a 1st level wizard, and if all of those spells are potential battle winners like sleep or color spray, you have a wizard with the potential to decisively contribute to all the encounters in a day from level 1).

Also, non-casters have finite resources too, namely HP.

[SITB]

I think I have said mostly what I came to say, several times over by now, I would just like to add that for one, balance is not an all or nothing thing. A game can be more or less balanced. Two, a game with a plethora of options, like the way D&D 3.X does classes or a point buy system like Mutants and Masterminds, is much harder to balance. Three, there is even at least two different kinds of balance, both of which are very different, player verses player and player verses environment. Technically 3.X can do both kinds of game, but players verses environment is overwhelmingly predominant. One that is quire balanced in the former is going to not be balanced at all in the latter.
Just some thoughts before we all bow down at the alter of balance.

1)But you can just as well play an RPG more balanced then D&D3, hell we even have a current edition that is more balanced then 3ed.

2)There is balance in PvP, and balance in PvE. Is a Fighter an effective class as a Warblade or a Druid in PvE challenges? It seems to me the Fighter is far more limited in options solving PvE challenges.

And the final note, balance is useful so that new players wouldn't just pick up classes and find out that they are useless because they didn't possess the requisite amount of system mastery and thus their character is overshadowed by the other PCs, if you want to play a game where the Druid solves every problem and the Fighter is a glorfied bystander and have fun with it, more power to you. But finding out that the game is unbalanced head first, while you assumed it's balanced is ot very fun.

[Gnaeus]

And the final note, balance is useful so that new players wouldn't just pick up classes and find out that they are useless because they didn't possess the requisite amount of system mastery and thus their character is overshadowed by the other PCs, if you want to play a game where the Druid solves every problem and the Fighter is a glorfied bystander and have fun with it, more power to you. But finding out that the game is unbalanced head first, while you assumed it's balanced is ot very fun.

That isn't about balance, it is about predictability and match between crunch and fluff.

[SITB]

That isn't about balance, it is about predictability and match between crunch and fluff.

True, you are correct. That what my last point was about.

[MachFarcon]

Perhaps I should have clarified. I personally have not played a caster for very long (see other thread I made a while back why), but as a DM, I make dungeons that have opportunities for each class to shine. Also, I tend to not use monsters that can be easily eliminated with one spell/hit. Granted, I have never created one with a high-level caster, due to the fact the my group would get board long before that point. But I'm sure that I could create one if necessary.

Magic-blocking rooms? Rooms without floors? Rooms with sound-sensitive traps? Each could be solved in a number of ways. But each class can do it better. Until 5th apparently.