Balance. Why do we need it?

[Royce]

I have been wondering about this for some time. Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance? For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another. Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame. Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all. Old man rant over.

P.S.Get off my lawn and turn that music down.

[JeenLeen]

I would just like to understand the goal that is all.

I think the biggest part is two issues:
1) weaker classes can be less fun, because they are outshined (or at least can be outshined) easily by higher-tier classes. When the druid's animal companion is a better fighter than the fighter, the fighter's player may feel like they aren't appreciated or contributing. While that doesn't impact fun for everything, it can for some (many?) players.
2) 3.5 seems to posit in the PHB that the classes are equal and meant to be balanced. For example, a level 5 fighter should be comparable in power to a level 5 wizard.

So balance isn't necessary in game design, but it seems to be a premise of D&D 3.5 that the game fails at. And the lack of balance, especially if it comes as a surprise, can lead to lack of fun for some players.

From what little I've seen, 5th edition does a good job of better-balanced classes without making them all identical. My thief can contribute and feel special, without being a wizard under another name.

[Royce]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

[Knaight]

It's a system specific phenomenon based on a few design choices. Notably:
1) The system is built around overcoming challenges. That's the focus, and thus how good characters are at doing stuff is the focus. Characters are defined by attributes, skills, and various forms of powers and defenses first and foremost.
2) The system is built around having fights. Just look at the experience system, what gets lots of rules, etc. Heck, look at the example play sections.
3) The combat system is glacial. Every fight thus takes a while, and as mentioned above there's going to be a lot of them.

This particular combination makes it valuable to have characters who are all roughly comparable at doing stuff, with the value of stuff weighted by how often it comes up and thus heavily tipped in favor of killing stuff in combat. This creates a value for that particular kind of balance, because that particular kind of balance is what translates into all the players getting to have comparable influence over the game and comparable time spent interacting with it, which are more fundamental goals (someone who just sits on the sideline never getting to actually play is probably not going to have a good time). Note that this doesn't mean that they all have to be good at doing the same stuff, just that it's valuable to have stuff that you're particularly good at.

Different assumptions can lead to different balances, where "balance" as used in a D&D sense doesn't apply. My favorite examples here are Smallville and Now Playing, which are about character conflict where the focus is on interesting characters having complicated relationships. You can and are expected to have characters like both Lois Lane and Superman in Smallville, and it works, where bland loners are going to be left with nothing to do. Now Playing is broader, but can handle major power discrepancies just fine while also punishing characters unlikely to be involved in character conflict. Meanwhile that conflict-drama balance can be ignored in D&D, where a character who really has everything together and not a lot of ways of getting sucked into character drama by the people they know can work just fine, provided that they're good at doing stuff.

[JeenLeen]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

Yeah, I think it can come down to play style. Balance only matters if it matters to the players.

That said, while the adventuring group is a group working together to tackle bad guys (or whatever the goal is), the players may want to be folk playing a game where their characters (and thus they themselves) get the spotlight and contribute. Which I think is a lot of what Knaight's post is pointing towards.
IC, my fighter may not care that the wizard outshines him in a lot of stuff. He wants to be part of the heroic struggle and do what he can.
OOC, I'm feeling like my character might as well not be there and am bored, waiting for the next scene while I swing my sword.

[Rynjin]

Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance?

Because having party members that can equally contribute makes the game more fun for everybody.

For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another.

Good for you. That means you shouldn't care if the game is more balanced. It's a win-win.

Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon?

That's not what balance means. Balance and "can do the same things" are not equivalent concepts. Balance means everybody can contribute equivalently to the game. Some people might have specializations, but every character should be able to meaningfully affect every aspect of the game. Combat, problem solving, exploration, "social combat", etc.

The balance issues come in with three things:

1.) Overly specialized classes like Fighter (that is all about combat, and has no class features or real options to contribute to anything else).

2.) Overly generalized classes that excel at everything, like most full casters.

3.) Classes that exist within the same niche as another but do everything less good. See Monk vs Fighter; Both are combat specialized to the exclusion of most else. One is objectively better than the other at that specialty.

Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame.

Balance =/= homogeneity.

I would just like to understand the goal that is all.

Expecting more thoughtful and mindful game design from the people taking my money. If I'm paying for a product and then need to fix most of its problems myself, I'm a sucker. I'm doing their job for them.

An unbalanced game is a poorly designed one. There will always be some degree of imbalance, some option will always be the best, some option will always be the worst, but a good game designer looks to close the gap between the weakest and strongest option (and by extension everything in between) as much as possible.

Making the game more balanced is good for everyone and bad for nobody except people that revel in being able to lord their superiority over other players. I.e. *******s, and nobody cares about them.

[CharonsHelper]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

Are you sure that you played older editions? Fighters were totally competitive in D&D pre-3.x up until rather high levels. Even in 3.x martials are fine until 9ish (hence the popularity of E6 & E8).

[Psyren]

Balance is a spectrum, not a single point. It depends on how much of it you want.

Me, I like having SOME balance (i.e. no Ice Assassin Aleaxes running around) but at the same time I think spellcasters should have a higher power ceiling than martial classes. But there's a lot of daylight between 3e and 4e in this regard, and for me, PF hits that sweet spot reasonably well with a modicum of gentleman's agreement in place. (I'm not experienced enough with it to know for sure, but I think Starfinder also balances the casters and noncasters well.)

[Lazymancer]

Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all.

Balance is not about fun, it's about money. Selling "adventures" (game modules) is a business. Consequently, anything that hinders the use of game modules is considered undesirable:

1) Some classes (Tier 1-2) can derail campaign even without trying - which is a bad thing for railroading GMs (or anyone who uses scripted adventures), since it paralyzes their game.

2) Other classes (Tier 5-6 often; Tier 4 rarely) can't do what they are expected to do (scripted adventures often require passing specific trials to proceed further), stopping the game due to their incompetence.

Consequently, both situations are referred to as "disbalanced" by game developers and GMs.

However, if party chooses their own adventures (i.e. challenges do not scale automatically, as people level up), you can't experience this disbalance: there are no expectations of specific level of competence PCs have to exhibit.

[CharonsHelper]

Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame.

That's not what balance means. Balance and "can do the same things" are not equivalent concepts. Balance means everybody can contribute equivalently to the game. Some people might have specializations, but every character should be able to meaningfully affect every aspect of the game. Combat, problem solving, exploration, "social combat", etc.

I'll +1 Rynjin's sentiment.

You seem to be confusing balance with symmetry. Symmetry is the easiest way to balance and the one that 4e chose (which led to issues), but it certainly isn't the only method.

[Rynjin]

Balance is a spectrum, not a single point. It depends on how much of it you want.

Me, I like having SOME balance (i.e. no Ice Assassin Aleaxes running around) but at the same time I think spellcasters should have a higher power ceiling than martial classes. But there's a lot of daylight between 3e and 4e in this regard, and for me, PF hits that sweet spot reasonably well with a modicum of gentleman's agreement in place. (I'm not experienced enough with it to know for sure, but I think Starfinder also balances the casters and noncasters well.)

Starfinder takes the bold approach of cutting out full casters entirely; all the casters in SF are 6ers.

This isn't a bad move, since Pathfinder's most balanced and fun classes are in that sweet spot of getting four to six levels of casting, a boat load of cool class features, and multiple build options. PF only runs into issues at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum: Full casters, which have enough options that a given player can be either completely useless or god-like based on spell choice (though casters are more forgiving since all but two can swap out spells known and get better over the course of the game), and complete mundanes (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger) that need extreme system knowledge and optimization to play even close to the same tier as the middle caste of character.

Everything between Barbarian and Magus functions perfectly fine in a party together. It's when you try to have the "classic flavor" of Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue that the game begins to fall to pieces at about level 9.

[Royce]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

[Lazymancer]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Yes. If you play freeform instead of D&D you do not suffer from any flaws of D&D.

Question: does this prove that there are no flaws?

[Zanos]

That's not what balance means. Balance and "can do the same things" are not equivalent concepts. Balance means everybody can contribute equivalently to the game. Some people might have specializations, but every character should be able to meaningfully affect every aspect of the game. Combat, problem solving, exploration, "social combat", etc.

I don't completely agree. I think it's fine for a character class or build to have no applicable competence in social settings or combat or whatever, as long as the game is set such that the areas where they are meaningfully competent come up often. The stinky barbarian savage doesn't necessarily need to be able to contribute to the party infiltrating the grand ball, although he might be the only one who can kill the two guards at the back door quick enough to stop them from raising the alarm.

From a more general point I agree that characters should be able to contribute equivalently, but that doesn't have to spread out into contributing in every scenario.

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Yes, I imagine the mechanics don't matter much if you literally do not use them.

[FreddyNoNose]

I have been wondering about this for some time. Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance? For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another. Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame. Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all. Old man rant over.

P.S.Get off my lawn and turn that music down.

Because the players have too much entitlement. Back in the days of rolling 3d6 keep them attributes, you had some characters that were much worse than those who got "amazing rolls". But many players stepped up and made a great and memorable characters from them. And just because you got "fair" doesn't make a character great.

[Knaight]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Stats and mechanics and clever ideas are in no way opposed in problem solving, particularly as stats and mechanics are generally tools, where clever ideas have to do mostly with lateral thinking that produces unorthodox tool use to solve problems. Having more tools in no way interferes with this.

Also the stats and mechanics are what make D&D D&D, as opposed to some other game. Clever ideas and roleplaying exist everywhere*, so if we're looking at why D&D specifically has a certain behavior then mechanics are what we should be looking at, along with setting specifics.

*Mostly. I suspect that the FATAL and RaHoWa "communities" are largely incapable of cleverness, and that the "roleplaying" therein is just them exhibiting their disgusting power fantasies.

Because the players have too much entitlement. Back in the days of rolling 3d6 keep them attributes, you had some characters that were much worse than those who got "amazing rolls". But many players stepped up and made a great and memorable characters from them. And just because you got "fair" doesn't make a character great.

The days of 3d6 keep them attributes also had much smaller and much less consistently applied attribute modifiers and classes that were vastly better balanced than those in 3.x - a Wizard or MU in comparison to a Fighter or Fighting Man had less of an edge on a level to level basis, and that's without accounting for smaller changes between levels and the matter of class specific experience tables likely to result in a higher leveled Fighter/Fighting Man. The balance was in a lot of ways tighter.

[Rynjin]

I don't completely agree. I think it's fine for a character class or build to have no applicable competence in social settings or combat or whatever, as long as the game is set such that the areas where they are meaningfully competent come up often. The stinky barbarian savage doesn't necessarily need to be able to contribute to the party infiltrating the grand ball, although he might be the only one who can kill the two guards at the back door quick enough to stop them from raising the alarm.

From a more general point I agree that characters should be able to contribute equivalently, but that doesn't have to spread out into contributing in every scenario.

As a quick example of what I mean, stealing form you, it's not so much that every character needs to contribute in every conceivable scenario that falls under the purview of, say, "social combat", so yes your "smelly barbarian savage" does not need to be able to help you infiltrate the ball (though the game should shove as much of that kind of thing as possible into skills so the Barbarian CAN take them if he wants) but that same savage should be quite capable of causing a handy distraction with his poor manners, or intimidating a lord by his mere presence to give you a better bargaining position, that sort of thing.

Significant (if not equal) contribution by different means in different subsets of the scenario.

[Lazymancer]

Because the players have too much entitlement. Back in the days of rolling 3d6 keep them attributes, you had some characters that were much worse than those who got "amazing rolls". But many players stepped up and made a great and memorable characters from them. And just because you got "fair" doesn't make a character great.

Nonsense. This is has nothing to do with entitlement.

Back in the day, players could play on Low Difficulty. Today it is expected for challenges to scale automatically. Consequently, for those game a certain level of competence is mandatory.

Rolling stats is acceptable only if you go proper old-school sandbox.

[Lazymancer]

... classes that were vastly better balanced than those in 3.x - a Wizard or MU in comparison to a Fighter or Fighting Man had less of an edge on a level to level basis, and that's without accounting for smaller changes between levels and the matter of class specific experience tables likely to result in a higher leveled Fighter/Fighting Man. The balance was in a lot of ways tighter.

What balance are you talking about?

Do you remember how much of a gamechanger Charm Person was?

[heavyfuel]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas.

It's not always about stats or mechanics, but no amount of RP and clever ideas will ever be better than the 3 words "I cast X".

Also, clever ideas that come from using your spells creatively tend to be many times better than clever ideas that don't

[Psyren]

Balance is not about fun, it's about money. Selling "adventures" (game modules) is a business. Consequently, anything that hinders the use of game modules is considered undesirable:

1) Some classes (Tier 1-2) can derail campaign even without trying - which is a bad thing for railroading GMs (or anyone who uses scripted adventures), since it paralyzes their game.

2) Other classes (Tier 5-6 often; Tier 4 rarely) can't do what they are expected to do (scripted adventures often require passing specific trials to proceed further), stopping the game due to their incompetence.

Consequently, both situations are referred to as "disbalanced" by game developers and GMs.

However, if party chooses their own adventures (i.e. challenges do not scale automatically, as people level up), you can't experience this disbalance: there are no expectations of specific level of competence PCs have to exhibit.

I agree somewhat, but for your first point - the amount of T1 and T2 that derail modules in practice is pretty low. Those consarned wizards and clerics did not hurt Paizo's sales by existing, and the majority of people picking up those classes did not end up chain-gating Solars or whatever.

Starfinder takes the bold approach of cutting out full casters entirely; all the casters in SF are 6ers.

This isn't a bad move, since Pathfinder's most balanced and fun classes are in that sweet spot of getting four to six levels of casting, a boat load of cool class features, and multiple build options. PF only runs into issues at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum: Full casters, which have enough options that a given player can be either completely useless or god-like based on spell choice (though casters are more forgiving since all but two can swap out spells known and get better over the course of the game), and complete mundanes (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger) that need extreme system knowledge and optimization to play even close to the same tier as the middle caste of character.

Everything between Barbarian and Magus functions perfectly fine in a party together. It's when you try to have the "classic flavor" of Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue that the game begins to fall to pieces at about level 9.

Honestly I'm fine revising the definition of "full caster" to be "1-6." There's very little in the 7-9 range that wouldn't just fit better as a ritual anyway imo.

[Knaight]

What balance are you talking about?

Do you remember how much of a gamechanger Charm Person was?

Charm Person was a very effective spell for a very limited spell slot, but it also has major limitations (starting with it being utterly useless against large selections of creatures). Early D&D through early 2e didn't have anything remotely comparable to 3.x casters.

Rolling stats is acceptable only if you go proper old-school sandbox.

There's a few conditions under which rolling stats works, and an old-school sandbox is only one of them. What they tend to have in common is that they're for characters that you don't play exclusively for a long period of time. If you're swapping between a roster of characters between adventures, rolling for stats can work. If you're in a large scale political game bouncing between a dozen PC groups working at cross purposes for different factions, rolling for stats can work. If you're in a generational game where a given PC is dead of old age or retired after five sessions and you've moved on by then rolling for stats can work.

So on and so forth.

[Cosi]

People are underestimating the value of balance to DMs.

If characters have equal and predictable abilities, you can pick up challenges and run them without worrying. This makes the game much easier. If they do not, you have to check every challenge against your PCs. Having game balance makes being a DM much easier, and it makes it easier in the places that are most often cited as obstacles to good DMing.

[FreddyNoNose]

Nonsense. This is has nothing to do with entitlement.

Back in the day, players could play on Low Difficulty. Today it is expected for challenges to scale automatically. Consequently, for those game a certain level of competence is mandatory.

Rolling stats is acceptable only if you go proper old-school sandbox.

Sure it does. You feel entitled to be as good as the other players with some little justification you feel is important as you are. Wow, massive ego.

[Gullintanni]

The balance struck by AD&D was never such that the classes were meant to be balanced against each other.

Instead, classes were meant to have roles, each of which made them essential to the party.

Thieves disabled traps, a vital function in a game with low HP totals and lethal no save traps.

Fighters dealt consistent, reliable HP damage in a game where, once again, HP totals were low.

Clerics healed and handled the (frequent and deadly) undead threat.

Mages were Swiss army knives that could solve most problems with the proper investment of time and energy, but in combat, their tactics were very easy to disrupt. Which meant monsters with lower defenses (compared to 3.5) had to risk either getting cut to ribbons by the fighter, or let the mage finish casting spells.

Systemic changes as editions progressed permitted primary spellcasters to easily subsume other party roles within their own umbrella with virtually no cost. More spell slots meant casters were more versatile. Standard action casting time coupled with the introduction of casting time meant spellcasting no longer realistically risked disruption. Higher HP totals and weaker saving throws made eliminating opponents via health damage less efficient. In AD&D, high level creatures and characters (especially fighter classed characters) usually only failed saves on ones.

While primary casters typically had more raw power, they were far more limited, and they worked best working in concert with other classes. Role based balance was eviscerated by 3.5, and internal balance between classes was not introduced alongside.

To answer the OP: We need balance for the sake of fun. But IMHO, role based balance is what we should aim for. Different but equal.

[Peat]

To me, balance means pretty much everything in the game should have some use and that use shouldn't come with the caveat "But why would you do X when Y does it so much better?" Not everything being the same, but everything having a purpose.

Because that means if I see something cool, I can pick it up and use it at pretty much any table without worrying about whether I'm going to have no fun because it's nowhere near as cool at the table, or whether I'm going to rob other people's fun because they're no longer cool, or rob everyone's fun because I broke the adventure without really meaning to.

Sure, you can talk and cobble your way around these things if you're reasonable human beings. But some people temporarily forget to be that, sometimes you smash the campaign before you can cobble your way around... and stuff. Less work too. And less having to come up with new stuff at every table top.

[martixy]

I have been wondering about this for some time. Why does a section of the gaming public want all the classes to be balance? For me I don't care if one class is as powerful as another. Does it really matter when role playing if my fighter can't cast a spell or my thief can't summon a demon? I don't think so. Balancing classes got us 4th edition and that was different paint coatings on the same frame. Maybe I'm just of the older gaming generation when in AD&D class power was all over the place and I remember how much fun I had with my "low tier" thief while in a party of wizards and clerics. I would just like to understand the goal that is all. Old man rant over.

P.S.Get off my lawn and turn that music down.

Many are used to other forms of multiplayer gaming, mostly PvP in which there is an understandable desire for balance between player avatars. This notion is so deeply ingrained in the general consciousness, very few question the premise on which it is built - PvP, a premise which is untrue in D&D at large.

[Lazymancer]

There's a few conditions under which rolling stats works, and an old-school sandbox is only one of them.

Okay. Add one-shots to the list. However, everything else boils down to not playing D&D.

Also, you did not persuade me that early D&D casters are incomparable to 3e casters. As for Charm Person, I'd like to point out that it is first level spell that is clearly superior to 3e Sleep (even if it targets only one enemy).

Sure it does. You feel entitled to be as good as the other players with some little justification you feel is important as you are. Wow, massive ego.

Even by local standards this is an outstanding post. I'm impressed.

[Deadline]

I just don't believe that a fighter should be as powerful as a wizard at any level above 3rd level. I mean is it an adventuring group tackling bad guys together or is it a couple of individuals waiting for their moment in the spotlight? It must be different play styles.

Even back in the earlier editions, it was a well known joke that the fighter's job changed from fighting monsters to getting the wizard a tasty beverage while he altered reality to suit his whims. The only thing that changed in 3.5 is the point at which that happens.

If you are able to have a game where you roleplay your way through every challenge and never have to roll dice or cast spells, then yeah, you aren't going to see the discrepancy. For games where the dice rolls matter, or at least factor into the outcome significantly, you'll start to see this problem crop up (in 3.5) around the middle levels (7-13), and be super problematic beyond that.

To your point about it being a group, not an individual, you are absolutely correct. However, at the levels I mention above, it starts to very rapidly become obvious to most involved when a class starts to fall behind. And that gap can be a noticeable blight on the fun of individuals and the group. Sure, with a great problem solving mind behind it that gap is harder to see, but the answer to "at mid-high levels, what is better, a fighter or a wizard" hasn't really changed since 1st edition. It has only gotten more pronounced with 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

I think balance is good to the point that the characters can contribute to the same challenges meaningfully. If you look at like Rifts and one Guy is a human scout with 30 hp, human skills, and stats in the 12-18s, and the guy next to him is a dragon with 8,000 Hp, basically T1 casting and stats in the 30s, it’s hard to make a fight where they can both contribute and the scout not just die. Not impossible, but hard. By that standard, at many levels, 3.5 isn’t awfully balanced.

More problematic, imo, is that 3.5 has problems meeting design expectations. There’s a class called fighter which is one of the worst classes at fighting. The martial artist class is even worse. I’m less concerned about the fact that Druid can do things that fighter can never hope to do, than I am about the fact that a low system mastery fighter can be intended to be Gamorra, the deadliest fighter alive, when in fact they can fail to beat what should be reasonable enemies and may well wind up worse than the Druid’s bear. That, for me, undermines game immersion and it isn’t fun when you can’t mechanically carry out your character design.