|
Balance is far more than 'does the Thief fight as a good as a fighter'. Its more "Is my Thief as important to the party as the fighter is". In recent years theres been a huge blurring of what makes a character important or not. The desire that drove 4e to become published is along the lines, "I want my Thief to fight as well as a fighter, and to be as important in combat"...where before it was "Fighter you are more important in combat, but wait til you need some recon done, or that trap bypasses, then you'll need me"
Balance is critical to a game system. However, that doesnt mean lack of balance cant be overcome by a good Game Master. In previous editions of D&D, balance was a bit hazy. 3.0 and 3.5 tried to put solid rules behind it,to assure balance, but left holes big enough for trucks with new rules.
4e is the attempt to make it more like a wargame with clearcut rules and balancing factors.
I think this is why so many of us have fled from 4e and now gravitate to the more familiar. A game should be balanced, but should leave enough leeway to allow the Game Master to make a diference.
my 2 cents anyway.
I've played lots of roleplaying games. I never did understand the obsession with "game balance". The thief isn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The fighter isn't as sneaky as the thief. It's all in how you play. If something actually does disrupt the game, a decent DM should be able to handle it in a creative way.
I thing overemphasizing balance issues leads to one conclusion: A game that doesn't feel like D&D.
I agree, to a certain extent. A 17th level fighter doesn't need to have abilities as flashy as Gate or Time Stop just because a 17th level wizard does. But on the other hand, if a 17th level wizard makes the 17th level fighter in his party feel useless (except as a minor speed bump against enemies), that would be not balanced enough (IMO).
My idea of "balanced" is if I can make a level X character in class Y (for any values of X and Y) and the guys at my gaming table think "Good choice!" rather than "Why do we have to drag this bozo around with us?"
I think it comes down mostly to the gm. You can easily make adventures were even a bard outshines everyone or a rogue is the ultimate killer. It always comes down to what challanges the PCs face.
If you make adventures that are centered around killing monsters and resting is no issue, then it's nu surprise wizards and druids are the king of the hill.
As said, blanace is for a great part if every class is as usefull for the group as any other. And that depends mostly on adventure design.
Unlike competitive games, RPGs don't need to be precisely balanced, but every choice has to be within a certain power range. If anybody is totally useless or anybody can handle all the challenges without the rest of the party, you have a problem.
One thing people sometimes overlook is that, as the previous poster suggested, adventure design can play a role in balance (although 4e mitigates this by putting everybody on the same page as far as how often they can use their powers). This means it's not possible for designers to balance a set of rules for all possible types of campaigns. However, they can balance the game for the kinds of games they assume as the default and communicate how other kinds of games might affect balance.
For example, take the 3.x bard. A common argument against the idea that the bard is underpowered is that, though they're useless in combat, they dominate the roleplaying-oriented parts of the game. However, the assumed adventure type of the 3.x core rules is the classic "dungeon crawl," which involves lots of combat, a few traps, and maybe an occasional chance to parlay an enemy. Having told their players this in the DMG, WotC then allowed players to play a class that isn't designed for those situations at all. Then they wondered why there was so much dissatisfaction with the bard.
|
A proper GM can make everyone have a chance to shine or even make it lopsided for one class or another. A player could be running a completely inferior class, but given all the problems that require that class's abilities to solve. In essence, I will never bow to balance when I can throw rocks on the scales that make it balanced. And for me, D&D isn't about combinations of skills, feats and weapons coming together to create the ultimate broken exploit of a system, it is about the story and the sharing.
Cheers,
Zux
I've played lots of roleplaying games. I never did understand the obsession with "game balance". The thief isn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The fighter isn't as sneaky as the thief. It's all in how you play. If something actually does disrupt the game, a decent DM should be able to handle it in a creative way. I thing overemphasizing balance issues leads to one conclusion: A game that doesn't feel like D&D.
I agree wholeheartedly with the game balance obsession. I don't necessarily think it's so much whether the thief fights as good as the fighter. More I think it's a measure of trying to accurately portray what's in the world as vividly and colorfully as possible. I think this phobia of game imbalance has lead to some really dull, underwhelming design in a lot of cases. You get feats that don't offer anything, paultry +1 bonuses to this or that--or worse offer you abilities that common sense says you should be able to do anyway, like telegraphing a blow but doing more damage with it. The difference between a huge (Str. 18) muscle guy and Joe (Str. 10) Couchpotato is 4 points! That's 20%. They could armwrestle and I wouldn't know on whom to put my money.
You bet game balance is problematic. It drives me nuts. I say toss game balance and describe the world as it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
Based on my personal experience I’d rather play in an unbalanced game system with mature minded players than in a carefully balanced one with Knights of the Dinner Table wannabes. So, yes, I do wholeheartedly agree that game balance is given too much focus. That was one of the things that always irked me about 3.x. They worked so hard on balancing everything to the nth degree that they often sacrificed a lot of the flavor of what they had created. And despite these efforts exploitable feat and class combinations cropped up on a regular basis which could unbalance the game.
For example, take the 3.x bard. A common argument against the idea that the bard is underpowered is that, though they're useless in combatPlease, spare us. I'm sorry, but I just HAVE to nitpick this. This is an outdated and frankly unsupported opinion. To quote from the CharOp boards "the old-fashioned notion that the bard is underpowered has long since fallen out of style here."
There's the "fights better than the fighter" bard build, the "casts better than the sorceror" bard build, and of course the diplomancers. The thing is, some of the most powerful builds in the game, including the charop gold standard caster buffer, are *bard builds.* I can give you examples ranging from the 9th level maneuvers TWF blender with swift action songs that give him +16d6 energy damage to all attacks (dragonfire inspiration / song of the white raven bard) to the 9th level arcane casting buff king (sublime chord / war weaver). Not to mention just the bare bones Fascinate abuse or +8 attack and damage Inspire Courage by level 8.
The bard is only weak if you try to make him a jack of all trades. Bards are good at specialization.
The bard isn't weak. He's poorly balanced, and his ability progression is haphazard, and his choices aren't balanced against each other, but he's certainly not WEAK. Heck, in my experience, an experienced player behind the wheels of a bard often results in one of, if not *the,* most dangerous character in the party.
(Though, it is worth noting that I've also seen an inexperienced player behind the wheels of a bard being about as effective as a chicken with its head cut off. But really, the same can be said of any class. I've seen an ARTIFICER look like a chicken with its head cut off too. I measure whether a class is good or not by what a competent person can do with it)
I am not aware of the CharOp boards but it doesnt sound like any of these characters were Bards- as per the PHB. It sounds like a bunch of other character/prestige class levels with a bit of Bard. Such builds no more mean a Bard is balanced than the existence of a pizza means that cheese is a balanced diet.
I tend to play just PHB classes and do find some balance issues between the classes. IMO the reason it is important (though not a game breaker) is because a big proportion of the game is combat and if your ability to participate in or contribute to this part of the game is limited that is a bit boring.
(I have no issue with people playing with whatever prestige/splat books they want- it just aint my thing)
Yes, Diplomacy is one of the few things that truly deserves the Broken label. It's on the CharOp campaign smasher list thread next to Pun Pun himself. Definitely something Pathfinder needs to fix! Because, unlike Pun Pun, it's actually a gamebreaker lodged into the common, basic rules rather than some easily vetoed combo like Pun Pun. A rare exception to the "most broken stuff usually isn't as much of a problem as simply unbalanced stuff" idea.
Yes, they finally released enough splats to make Bards awesome. That and Diplomacy is broken as written in 3.5, which Bards can exploit quite well.
I saw Interest2's build: it uses 10 classes, Book of Exalted Deeds, paragon levels, substitutions levels, non PhB domains, base 18 charisma, +53 from an item familiar and an item, and psionics. You'll forgive me if I don't find that an especially convincing argument against diplomacy. That guy would be a burden to his party for a long time, especially if everyone else gets to twink out.
I run a bard campaign with 1 PC. I've yet to face this issue of diplomacy being broken. I've argued this issue down in the 3.5 forum, so you can find it here: Go to Diplomacy.
The difference between a huge (Str. 18) muscle guy and Joe (Str. 10) Couchpotato is 4 points! That's 20%. They could armwrestle and I wouldn't know on whom to put my money.
.
Just FWIW: the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter in baseball is one hit every two weeks. It's not easily discernible, but it is a difference worth several million dollars.
I run a bard campaign with 1 PC. I've yet to face this issue of diplomacy being broken. I've argued this issue down in the 3.5 forum, so you can find it here: Go to Diplomacy.
As I pointed out in that other thread, one significant difference in Pathfinder's Diplomacy skill is that you can only shift attitudes by 2 steps and you can no longer rush that aspect of Diplomacy.
As an experiment, though, here's a build:
Half-elf Cleric 10 (Glory, Good)
18 Cha, +2 Cha item, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), 10 ranks => +21 modifier
Glory domain => +31 modifier
Good domain => +41 modifier
A +41 modifier is enough to automatically convince an Indifferent creature (base DC 15) to give dangerous aid (+10 DC) that could result in punishment (+15 DC), for instance.
|
Yes, Diplomacy is one of the few things that truly deserves the Broken label.. ..it's actually a gamebreaker lodged into the common, basic rules rather than some easily vetoed combo like Pun Pun. A rare exception to the "most broken stuff usually isn't as much of a problem as simply unbalanced stuff" idea.
True; a character build that relies on a convoluted mish-mash of classes and feats, from several books, is far more likely to raise alarm bells than a player simply buying max ranks in a class skill.
A DM can come up with several reasons to veto a contrived build, not least being the need for a mentor. If he's written a PrC out of his game, then who's going to teach the PC? However, you can hardly write-out a skill that's there in black and white on every character sheet.
Same for Perform, powering the Fascination suite of abilities. Any ability based on a skill roll doesn't even require bonuses from Skill Focus, equipment, synergy, Aid Another, Inspire, etc., for it to still outpace other class features such as BAB, saves, caster level, which either have a cap, or are difficult to raise.
I’d rather play in an unbalanced game system with mature minded players than in a carefully balanced one with Knights of the Dinner Table wannabes.
Truer words were never spoken.
So, yes, I do wholeheartedly agree that game balance is given too much focus. That was one of the things that always irked me about 3.x.
Agreed - I certainly don't remember this sort of attitude seeming as all pervasive during my years playing 2nd Edition. I've long been inclined to blame the presentation of the 3.X books for this - everything had *NEW FEATS* *SUPER PRESTIGE CLASSES* etc. plastered all over it. And the default assumption about the way the game was run shifted from "trust your DM to be fair" to "it's every player for him/her-self, vs. the DM".
Paizo have always done great by selling us good fluff and realizing we don't need an abundance of crunch (new terms! new terms!) to have awesome adventures. We just need access to their swollen-brains.
I dunno - it could be all in my mind, but based on stories read online/experienced first hand/tales at the FLGS - I doubt it.
:D
Peace,
tfad
Just FWIW: the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter in baseball is one hit every two weeks. It's not easily discernible, but it is a difference worth several million dollars.
Right. And if we were talking about two extremely buff fighters in top form, one with an 18.300 and the other with an 18.250 we'd be having a different conversation. As it is we're talking about Steve Buscemi on one hand and Vin Diesel on the other. My money would be on Vin.
That said, it would be an interesting reworking of the premises of d20 to assume that attributes are talking about minor but important variances between ultra-skilled individuals, rather than (what they are) which is a global system describing everything from housecats to stone giants with all the varieties of humans lying somewhere in between.
Do remember that Charm Person automatically makes them Friendly. And its not *that* difficult a diplomacy check to go from Friendly to Fanatical. Bard does both of these things, and that makes the game cry. (Especially as this also makes the Charm Person spell's duration irrevelant, because the diplomacy skill puts a better non-magical reaction on top of it, and that has no duration - ok, as long as the Bard treats his faithful new buddy well.)
If you're going to comment on the Diplomacy skill on the Pathfinder board, please read the Pathfinder version of the Diplomacy skill first.
Diplomacy's shift in attitude now lasts 1d4 hours (longer or shorter at GM's discretion).
(Though, it is worth noting that I've also seen an inexperienced player behind the wheels of a bard being about as effective as a chicken with its head cut off. But really, the same can be said of any class. I've seen an ARTIFICER look like a chicken with its head cut off too. I measure whether a class is good or not by what a competent person can do with it)
Amen, brother werecorpse! LOL still!
|
|
I was a 4E beta playtester, and my group universally despised the game. One of the most commonly listed reasons was - three guesses - balance. That's right, they hated the absolute balance of all classes and options.
Why? Simple.
First is what I like to call "the Incredibles reason": When everyone is special, then no one is. If everybody is always doing their cool stuff in every round of every fight, then no one ever gets a real chance to shine. At best, you can hope to use your awesomest daily power and have everybody go "That's kind of neat" before they go right back to their own awesome stuff. Party roles are interesting, except that they don't really matter. Since everything is balanced around everyone being equal in combat now, all of the classes are essentially interchangeable as long as you marshal your resources properly.
Second, as my friend Joe put it, "Balance isn't fun; careful imbalance is fun." As long as everyone gets their time in the sun, the fact that not everyone is good at everything isn't a bug, it's a feature. The fighter is cool in combat, the rogue is good at stealth missions and traps, the cleric saves you from certain death and does miracles, and the wizard beats up problems with his brain. Past the "iconic four," as long as each class has something unique to offer the party, and that something comes up at least as often as that character represents a fraction of the group, then their balance is achieved already.
Third, perfect balance means that adjusting anything creates nearly uncontrollable imbalance. When all of the existing options are balanced just so, adding or taking away anything causes balance to be lost. This means that fans who want to make their own campaign settings, or even tinker with the existing classes and races, have to work a lot harder to make sure that a new option is balanced. (This concern is also coupled with the fact that 4E's design philosophy is deliberately opaque, but I won't go into that here.)
Finally, perfect balance requires limited options. These limited options means that only a small number of advancement paths are available for any given character. Part of the fun of making a character in a class-based advancement system is making him different, making him yours.
tl;dr: Perfect balance isn't fun because it takes your toys away and replaces them with someone else's standardized fun.
YMMV, naturally.
Jeremy Puckett
Yes, balance really is all that important. It is a core aspect of good game design. That doesn't mean it's the only one, though.
I disagree. I see balance as a core aspect of good party design, or of good character design, but not something that has to be written into the rules. Most players learn pretty quick that if your team isn't ballanced, they are going to have a much harder time than a well rounded team. (Have you ever tried to run a trap heavy dungeon without a thief?)
(And yes I said thief. Not a *&#@ing rogue.)
I run a bard campaign with 1 PC. I've yet to face this issue of diplomacy being broken....As I pointed out in that other thread, one significant difference in Pathfinder's Diplomacy skill is that you can only shift attitudes by 2 steps and you can no longer rush that aspect of Diplomacy.
As an experiment, though, here's a build:
Half-elf Cleric 10 (Glory, Good)
18 Cha, +2 Cha item, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), 10 ranks => +21 modifier
Glory domain => +31 modifier
Good domain => +41 modifierA +41 modifier is enough to automatically convince an Indifferent creature (base DC 15) to give dangerous aid (+10 DC) that could result in punishment (+15 DC), for instance.
Uh... if you can't rush it and the Touch of Glory and Touch of Good domains grant +CL to a check for 3 rounds, I would rule that you can't apply it to checks that take longer than 3 rounds, which would include Diplomacy. That puts us at +21.
A cleric using a feat on skill focus is a cleric without a meta-magic or scribe scroll feat. I'm fine with a player doing that for flavor reasons.
Starting with a CHA 18... in three of the four character generation methods, that's going to be exceptionally rare. In the point buy, system, it's 10 of your 15 points, leaving you with a 14 in wisdom and a 10 in every other stat. Again, you have to balance the +4 with the fact that you can't really serve as a second melee fighter nearly as effectively as you ought to be able to. You're building a glass cannon, and those tend to have real world survival issues.
And, frankly, if you're a bard, you really ought to be able to do extraordinary things with diplomacy. It's your thing. I fail to see why this is more game-breaking than teleport or raise dead. Or dominate person.
Re Bards and Diplomacy.
Do remember that Charm Person automatically makes them Friendly. And its not *that* difficult a diplomacy check to go from Friendly to Fanatical. Bard does both of these things, and that makes the game cry. (Especially as this also makes the Charm Person spell's duration irrevelant, because the diplomacy skill puts a better non-magical reaction on top of it, and that has no duration - ok, as long as the Bard treats his faithful new buddy well.)
Well, you need a minute of nonviolence and a skill check result ranging from 150 to 50 to get them to fanatic. As the DM controls this issue fairly thoroughly, I'm still not seeing the problem with this when compared to raising the dead and scry/buff/teleport, which start at 9th level.
Uh... if you can't rush it and the Touch of Glory and Touch of Good domains grant +CL to a check for 3 rounds, I would rule that you can't apply it to checks that take longer than 3 rounds, which would include Diplomacy. That puts us at +21.
If you're going to dicuss Diplomacy, please read the Diplomacy skill, folks.
"Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s
attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction.
Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds
of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the
request."
|
I haven't read the posts in this thread, pls forgive if this has already been mentioned...
I think your questions triggers a discussion of the "big secret". And, this is one that I've never really seen discussed. The big secret involves exactly what you're describing... namely, the DM is the great balancer, and in many ways game balance is not something really determined by the rules, but rather through the execution and decisions of the DM.
That said, there is another, more mundane form of balance that is indeed often (if not seemingly always) discussed on messageboards. Game design/game balance. That is, by-design, are the PCs balanced with internal-consistency, balanced with each other by level, balanced against the fantasy wigits (monsters, traps, etc.) to a degree as to diminish the mathematical favoring of one over another in an evenly matched fight.
The latter is a topic that bores me a bit, so I don't really get involved, except for providing feedback on Alpha 1,2,and 3 to Jason, because I feel involved in the creation of the game that will provide continued support for 3.5.
The former, meaning the "big secret", I'll just mention tongue-in-cheek here. And for those who truly understand how to make the game more than a game, and enter the realm of synergy, heuristics, collective unconscious, archetypal imagery, and collaborative story-telling... (well, I think that's still pretty much a big secret) it relies heavily on game balance adjudicated solely by the DM, and is one that overrides game design/game balance (for certain styles of play), and might be a topic that will likely remain a secret due to the complexity of its explanation, and the inability for some to arrive at (or maintain) that plateau of game style.
Uh... if you can't rush it and the Touch of Glory and Touch of Good domains grant +CL to a check for 3 rounds, I would rule that you can't apply it to checks that take longer than 3 rounds, which would include Diplomacy. That puts us at +21.If you're going to dicuss Diplomacy, please read the Diplomacy skill, folks.
"Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s
attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction.
Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds
of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the
request."
There's no reason to be snide. I don't deserve it and it doesn't make for a good community. All I was doing was suggesting that while your build was powerful, it wasn't all that extraordinary and that it came with compensating weaknesses.
First, I was citing the "1 minute of continuous interaction" part, which describes what people were talking about on this board: shifting attitudes of NPCs. c.f. your post, onewinged4ngel's, yours again, and squirreloid's. I am glad that you pointed out the exception.
Second, I was talking about how I would rule on that issue. Namely, that most diplomacy interactions listed in the skill (gathering info, adjusting attitudes, non-simple requests) would not be subject to those domain powers.
There's no reason to be snide. I don't deserve it and it doesn't make for a good community. All I was doing was suggesting that while your build was powerful, it wasn't all that extraordinary and that it came with compensating weaknesses.
First, I was citing the "1 minute of continuous interaction" part, which describes what people were talking about on this board: shifting attitudes of NPCs. c.f. your post, onewinged4ngel's, yours again, and squirreloid's. I am glad that you pointed out the exception.
But my build example was specifically using the "making a request" rules. That's why I mentioned the +10 to DC for "dangerous aid" and the +15 to DC for "could result in punishment".
Sorry to sidetrack this into a discussion of Diplomacy. I stick by my original opinion regarding balance: as long as every class seems like a (somewhat) viable option at every level, that's good enough for me.
It offends and appalls me that Paizo would kick such a constructive poster off their board.
They didn't. He was put on a time-out relating to a discussion that got out of hand, and he chose not to come back and post anymore (if I'm remembering things correctly).
Balance matters, yes, in that if you're supposed to be a fighter and you can't do what your basic description tells you you should do, then, it's a problem. Balance at low, mid, and high levels is the goal.
|
|
I haven't read the posts in this thread, pls forgive if this has already been mentioned...
I think your questions triggers a discussion of the "big secret". And, this is one that I've never really seen discussed. The big secret involves exactly what you're describing... namely, the DM is the great balancer, and in many ways game balance is not something really determined by the rules, but rather through the execution and decisions of the DM.
That said, there is another, more mundane form of balance that is indeed often (if not seemingly always) discussed on messageboards. Game design/game balance. That is, by-design, are the PCs balanced with internal-consistency, balanced with each other by level, balanced against the fantasy wigits (monsters, traps, etc.) to a degree as to diminish the mathematical favoring of one over another in an evenly matched fight.
The latter is a topic that bores me a bit, so I don't really get involved, except for providing feedback on Alpha 1,2,and 3 to Jason, because I feel involved in the creation of the game that will provide continued support for 3.5.
The former, meaning the "big secret", I'll just mention tongue-in-cheek here. And for those who truly understand how to make the game more than a game, and enter the realm of synergy, heuristics, collective unconscious, archetypal imagery, and collaborative story-telling... (well, I think that's still pretty much a big secret) it relies heavily on game balance adjudicated solely by the DM, and is one that overrides game design/game balance (for certain styles of play), and might be a topic that will likely remain a secret due to the complexity of its explanation, and the inability for some to arrive at (or maintain) that plateau of game style.
Yes, yes and yes. The DM has been, is and will be the greatest unknown factor of this game. A Great DM can turn it into something magical, and a poor one can make you curse. This keys into what I said earlier, a DM can make anything balanced.
I once told someone, a character cannot be created, that I cannot challenge and create a good game for. No matter how 'broken' ;)
|
|
And a good, balanced, fun, versatile, powerful system will make it all that easier for that DM to make things magical. "A great DM can make it good" is not an excuse to slack on design.
Yes, yes and yes. The DM has been, is and will be the greatest unknown factor of this game. A Great DM can turn it into something magical, and a poor one can make you curse. This keys into what I said earlier, a DM can make anything balanced.I...
agreed....but Im not for the controlled lockstep that 4e is...rather give me a psuedo balanced game like 3.5 (or 3.5P now) and let me do my own flare to make sure the games are fun and balanced. I like deciding what Im going to throw at a party instead of having a formulaic method to make sure its balanced
:D
|
I have a real problem with the supposed 4E "balance" and the benefit many believe it supplies.
I do play MMOs, I understand that things such as PvP balance make the game fun...for the millions of people playing at the same time and a completely computerized adjudication method that is the DM. On the other hand, in the pencil and paper RP world, balance has never been the concern of any members of groups I've played with (except one who I'll talk about later).
I as a DM and player do not care of Player X and Player Y shine at the same brightness at all times within combat and without. I do care that Player X and Player Y have fun, and get a chance to shine on occasion showing off what they can do. Yes a wizard can blow up a room full of orcs in 6 seconds flat. But I've seen a fighter fend off a horde of giants long enough for a party to escape, and a bard talk his way out of being eaten by a dragon by convincing him to spare their lives for a song. Most importantly I've seen this all occur in non-4E editions of D&D.
Balance does not make the game, the DM makes the game, and if there are minor balance issues, it's up to the DM (and to some extent the players) to make the game an environment where everybody has a chance to shine regardless of their supposed lack of "power." Most of the times I've DMed and played this has never been a problem. We've been creative and flexible enough to throw the concept of balance out the window and continue to have fun without worrying that the party contains 5 mages (we had a party of 3 rogues and a bard once and had a blast).
We have had the one odd-DM who considered everything in D&D had to be a tactical challenge, and frankly it's the one miserable experience I've ever had playing D&D...ever. He specifically drew the forefront the limitations of certain classes and did things like force encounters where the will saves were impossible without buffing, enemies charged our 70 hit point players with average 72 hit point attacks, and dispel magic was required to survive half the encounters (to which he actually commented once "well you should have just cast dispel magic" and our mage responded "yes, and roll a 19 or 20 to succeed, that's a great use of my time").
The reason I bring up that DM is that he played D&D like the 4E games I've participated in, and frankly it's not for me. Yes, the balance present in 4E easily would tone down his DM style and make the game much more survivable (and gasp! fun!), but for the majority of how we play, balance is not an issue and likely never would be. Even in our current campaign where we do have to deal with a high powered wizard, our DM is doing a very admirable job of dealing with the "balance" issue that many consider prominent in 3.x.
Another point about the GM as The Great Agent of Game Balance: You can't assume that every game is going to have a great GM. GMs are people and thus have a wide range of intelligence and capability. Some people seem to assume that the second somebody decides to run (or create and run) an adventure, they instantly gain the wisdom of Solomon. I've heard enough horror stories about GMs (even in organized play) not to buy that. Any system that requires an awesome GM in order to work has a problem.