Pathfinder and GM Balancing Techniques


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


So we know Pathfinder is not a 100% balanced game and seem to assume some balancing required on the GMs part or players part. Leaving out the debate whether this is good or bad, It got me curious about what sort of balancing techniques other GMs use. I'll list a few I have have used below:

Nothing/Self Police: This is for my main group that I have been gaming with forever. Basically the maturity level is high, so I don't need to do anything, the players make sure not to overshadow each other and share the spotlight. I don't ban anything except potentially flavor choices based on the campaign if something doesn't exist in this particular world.

Pre approved characters: I have only really used this one when I gm in a shop as the players that show up vary wildly and have different goals/system mastery. So in this case I vet the characters sheets and ask the players to make adjustments. Generally I go by a majority rules sort of thing, so if one PC is severely under optimized compared to the rest of the party, I will help them to optimize their character concept. If the opposite is true, I will get the hyper optimized guy to "weaken" their character a bit.

Arms race: This is more of a monster vs pcs thing and pathfinder helped a lot in closing a lot of loopholes, but if there is a loophole in the rule or some weird combination that results in a really power effect, I won't straight out ban it, but if it is fair game for the PCs I make it fair game for the monsters. I don't have a specific pathfinder example but back in 3.5 days there was a spell called wraithstrike that was level 2 swift action that made all your attacks touch for a round. It was a crazy awesome spell for say dragons who had natural sorcerer levels and lots of attacks, but they would not use it as a tactic unless the PCs started abusing it.

I would do the same with instant death effects but I have not needed to in pathfinder since they reigned in those a lot.

So what sort of techniques do you use?


My group mostly police themselves. We've been together now for over 15 years and have all been roleplaying for over 30 years (except for our newbie who's the son of one of our founding members).

I don't ban anything outright unless it doesn't suit the flavour of the campaign or is so poorly written that we can't agree on how it should work.

That said I do reserve the right to veto any character-building choices that I think might imbalance the game. I do this on a character-by-character basis, so I might allow character A to take feat X, but not character B. I do this because imbalance is more likely to be caused by a particular combination of abilities, rather than one ability in isolation.

I remind my players of this at the start of each campaign and encourage them to email me intended builds to avoid later disappointment.

However I have not yet needed to exercise my power of veto. Not once.


I don't use XP anymore and level up at the speed of plot/achievement. When a character dies, the player creates a new one at the same level.

Specific to Paizo Adventure Paths:
All enemies max HP.
If 5 or more PCs I keep them 1 level behind the advancement track starting at about level 4-8.


Rather than banning things, I adjust my house rules to place additional limitations.

Leadership tho...


Flamephoenix182 wrote:

So we know Pathfinder is not a 100% balanced game and seem to assume some balancing required on the GMs part or players part. Leaving out the debate whether this is good or bad, It got me curious about what sort of balancing techniques other GMs use. I'll list a few I have have used below:

Nothing/Self Police: This is for my main group that I have been gaming with forever. Basically the maturity level is high, so I don't need to do anything, the players make sure not to overshadow each other and share the spotlight. I don't ban anything except potentially flavor choices based on the campaign if something doesn't exist in this particular world.

Pre approved characters: I have only really used this one when I gm in a shop as the players that show up vary wildly and have different goals/system mastery. So in this case I vet the characters sheets and ask the players to make adjustments. Generally I go by a majority rules sort of thing, so if one PC is severely under optimized compared to the rest of the party, I will help them to optimize their character concept. If the opposite is true, I will get the hyper optimized guy to "weaken" their character a bit.

Arms race: This is more of a monster vs pcs thing and pathfinder helped a lot in closing a lot of loopholes, but if there is a loophole in the rule or some weird combination that results in a really power effect, I won't straight out ban it, but if it is fair game for the PCs I make it fair game for the monsters. I don't have a specific pathfinder example but back in 3.5 days there was a spell called wraithstrike that was level 2 swift action that made all your attacks touch for a round. It was a crazy awesome spell for say dragons who had natural sorcerer levels and lots of attacks, but they would not use it as a tactic unless the PCs started abusing it.

I would do the same with instant death effects but I have not needed to in pathfinder since they reigned in those a lot.

So what sort of techniques do you use?

Mine are:

1. Everything is a case by case basis.

In my games you are never guaranteed anything. This helps me to maintain balance and cut off exploits at the knees. This is less needed when running with an established group, but is nearly required when I run open invitations on Roll 20.

2. Spell availability this is a big one.

There are a number of spells (see Blood Money) which were never intended for player characters to just "get" when they level up. I generally disallow players to pick up any spells that come from an AP or Module. It might be possible to get them from an enemy spell book or a scroll later, but they cannot spontaneously learn or purchase them.

3. Character vetting with the reserved right to nerf after session.

This one works like this. I look at player characters and decide if they are too powerful comparatively to the campaign and/or to each other. If someone sneaks something by, I reserve the right to pull players aside after game session and say, "Hey, we need to talk."

4. Enemies adapt to player strategies.

This is a big one in AP's and even my home brews. Generally speaking as the players gain power and prestige around the area they are people begin gathering information on them. Smarter enemies will use this information to their advantage. If the party is fond of using teleport to get into the enemy fortress then they may find a teleport trap waiting. If the PCs rely on divination magics, then smart enemies will have important rooms lined with lead to throw that off.

5. Time keeps marching on...

This stops the "15 minute adventuring day" in general. I don't run sandbox, ever. I don't find it fun. As such, events are set to happen in X amount of time, if the players don't stop them in X amount of time that is a failed victory condition. IE, if X is going to destroy Y in Z days and the party takes too long to stop X then Y gets destroyed. The same is true if an enemy is going to rob a place, steal an artifact, conduct a ritual, whatever their plan is.


My balancing strategy pays attention to the same elements as HWalsh does. The difference is that my decisions on a case by case basis are to strengthen the weak rather than limit the strong. This is because the players with the most system mastery are the mature players who like balance themselves. So this transforms to:

1. Custom feats and archetypes on a case by case basis.

If a player is trying to create a reasonable character and Pathfinder lacks the feats to allow it, we put our heads together and invent a new feat or ability. Players prefer feats that fit their character over overpowered feats.

2 & 3. Spell guidance//Character vetting.

Class abilities and high-level spells can have a big impact on the game, and my wife and I explain that impact to the player selecting the class or spell to see whether he or she wants to change the game that way. (I have system mastery, but my wife has system grandmastery.)

4a. The world responds to party actions.

I tease my players about derailing APs, but I rewrite the AP as much as they derail it, because I want the world to react to the party. Bystanders will ally with the party due to their honor and heroisms. Smarter enemies will change their tactics or throw overwhelming force at the party. One party harassed the fringes of an enemy army every day and then teleported away to a comfortable inn. On the third day, the wizard in the army scryed the inn and teleported an assault team for a surprise counterattack. But I included a double agent working for the party in the assault team, because what the party did mattered, including their intrigue.

4b. I respond to party power.

The players want a challenge. A stronger party needs stronger enemies, so I rewrite the enemies to give them a challenge. They will never win an arms race, so they know better to give up their fun in exchange for power.

5. Time keeps marching on.

I metagame that if the party has not yet heard of the villain, then the clock is not started. But once they start that particular adventure, the clock starts ticking. If the players decide to spend a day to finish a magic item or go shopping for better armor, that is one day further progress on the villain's plan. In my current campaign, they sought a job with the villain to learn his secret plan. One errand they ran gave him the last piece to finish for his plan. He just needed time to assemble it. Thousands will die! The party still wasted two days at more jobs that paid well as my wife bit her tongue to avoid screaming, "We are running out of time!" Countdown was down to half an hour, until my wife's character managed to set the clock back a little.

6. Teamwork wins.

My experienced players make the party twice as powerful as their level by good teamwork. For example, the magus can go on all-out offense, his strong suit, because the other PCs protect him when he is injured. If a player tries to powergame at the expense of teamwork, then he cuts his PC off from his main source of strength and ends up weaker.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Rather than banning things, I adjust my house rules to place additional limitations.

Leadership tho...

What about it? ^_^


I love it! Dynamic adjustment of the encounters / AP based upon player action & decisions. Been using this for decades myself.

I don't use XP any more, but the players level based upon team work, Roleplay, and achieving plot line objectives.

Other recognition comes in the form of "freebie points" which let you get away with one "anything". This might be simply declaring you do something crazy and having it instantly work without fear of failure. May never be used for game breaking abilities, spells, etc but can be used to allow the player to get the lime light for something they would likely otherwise fail at.

Time marches on // Bad guys react to player choices: ABSOLUTELY!!

Spell availability and gaining spells per level only applies to spells found in the core rule book. Everything else is on a case by case basis.

My campaigns use the slow progression and a hard cap around 12 - 13th level so they progress slower than many other campaigns. As such dealing with the weirdness of very high level magic is rarely an issue.


Choices for how you spend your time have consequences, pure and simple. The enemy isn’t going to sit around and wait for you to recharge and reload without planning, executing recharging and reloading themselves.


For material, I don't explicitly ban anything, with the exception that any third party material must be shown to me before I'll allow it. Any alternate rules I require the majority of players (including myself) to agree on. Otherwise, fair game.

For OP/broken material, I consider a combination of self police and arms race approach. I remind players that making things to easy will probably spoil their fun. If a very broken tactic is still regularly employed, I just make intelligent enemies learn from the PCs, and start using similar tactics. I don't try to invalidate a PC's specialty, but if you start mailing explosive runes to people, they're going to have countermeasures to them.

For consequences, they can be severe. Making poor choices in combat situations can lead to quick player death. Intelligent enemies will pick off easy or important targets. Ghouls will coup de grace their paralyzed prey if it makes tactical sense. Crimes like murder will earn the ire of society. People, perhaps even campaign important ones, may refuse to work/aid/speak with you if you've got on their bad side. PCs might even become fugitives if they decide to wantonly break laws and public order.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I generally only ban 3rd party material and the high-RP/monster races. I allowed an aasimar in for CoCT, which I sort of regret, though in the long-run, it probably won't matter. I'm toying with the idea of limiting everyone to no advanced races for Ironfang Invasion, but I've still got a few weeks to make up my mind.

If we were not playing APs (or otherwise published Paizo material), I probably wouldn't care at all. However, the more "power" I give the players, and necessarily the more options, the harder it is for me to modify everything to still provide a challenge.


I preapprove but I'm mostly checking for major issues such as feats and combinations that vary by GM.


I do ban all third party material.

That's a hard ban.

I tend to ban other things, again, on a case by case basis.

If I'm running, "Reign of the Serpent King" (My home brew 1-16 pseudo-mythic) for example Gunslingers, Alchemists, and Occult classes are banned.

Gunslingers just don't fit the theme and are problematic at certain points, Alchemists just don't fit, and there are things Occult classes do that don't work.

If I'm running "The Azure Sky" (A 1-10 homebrew AP) that is about Airships and Swashbucklers generally Rangers and Barbarians don't fit. Gunslingers and Alchemists are perfect. Rangers are due to the vast majority of the setting taking place in the sky, on Airships, favored terrain can get hinky and since it's over 80% humans (no elves, dwarves, etc) favored enemy gets wonky.

Shadow Lodge

Freebooter Ranger FTW!


Urban Barbarian! Woo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really just practicing standing on a narrow raised surface standing on one leg, close your eyes is a pretty good start.


but no my group self-polices I occasionally adapt encounters as well.


Thanks for all the discussion. I have definitely noted some to try.
I also do dynamic balancing but it tends to be to correct a mistake in my encounter building.
So if a boss encounter ends up a big way easier then I thought I'll adjust somethings (due to dice rolls or I planned then encounter poorly. If it's easier because the players did something clever I don't mess with it)

Or if am encounter is dragging on too long but the pcs have clearly won, I sometimes just reduced the enemies hit points or make the next him drop them rather than dragging on for a couple more rounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's my heartfelt recommendation: Trust your players and leave it to them, it eventually becomes a problem when you make it your job.

One campaign we ran to completion and level 21, I've let players have no restrictions. They had fun, but as the 3 year campaign went on, it became a ridiculous amount of work to design encounters around their power levels and all their cool tricks. Way WAY too much work to do a proper job of it, and you spend all your time doing encounter math instead of NPC motivations, story and descriptions, etc. Also, at some point, all those powers, spells and abilities remove your ability to give fights flavor or unique twists and scenarios, because the party has a way to neutralize or counter everything imaginative. They're having a blast crushing the opposition, but the DM starts not to, because the amount of work you need to sink into prepping a single encounter begins to approach a full work day, and if you're a fair DM, the party may avoid that encounter or overcome it in a way you didn't account for. Which, yay for the party, but nothing like seeing 6 hours of prep boil down to a "No thanks, we move on". LOL, DM life, right?

So, after that campaign, my "DM" lesson was: Forget adjusting to the party's power level, that will drive you mad eventually. Take an AP as written and call it a day. You'll have fun, they'll have fun and all is well.

Except you start to worry that halfway through the party will get bored of how easy everything is. By level 12, they can probably handle the last fight in the AP, and by level 18, they'll win it before the BBEG gets to act. So you figure out cool "creative" ways to limit PC power.

Hey, intricate stat system. Yay, no PFS-like shopping for gear. Hey-no full casters allowed. No invisibility and fly spells/powers before level X. All the stuff that caused you a DM headache in the last campaign.

Except that is also a mistake. Players really don't enjoy that sort of thing, to the point that one bowed out of the campaign because he just wasn;t having fun. And you know, I learned that lesson too late but I learned it. Don't impose limits on your players that are above/beyond what is in the rules/PFS.

Finally, my solution is the one I should have stumbled on in the first place. Run an AP that is NOT adjusted to the party's power levels, and tell them that is the case. That makes it easy for you to concentrate on prepping story, RP, NPCs personalities and motivations instead of the math of encounter balance. It's easy for your players to aim for the expected power level, because you've just told them what it will be. Leave the character creation up to them, and trust them to police themselves. Players in a group of friends would prefer for Timmy the Barbarian to tell the wizard that he'd rather storm the castle than invisible-gaseous form through it, than to have the DM ban the spell combo.

Hope this helps.


RPGs have a social contract element to them. The point of playing a game is to have fun. That absolutely includes the GM.

If I'm not having fun running a game, why on earth am I doing it?

First of all, I mostly only run games for players I know and trust, and who trust me.

I have a very low tolerance for rules lawyering, and I have an even lower tolerance for weird corner-case rules exploits. I have absolutely zero problem telling a player, "No. Because that will break the game."

My general rule of thumb is that PCs can freely buy equipment or magic items and take spells that are listed in the Core Rulebook. (For character classes introduced in later books that have unique spell lists, they can freely take spells on the spell list that initially presented the class.)

If PCs want magic items not listed in the CRB, they have to find them as loot or craft them themselves. I feel the same way about spells: If they want a spell not in the CRB, they need to find it as loot as a scroll or spellbook, or "discover" it themselves through independent spell research. And, yes, that includes divine casters.

Obviously, if the adventure is on a timeline, there might not be time to do that when the PCs want!

If I've allowed something in-game that's now breaking things, I have no problem taking the player aside and explaining why I'm reversing my decision. One example that comes to mind was the time I'd let a PC custom-craft gloves of reconnaissance, and the PC then went on to preview nearly every encounter in the adventure. As I was trying to run a mystery campaign, this pretty much broke the game. I ralized that I should never have allowed this item in the first place. I informed the player out-of-game that I would be removing that item from play, and that I wasn't going to allow its re-creation. He was a little annoyed, but was OK with my decision in the end.

I tend to adjust encounters on-the-fly. If the encounter is supposed to be a cakewalk but the PCs are struggling, I'll tip things in thier favor. (e.g. The enemy takes time to gloat or otherwise starts using sub-optimal tactics.) Or, if they're curbstomping what's supposed to be a climactic battle, more enemies suddenly show up, or the bad guy uses some kind of trump card tactic/item that I suddenly decide that they've had all along. (e.g. a cape of the mountebank.) I also tend to give the PCs limited-resource big guns that can tip the balance if things start to go pear-shaped: Hero Points, Plot Twist Cards, or powerful single-use items or effects (e.g. a boon from a deity that allows a one-time summoning of a powerful friendly outsider). The idea is to keep things fun and challenging, and to give the PCs enough resources to succeed... if they're clever and/or heroic!

My play style as a GM is one reason I don't run games in PFS...

Silver Crusade

DR/any player that isn't the min/maxed OP player

Resistance (spells from player who is min/maxed and OP) 10-30

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder and GM Balancing Techniques All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion