Dungeon Master: Keeping Classes Balanced

Maintaining some level of balance between classes is usually a goal for a Dungeon Master. Even small changes and house rules can unintentionally benefit certain classes over another. I hope to put forward some general guidelines to keep classes generally balanced when adding house rules or adding new classes. By no means will this be exhaustive, but I hope to form a starting point. I also hope to explain why I feel some kind of balance is important (in this case, I mean whatever the group considers fair). As usual, I will use D&D 5^th edition as my example. The basic assumption here is that the players are happy with the balance currently presented and the Dungeon Master wants to preserve this. 

Why Even Bother?

Classes can't be the exact same in every way. If we do that, we are left with only one class (classless systems have their own advantages, but even there not every character is the same). The rules may inherently favour certain classes that a Dungeon Master may want to fix (this is determined by the gaming group). The changes introduced to fix this skew are made to intentionally shift the balance between classes. The key here is that we want classes to be balanced (balance being whatever the group defines it as) but not homogenized. However, the balance that is created between classes is something that needs to be maintained once we achieve something we are happy with in order to make every class useful. 

Keep in Mind Where Damage Comes From

Magic classes in D&D 5^th edition can attack multiple attributes, do multiple types of damage and do a massive amount of damage at once. Non-magic classes do many attacks that do less damage, have generally less types of damage they can do and usually attack AC. When adding a rule that has to do with the amount of damage being done it is important to also think about how the same rule would work for the classes that do many attacks that do less damage as well. If we don't, we risk making some classes stronger than others when we didn't intend it.

This concept extends to certain other aspects of the game such as:

1. Range vs close quarters combat
2. The different attack actions in comparison to each other

Not All Classes Are Created Equal

Some classes step on each other's toes. However, if each one has something that makes it attractive and effective they will both be used. They could even be used in the same party and not outshine each other. A classic example for this kind of case is the sorcerer and wizard. This idea needs to always be considered when adding new classes and subclasses.

If we do not have a relative balance between similar classes, we run into a problem. From my experience the weaker classes simply stop being used entirely. This varies depending on the group but eventually there is a point where a class is considered so under-powered enough that no one wants to touch them. If I didn't want players to play a class, I'd probably just not offer it to the players but still use it myself to build NPCs. I've played in games where the original player classes were used only for NPCs and more powerful classes were made and offered for players. Since this fit into the over the top tone of the game, the players (including me) didn't mind and since the weaker classes weren't offered, we couldn't be tricked into playing them.

In D&D 5^th edition we run into another related problem. Instead of just having multiple classes we also have different subclasses or paths. The exact same issues are at play here but now it has to do with different types of the same class (at this point, I have never seen anyone want to play a beast master ranger after reading the rules).

Situation Means Everything

Let's assume we have done it. Our group is happy with every class, every subclass and every rule including house rules. Now let's imagine that your party consists of a wizard who loves to blow stuff up, an undead hunting cleric, and a spear wielding fighter who looks like he stepped off a boat following the Trojan war. Some classes will simply be more effective in certain situations. That's fine. I'd argue that actually, that is how it should be. It is still possible to create a campaign that will end up punishing people for playing certain classes or characters. This can sometimes happen accidentally and general I feel it should be avoided. The result is some members of the party will feel useless every single time.

If a Rule Is Meant to Aid Everyone Equally, Make Sure It Does

Some house rules are meant to benefit all classes equally and in such cases it is important to try to avoid affecting the balance between classes when it is not intended. It's obviously easier said than done but at the same time some effort should be taken. I am in favour of having players approve house rules since that way I know the rules are accepted (there are of course exceptions, since some campaigns may be built around certain house rules), especially if it includes a class that a player is using (they may notice something the Dungeon Master won't).

Conclusion

Well, there we have it. It isn't everything that can affect class balance when running a game or adding house rules but at the very least it is a start. If there is any feedback, disagreements or suggestions for important topics I missed, please do comment.