I think the concept of game balance in roleplaying games is often misapplied.

The designers of 3e attempted to introduce systemic balance into the game with the d20 System, insisting that each character class be no more powerful than the others at any given level. There were numerous examples of imbalance built into the previous editions of the game, and they sought to eliminate this. Game balance is a useful concept in many types of games, and in certain subsets of the D&D rules it’s a good idea as well.

I mean, there was absolutely no attempt to balance various kits against one another in 2e. In AD&D, some classes were clearly better at lower levels but faded into obscurity by the higher levels. I never thought a thing about it, in my youthful naivety, I just accepted that it’s how the game was played. Then came 3e, which brought us the lofty goal of not only being playable at every level, but of all classes being balanced against one another. They fell far short of both goals.

That’s not a knock against them (well, it might be a knock against them for *claiming* such things), because D&D will never allow for that kind of balance unless it receives a complete overhaul. As long as wizards can do what they do and fighters are stuck swinging a sword, wizards will always be better at high levels…get over it.

Another complete failure was the homogenization of monsters and PCs, which necessitated horrible subsystems like CR, Treasure by Level, and magic item values. That’s too long to get into here, but I’m excited to hear that 4e has eliminated that problem. There were many other problems created by slavish devotion to systemic balance.

If you can’t tell, I’m not a big fan of the concept of systemic balance in RPGs. I do think certain sub-systems need to achieve some sort of balance, but some game elements need to be imbalanced in order to facilitate the presentation of a roleplaying world. One philosophy that’s been getting my goat recently is the standardization of stats at character creation. Yes, I’m going to defend rolling for stats.

I understand that rolling 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest or 3d6 six times pick the best set can produce some big gaps between characters, but it doesn’t necessarily. It also tends to make all PCs the same…which some people would call balance, but I would call boring. 3e’s standardized bonus structure (+1/-1 per two points from 10) made stat homogenization much more necessary than in editions past, where there was a huge range of +0 and a character had bonuses from only one or two stats usually, three if he was well rolled. But in outlying cases, the bonuses weren’t enough to make other players feel like they couldn’t keep up.

So, here’s my suggestion for a hybrid method.

The Standarandom Array

You start with the elite array–8,10,12,13,14,15–(which is not really frickin’ elite if you ask me) and list out your ability scores in order–Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma–then do the following.

1. Roll 1d6 for the 8: Count down your list of abilities to the number indicated (1 is Strength, 4 is Intelligence, etc.).
2. Roll 1d10 for the 10: 1-2, first available stat; 3-4, second stat; 5-6, third; 7-8, fourth; 9-10, fifth.
3. Roll 1d8 for the 12: 1-2, first available stat, 3-4, second stat; 5-6, third; 7-8, fourth.
4. Roll 1d12 for the 13: 1-4, first available stat; 5-8, second stat; 9-12, third.
5. Roll 1d4 for the 14: 1-2, first available stat; 3-4.
6. Put your 15 in whatever lucky stat is left over.

If you really want to be hardcore, pick your class before you roll.

This system lets the balance junkies have their way with ability scores (as the game all but dictates they should), but adds the flavor of randomness that some gamers prefer.

Rolling ‘em 3d6 in order all the way to the grave.