Maybe somewhere round here in this forum someone else has yet disclaimed this issue...

Btw, my feeling is good: IMO D2ed works better than 1ed (I've played it with 2 and 3 heros so far, only the Shadow Rune campaign + LoR expansion).

It's really so?

How many party's victories? And how many OL's?

What was your best game experience (i.e. mixing which expansions)?

And, last but not least, your opinion 'bout LT's packs: how deep would be their impact on the game balancing?

Txk in advance for your answers to this topic!

It all depends on who you ask. I have only done a four hero campaign before, and I feel it is balanced, even though I, the OL, lose more then the heroes. In the end, it's the fun factor and if the round feels like it was fair. Some maps favor one side over the other, but it's almost even on which favors who.

I honestly believe LoR is more balanced then SR on all rounds. We have more close calls and happy games in LoR then any other. We even have the CK for the heroes and monsters. Some heroes are pretty broken or, as my group likes to call them, easy-moto. If you have an understanding OL teaching heroes, these are the guys to do it. Otherwise, they most likely need to be set aside. I have only found two monster group that fits the bill on that one. I haven't finished exploring all of the monster groups though.

I am looking forward to the LT plot decks. Balance will all depend on how the heroes choose to spend their fortune tokens after the OL spends their threat tokens, and what each token can do. Zackerith's deck looks stupid good. it hits the heroes where it hurts the most, but the cost is really high. That seems balanced to me, but that also depends on how powerful or weak the fortune tokens can be and if an OL will risk them over beefing up their own OL deck.

It's going to take allot of playing around to get a good feel for the plot decks because each are so different. This gives a HUGE replay value for the OL. I would like to see more replay value for the heroes some how as well. Not really sure what that would look like outside of more heroes or heroes that come with backgrounds that interact with the story somehow.

thanks a lot, Kunzite!

I'd say 2E is about as well balanced as 1E was. I felt 1E was well balanced as long as one was careful about house rules. The temptation to address "thematic issues" with house rules can be strong with Descent, but it can also mess with game balance if you aren't careful.

It can swing heavily one way or the other per individual quest, mind you, and a lot hangs on how hard the OL is willing to play. The same was true of 1E, IMHO.

2E's rules are simpler, though, which I think helps it play faster. (Smaller maps don't hurt either.)

If you play a lot you'll discover some issues not game breaking still fun. If you played once a year I'd bet you wouldn't find much other then fun. If you bought every expansion you still would find more fun then balance issues.

I agree heroes need some love don't think they need any heroes there more then enough between CK and SE(getting repetitive) What they need is something completely new for them maybe better interaction in town to set the mood and/or loot that doesn't have anything to do with killing maybe something that gives them benefits to shopping,haggling,or some constructive new hero feature. Or maybe a monster that shows up from time to time in quests but it can't leave the room it's in but the heroes have a choice to waist a little time to slay it for...again something clever! Might take to much time or it might KO somebody, could cost them the quests. Whatever they gain its got to be worth there time to try. Ok I went overboard there but yeah they need something fresh!

They gave Allies this last time. And before that they gave them the treasure room, which will be getting some love in Trollfin. It's a good start, but it's not as major as the plot decks. Man... I love playing the OL. So many toys...

They gave Allies this last time. And before that they gave them the treasure room, which will be getting some love in Trollfin. It's a good start, but it's not as major as the plot decks. Man... I love playing the OL. So many toys...

Lol yeah it's fun being the OL. Though I do enjoy playing as scout too not as much as OL but he's fun too.

They gave Allies this last time. And before that they gave them the treasure room, which will be getting some love in Trollfin. It's a good start, but it's not as major as the plot decks. Man... I love playing the OL. So many toys...

Lol yeah it's fun being the OL. Though I do enjoy playing as scout too not as much as OL but he's fun too.

If I where to play a hero, I think it would have to be a scout with a pet of some kind. Maybe. I just need to be able to move and move often. And shoot far away. I love my ranged beasts much more then anything else. It's safer that way.

You'll find a lot of people talk about how the overlord is overpowered and a lot who talk about how the heroes are overpowered. (There's entire threads dedicated to a lot of back and forth about it.) One fairly big consensus, though is that the game does have a tendency to be "swingy" (lots of domination from one side or the other, with fewer "close calls"). The Conversion Kit definitely CAN add to the swing factor, and the FAQ/Errata helps tone it down. I've also seen a fair amount of consensus that the Shadow Rune quests are swingier than those from later expansions.

As for the Lieutenant Plot Decks, it's hard to say how they affect balance just yet: All we've seen are the overlord's toys, which would definitely tip the scales toward the overlord if there wasn't a way for the heroes to get something out of it as well. Once we see the hero side of things, we'll all have a better understanding.

You'll find a lot of people talk about how the overlord is overpowered and a lot who talk about how the heroes are overpowered. (There's entire threads dedicated to a lot of back and forth about it.) One fairly big consensus, though is that the game does have a tendency to be "swingy" (lots of domination from one side or the other, with fewer "close calls"). The Conversion Kit definitely CAN add to the swing factor, and the FAQ/Errata helps tone it down. I've also seen a fair amount of consensus that the Shadow Rune quests are swingier than those from later expansions.

As for the Lieutenant Plot Decks, it's hard to say how they affect balance just yet: All we've seen are the overlord's toys, which would definitely tip the scales toward the overlord if there wasn't a way for the heroes to get something out of it as well. Once we see the hero side of things, we'll all have a better understanding.

They gave Allies this last time. And before that they gave them the treasure room, which will be getting some love in Trollfin. It's a good start, but it's not as major as the plot decks. Man... I love playing the OL. So many toys...

But I'd think it would be awesome to create OL decks and monster packs seperatly, for future if you want to add this exspansions like plot decks. Campaign exspansions are always welcome for both OL and Hero players.

The least balanced elements in Descent are the players (me included).

The least balanced elements in Descent are the players (me included).

So true I agree with this too

I'd say 2E is about as well balanced as 1E was. I felt 1E was well balanced as long as one was careful about house rules. The temptation to address "thematic issues" with house rules can be strong with Descent, but it can also mess with game balance if you aren't careful.

It can swing heavily one way or the other per individual quest, mind you, and a lot hangs on how hard the OL is willing to play. The same was true of 1E, IMHO.

2E's rules are simpler, though, which I think helps it play faster. (Smaller maps don't hurt either.)

I was obviously playing D1E wrong as I thought it was terribly unbalanced!

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/955497/balance-statistics

check this, you might fill it to enhance the statistics.

I was obviously playing D1E wrong as I thought it was terribly unbalanced!

I think a lot of people thought the same thing about D1E: each side had a roughly equal chance of winning (varying by quests), but most of them were blowouts. Either the heroes were squashed early on giving the OL a win that felt like the heroes couldn't go anywhere; or if the OL couldn't manage that, then by the time the heroes got to the higher levels of treasure, they were so well geared up that they steamrolled everything including the final boss, leaving the OL feeling like their win was a foregone conclusion multiple turns earlier.

My impression is that, after all, D2Ed. is still a balanced game, more than 1Ed was. I've played a lot of Campaigns of first edition (RtL and SoB), adding some house rules. I had funny and very battled sessions, where OL and heroes both won and lost their prizes. But without the addition of those house rules that would be a very unbalanced game.

I've found D2Ed more balanced under all points of view, even with standard rules.

Moreover, earing about conflicting experiences (OL too powerful or party too strong) makes me think that, actually, this game is balanced enough: it only depends on who plays!

I love a game where only best and most experienced players can win, regardless of lucky dice...

IMHO it's not... Descent 2nd edition it's far away to be considered balanced... i usually play with a 4 hero group that i like to call them "power players" couse they play like there is no tomorrow... and with 4 hero playing at this level there are only 3 case where the game it's somehow balanced:

1 - stand alone mission with no exp - money for heroes

2 - first mission of the campain after the first blood can be still considered balanced with some really good dice shot from the OL...

3 - first mission of the act 2... if the OL it's not a complete mess in the act 1 he still have a chance to "have fun" (not win..) the first of the act 2 missions..

the thing really unbalanced it's the grow up system...

a power player will always grab all the treasure in a map as first thing and than try to win the mission... he will have a 1exp point anyway and all the treasure in a map means 225gold (sort of) each map (2 encounters) ... + 25x4 of the basic equip a 4 hero party have 325 (as media) ... plus 1 exp each party member means 4 "skill card" that will be played at the second mission (if anybody spent the exp)... what the OL will gain?... 1/15 possibility to draw a new card?... where if u are lucky this card will do... dunno 2 more atks in 1 turn?.. or some tiny dmg?.. are u kidding?

what i'm saying can be easly achivied in the "first blood" mission itselft... hero can always ignore winning condition and point to maximize the profit of each mission.. they will grow up stronger and faster than the OL in anycase... and after "opening mission + first mission" they will be unbeatable... 4 hero with 1exp and a little equip mean 8 shot a round that will vaporize any monster group they will meet in the table one by one.. and sometimes without giving the possibility to OL to strike back... cmooon

i know that descent it's "balanced" if u play it as normal, rpg, beer drinking player.. but if u play it at top as a brainstorming 4 vs 1 chess game.. the game it's totally unbalanced to the hero side...

ps. what we do to balance it usually it's to use some homerules to counter the esponential hero grow with a equal OL grow..

oh my god! thx !!! iam not alone. i think that to. 4heroes is over powerfull. overlord do not nothing....

Wells, french player

Wells, sorry to say that you are wrong.

Not being alone does not add any logical element to your erroneous analysis.

Sorry, but (un) balance is a myth, an irrational belief, sustained by anecdotical, partial arguments, not speaking of the fact that quite often players play the rules wrong.

Descent is swingy and balance is impossible, as much as the idea of unbalance leaning systematically on one side.

The Descent forums are those where I have seen the most obsessive concern about balance.

I think something very irrational generates that monomania.

If you feel the balance is wrong with Descent then I believe you can fix it easily by handicapping what areas you feel are making it unbalanced. If getting items are too easy, maybe only draw 1 shop item card. Maybe increase the monsters health or movement or add an additional monster group. Randomize character selections or disallow powerful combinations might be another alternative. Additionally, the campaign could be won by the OL before reaching the Finale if enough quests haven't been won by the heroes. Simple ideas generally work the best. LoR also contains BASIC II cards which are much more effective for the OL.

I see balance mentioned on these forums quite a bit. The mechanics of the game are fantastic and it is incredibly addictive game which is lot harder to fix than any perceived balance issues.

I see balance mentioned on these forums quite a bit. The mechanics of the game are fantastic and it is incredibly addictive game which is lot harder to fix than any perceived balance issues.

Descent has a way of provoking balance discussions, it's true. Of course, "balance" is a largely subjective thing, so people's opinions will always be their own.

Not too many people are willing to play 10,000 game sessions to achieve a statistically significant win ratio before deciding if a game is "balanced." And Descent being scenario-based would even make that practice shady at best. I think Descent's game balance is close enough to even that it's not an issue, but that balance does tip (sometimes significantly) depending on the individual quest.

I also agree with you that the best solution for those who are upset by what they see is house rules. Consider such house rules carefully, make adjustments where you see the need, and keep having fun while playing.

I think Descent's game balance is close enough to even that it's not an issue, but that balance does tip (sometimes significantly) depending on the individual quest.

I agree.

That "tipping" of the balance is what corresponds to my idea of "swingy".

I think the biggest issue in regards to balance is quest design. Certain quests are so borked (Heart of the Wilds in the Labyrinth expansion is one of the largest offenders which is no exaggeration, impossible for the heroes to win if they lose the first half) that one side is going in at such a disadvantage they have to try hard to even get close to winning, if they can at all. If you don't know to avoid them then one side will get out of control as they coast on easy victories. Heroes specifically get exponentially better with access to certain gear and ability combinations which creates an avalanche of power imbalance. Knowing to avoid certain quests can probably help keep things closer.

Also I have a suspicion that the character upgrade kit should not be used. Typically when my group had an issue with a hero really just exploiting the hell out of a map it was from that kit which I don't think was tested well at all. Next time we play I am going to lobby hard to not include any of the heroes or monsters from it and see if it turns out better.

the character upgrade kit

wazzat?