PDA

View Full Version : Class ability "costs" and why classes are imbalanced.



Belial_the_Leveler
2009-06-19, 05:10 AM
Let's take a basic 20th level commoner then subtract its stats from the stats of a 20th level single-class character with the same ability scores/items. What remains is, effectively, that class' abilities. Now, from a scale of 1 to 20, how would you price the following abilities?


Medium BAB (5 points and one iterative over base)
Good BAB (10 points and two iteratives over base)
One good save (6 points over base)
Five bonus feats or proficiencies.
Increased HD (die size increased by 2, total HP increased by 1/level)
2 extra skills/level (include this if primary class ability also increases skills)
One useful bonus ability. (such as evasion, turn undead, monk AC, spell resistance and the like-less useful abilities count less)
Full arcane spellcasting (sorceror, wizard, wu-jen)
Full divine spellcasting (cleric, favored soul, archivist, druid)
Unlimited Spells Known (such as learning from scrolls, request from deity or power)
Limited MAD (class abilities/attacks depend on 2 ability scores)
No MAD (class abilities/attacks depend on only 1 ability score)



Once you do the pricing, add up the scores and compare the classes. Incidentally, a quick comparison:

Fighter:
1 good save, good BAB, d10 HP (+3 hp/level), 15 bonus feats/proficiencies.

Wizard:
1 good save, 5 bonus feats, Full arcane spellcasting, Unlimited Spells Known, No MAD, 6 extra skills/level, minor ability: familiar.

Chrono22
2009-06-19, 05:40 AM
Well, I don't really see how rating these abilities is a constructive activity. I mean, whatever judgment I would make would be entirely subjective, and you don't have a way to collect the information in a meaningful way (a poll).

The main reason why a wizard is more powerful than a fighter, is because normal attacks can only be used in a limited fashion, and to be good at any specific attack form a fighter must invest many feats to do so. Furthermore, since attack damage doesn't scale, the fighter quickly falls behind the dps of a wizard. Meanwhile, a wizard's spells scale by level, and are effective out of the box (no feat investment required). He can also swap out his daily spells for different ones, which means that he can overcome different circumstances without having to spam a single strategy.

A solution to fixing warriors and mages in relation to eachother: Give fighters more toys to use, and weaken spells.
Another solution: remove all spells except damaging ones, use fixed damage, and give them to everyone.

Irreverent Fool
2009-06-19, 06:19 AM
Another solution: remove all spells except damaging ones, use fixed damage, and give them to everyone.

I see what you did there.

This exercise doesn't seem to produce any measurable results. It is a good way to see what each class gets, I suppose. But the Fighter gets 15 apples and the Wizard gets 20 levels worth of oranges.

obnoxious
sig

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-06-19, 06:54 AM
I mean, the closest I can come is the following.

Martial characters advance in a flat rate.

+1 BaB=2 points
+2 BaB=3 points
+3 BaB=4 points
+4 BaB=5 points
+5 BaB=6 points

Feats: 3 points each (1, 2, 4)


Spells advance exponentially.

1st level casting (not 1st level spells...1st level casting): 2 point
2nd level casting: 3 points
3rd level casting: 6 points
4th level casting: 7 points
5th level casting: 14 points
6th level casting: 15 points
7th level casting: 30 points...

With Hit Dice figured in, I think this formula puts Fighters and Wizards on about the same page at 5th-7th level...

But again, it's entirely guesswork. I can't explain why I thought BaB +1 was worth 2 points, or 1st level casting (in what class? what spell list?) was worth 2 as well. There's no science to it...

I don't think a system like this can possibly work.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 06:54 AM
It's worse than that. The different classes use what amount to different rules systems. Let me put it a different way yet again.

Take a look at the RkV, and tell me how much you think divine impetus is worth as an ability.

How much is turning worth to a shugenja?

How much is blink worth to a fighter?


Part of me says that this is actually how WotC did it. And look how well that came out.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 07:02 AM
The serious difference is actually in how fighters and wizards/sorcerors work. Fighters can a) take damage (I don't know how many times I've seen a magic user get taken out by a creature a fighter would tackle in a round) and b) gain more benefits from mulitclassing. Ultimately, for a fighter, the main benefits to levelling are more HD and a higher BaB, which allows them to, say, multiclass to paladin or ranger and gain the benefits of that class as well, without sacrificing the main benefits of levelling up. I've tried several multi-classed magic users myself, and most of them lose out as arcane spellcasting is largely unsuccessful in armour (anyone who's played a bard knows whatI'm talking about), which they need to use a lot of the combat-based advantages of other classes, and secondly, they don't gain the bonus spell slots of that next level. This means their spells are weaker compared to the monsters they'll face, reducing their impact. For this same reason, spellcasters need their higher-level spells to have an effect. Ever tried casting "ray of enfeeblement" on an ancient dragon? Hardly ever fail their saves.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-19, 07:03 AM
Suggested reading material: the 2E DMG has a system that does exactly this, and is intended to let you create custom classes. It is, how shall we say this, not really balanced all that well. Then again, balance doesn't seem to have been a design goal for 1E/2E.

Slightly less extreme, 2.5E (also known as skills&powers) has some point buy values for additional character options, which is somewhat more balanced but a lot less versatile.

TheCountAlucard
2009-06-19, 07:07 AM
Ever tried casting "ray of enfeeblement" on an ancient dragon? Hardly ever fail their saves.There is no save for ray of enfeeblement. Of course, you still have to beat their spell resistance.

@V: My point exactly. :smallamused:

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 07:11 AM
I can get +18-25 to my caster level checks for beating SR. With a base caster level of 33. Much of this is applicable at lower levels too. The Tomebound Eye Of Boccob is a nice first stop for this stuff.

SR only matters thanks to spell immunity's wording. Oh and please don't start yowling about how core is balanced... There are huge problems with core. In fact a lot of the CO community holds that core is the worst part of DnD for balance concerns.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 07:14 AM
Thank you, Count. I feel like most people skip the thread and just post, though, so we'll see if anyone noticed.

Jack_Simth
2009-06-19, 07:28 AM
For this same reason, spellcasters need their higher-level spells to have an effect. Ever tried casting "ray of enfeeblement" on an ancient dragon? Hardly ever fail their saves.
Umm... ignoring that Ray of Enfeeblement has no save, Ancient Dragons tend not to fail their saves very often in any event - 30+ hit dice and a "good" save progression means a +17 or better save modifier ... and that's base save, before stats, items, spells, and feats (all of which dragons usually have in abundance).

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 07:33 AM
I am struggling to master the art of posting without posting.
Suffice to say that the man above me is correct in some senses, but most of the spells I rely on day-to-day permit no save.

Riffington
2009-06-19, 07:38 AM
I think the clearest example of how such 'costs' make no sense is the Battle Sorcerer.

For the cost of: 1 spell known per level, 1 spell per day per level you get:
*light armor and light armored casting.
*step higher BAB.
*Two steps higher HD.
*a weapon proficiency.

And yet the consensus is that this is less powerful than a regular sorcerer. But just imagine if you could do this 3 times instead of once. You'd have:
*heavy armored casting and heavy armor proficiency. Full martial weapons.
*1.5 BAB.
*D16 HD.
*Decent Gish spellcasting (if you take the Quickened Spell feat).

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 08:06 AM
I support this wholeheartedly, as does candlejack. In fac-

bosssmiley
2009-06-19, 09:54 AM
Suggested reading material: the 2E DMG has a system that does exactly this, and is intended to let you create custom classes. It is, how shall we say this, not really balanced all that well. Then again, balance doesn't seem to have been a design goal for 1E/2E.

Slightly less extreme, 2.5E (also known as skills&powers) has some point buy values for additional character options, which is somewhat more balanced but a lot less versatile.

I think the last class creator I saw that actually worked was for BECMI. Yep, that's Elf-as-class D&D. It was based off something in an old issue of Dragon. (link (http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3781343452.html))

I have to warn the OP and collaborators that they're likely on a hiding to nothing here. The more complex a system the more likely it is to break down unexpectedly, especially if pushed beyond normal operating parameters. 3E as written is no Hero System, and no GURPS.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 10:25 AM
Sorry, I phrased badly. Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't allow a save. My point is, you can use a spell slot up and it can be a complete waste some of the time (although this is less of a problem with higher levels), while fighters can just hit the thing again next round if they miss. Personally, I find this issue is actually addressed in 4th edition, with every class gaining "powers" as they level. So you COULD say WotC noticed and fixed this problem.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 12:06 PM
Are you telling me that you think wizards are strictly worse than fighters?
There are situations where fighters are better. Potentially much better. But I want to just highlight something that's neglected in your average power analysis of D&D. This is not a game that happens without a party.

Fighters, weak as they are, are very useful in a party with well-built support for them.

Support's a nebulous term. Let me explain.

Direct collaboration within combat between the front-line and the back-line. Tactics, buffs, crowd control, things as simple as using shape spell to keep charge lanes open.
Indirect synergy between the builds within the party. Remember, this is a game, and as such you play it rather than allowing it to play you. Working together at a meta-level is part of that.
Support from the Gamemaster. Yes, I count that. And yes, it matters a lot. With careful work, which is nominally the duty of the GM after all, a GM can be a tremendous balancing factor.


The fighter, by default, has limited options. He's a battering ram, a wall, a fortification. This is often not a lot of fun, and often not useful. On his own, a fighter is worthless. He will get dragged down by numbers, torn apart, and hopefully eaten. Because at least then our idiot-loner will have been good for something. Does this sound vitriolic? It is. I'm frustrated by the conception that weak numeromancy can reduce such a large problem domain to a solved system. This isn't easy math, to be done in a moment or two. If you want to do this, you should be prepared to pull out some serious game theory, a huge amount of tactical knowledge, and a understanding of the system far deeper than mine. You would also need to patch a lot of excesses in the existing rules, so that there aren't any second-system effects to be worried about.

TL;DR Summary: I think you are vastly over-simplifying. This may be doable, but it's far harder than you imagine.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:15 PM
Original post by Tidesinger
Fighters, weak as they are, are very useful in a party with well-built support for them.
Well done, you've made the important point. This is a game about a party. Spellcasters wouldn't last long without a fighter or paladin to keep the enemy at bay (hate d4 HD, makes me feel puny). But no, as a general rule, wizards and sorcerors are more powerful, but also more vulnerable.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 12:23 PM
I don't know if I agree with that. What about gish builds?

Something as simple as:
Lesser Aasimar
Battle Sorcerer 6/Spellsword 1/ Abjurant Champion 5?

Or

Aasimar
Battle Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 10

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:35 PM
Gotta be honest and say I'm not certain. You CAN protect spellcasters with multiclass builds, but of course in doing so you mean you don't get as many spells. Also, if you're starting from lvl 1, that takes time to build towards.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 12:40 PM
:: gentle smile ::
I lose spells there because I was intentionally laying out a very simple build.
The first one, however, loses no caster levels, just stuff lost to battle sorcerer.

These are the things you _must_ understand if you want to try and build a point-buy system for D&D classes. Or you need to go ahead and ban multi-classing, which is gonna go over real well with your players unless you have a really sophisticated point buy system which I think would basically have precisely the same results unless you have an equally sophisticated ban\restrict system.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:43 PM
It's not a huge problem for me, personally. I DM a lot, and my players either pick relatively simple builds and work with the issues involved. I have a homebrew rule or two to help as well, such as 4e's weapon proficiencies to make hitting easier (I found the barbarian in particular wasn't landing enough hits to survive combat long).

Riffington
2009-06-19, 12:45 PM
Well done, you've made the important point. This is a game about a party. Spellcasters wouldn't last long without a fighter or paladin to keep the enemy at bay (hate d4 HD, makes me feel puny). But no, as a general rule, wizards and sorcerors are more powerful, but also more vulnerable.

This is sort of true, but only sort of. Yes, it's highly useful to have someone on the front lines, and no a wizard can't do it. Yes, if you have a fighter, it's often more useful to have the spellcasters buff her than buff themselves. But how often is it more useful to have a fighter/barbarian/warblade than to have a second cleric or druid who frequently but not always does melee?

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:50 PM
This is sort of true, but only sort of. Yes, it's highly useful to have someone on the front lines, and no a wizard can't do it. Yes, if you have a fighter, it's often more useful to have the spellcasters buff her than buff themselves. But how often is it more useful to have a fighter/barbarian/warblade than to have a second cleric or druid who frequently but not always does melee?

Doesn't that agree with my point about the mulitclassing flexibility of non-casters? I have to admit I was generalising. Couldn't be bothered to work out the best combination for a combat character, especially as I favour single-classed arcane casters.

tyckspoon
2009-06-19, 12:51 PM
Well done, you've made the important point. This is a game about a party. Spellcasters wouldn't last long without a fighter or paladin to keep the enemy at bay (hate d4 HD, makes me feel puny). But no, as a general rule, wizards and sorcerors are more powerful, but also more vulnerable.

Except that spellcasters being more powerful also gives them far more options to cover their own vulnerabilities. A wizard on his own can live; he'll have to devote more of his resources to self defense and abilities he would otherwise leave to his party, but if he's smart about it he'll make it (sorcerers and other limited spells-known classes can do it to, but they'll probably burn a lot more consumables to do so.)

Oh, and at least for level 1, try this wizard out..
Human Wizard 1
Int 16 Con 14 Dex 14 (doable at 32 point buy or rolling a bit above average)
Feats: Improved Initiative, Toughness
Familiar: Toad
Wears leather armor and, if desired, carries a buckler (+1 more AC at cost of more spell failure and, more importantly, an armor check penalty.)
AC 14 (10 +2 armor +2 Dex)
12 HP (4 +2 Con+ 3 Toughness + 3 Toad)
Initiative +6
Ranged to-hit +2.
10% spell fail chance.

He's got HP in the same area as your typical level 1 Fighter, a decent hit chance, fair AC, and he has good odds of going first. He probably won't be using his spells in direct combat, but really, that's ok- this is a level where plugging something with a mundane crossbow bolt is still almost as effective as hitting it with a spell anyway. He'll prepare more of his utility stuff and just take off his armor when they need to be used.

This works better if you use the retraining rules from PHB2; you don't want to be stuck with Toughness forever, and sooner or later you would want to switch the Toad to a more useful familiar. Around level 3, you'll either ditch the armor in favor of Mage Armor or start working on acquiring your Mithral Chain Shirt Of No ASF. Your crossbow will still be a useful backup, but you'll also start relying on your spells.

Incidentally, level 1 comparisons are almost as useless for general class balance purposes as level 20; everybody is fragile, nobody can afford they best gear they can use yet (mundane full plate doesn't fit WBL until levels 3-4, and even then it's still like 80% of your wealth), and the feats and stats you select can have as much impact on your abilities as your actual class.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:59 PM
Incidentally, level 1 comparisons are almost as useless for general class balance purposes as level 20; everybody is fragile, nobody can afford they best gear they can use yet (mundane full plate doesn't fit WBL until levels 3-4, and even then it's still like 80% of your wealth), and the feats and stats you select can have as much impact on your abilities as your actual class.

My point was more that casters don't have the suggested multiclass options to make them tougher at 1st level than a 1st level comparison. You're right, that is useless. I have to admit, cleric's probably the best lone wolf class. No ASF, good armour and weapons and healing spells.

As for covering their vulnerabilities, you're right, they can. Me personally, I just hate doing it with anything other than summons, as I _like_ blasting stuff.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 12:59 PM
For example, while precocious apprentice is normally regarded as a weak and stupid feat used almost exclusively for early entry into prestige classes, for a level one wizard or sorcerer, or particularly bard... It's a tremendous boon. Literally mana from heaven. It's even more mindboggling for a bard, or a slow-progression arcane caster of any flavor.

Your point is that you could comfortably produce a point-buy system that would work for your campaigns, a lot of the time.
This is not good enough for me, in any sense. It's literally a frakking bear trap for new GMs.

Despite my frustration, this is the single most cogent discussion I've had on this forum, by a wide margin. Thank you.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 01:07 PM
I ran my first campaign off the back of what I still use now, and it works ok. I don't use point-buy, but I am a big advocator of the GM's right to do whatever he wants if it'll improve the game. Also, the compliment is apreciated from my quarter :smallsmile:

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 01:10 PM
I am mostly a GM as well. I've had to make lots of houserules, and change plenty of things. You can see some of my common houserules in the second post for the Test of Spite, in my sig. Basically, my core issue is that I'm not convinced a single set of tables is going to do what the OP wants it to do. I'd much rather see... say... a martial progression conversion for fighter and monk that isn't appalling.

In my opinion, it's more interesting and generally easier to raise the power level across the lower tiers rather than try and drop it.

Roderick_BR
2009-06-19, 01:12 PM
Someone did a system like that under "Generic Classes" in the Homebrew forum. Can't find it now, now, tough.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 01:27 PM
I feel like I've used up all my ability to post about this for this evening. *phew*. Tired :smallsigh: Anyone else feel the most unbalanced in 4e is the rogue?

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 01:55 PM
I switched to other gaming systems instead of upgrading to 4E, so I wouldn't really know.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 01:59 PM
4e actually addresses a fair few issues from 3e, such as giving all classes spell-like "powers", which define the majority of their attacks. This makes levelling more fun for non-casters and at the same time also lowered casters destructive abilities. But Rogues can get attacks doing 3 d8 every turn with ease, so it's a bit unbalanced. Only solution I've found is to split the party by attacking from both sides. Though of course it's a moot point anyway:smallcool:

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:02 PM
I am aware of how it works, having read it fairly thoroughly. I own the core books, but have never used them. Fundamentally, it was not to my tastes, and it was incompatible with all of my ongoing campaigns due to the removal of the existing planar cosmology.

I really would prefer not to talk about it, since the death of the great wheel made me basically incredibly angry. Weird, I know, but while most D&D settings were boring to me, planescape was not. In fact, for me, planescape was one of the single most interesting and elegant settings ever laid out. I started playing it in 2E, and have never really looked back.

Artanis
2009-06-19, 02:05 PM
4e actually addresses a fair few issues from 3e, such as giving all classes spell-like "powers", which define the majority of their attacks. This makes levelling more fun for non-casters and at the same time also lowered casters destructive abilities. But Rogues can get attacks doing 3 d8 every turn with ease, so it's a bit unbalanced. Only solution I've found is to split the party by attacking from both sides. Though of course it's a moot point anyway:smallcool:

Which power are you talking about? Riposte Strike? :smallconfused:



Edit: Addendum


I am aware of how it works, having read it fairly thoroughly. I own the core books, but have never used them. Fundamentally, it was not to my tastes, and it was incompatible with all of my ongoing campaigns due to the removal of the existing planar cosmology.

I really would prefer not to talk about it, since the death of the great wheel made me basically incredibly angry. Weird, I know, but while most D&D settings were boring to me, planescape was not. In fact, for me, planescape was one of the single most interesting and elegant settings ever laid out. I started playing it in 2E, and have never really looked back.

They're bringing back Planescape in 4e. Or at least, I assume they are, given how many times they've mentioned Sigil.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:08 PM
Anything. Basic attack with combat advantage and backstabber feat. But as for the planar cosmology, I didn't bother upgrading my current campaigns, just used it when a new one came along.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:08 PM
Yes, I noticed that, but...
Where are the great cogs of Mechanus?
Witherwhence have gone my haunts in Elysium?
My imagined friends among the coure eladrin?
The great fortress cities of the Gith, hanging in Limbo?
The terrible beauty of Dis?

Where has the strangeness gone, the curiosity, the far and impossible reaches?


Away, that's where. And it's never coming back.
It's stupid, but planescape means a lot to me. I loved Sigil, but Sigil for me was often just a stop-over even though it was a bazaar of wonders and terrors. It was where those portals led that I always wanted to know. Always. I never stopped searching for new portal keys, new gates, new places, new dreams.

I suspect some part of me never will. Planescape made getting to imaginary places a beautiful and exciting profession.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:15 PM
And that clearly shows just how magical that world was. If it captured your imagination that much, then it must be the perfect setting for campaigns. Have to admit, I'd never give up a world I cared that much about.

Indon
2009-06-19, 02:16 PM
So, is this to implement a kind of generic class system? You could look over generic class system implementations in D20. I think this might be fun to toy around with, though.

Hmm...

Okay, so I hacked up a system real fast, but it requires you to build a 1-20 progression before evaluation, since I don't have much established to control class feature frontloading.

3.5 D&D point value system for generic classes, V0.1:

Poor BAB: 0/level
Fair BAB: 2/level
Good BAB: 4/level

D4 HD: 0/level
D6 HD: 1/level
D8 HD: 2/level
D10 HD: 3/level
D12 HD: 4/level

Per Poor Save: 0/level
Per Good Save: 2/level

2 skill points: 0/level
4 skill points: 1/level
6 skill points: 2/level
8 skill points: 4/level

<10 class skills: 0/level
11-15 class skills: 1/level
16+ class skills: 2/level
Disable Device or Tumble as Class Skill (per skill): .5/level, round up
Knowledge (any) as class skill: 1/level, round up

TO CALCULATE CLASS FEATURES:
-Sum all class features
-Multiply total by all combined multipliers (D&D style: 10% + 10% = 20%). Round up.
-Divide total by 20. Round up.

Limited Weapon Selection: -4
Simple Weapon Prof: 0
Martial Weapon Prof: 4
Per Exotic Weapon Prof: 1

No Armor Prof: -4
Light Armor Prof: 0
Med Armor Prof: 4
Heavy Armor Prof: 8
Shield Prof: 1
Tower Shield Prof: 1
Cast proficiency in armor: Add 6 to standard proficiency cost, double.

Bonus Feat (Any): 10
Bonus Feat (Single-category): 8
Bonus Feat (Specific): 6
Requirements not needed to be met for a feat (per feat): 5

TO CALCULATE SPELLS/SLA ACCESS:
-Calculate individual level totals
-Sum all individual level totals
-Multiply total by all combined multipliers (D&D style: 10% + 10% = 20%). Round up.
-Divide total by 20 (to distribute cost across all levels). Round up.

Access to Spells or SLAs:
S-Level 0 or equivalent: 1/level
S-Level 1 or equivalent: 2/level (total 3)
S-Level 2 or equivalent: 3/level (total 6) (min level 3)
S-Level 3 or equivalent: 4/level (total 10) (min level 5)
S-Level 4 or equivalent: 5/level (total 15) (min level 7)
S-Level 5 or equivalent: 6/level (total 21) (min level 9)
S-Level 6 or equivalent: 7/level (total 28) (min level 11)
S-Level 7 or equivalent: 8/level (total 34) (min level 13)
S-Level 8 or equivalent: 9/level (total 43) (min level 15)
S-Level 9 or equivalent: 10/level (total 53) (min level 17)

Highest Spell Level access less than Min (such as Sorceror): -1/level
Limited Spells Known (as Sorceror): -1/level
No spells known (SLAs only): -1/level, -40% cost for spellcasting
Spontaneous Casting: +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Spellbook Access (per spell list): +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Full List Access (per spell list): +2/S-level/level, +20% cost for spellcasting

Note: Calculate spells by school OR by category.

Spell access by School:
Single School Access (per school): +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Specialist School: +2/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting

Spell access by Category:
Damaging Spell category Access (e.g. Fireball): +1/S-level/level
Ability Damage Spell category Access (e.g. Shivering Touch): +2/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Utility Spell category Access (e.g. Knock): +2/S-level/level, +30% cost for spellcasting
Summon Spell category Access (e.g. Summon Monster): +1/S-level/level, +20% cost for spellcasting
Illusion spell category access (e.g. Minor Image): +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Healing spell access (e.g. Cure Light Wounds): +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Misc. spell access (e.g. Bull's Strength): +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting
Domain spell access (per domain): +1/S-level/level, +10% cost for spellcasting

1 SLA use/day: 1/level
<Abil Mod> SLA use/day: 3/level, +5% cost for spellcasting
At-Will SLA use: 5/level, +20% cost for spellcasting

Whew, and to think, this is only the very start of a bare-bones system, missing hundreds of class features!


As a quick baseline for the system, I'll crunch Fighter and Wizard real quick:

Fighter:
Good BAB, D10 HD, 1 good save, 2 skill points, <10 class skills, Martial Weapon Prof, Heavy Armor Prof, 11 Single-category feats.
Per-level totals: 4+3+2
Class feature total: 4+8+66+1+1=80/20, rounded up: 4

Fighter point total/level: 13 (almost 14)


Wizard:
Poor BAB, D4 HD, 1 good save, 2 skill points, <10 class skills, Knowledge (any) as class skill, limited weapon proficiency, no armor proficiency, 4 bonus feats, 1 specific feat, spellcasting as Wizard, using spellbook. (not accounting for familiar)

Per-level totals: 2+1
Class feature total: -4-4+40+6=38/20, rounded up: 2
Spellcasting calculation (by school):
Level 1: 1+2+16=19
Level 2: 1+2+16=19
Level 3: 1+2+3+24=30
Level 4: 1+2+3+24=30
Level 5: 1+2+3+4+32=42
Level 6: 1+2+3+4+32=42
Level 7: 1+2+3+4+5+40=55
Level 8: 1+2+3+4+5+40=55
Level 9: 1+2+3+4+5+6+48=69
Level 10: 1+2+3+4+5+6+48=69
Level 11: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+56=84
Level 12: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+56=84
Level 13: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+64=100
Level 14: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+64=100
Level 15: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+72=117
Level 16: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+72=117
Level 17: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+80=125
Level 18: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+80=125
Level 19: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+80=125
Level 20: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+80=125

19+19+30+30+42+42+55+55+69+69+84+84+100+100+117+11 7+125+125+125+125=1532

1532+20 (forgot to add up spellbook access earlier)=1552

1552x1.9=2949

2949/20, rounded up:148

Wizard point total/level: 153 (without accounting for familiar).

So... according to the formula as it is, you could give the Fighter 280 bonus feats and they will work out to be precisely as powerful as a wizard.

So, I probably overvalued full casting a bit. I'll be a bit more careful when making v. 0.2, no doubt, both for calibrating caster values and for adding specific class features.

Once I've added a few more class features, I would have more ability to crunch existing classes to be able to evaluate the specific values. Ideally, the point values for existing classes would roughly mirror their level of power compared to other D&D classes.

Thanks to Djinn for giving me the idea of how to evaluate exponential power growth, particularly in regards to casting.

Edit: Just an FYI, I significantly underestimated the Wizard point value as a result of missing the spellbook calculation earlier, so the Wizard point value/level is probably 5ish higher than that.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:18 PM
:: shrugs :: I suppose I could convert it to 4th edition, move everything over piecemeal. But there's a lot of mechanical problems with trying to do that, certain things that I really would not want to have to try and rebuild as homebrew powers or the like. Particularly not when my grasp of 4th edition is so weak, and there'll only be an ever-growing divergence between the published material and the setting that I'm trying to articulate. I'd rather move to something like Savage Worlds, and just completely break the mechanical continuity so that I could rebuild it where it will be fully supported by the system.

----Complete Lack of Sarcasm Ahead.
280 bonus feats sounds pretty close to right, by the way, since I normally have somewhere around 300 spells in my spellbook, not counting permutations from metamagic like invisible spell. Hehehe. :)

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:21 PM
We'd kinda drifted off-topic there, hadn't we? :smallsmile:

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:22 PM
Eh, I guess. I prefer it to the original topic, particularly with 3.75 right on the horizon. And what do you know, I can actually USE 3.75.

:: sardonic grin ::

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:24 PM
Arf. We'll see what happens with 3.75.

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:26 PM
I'm not terribly optimistic, but they've been pretty responsive to community feedback. Other than the fact that polymorph appears completely unfixed, it's pretty cool. Spent a bit of time with the beta! I guess I'll be moving over to the Paizo forums in the undistant future. What a weird thought!

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:34 PM
I'm not terribly optimistic, but they've been pretty responsive to community feedback. Other than the fact that polymorph appears completely unfixed, it's pretty cool. Spent a bit of time with the beta! I guess I'll be moving over to the Paizo forums in the undistant future. What a weird thought!

Use the GITP polymorph rules or your own common sense lol. It's an easily abused spell, I'll give you that.

JaxGaret
2009-06-19, 02:38 PM
3.75

You mean Pathfinder? Has it been completely redesigned since the Beta, or is it still pretty much the same pile of barely-different-from-3.5 that it was?

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:38 PM
I generally just ban it all together, and use aspect druids instead of normal ones. The Giant, while I respect him, didn't do a great job on his polymorph rules. I could still get a good few things through.

If you think that changing feat progression like that or some of the other clever alterations is "barely-changed," it's pretty clear we're not gonna get along regarding game design concerns. They even fixed up sorcerer and fighter!

As for the primary topic, polymorph brings up a big issue. Spells are not created equal. Really. Really. Really not created equal. How much, for example, is Alter Self worth? How much is Web worth? How much is scorching hands worth compared to grease? Hopefully not the same, but we can't safely get the needed degree of granularity to roll out a clean cut system like that.

TheYoungKing
2009-06-19, 02:41 PM
I don't like the dissociated mechanics of 4e.

Sure, they gave all classes spell-like powers and leveled the playing field.... but what in the hell do all those Marks and their mechanical bonuses even mean?

I much prefer a system that at least tries to justify itself, even if it has imbalance. It simply takes a good DM to control the disparity between casters and non-casters, and ensure that everyone gets their time in the sun.

(And I'm not suggesting I'm a good DM, only that I have played under a few. Never felt gimped as a Fighter.)

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 02:42 PM
No! Nooooo, not a versions\editions thread. Let's try to keep it on topic. I will if you will :: grins warmly ::

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:46 PM
Sorry, I think I started that XD. I was just carrying on the general whining about overpowered classes lol. And polymorph, if you control it, is useful. Short durations help, I find. It does allow the PCs to invent some interesting solutions to problems.

TheYoungKing
2009-06-19, 02:48 PM
Didn't mean to start an edition war, I was just stating that 4e's balance brought in other issues. Whether those issues matter to you or not, its all a matter of opinion.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 02:51 PM
I cannot remember whether it was here or somewhere else (I've posted a lot today), but I've definitely stated I believe in "power to the DM". As a DM you can manipulate things to make it work. Ultimately, if it's fun, that's ok, and for my players, 4e gives more general satisfaction, as they love levelling up.

JaxGaret
2009-06-19, 02:53 PM
I don't like the dissociated mechanics of 4e.

That's fair, as it is your opinion. I prefer them.


what in the hell do all those Marks and their mechanical bonuses even mean?

They mean whatever you want them to mean.


I much prefer a system that at least tries to justify itself

Could you explain what you mean by that?


It simply takes a good DM to control the disparity between casters and non-casters

A lot of the time, there's nothing to "control". Casters are significantly more powerful than non-casters, and without heavily breaking verisimilitude, there's no way around it.

Regardless, I don't feel like it should be the DM's job to "control" the casters.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-19, 03:02 PM
Could you explain what you mean by that?Non-magical classes shouldn't have x/day abilities. The system needs some sort of justification for the abilities, even if all it is is 'magic'.

My personal objection to 4.x is that the classes all play tthe same. I like having different systems to use when I build my characters. ToB is one of my favorite books, but I don't want to only be able to use it.

TheYoungKing
2009-06-19, 03:07 PM
That's fair, as it is your opinion. I prefer them.

Again, I don't mind other people liking 4e. I've never understood fandom wars.


They mean whatever you want them to mean.

That's kind of the problem. If I'm already building adventures and a campaign setting, I don't want to have to catalog a bunch of mechanical bonuses and make up fluff. I want to use the rules and let it be self-evident from there.


Could you explain what you mean by that?

With 3.5, most mechanics make sense. They have a grounded place in the world, whatever world it is you are using.

But in 4.0, a lot of the abilities simply do not make sense. They have no immediate connection to the game world. Yes, they left it up to us to decide- but unlike in 3.5, they didn't even offer their own explanation for us to build upon. All we get are some mechanical bonuses and an ability name, really. I've seen DMs try to work around it, but it just doesn't seem to work very well.

All my opinion, of course.


A lot of the time, there's nothing to "control". Casters are significantly more powerful than non-casters, and without heavily breaking verisimilitude, there's no way around it.

I disagree. Assuming you aren't playing with a bunch of munchkins, it really doesn't present much of a problem in mid-level play. (Never played Epic or anything past Lvl. 15, I'll admit, and after reading a bit, our parties were hilariously unoptimized.)


Regardless, I don't feel like it should be the DM's job to "control" the casters.

Its his job to control the game and ensure that all the players have a good time. If that means making situations one class (caster or not) is better suited for, fine. The DM simply has to spread the love around.

A good DM can present times for the Fighter to shine, the Rogue, the Wizard.... whoever, and he can make sure that adventures are constructed so as to allow everyone some time in the spotlight.

Magic, however, is definitely more powerful, so yes, you still have to have magic items and whatnot.... but that wasn't your point, now was it?

Again, that is merely my opinion. I don't think any less of someone who likes 4e, and I'm not trying to stoke the flames here.

If its a player versus player sort of thing, then casters win. But players versus DM constructions? There is no clear dominance.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 03:10 PM
I like the way 3e casters work, personally, but that's because when I play, I'm always a caster. Drives my brother mad, he can't see how I can stand it. But in terms of pleasing my players, I prefer 4e.

arguskos
2009-06-19, 03:18 PM
Yes, I noticed that, but...
Where are the great cogs of Mechanus?
Witherwhence have gone my haunts in Elysium?
My imagined friends among the coure eladrin?
The great fortress cities of the Gith, hanging in Limbo?
The terrible beauty of Dis?

Where has the strangeness gone, the curiosity, the far and impossible reaches?


Away, that's where. And it's never coming back.
It's stupid, but planescape means a lot to me. I loved Sigil, but Sigil for me was often just a stop-over even though it was a bazaar of wonders and terrors. It was where those portals led that I always wanted to know. Always. I never stopped searching for new portal keys, new gates, new places, new dreams.

I suspect some part of me never will. Planescape made getting to imaginary places a beautiful and exciting profession.
This is why I loved Planescape too. Thank you sir, for saying it better than I ever could.

Planescape is something the like of which has been rarely seen, and will likely never been seen again: something truly unique and wonderful, that stirs the soul and fires the imagination. Beautiful is what I'd call it. :smallredface:

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 03:21 PM
Nostalgia attack! Better than 3e v 4e mind XD

The New Bruceski
2009-06-19, 04:15 PM
Marks are a way of making yourself more threatening to an opponent. With Fighters it's essentially "cover fire", where taking your attention away gets you hit. With Paladins it's divine wrath. Swordmages give you their full attention, ready to counter any move you make towards another. Bards distract your attention to somebody else, landing the blow you didn't expect to make you look that way next time.

The mark status is a way to represent having your attention drawn to one character mechanically without making it a forced "you attack that character next turn". It is a bit more nebulous that other status effects like Prone, Stunned, and Blind, so I can see it confusing some people, or evoking the thought that it needs to manifest in the same way every time. Just like the rest of 4e, I like it, others don't. I just wanted to help with some understanding of what's going on.

</derail>

Doc Roc
2009-06-19, 04:37 PM
Ironically, by hiding the edition discussion in a thread on another topic, we got some pretty good traction for talking about it coherently. I think that's probably enough. I'm wondering what the OP will think of all of this.

Eurantien
2009-06-20, 04:32 AM
Maybe because only people with something to say happened to drop into this thread. Well, myself aside. I'm just nosy XD