How much is a spell worth?

[harpy]

I think a lot with the system as I tweak and houserule. One thing that has stumped me for awhile is how much a spell is worth in the system. Obviously, it varies due to a number of variables, but getting some general idea is something that I keep plugging away at.

Some of the things I've been taking into account:

The Action Economy

In 3.5 you had a dev formula given that basically a four combats ought to be expected in any given day, and further that each combat averages about five rounds. So four combats times five rounds gets you to 20 rounds per day. I don't buy that estimation, particularly for Pathfinder, but for simplicity I'll stick to 20 rounds a day for this discussion.

In terms of the action economy, you have 20 actions to perform each day. A fighter can pick up a sword and can reasonably be expected (between charges and standard attacks) of being able to perform 20 attacks in a given day.

Spells however, barring cantrips, can only be done once per day. Once a spell has been cast then it can't be replicated again, at least without other magical resources being used, but I want to ignore that because a fighter can perform attack actions the whole time, even unarmed strikes, without any additional help.

So spells at a base level are worth 1/20 of a standard attack. You could say that an attack is worth 20 points and a spell is worth 1 point.

Spell Levels

Spells are not equal to one another. You have a wide range of effects, so varied that you're reduced to eyeballing things most of the time. However they are grouped into spell levels, which at least gives a numerical scaling of their value that we can play with.

You could basically take the spell level as its point value, with cantrips being worth half a point. Thus a first level spell is worth 1 point. A ninth level spell is worth 9 points. Cantrips, because they are at-will, can be performed every round, and thus they are worth 10 points (20*0.5).

Caster Level

Spells quite often also scale with caster level in a variety of ways. This isn't always the case, which muddies the water, but in general you can expect some kind of scaling for effect and/or duration.

With 20 levels this means a 9th level spell is worth at least 153 points (9*17) and goes up to 180 points.

This all seems like it's going ok, but then you look at how you have to scale standard attacks. They scale also, directly with increasing BAB, but in general it will be assumed that additional damage will also accrue in the system in various ways.

If you scale up a standard attack it has a value of 400 points (20*20).

Iterative Attacks

Going back to the action economy. The fighter at 20th level is getting more actions in a round when performing a full-attack. That has to be factored in also.

The first attack is worth 400 (20*20), the second is worth 300 (15*20), the third is 200 (10*20), and the fourth is worth 100 (5*20), for a total of 1000 points for a full-attack at 20th level.

This is where the math starts to fall apart for me. The problem is that you have a full-attack worth 1000 points, and a 9th level spell worth 180 points. While it's true that the 9th level spell is fired off once per day, and the full-attack just keeps chugging along, but those values seem off since 9th level spells might, in one casting, solve the entire fight with save effects, or the duration of a spell is so long that the spell is in fact in effect through the whole combat or multiple combats.

Aside from tediously costing out every spell in the core book, I haven't been able to wrap my head around a baseline that “feels right” in regard to how spells, from 1st to 9th, have the potential of having a wider impact then they have on a per round basis.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, it's awkward to cost this out. See, spells aren't even always the same cost. Invisibility 3/day is not 3x as valuable as Invisibility 1/day. You use the first one a lot more than the third one.

[Flickerdart]

A single attack (a 20-point value by your math) deals hit point damage to a monster. A single 9th level spell (a 9-point value by your math) creates a new plane of existence. How much hit point damage is equal to a new plane of existence? You can't really compare attacks and spells, because they do completely different things.

What exactly are you trying to measure with these points anyway?

[harpy]

Well, I've spent several years now fussing in various ways to break out the entire system into a point value system.

Basically, I want to "lego-ize" it so that I can construct things with more exacting precision and not rely on the endless eyeballing.

What I'm doing is building off of the Challenging Challenge Ratings document (http://www.big-metto.net/Upload/files/Challenging_Challenge_Ratings_v5.pdf). However that document dealt with spells on a very broad benchmark level of measurement. I want something that is far more exacting.

I suspect the only way I'm going to be able to do that is to tedious cost out every spell, but I'm just seeing if someone with far better math/analytic skills can produce a magic algorithm that will make it more exacting without having to grind through it all.

[Larpus]

Also, don't forget to consider the area spells, which given the right circumstances can end up being as good as a hefty number of attacks, especially those like Glitterdust, which with some luck can shut off a bunch of enemies for quite some battle time.

[Parra]

I don't think you're gonna find 1 magic formula that you can fit every situation. The system is just too complex for a 1 shoe fits all solution.

That said, if your really looking to stick a number to things you need to broaden spells into multiple categories.
For example; direct damage, buff, debuff, save or lose, summoning etc

Direct damage would be easy to compare to a melée combatant.
A Buff would be a modifier to what ever it buffs (defences, saves, damage etc)
A Debuff would do similar though through a different method.
A Save or lose would potentially be comparable to a full encounters worth of output
A Summon would vary depending on what the summon did (beff, debuff etc)

And all of those variables will then change further depending on interparty synergy, levels involved and the encounter laid out before them

Honestly even attempting to derive some sort of numerical value from all of that gives me a headache

[Garwain]

But you didn't factor the relative 'power' aspect in.

Just a rough thought: power as an exponent: 1-5 with
1: ineffective usage of 6 sec
2: being the melee hit
3: being the autokill
4: I push this button, now the fight ends.
5: the world is altered/broken

Now full attack is: 1000^2 = 1 * 10^6
Brake the world is: 180^5 = 1.8 * 10^11

lvl9 spell = 10.000.000 times more expensive than a full attack. Was that the ratio you're looking for?

[Tyndmyr]

I tried such a thing at one time.

Synergy jacks it all up. See, a d6/cl single target spell...nice, steady number. Easy to calculate. CL booster? Oh, now you've changed everything. Metamagics?

Aright, toss it away. It's not going to be calculable as a single number in all contexts.

[Zombimode]

Cantrips, because they are at-will


Says who? Not the rule books for sure.

[Flickerdart]

Says who? Not the rule books for sure.
He's talking Pathfinder.

[NecroRick]

If we take your 20th level Fighter's attack as being worth 1000 points, I don't see a problem.

Okay, you solve 1 encounter with 1 ninth level spell, and now you are helpless in the next 3. :D

But of course a mage gets multiple spells/day.

Lets just consider the top 20 spells. For convenience I'm using Wizard from 3.5, not the Pathfinder one whatever that is. We have 4 spells at each level (ignoring bonus spells from high stats because meh, maths)

Let's calculate spell values according to your formula:
Level 9 = 9 x 17 = 153
Level 8 = 8 x 15 = 120
Level 7 = 7 x 13 = 91
Level 6 = 6 x 11 = 66
Level 5 = 5 x 9 = 45

(153 + 120 + 91 + 66 + 45) x 4 = 1900

So our intuition (that a level 20 wizard is worth more than a level 20 fighter) is preserved, even though you might have originally thought that the spell value is too low.

You could also make an argument for using level 20 in each of the spell values instead of the minimum level at which it becomes available, in which case the net result is 2800.

------

From a game design point of view, pay careful attention to what the 4th ed guys did, they made almost everything a combat related activity. If you have a non-combat related spell, that typically represents an ability or capability that no one else can get access to.

And then it doesn't matter what values you assign to it - because the ratio of Wizard to Fighter in that situation is N:0 - so the Wizard is 'infinitely better' in that scenario (hence also the tier fallacy).

------

It is well known that wizards increase in capability at a polynomial rate (e.g. level squared - a level 20 wizard is by that measure roughly 400 times more powerful than a level 1 wizard, without even taking into account the disparity between level 1 spells and level 9 spells), compared to other classes, such as fighter which may be increasing more linearly.

But I wouldn't put both their starting points at 1. Take the level 1 fighter, he is useful in every encounter that day. Odds are, the wizard is only useful in one, and he is baggage in the rest.

If combat is your only measure of usefulness then it actually takes the wizard quite a while to catch up to the fighter.

On this very board for instance there is an example of a 7th level wizard getting his butt handed to him by a much lower level fighter.

Very early on fighters have more staying power (hit points), hit harder, and can go all day. The wizard has to get to ~10th level before he can (for instance) cast 20 spells in a row (vis your original parameters).

Someone will always take exception when this is pointed out - they will say "but what about X?" when X is (for example) magic items, conveniently forgetting that fighters also get magic items. Some will take exception simply because they despise fighters so much, and all logic flies out the window whenever fighters and wizards are compared. Or they will take the section on extremely low-level fighters and wizards and triumphantly rebut it with a declaration that wizards can cast (for instance) Wish. Perhaps they will assume that every monster the wizard faces always fails every saving throw. Perhaps they will run through a massive list of defences the wizard has, conveniently neglecting that low level wizards do not in fact get 400 spell slots per day. You may laugh, but the trend is disturbing. It is better, for the sake a logical discussion, never to mention fighters and wizards in the same thread.

[Tyndmyr]

It is well known that wizards increase in capability at a polynomial rate (e.g. level squared - a level 20 wizard is by that measure roughly 400 times more powerful than a level 1 wizard, without even taking into account the disparity between level 1 spells and level 9 spells), compared to other classes, such as fighter which may be increasing more linearly.

Number of spells per day DO increase linearly.

They are only quadratic BECAUSE of the spell level increase.

You will also note that a level 20 wizard does not have 400 times as many spells as a level 1 wizard.

[NecroRick]

Number of spells per day DO increase linearly.

They are only quadratic BECAUSE of the spell level increase.

You will also note that a level 20 wizard does not have 400 times as many spells as a level 1 wizard.

You will fail to note that I did not say what you are saying I said.

Let us agree that if a level 1 wizard casts one spell that does 1d6 damage, and a level 20 wizard casts 20 spells that do 20d6 damage that this is not a linear increase, it is more similar to a polynomial increase.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, if we're using purely damage based metrics without regard for actions, then the fighter clearly wins.

This'd be a clue that the metric is ridiculous.

[Telonius]

A couple things will throw off this scheme. First, as you've noted, duration-based spells. Not all spells have instantaneous effects. Passive, long-duration spells throw things out of whack tremendously. Basically, anything you cast before going into combat gives you additional actions during combat; since otherwise you'd have spent precious combat actions casting the spells. This is one of the (many) reasons why Divine Metamagic shenanigans are so powerful.

Second, spellcasters get ways to break the action economy that melee classes have a tough time duplicating (other than UMD'ing a scroll, which costs money). Time Stop and the Celerity line are the most extreme examples, but even lower-level spells can do this. A Druid casting Mass Snake's Swiftness, for example, could end up giving his group four or five extra attacks in a given round, if everybody's clumped together. Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spells do this too; so do the various Dominate and Hold spells.

Finally, casters can do things outside of combat altogether than can seriously help the team. Divinations of all varieties fall into this category. How do you assign a point value to the Bard using Glibness to get past the guards; or Legend Lore to figure out who the BBEG really is; or the Wizard learning from an extraplanar being that the left path leads to certain doom? A melee class using Bluff/Diplomacy or a Gather Information check just isn't going to do what a spell can do.

I suppose the gist of this is, assuming that each character takes one "action" in a round is good and correct, as far as it goes. But spellcasters can do things outside combat that help in (and out of) combat; and their actions will often affect foes (and allies) for more than just one round. Any system assigning point value to spells will have to take all of that into account.

[NNescio]

This is an FNP problem. FNP problems are NP-hard, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard) which is geek-speak for "not frickin' worth your time".

[Karoht]

Hypothetically, we could produce a number that equates to a level 20 fighter with full round attack = X
Hypothetically, we could produce a number that equates to a level 20 wizard casting a 9th level spell = y.

If your basis of comparison is across the full day (as per your original post) and a fighter is expected to make 20 attacks per day, and each full attack is 1000 points, then that is 20000 points. Should a 9th level cast once per day = 20000 points as well by comparison? Or are we not going for equality and just raw numbers?

In other words, is X considered = to Y or is X =/= Y?


I would also argue that it takes significantly less spell casting to equal a fighter's full attack at level 20, depending on the context mind you.

[Tyndmyr]

X and Y vary wildly depending on a near infinite number of factors.

The equation needed to calculate this would need to include essentially every rule from the entire set of 3.5, as well as further factors which are not defined in the ruleset, but are rather, situational.

Trying to establish a relationship between X and Y in this manner is futile.

[Karoht]

Trying to establish a relationship between X and Y in this manner is futile.I agree that you are most likely correct.



The equation needed to calculate this would need to include essentially every rule from the entire set of 3.5, as well as further factors which are not defined in the ruleset, but are rather, situational.Or we could narrow down the parameters. A lot. In fact, if we assumed 20 levels of straight wizard and 20 levels of straight fighter, and all attacks were VS a level 1 Pig with infinity hitpoints...

On second thought...


PS-I'm pretty sure there are X jokes about how fighters suck, where X = any number between 1-100, but the number of jokes about how monks suck is X^2

[harpy]

If your basis of comparison is across the full day (as per your original post) and a fighter is expected to make 20 attacks per day, and each full attack is 1000 points, then that is 20000 points. Should a 9th level cast once per day = 20000 points as well by comparison? Or are we not going for equality and just raw numbers?

In other words, is X considered = to Y or is X =/= Y?

I wouldn't be aiming for equality, at least in the end result of the potency of a fighter and wizard. That would come from design.

Assuming that a wizard casts one spell per round, composed of all the slots from 5th level to 9th level spells, then he has outputted 2800 points, versus the 20,000 of the fighter.

If we assume the wizard is more powerful than the fighter from all of the play experience, then these number seem to be way off. If a wizard casts 20 spells in a day then, from play experience, you'd think the numbers would sail well past the fighter's full attacks. So scaling the formula as (20*9) isn't good enough. The value of a 9th level spell isn't 9, but some higher number. The suggestion for squaring it though seems too high. There definitely is a martial/caster disparity, but the gulf that squaring gives seems to overvalue wizards.

I can see the argument that this approach is futile, the system is so wildly complex that you'd need elaborate software and grinding analysis to get to some kind of "Newtonian Objectivity" in regard to the system.

Still, the game was designed. And while a huge amount of the design used the eyeballing technique, it seems after all this time you could get metrics that were a little more precise. I have no problem with the absolute values being fuzzy, but I think some kind of benchmark is possible, which can then assist the eyeballing.

Maybe the question to be asked isn't how much an individual spell is worth, but how much a spell slot is worth?

[Tyndmyr]

Still, the game was designed. And while a huge amount of the design used the eyeballing technique, it seems after all this time you could get metrics that were a little more precise. I have no problem with the absolute values being fuzzy, but I think some kind of benchmark is possible, which can then assist the eyeballing.

I fear you misunderstand. There is no objective benchmark to be had. This is not a matter of absolute values being fuzzy, it's like trying to assign oranges a value and freedom a value and determining which is superior.

It's literally no more objective than saying "Gee, I really like oranges". It cannot be. Research "travelling salesman problem", note that it is NP hard, and that this task is ridiculously more complicated than that one.

Step 1 is basically superseding the entire world's known mathematical ability.
Step 2 is realizing that D&D doesn't even define everything clearly enough to USE it in an equation. Plenty of rules remain ambiguous.
Step 3 is finding an easier task, like curing cancer.


Maybe the question to be asked isn't how much an individual spell is worth, but how much a spell slot is worth?

That is a different question, but it is one that is innately tied to how much spells are worth. It doesn't make it more possible at all.

[BlueInc]

http://lusipurr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nerds.jpeg

Trollface.jpg

[harpy]

I guess what I'm confused by is how a game can be designed, but at the same time there is no way of creating benchmarks for the design.

Eyeballing is an assessment process. Deciding this or that effect is at a certain spell level is an assessment.

And there is a aim and direction to the game at it's core, which is to kill things and take their stuff. So it's true that there are oddball and ephemeral effects, but in a broad way they are only meaningful in relation to how useful they will support the main point of the game.

Like I said, I'm not trying to find some absolute value, but one that makes sense in relation to the system as a whole.

If you want to create a new monster and give it an at-will spell like ability, you're going to need to assess how that impacts its CR, so some value has to be applied. What I'm trying to figure out is one element in a more consistent and systematic approach to making that assessment.

So I can understand it's not easy, but since assessment and valuation has already been occurring for decades with D&D, it's hard to imagine that you can't have a more refined methodology than guestimating and maybe playtesting.

On the flip side you have systems that are complete point-buys, such as Hero or GURPS. Everything is broken down in those games, so I'm not sure why they can't be done in D&D. Mutants and Masterminds is d20 based and it's point buy also.

[Tyndmyr]

Look, things are broken down into points in gurps or hero, sure.

This does not mean that those point valuations are accurate.

[Emmerask]

If you want to create a new monster and give it an at-will spell like ability, you're going to need to assess how that impacts its CR, so some value has to be applied. What I'm trying to figure out is one element in a more consistent and systematic approach to making that assessment.

So I can understand it's not easy, but since assessment and valuation has already been occurring for decades with D&D, it's hard to imagine that you can't have a more refined methodology than guestimating and maybe playtesting.

On the flip side you have systems that are complete point-buys, such as Hero or GURPS. Everything is broken down in those games, so I'm not sure why they can't be done in D&D. Mutants and Masterminds is d20 based and it's point buy also.


Well first of all you can´t estimate the worth of a spell in general because spells itself vary greatly from useless to yeah the universe is yours now have fun with it.
An at will fireball ability will have very little impact while blackfire (army killer) will have far more and wish even more then that.

So the only way to give it some meaning is not to give spells in general a value, but to give each and every single spell a cr and maybe even add an "x factor" to it like terrain or similar.

So lets say you do all that and create a system that lets you predict the CR of spells, even then it would give you very very littleand you still had to eyeball and playtest the challenge rating,
Because the party of optimized wizards is different then the party of unoptimized monks.

In short CR is extremely flawed anyway, why go through all the work to ascertain the CR-value of a spell if the CR system even then has next to no meaning?

[harpy]

True, they might not be accurate, but they might also be accurate. I haven't crunched their systems, but they've all gone through multiple versions. Presumably the devs have been evaluating how the system performs, using feedback from various sources and then tweaking the numbers and how those numbers interact to better dial-in to what they want out of the system.

What I'd linked to before, Challenging Challenge Ratings document (http://www.big-metto.net/Upload/files/Challenging_Challenge_Ratings_v5.pdf), was created specifically so the designer could more reliably make epic level content for 3.5. He wanted benchmarks so that he could have more clarity with the CR system, and with that more clear view be able to design new content that has some rational basis behind it.

I'm just trying to extend that analysis out further. His goal was more broad than mine is and so I'm trying to get a more nuances evaluation of spells.

To look at it in another way. You have two GMs. One makes some house rules up and his methodology is, "I thought this would be cool" and then just made up some game statistics in five minutes that works off of one element of the system.

Then there is a second GM who likewise thinks, "this would be cool to do" but then spends a week looking at how his idea would impact the system, what cascading effects might occur if it was introduced, and then opens up a spread sheet to run some numbers to see how it compares to a similar effect that already exists in the system.

If the two GM's published their houserules on Drive Through RPG, and offered up their design notes as part of a preview, if I was going to spend money on the pdf I'd likely pay the second GM over the first.

[dextercorvia]

The main source of the problem seems to be that you assigned a fighter a base point value for one full attack based on how many times/day he could (or would be expected) to do that. That has no bearing on whether 1 full attack = one highest level spell (of equal level characters) or not.

By your system a Warlock can cast shatter 144000 times per day therefore casting shatter is worth 144000 points.

[harpy]

Well first of all you can´t estimate the worth of a spell in general because spells itself vary greatly from useless to yeah the universe is yours now have fun with it.
An at will fireball ability will have very little impact while blackfire (army killer) will have far more and wish even more then that.

So the only way to give it some meaning is not to give spells in general a value, but to give each and every single spell a cr and maybe even add an "x factor" to it like terrain or similar.

This has been a good conversation because it is being impressed upon me that to do this right you really need to break down the value of each spell, and then aggregate those values into spell levels to get benchmarks within the spell levels themselves. That way you could get a broad value based off of the averages of the collected spells in any given level and caster level.

That obviously takes a lot of time. So it's really just an issue of how much it's worth to me.

One thing that would be worthwhile to come out of it is that I'd likely find many spells that don't really belong in different spell levels, or that they ought to be adjusted to fit more within the average value of those spell levels.

[harpy]

The main source of the problem seems to be that you assigned a fighter a base point value for one full attack based on how many times/day he could (or would be expected) to do that. That has no bearing on whether 1 full attack = one highest level spell (of equal level characters) or not.

By your system a Warlock can cast shatter 144000 times per day therefore casting shatter is worth 144000 points.

I agree that there are issues with my methodology. That's why I'm on here to get ideas on how to refine that methodology.

I do think that the action economy is one of the factors that has to be calculated into an assessment. Wizard spells are a finite resource within a specific time frame, and a full attack is a consistent effect that can reasonably fill up that entire time frame. Further, the full-attack directly aims at the main intent of the game, which is to kill things and take their stuff. Thus some comparison needs to be made. It's the ratios that I'm trying to work out.

[Tyndmyr]

This has been a good conversation because it is being impressed upon me that to do this right you really need to break down the value of each spell, and then aggregate those values into spell levels to get benchmarks within the spell levels themselves. That way you could get a broad value based off of the averages of the collected spells in any given level and caster level.

That obviously takes a lot of time. So it's really just an issue of how much it's worth to me.

One thing that would be worthwhile to come out of it is that I'd likely find many spells that don't really belong in different spell levels, or that they ought to be adjusted to fit more within the average value of those spell levels.

You can rate spells within specific contexts(see class optimization guides), but it's harder to rate them universally.

Is haste as a level 1 spell better than haste as a level 3 spell? Does this depend on what class list it's a part of, and how fast the progression is? This is not a hypothetical scenario...

[tyckspoon]

I guess what I'm confused by is how a game can be designed, but at the same time there is no way of creating benchmarks for the design.

Eyeballing is an assessment process. Deciding this or that effect is at a certain spell level is an assessment.


I.. think I understand part of your disconnect here. Benchmarks *can* be set for certain aspects of D&D- you can take the expected progression of, say, a Fighter, and when he can reasonably get certain levels of magic items and certain feats, and say: I want the Fighter to be able to do an average of X damage per round to a CR Y monster. Therefore, given my expected Fighter, a CR Y monster's AC should be about Z. (The problem there is that there doesn't seem to have been any accepted standard for what the values of X, Y, and Z actually are, and if there was nobody stuck to it much past the Core books.) If your spellcasting is restricted to damage and raw numerical buffs, you can figure it out with those metrics too; you can determine if a Fireball is appropriate damage (you might, say, assume there are 3 targets, and compare it to the damage a Fighter of equal level would do if he hit all of them once) and you can figure out just how much swing is provided by a Haste spell instead, and balance spells against that. (4th Edition is explicitly designed this way, and it seems to be working reasonably well.)

Your problem shows up when spellcasting is more than just those math changes. To continue with what are currently 3rd Level Wizard spells: Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Haste are math-amenable. Let's say we've determined that these are all appropriate spells at their current level. Now... figure out whether Major Image, Suggestion, Fly, Arcane Sight, and Gaseous Form are level-appropriate according to your established metrics. How about Illusory Script? Nondetection? Those don't and can't work on the same metrics as damage/hp/AC buffs. They're hard to even compare to each other. What you end up with.. is basically eyeballing it and going 'yeah, that's about right for 3rd level.'

[dextercorvia]

I agree that there are issues with my methodology. That's why I'm on here to get ideas on how to refine that methodology.

I do think that the action economy is one of the factors that has to be calculated into an assessment. Wizard spells are a finite resource within a specific time frame, and a full attack is a consistent effect that can reasonably fill up that entire time frame. Further, the full-attack directly aims at the main intent of the game, which is to kill things and take their stuff. Thus some comparison needs to be made. It's the ratios that I'm trying to work out.

The thinking that predominated in 3.5 was that a spammable weaker option was balanced against a limited stronger option. This didn't always bear up -- especially since casters get enough limited stronger options that they can nearly spam them in the course of a regular day.

But if you accept their thinking as true, and assume a balance between the classes, then at 1st level a fighter can attack 4-5 times during a typical combat, while a wizard will cast one 1st, one 0th level spell. That means that 1 highest level spell and 1 next highest level spell are worth (in combat) approximately 4 attacks.

[harpy]

Your problem shows up when spellcasting is more than just those math changes. To continue with what are currently 3rd Level Wizard spells: Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Haste are math-amenable. Let's say we've determined that these are all appropriate spells at their current level. Now... figure out whether Major Image, Suggestion, Fly, Arcane Sight, and Gaseous Form are level-appropriate according to your established metrics. How about Illusory Script? Nondetection? Those don't and can't work on the same metrics as damage/hp/AC buffs. They're hard to even compare to each other. What you end up with.. is basically eyeballing it and going 'yeah, that's about right for 3rd level.'

That's very true. It is all eyeballing. I guess the metaphor that I'd use is how much clarity your eyes have when you're making the estimation.

With more thought and analysis you likely can find related metrics that will help to frame what seems appropriate and when.

The hit point scale is one metric. Some non-damage spells will yield a different pacing of combat. The fewer hit points a party has, the less time they can deal with a different pacing before everyone drops. So some effects, it you work out how they impact the flow of combat, can be dialed to having an assumed number of hits points so that players, or monsters, can react to them in a satisfying manner.

With a lot of non-combat spells you can just take the frame of how much of an impact it plays into the core sentiment of the game, that is to kill things and take their stuff. Things like speak with animals or illusionary script aren't going to have a direct impact, and so it's just sizing up how frequently these spells are needed in the course of play, and if used how much it impacts the player's ability to solve conflicts.

Now, people can play the game in different ways, but with these kinds of metrics you need to aim for averages. While you might have groups that hardly ever have combat and just roleplay whole sessions and just love it that way, they aren't the typical D&D game, and what they are doing isn't all that meaningful to the potency of any particular game element.

So if you layer an evaluation with sub-metrics and make sure that all of them are being framed with a specific design intent, then I can see some reasonable valuations being made, even if they are outside of the core attack/damage mechanics.

[harpy]

The thinking that predominated in 3.5 was that a spammable weaker option was balanced against a limited stronger option. This didn't always bear up -- especially since casters get enough limited stronger options that they can nearly spam them in the course of a regular day.

But if you accept their thinking as true, and assume a balance between the classes, then at 1st level a fighter can attack 4-5 times during a typical combat, while a wizard will cast one 1st, one 0th level spell. That means that 1 highest level spell and 1 next highest level spell are worth (in combat) approximately 4 attacks.

Well, I'm not trying to pigeonhole the values of various factors in to establish balance. Instead it would be to have a set of tools to compare how various elements actually perform.

Once that yardstick is available, then you can go back and "fix" things. In all the work I've done already it's abundantly clear, by the numbers, that spellcasters leave martial characters in the dust. What becomes very helpful is that you have numeric values to show the relative distance in the gap between the casters and martials. That gives you more precision on how you could alter the classes so that they can become more balanced.

So in the case of the action economy, something that both classes share, how effective are each class within any specific round? By mapping that value to each round you can see how things change at different levels. At first the fighter is highly effective, but eventually the fighter is surpassed by the wizard and by 20th level there is a huge gap in their relative values.

[dextercorvia]

Well, I'm not trying to pigeonhole the values of various factors in to establish balance. Instead it would be to have a set of tools to compare how various elements actually perform.

Once that yardstick is available, then you can go back and "fix" things. In all the work I've done already it's abundantly clear, by the numbers, that spellcasters leave martial characters in the dust. What becomes very helpful is that you have numeric values to show the relative distance in the gap between the casters and martials. That gives you more precision on how you could alter the classes so that they can become more balanced.

So in the case of the action economy, something that both classes share, how effective are each class within any specific round? By mapping that value to each round you can see how things change at different levels. At first the fighter is highly effective, but eventually the fighter is surpassed by the wizard and by 20th level there is a huge gap in their relative values.

At any significant degree of optimization, the fighter is surpassed at 1st level by the Wizard. The gap widens as they level. The oft quoted linear fighter vs. quadratic wizard is probably not far off. Ax+B vs Cx²+Dx+E, where the exact values of A -- E are based on system mastery and optimization level. At equal play levels, they would be largely inconsequential.

[Karoht]

Another thing about spells to consider. They are portable. Scrolls, wands, staves, etc. UMD within reason can place spells in the hands of non-casters. Fighters aren't really as portable per se.

[Tyndmyr]

That's very true. It is all eyeballing. I guess the metaphor that I'd use is how much clarity your eyes have when you're making the estimation.

Every person making estimations is convinced that theirs are, in fact, right.

A bunch of generalized equations is unlikely to make yours inherently more accurate. Oh, sure, you can compare very similar options head to head numerically. People already do that, though. No real win, there.

[harpy]

At any significant degree of optimization, the fighter is surpassed at 1st level by the Wizard. The gap widens as they level. The oft quoted linear fighter vs. quadratic wizard is probably not far off. Ax+B vs Cx²+Dx+E, where the exact values of A -- E are based on system mastery and optimization level. At equal play levels, they would be largely inconsequential.

Everything I've seen over the last ten years of 3.x play, and even just in the numbers I've been toying with tells me that while the linear/quadratic effect is there, the gap doesn't begin until around 7th level. That's one of the reasons why E6 is such a popular variant as the game caps just where things begin to get wonky.

I suppose that a 1st level wizard with a 20 Int and three 1st level spells could dominate a day of combat by firing off sleep or colorspray three times, but when you get into that level of optimization you start to have to see how GMs react. It ends up being a race to the top which is makes it harder to predict how actual play will occur.

It would be interesting to see optimized benchmarks, but it would be more prudent to lay down average play. While optimization is popular, I haven't seen it as pervasive for the non-forumite gamer.

[harpy]

Every person making estimations is convinced that theirs are, in fact, right.

A bunch of generalized equations is unlikely to make yours inherently more accurate. Oh, sure, you can compare very similar options head to head numerically. People already do that, though. No real win, there.

It seems there are winners. Those that put more thought and effort into analysis, along with being willing to revise their methodology are on a better path to accuracy than those who say, "oh that's too hard, whatever"

In principle, informed opinion is going to be better than uninformed opinion. You might not reach a perfected perspective, but perfection shouldn't be a barrier to have a better perspective.

[Tyndmyr]

It seems there are winners. Those that put more thought and effort into analysis, along with being willing to revise their methodology are on a better path to accuracy than those who say, "oh that's too hard, whatever"

In principle, informed opinion is going to be better than uninformed opinion. You might not reach a perfected perspective, but perfection shouldn't be a barrier to have a better perspective.

That's because the winners are almost invariably comparing like to like, with a very limited goal in mind, instead of an overall pointing system.

Consider the tier guide. It ain't perfect, but it's useful for what it sets out to do. Using it for things outside of it's specific purposes is of very questionable value.

[dextercorvia]

Everything I've seen over the last ten years of 3.x play, and even just in the numbers I've been toying with tells me that while the linear/quadratic effect is there, the gap doesn't begin until around 7th level. That's one of the reasons why E6 is such a popular variant as the game caps just where things begin to get wonky.

I suppose that a 1st level wizard with a 20 Int and three 1st level spells could dominate a day of combat by firing off sleep or colorspray three times, but when you get into that level of optimization you start to have to see how GMs react. It ends up being a race to the top which is makes it harder to predict how actual play will occur.

It would be interesting to see optimized benchmarks, but it would be more prudent to lay down average play. While optimization is popular, I haven't seen it as pervasive for the non-forumite gamer.

A specialist (or Elven Generalist) with 20 Int, or Focused Specialist with 18 Int fires off 4 1st level spells per day. That isn't crazy optimization -- that is just[I] I want to have as many spells per day as I can so I don't have to use a X-bow.[/]

How many 3rd level Fighters can Fly, blind several people in a round, provide a safe place to hide, quietly communicate from over 100 feat away, know if something is magic or not, communicate with creatures that don't speak common, survive a fall of 150', prevent several enemies from reaching the party, know what someone else is thinking, create copies of himself to confuse his enemies, or any of the other things that a Wizard might be able to do at that level?

How many 3rd level Wizards can deal damage, or not die if someone tries to attack them?