[4e] Power cost analysis

[The_Ditto]

As promised in another thread, here's the link to the google spreadsheet.

If people have suggestions or recommendations for costs based on existing powers, etc, etc. Please post, we'll discuss and I'll update as I find time :)

Feel free to make a copy yourself, and tweak like mad!! :smalltongue:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtwH-nxPJ7MFdElRMmxBTm5sVXNSSm5EWUg0ZTdBMFE&usp=sharing

Note: Yellow highlighted Values on the ref sheet are ones that "need help". In other words, they are probably "wrong". :) If you want to help, focus on one or two of those and see if you can come up with a number that makes sense.
Thanks!


and with that said, perhaps I should add explanation for those not coming from the other thread?? :smallwink: (Yeah, silly non-psychics, what are we going to do with you, *sigh* )

When doing some work on a custom class a few months ago, I decided to tackle reverse engineering 4e D&D Powers. So I tried to associate a point cost to any little property that seemed worth while.
Plug into a spreadsheet, and viola, "Price is right" for 4e powers. :smallbiggrin:

Please keep in mind that these are just my own observations and "guesses" at the moment, with very little cross-checks and such in place. Hopefully by sharing, we can possible work together and iron the kinks out a bit more.

[The_Ditto]

Goals / Task List

Completed
<none yet>

Current
1) Validate and adjust base costs for majority of more common power attributes so that they are more reasonably close to accurate. (Excluded: specific class features, roles, conditional powers/events, etc.)
2) Continue to brainstorm future ideas/direction, etc.


Planned/Future
3) Evaluate class features and how they interact with powers and their costs.
4) Examine more complex power traits (such as Psionics Augment, or special requirements, etc.) and establish a cost basis for them.
5) Examine specific problem powers (ie Twin Strike), and consider what is potentially throwing of the cost, and determine a way to adjust/compensate.


Version updates

Version 1.0.0
Original version
Setup/shared initial version of spreadsheet.
Establish goals/tasks
Establish standards for posting (Thank-you NecroRebel ! :smallsmile:)


Version 1.0.1
Misc minor adjustments and additions
Added option for Area 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5. Just to provide a trend for now.
Highlighted the cost values for these and secondary attack and multiple targets. They are probably off by something.
Added an option for "Misc Requirement" to get us started on small limitations on powers.


Version 1.0.2
Misc minor adjustments and additions
Added a new worksheet in the spreadsheet. Intention is for showing/listing calc'd powers together for comparative purposes.

[NecroRebel]

Making a community analysis project for this purpose is a good idea, and is likely the path to the holy grail of 4e homebrewing. Eventually, the fruits of this endeavor should be posted on the homebrew subforum for future reference, but this should be the actual research thread.

So we don't have to cross-reference a different thread to see what has already been done, I feel we should have the original research posted. This information is naturally subject to revision as we do a more thorough analysis.
Heroic Powers: 30 pts to spend.
Paragon: 40 pts.
Epic: 50 pts.

The following are then costs for a power:

Frequency:
Daily (0), Encounter(10), At-will (15)

Action:
Standard (0), Move (5), Minor(10), Immediate or Opportunity (15)

Damage:
+1[W] (5)
+1d4 (2) +1d6 (3) +1d8 (4) +1d10 (5) +1d12 (6)
+ability stat mod (5)

Defense:
Weapon vs AC (0), vs Fort/Ref/Will (5)
Implement vs AC (-3 ie 3 pts kickback) vs F/R/W (0)

Keywords:
Most keywords are just fluff, so most are 0 pts, however, some have a mechanical effect, such as (but not limited to):
Stance (10), Reliable (5), Invigorating (5), Miss (5)
Also: Implement (melee) I gave a (-2) pt back.

Conditions:
Mostly aimed at 5 pts per, some of the bigger outlying ones were:
Dominated (20), Stunned (10), Weakened (10)

And just some other misc stuff:
Can use the power as a basic attack (5)
can use with charge (5)
Ranged weapon power (5)
Multiple targets (4)
Enemies only (5)
Ongoing (or Vulnerable) 5 (4) 10 (8) 15 (12) 20 (16)
+2 to hit with the power (ie careful attack) (5)
-1 to hit (ie harder to hit) (-2 buyback)
Reach +1 (10)
Misc Ally benefit (4-6, depending)
Misc Enemy penalty (4-6, depending).

On utility powers:
We can probably do a similar breakdown for utility powers, but I worry that we'll have to do a great deal more ad hoc scoring for them. At the very least, though, powers that enable movement of various types and distances should be scorable, as should powers that give specific numerical bonuses and those that grant healing. The trouble is the more esoteric or unique stances, but perhaps we can use the existing community ratings on these powers from the various class handbooks to determine that.

First, though, attack powers should be analyzed, as they're more common, have fewer unique effects, and thanks to The_Ditto already have a framework made.

[NecroRebel]

I have analyzed 5 additional powers, and have come up with an initial format for posting analyses:

Power Name (Sourcebook Page#)
Class Powertype Level
Community Rating: Color
Overall Score: # (#w/Feature; Ad-hoc?)
{table]Points | Reason
# | Why[/table]

These things should be fairly self-explanatory, especially given the following examples.

Community ratings should come from the most recent handbook from the Wizard's CharOp wiki (http://community.wizards.com/wiki/Dnd:CharOp/Index_of_Class_Guides). Colors are, from worst to best, Red, Purple, Black, Blue, Sky Blue, and Gold.

In your table, put a ? next to numbers that you've assigned an ad-hoc score to due to no reasonable method of creating a standard existing, and a * next to numbers that apply only to characters with a particular class feature.

The analyses I have performed so far are in the following spoiler.
Pin the Foe (PHB1 146)
Warlord Daily Attack 1
Community Rating: Purple
Overall Score: -2 (Includes ad-hoc rating)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
0 | Daily frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
15 | 3W damage
5 | +Stat damage
2 | Has Effect line
3? | Encounter-length conditional shift prevention on target[/table]

Whirlwind (AP 29)
Sorcerer Encounter Attack 1
Community Rating: Black (Blue for Storm sorcerers)
Overall Score: 0 (3 for Storm sorcerers; Includes ad-hoc rating)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroci-tier attack power
10 | Encounter frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Implement
0 | Implement power vs. NAD
5 | 1d10 Damage
5 | +Stat damage
5 | Area power: burst 1 in 10 squares
5 | Causes condition: prone
3?* | Storm sorcerers may ignore center tile of burst[/table]

Swift River Floods (PsiP 62)
Monk Encounter Attack 1
Community Rating: Purple (Blue for Iron Soul monks)
Overall Score: -2 (3 for Iron Soul monks)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
10 | Encounter frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Implement
0 | Implement power vs. NAD
8 | 2d8 damage
5 | +Stat damage
5 | Causes condition: slow
5* | Iron Soul monks with mace or staff gain +Stat damage[/table]

Unstoppable Assault (MP2 13)
Fighter Daily Attack 9
Community Rating: Black
Overall Score: -10 (Includes ad-hoc ratings)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
0 | Daily frequency
15 | Immediate action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon
2? | Trigger on enemy movement
-2? | Requires equipment: Shield
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
15 | 3W damage
5 | +Stat damage
5? | Grants immunity: Grab/Restrain/Enemy movethrough[/table]

Curebite (FRPG 35)
Warlock Encounter Attack 1
Community Rating: Purple (Blue for Dark warlocks)
Overall Score: -3 (2 for Dark warlocks; Includes ad-hoc rating)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
10 | Encounter frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Implement, Necrotic
0 | Implement power vs. NAD
3? | Targets all Warlock's Curse victims in close burst 20
10 | 2d8 damage
5* | Dark warlocks gain +Stat damage[/table]

Unfortunately, the random selection process I used (I went to the Compendium, sorted it so that only heroic-tier class attack powers would appear, and then used a RNG to see which ones I'd use out of the 2211 there are) got 4 level 1 powers.

The analysis of Unstoppable Assault does suggest that something is terribly off about the numbers with regards to it; it's rated as black, but scores a horrible -10. Immediate-action costs need to be closely examined vis a vis their triggers.

[ghost_warlock]

There probably needs to be a value added for powers that have a sustainable portion, perhaps weighted by the action needed to sustain the power. Unstoppable Assault contains a minor-action sustain, which is fairly good on a class that doesn't have much else to use their minor actions on.

[The_Ditto]

I have analyzed 5 additional powers, and have come up with an initial format for posting analyses:

Power Name (Sourcebook Page#)
Class Powertype Level
Community Rating: Color
Overall Score: # (#w/Feature; Ad-hoc?)
{table]Points | Reason
# | Why[/table]


Awesome, Thanks for the hep! I've never really done anything like this before, so I appreciate it. :)




The analysis of Unstoppable Assault does suggest that something is terribly off about the numbers with regards to it; it's rated as black, but scores a horrible -10. Immediate-action costs need to be closely examined vis a vis their triggers.

Undoubtedly, I've done very little thorough analysis on this - so far, it's mostly "rough guessing" :)

Hopefully as we get more samples, and people have ideas, I'll start fudging the numbers on that spreadsheet. I guess I could post them as spoilers for those without access ... hmmm

[Tegu8788]

Something worth considering, for when we get around to doing roles and class features, would be something that gives a bonus to Controllers. Considering they are almost all power based, it would make some sense for them to have a little extra play when it came to the potency of their powers.

I think it would also be interesting to see a breakdown of the power sources, Divine has the Channel Divinity powers, Psionic has the Power Points, Arcane has the Spellbooks, so on and so forth.

[The_Ditto]

There probably needs to be a value added for powers that have a sustainable portion, perhaps weighted by the action needed to sustain the power. Unstoppable Assault contains a minor-action sustain, which is fairly good on a class that doesn't have much else to use their minor actions on.

Agreed, I'll add spacers for that, just need some ideas for some numbers.
Can anyone pick a few sustain powers, and see what seems to "make sense" ?
(That's generally how I do this .. find a power with 1 more thing that I haven't costed, and figure out where it fits. lather, rinse repeat :) )

[NecroRebel]

Agreed, I'll add spacers for that, just need some ideas for some numbers.
Can anyone pick a few sustain powers, and see what seems to "make sense" ?
(That's generally how I do this .. find a power with 1 more thing that I haven't costed, and figure out where it fits. lather, rinse repeat :) )

I would suggest you add spacers for all of the possible durations, and we can just find numbers as we analyze powers for each of them. Some of them might end up having the same value, or being so rare as to be difficult to give an exact value to, but in the long term for completeness's sake it will likely be helpful. As far as I know, powers can last: until the end of your turn, until the beginning of your next turn, until the end of your next turn, save ends, sustain minor, sustain move, sustain standard, and until the end of the encounter.

I think we'll also find a single score for single-target powers and a single score for multi-target powers to be too simplistic. The Sorcerer at-will Lightning Strike, which hits one target and damages one other, is very different from an area burst 1 power that hits any target in the burst, after all. We'll probably need scores for single additional targets, one for a 1x1 area effect, and then a modifier for bigger AoEs. This approach will allow us to unify the mechanics of close burst, close blasts, area bursts, and wall powers.

[Tegu8788]

I'd also say that powers like Twin Strike, that function like two separate powers, needs to be rated specially. Perhaps a flexibility rating for those that have variable ranges.

[ghost_warlock]

Something worth considering, for when we get around to doing roles and class features, would be something that gives a bonus to Controllers. Considering they are almost all power based, it would make some sense for them to have a little extra play when it came to the potency of their powers.

I think it would also be interesting to see a breakdown of the power sources, Divine has the Channel Divinity powers, Psionic has the Power Points, Arcane has the Spellbooks, so on and so forth.

Something similar to consider is that certain conditions may be more valuable to characters of certain roles, controller or otherwise. For instance, when comparing two powers that slow, a fighter will find the power more useful if it's a melee or close power while a sorcerer would much prefer the power have a range of 10-20 (as opposed to a close burst/blast).

For another example, if a character belong to a class that has a lot of attack powers available that are an immediate action, such powers won't be as valuable by default than one would be to a class that has almost no immediate attacks.

Similarly, daze/stun isn't as valuable in itself to, say, a wizard as it is to a rogue, because a wizard has a lot more powers available that inflict the same condition so the other effects of the power should be weighted more heavily.

[The_Ditto]

I would suggest you add spacers for all of the possible durations, and we can just find numbers as we analyze powers for each of them.

Yep, did that :)



I think we'll also find a single score for single-target powers and a single score for multi-target powers to be too simplistic. The Sorcerer at-will Lightning Strike, which hits one target and damages one other, is very different from an area burst 1 power that hits any target in the burst, after all. We'll probably need scores for single additional targets, one for a 1x1 area effect, and then a modifier for bigger AoEs. This approach will allow us to unify the mechanics of close burst, close blasts, area bursts, and wall powers.

Sounds like a plan.


Something similar to consider is that certain conditions may be more valuable to characters of certain roles, controller or otherwise. For instance, when comparing two powers that slow, a fighter will find the power more useful if it's a melee or close power while a sorcerer would much prefer the power have a range of 10-20 (as opposed to a close burst/blast.

Possible, however, I would see this as a later stage task. For now, we need to iron out the major kinks, and get things into the right "ballpark". Once we get closer with that, we can probably start addressing this.

I'm of the mindset of going slow and not trying to bite off too much at once :)

Small, baby steps :smalltongue:

[Yakk]

Instead of "charging more" for an at-will or encounter power, simply have different budgets based on power type and level.

May I suggest we start from the perspective of 1 damage = 1 point, and [W] is worth about 5 damage (for most classes at least). A "light blade only" power might only charge 4 for a [W].

The nice thing about this is that nearly every level has a "pure damage" power.

However, there is a problem: Every "pure damage" power in 4e is pretty much underpowered, unless it is a minor/immediate power, because 4e designers didn't design their game as well as we would like.

I suppose we can reflect this by saying that "crappy powers" are under budget.

... reliable shouldn't be a flat cost. The value of reliable is that misses turn into repeat attacks on your next turn. Similarly for the value of half-damage-on-miss: if we presume miss damage is worth as much as hit damage (between lowered variance and the fact that harder enemies are harder to hit, it is pretty close), we can turn miss-damage into just damage-value.

This does require that we estimate how much bonus damage your attacks have.

Once we have a damage-theory of 4e (converted to points, on an approximate one-to-one basis), we can benchmark what non-damage powers are "worth" by finding powers of similar "worth" that don't deal as much damage, and using the difference in damage as an approximation.

[Surrealistik]

There is so much that is excruciatingly difficult to accurately quantify with respect to feat/item support, class features and contexts (relative value of powers for immediate heavy classes like the battle mind vs the ranger) that while I feel you'll come up with a decent heuristic, it will not ultimately succeed as an accurate rater.

I do wish you the best of luck however, and am interested in your progress.

[Tegu8788]

I agree with you Surrealistik, but one can try...

And Yakk, I find something elegant about everything using the same budget, as it would make things a bit easier when we get to augmented powers I suspect. Not to mention the number of powers that are encounters but can be used more than once an encounter.

[NecroRebel]

There is so much that is excruciatingly difficult to accurately quantify with respect to feat/item support, class features and contexts (relative value of powers for immediate heavy classes like the battle mind vs the ranger) that while I feel you'll come up with a decent heuristic, it will not ultimately succeed as an accurate rater.

The purpose is more to be an aid to creation of new powers than as an analyzer of existing powers. We're just analyzing existing powers to attempt to find a baseline. Mostly, we want to find at least a half-dozen powers that have a particular aspect to their effects and see how they match up to the general case and each other. This will let us get some idea as to how that aspect is valued, which is likely to make homebrew balance involving that aspect easier.

It doesn't matter so much how powers interact with feats or items for this purpose, either, as they just aren't considered so much when creating them. While a power that did 1 damage a dozen times to one target per use would be horribly overpowered if combined with frostcheese, for the most part one power isn't really going to get so much more of a benefit from any particular thing than another that initially at least we don't need to consider them.

[The_Ditto]

, it will not ultimately succeed as an accurate rater.


I have never wanted to try to target an "accurate" end result. All I want to see is "Close". At the moment, I consider +/- 5 pts "accurate enough". (even that might be far reaching at the moment, but it's just a target :) )


The purpose is more to be an aid to creation of new powers than as an analyzer of existing powers.


yes, exactly, couldn't have said it better myself, thanks NecroRebel!

[Surrealistik]

The purpose is more to be an aid to creation of new powers than as an analyzer of existing powers.

I'm aware.

My concern is with its ultimate accuracy for all the reasons mentioned; the more developed a class is, and the more context, feats and other components it has that synergize with its powers (including other powers), the less accurate and useful this will be as a rule.

That's not to say that I don't think this project has merit or worth, but that I find it likely diminishing returns will be a problem with respect to its ability to accurately forecast and summarize the strength of new powers with strictly itemized, quantified outcomes, especially at the later levels.

Lastly, _any_ rating system worth a damn (at least beyond Heroic) must consider things like feat support and other relevant interactions.

[The_Ditto]

Lastly, _any_ rating system worth a damn (at least beyond Heroic) must consider things like feat support and other relevant interactions.

And we may very well get there with analyzing things like feat and other things.

For starts, however, that is (IMHO) putting the cart before the horse. We have no baseline, we have nothing to gauge. We need ballparks and approximates.

Small steps will get us somewhere, pointing out all the things that will fail will not. Making small progress with the things we can measure, however, will give us something to work off of.

Will it ever be 100% accurate to measure existing powers worth? I can say, with absolute confidence: Absolutely not.

Doesn't matter, though (I say).
As a means to help build custom powers and garner their approximate worth and placement? I have absolute confidence in the ability to do that.

[NecroRebel]

Instead of "charging more" for an at-will or encounter power, simply have different budgets based on power type and level.

The primary advantage of having the same budget for all powers of a given level (currently we're going by tier) is that eventually we'll likely want to extend the analysis to utility powers as well, which can have multiple power types on the same level. Comparing two powers is easier if they've got the same budget.

Anyway, 5 more analyses. I've marked things that I think really need to be addressed with a carrot (^). Things that really jump out at me are:

Secondary attacks and effects:
Currently, we've got no real way to score a secondary attack. This can cause powers that have one to be dramatically overvalued; Rune of Death's Verge is an example. In particular, the action required to use a secondary attack needs to be paid attention to. We might want to have a simple multiplier for secondary effects.

Area effects:
For these analyses, I've guessed that adding a 1x1 area effect to a power costs 1 point, and adding 2 to the size of each side costs an additional 1 point. These likely aren't good values, but it's probably better than just having a flat score for multitarget powers in general, as 5x5 AoEs are naturally more valuable than 3x3 AoEs.

Durations:
(save ends) effects are obviously more valuable than until end of your next turn effects. We don't have any set score for these, though. Different conditions might need different scores for different durations, too - the difference between stun (save ends) and stun UENT is probably greater than the difference between deafen (save ends) and deafen UENT.

Powers with multiple usable ranges:
There are a large number of powers, particularly Rogue, Ranger, and Seeker powers, that have a "Melee or ranged weapon" line. These are clearly more valuable than melee weapon powers, and may be better than ranged weapon powers. I've priced this aspect at 6 (Ranged weapon is 5) for the time being.

Equipment requirements:
Many powers require a particular piece of equipment to be wielded in order to be used. We should make a standard score adjustment for these, though probably a small one; -1 or -2.



The new analyses:
Rune of Death's Verge (PHB3 105)
Runepriest Daily Attack 9
Community Rating: Purple
Overall Score: 35 (Includes ad-hoc rating)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
0 | Daily frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
1? | Swinging damage type; may choose radiant or necrotic
10 | 2W Damage
5 | +Stat damage
5^ | Miss: Half damage
5^ | Has secondary attack
15^ | Secondary attack cost: Opportunity action
2^ | Secondary attack: 3x3 area effect
5 | Secondary attack: Enemies-only
5 | Secondary attack: Weapon vs. NAD
7 | Secondary attack: Dazes
5^ | Secondary attack: (save ends) effect[/table]

Beacon of Vengeance (PHB3 103)
Runepriest Encounter Attack 3
Community Rating: Black (Purple for the Protection rune)
Overall Score: 0 (Same for both runes)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
10 | Encounter frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon, radiant, runic
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
5 | 1W damage
5 | +Stat damage
5 | Ally benefit: invisible to target
5* | Destruction rune: Ally benefit: Next AC attack against target targets NAD
5* | Protection rune: Ally benefit: Shift Stat as free action[/table]

Spectral Scorpion Sting (PHB3 121)
Seeker Encounter Attack 3
Community Rating: Red
Overall Score: 2 (Includes ad-hoc ratings)
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
10 | Encounter frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon, Poison, Conjuration
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
6^ | Dual-use melee or range
-1^? | Equipment requirement: Melee usable only if using throw-capable weapon
10 | 2W damage
5 | +Stat damage
2^ | Secondary effect: 3x3 area effect
5^ | Secondary effect: 5 fixed damage
-5?^ | Secondary effect: Enemy must start and end turn adjacent to 1-square conjuration[/table]

Baleful Gaze of the Basilisk (PHB2 145)
Sorcerer Daily Attack 19
Community Rating: Black
Overall Score: -9 (-3 for Dragon sorcerers)
{table]Points | Reason
-40 | Paragon-tier attack power
0 | Daily frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Implement, Fear, Poison
0 | Implement power vs. NAD
10 | Stuns
5^ | Duration modifier: (save ends)
8 | Ongoing 10 damage
8^ | Miss: Ongoing 10 damage
6* | Dragon sorcerer: Slide stat on save[/table]

Together We Survive (MP2 89)
Warlord Encounter Attack 7
Community Rating: Purple
Overall Score: -1
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
10 | Encounter frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
10 | 2W Damage
5 | +Stat damage
4? | Allies who hit target gain Stat temp. HP[/table]

[Tegu8788]

If nothing else, this is a great way to look at a power and really understand exactly what it does. I'd almost rather they be written out like this.

[Ashdate]

This might end up becoming too complicated without a program to help "calculate" the cost for you, but to Surrealistik's point (and noting that I've only skimmed the spreadsheet), you could potentially account for feat support by weighing particular aspects of the power. An arcane ranged attack that deals cold damage for example, would be (assuming my vague grasp of optimization) better than the same power that deals necrotic instead.

(On the other hand, a martial attack that deals cold damage is probably not worth much, as most melee frost cheese comes from a weapon supplying the cold keyword.)

Similarly, if there were other "build around me" feats/items, you could weigh them similarly. The danger is, of course, that you could end up with a set of values that are too complicated to do without a program notch up the rating depends on being a particular class (as an example).

[The_Ditto]

This might end up becoming too complicated without a program to help "calculate" the cost for you,


Follow my google docs link in the original post. It's exactly that.
And I'm going to try to tweak it as we go to adjust for suggestions and stuff.

[The_Ditto]

So just noting, I've updated the spreadsheet to hold some of the pre-calc'd powers. I've dropped a few random ones in, I'll also add the ones done by necro above when I get a minute.

The idea (I hope), is that it provides us an easier way of comparing similar powers or such and to see the effects of the costs. Might make it easier to adjust the costs.

[The_Ditto]

Secondary attacks and effects:
Currently, we've got no real way to score a secondary attack. This can cause powers that have one to be dramatically overvalued; Rune of Death's Verge is an example. In particular, the action required to use a secondary attack needs to be paid attention to. We might want to have a simple multiplier for secondary effects.

A multiplier is what strikes me as most logical, Again, something that the Hero system uses that I'm used to. (ie advantages/disadvantages). I don't want to get that complex (yet), however, so I think just applying some factor to the extra abilities.




Rune of Death's Verge (PHB3 105)
Runepriest Daily Attack 9
Community Rating: Purple
Overall Score: 35 (Includes ad-hoc rating)
[spoiler]{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
0 | Daily frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
1? | Swinging damage type; may choose radiant or necrotic
10 | 2W Damage
5 | +Stat damage
5^ | Miss: Half damage
5^ | Has secondary attack
15^ | Secondary attack cost: Opportunity action
2^ | Secondary attack: 3x3 area effect
5 | Secondary attack: Enemies-only
5 | Secondary attack: Weapon vs. NAD
7 | Secondary attack: Dazes
5^ | Secondary attack: (save ends) effect[/table]


So yeah, with the above in mind, I'd suggest the following costing for this power instead:

Total: 13
{table]Points | Reason
-30 | Heroic-tier attack power
0 | Daily frequency
0 | Standard action cost
0 | Keywords: Weapon
0 | Weapon power vs. AC
10 | 2W Damage
5 | +Stat damage
5 | Miss: Half damage
5 | Has secondary attack.
2.25 | Secondary attack: 7x7 area effect (close burst 3 is 7x7) (3*75%)
3 | Secondary attack: Multiple Targets (4 * 75%)
3.75 | Secondary attack: Enemies-only (5 * 75%)
3.75 | Secondary attack: Weapon vs. NAD (5 * 75%)
5.25 | Secondary attack: Dazes (7 * 75%)[/table]

Note I don't see any huge cost to the action type of the secondary attack. Secondary attacks assume it's "free" as part of the original attack, so if it requires an extra action - it might actually gain you some points back.
I'll leave it as a wash for now.
And the 75%? *shrug* random number, based on the guessed usefulness of the secondary attack.
I also left off the swinging damage type for now. I agree, maybe 1 point, but not enough to worry about at the moment. The problem with this power is the secondary attack, not the swinging damage type :)

[NecroRebel]

Note I don't see any huge cost to the action type of the secondary attack. Secondary attacks assume it's "free" as part of the original attack, so if it requires an extra action - it might actually gain you some points back.

I'll leave it as a wash for now.
And the 75%? *shrug* random number, based on the guessed usefulness of the secondary attack.

Perhaps we should use a different multiplier dependent on the action cost for the secondary attack, with more expensive secondary actions being more expensive. Like, a free- or no-action secondary would cost full points while a standard-action secondary would cost, like, 25% at most.

I'd say that actions should be priced, from best to worst: none or free, opportunity, minor, immediate, move, standard. You get multiple opportunity actions per round, and can take multiple minors if you want, while immediates are limited-use, so that's why I put those in that order. No-action and free-action effects are clearly the best, while standard actions are clearly the most expensive.

What particular numbers different actions cost needs to be determined.

[The_Ditto]

Perhaps we should use a different multiplier dependent on the action cost for the secondary attack, with more expensive secondary actions being more expensive. Like, a free- or no-action secondary would cost full points while a standard-action secondary would cost, like, 25% at most.

I'd say that actions should be priced, from best to worst: none or free, opportunity, minor, immediate, move, standard. You get multiple opportunity actions per round, and can take multiple minors if you want, while immediates are limited-use, so that's why I put those in that order. No-action and free-action effects are clearly the best, while standard actions are clearly the most expensive.

What particular numbers different actions cost needs to be determined.

Makes sense :smallsmile:

[Telok]

(save ends) effects are obviously more valuable than until end of your next turn effects. We don't have any set score for these, though. Different conditions might need different scores for different durations, too - the difference between stun (save ends) and stun UENT is probably greater than the difference between deafen (save ends) and deafen UENT.

I'll have to quibble with this. Half of the time, under normal heroic tier circumstances, an enemy will make it's save at the end of it's turn.

This means that by the time your next turn comes you can expect that half of the enemies will be free from a (save ends), whereas a UENT will apply through the duration of your new turn. This can be paticularly important if any of your allies act after the affected enemies but before you, half of the targets will not be under the status effect when your allies act. This can also be an important distinction when your status effect grants combat advantage, inhibits opportunityy attacks, or grants a vulnerability for your allies or yourself to exploit.

The (save ends) abilities also suffer from enemies with save bonuses and the ability to take or grant off turn saves. Save reducers can mitigate this but are not equally available to all classes and builds.

As a general blanket statement "(save ends) effects are obviously more valuable than until end of your next turn effects" is arguably untrue. I would feel more comfortable with something like "(save ends) effects that do not grant combat advantage or inhibit opportunity attacks are normally more valuable than until end of your next turn effects"

[NecroRebel]

I'll have to quibble with this. Half of the time, under normal heroic tier circumstances, an enemy will make it's save at the end of it's turn.

Mathematically, it's true; (save ends) powers last longer than UENT powers. While it is true that 55% of the time they last only part of a round, the they last longer the rest of the time, with a chance of lasting theoretically permanently. Even if you call a first-turn save as a half-round duration, assuming I did my math right, that means that a (save ends) power has a 55% of lasting .5 rounds, a 24.75% chance of lasting 1.5 rounds, a 11.1375% chance of lasting 2.5 rounds, a 5.011875% chance of lasting 3.5 rounds, and a ~4% chance of lasting 4.5 or more rounds. That's still an average of more than 1.28 rounds. You could calculate the exact duration of a (save ends) effect in terms of rounds taking into account various save bonuses and start-of-turn saves using calculus, but I don't know enough calculus to do such a thing. The numbers above are reasonable.

Mind you, the most valuable parts of the most valuable effects are fairly binary in what they do. Once a stunned creature's turn has passed, you don't really care so much about what stun does until their turn comes up again, so it'd be disingenuous to say a first-turn save vs. stun is a half-round duration. In that case, the save-ends is more like a 1.78-round duration.

So, yeah. Math says you're wrong and I'm right.

[Telok]

Mathematically, it's true; (save ends) powers last longer than UENT powers...

So, yeah. Math says you're wrong and I'm right.

You have a point for single target and stun powers where all you want to do is to deny the enemy one turn of actions. But it doesn't ring true for other powers like an AoE attack or defense penalty, and it seriously undervalues the true power of a stun that not only denies the enemy an action but also grants combat advantage and prohibits opportunity attacks and immediate actions. In those situations a good deal of the effect is reliant on your allies being able to benefit from the status effect that you inflicted. Remember too, if an enemy saves against your status effect then you don't benefit from it on your next turn.

A simplistic "(save ends) lasts 1.4 enemy actions on average" is like saying that a cold damage power is always better than a fire damage power. It ignores your assumptions how and when the power is being used.

[Tegu8788]

Then perhaps it needs to be broken down into both the condition it applies, and for how long. It's more complex, but more thorough. 5 fire damage save ends and Dominated till the end of your next turn are clearly very different in power.

[NecroRebel]

You have a point for single target and stun powers where all you want to do is to deny the enemy one turn of actions. But it doesn't ring true for other powers like an AoE attack or defense penalty, and it seriously undervalues the true power of a stun that not only denies the enemy an action but also grants combat advantage and prohibits opportunity attacks and immediate actions. In those situations a good deal of the effect is reliant on your allies being able to benefit from the status effect that you inflicted. Remember too, if an enemy saves against your status effect then you don't benefit from it on your next turn.

...Except that, on average, the (save ends) power still lasts longer, so, on average, you and your allies will have more opportunities to take advantage of the effects of a (save ends) power than an UENT power. So while it's true that you don't benefit from it on your next turn if the target saves against it, the times when the target doesn't save give an inarguable greater benefit over the course of your career.

Note that you're the one who's trying to compare stun and attack or defense penalties. I've specifically suggested, in the bit you quoted earlier, that each effect-duration pairs should be priced individually rather than having one price for each effect and one price for each duration. A (save ends) stun effect might be priced at twice that of an UENT stun effect, while a (save ends) -2 defense effect might be 1.2x an UENT -2 defense effect. We can do that if it turns out we need to.


A simplistic "(save ends) lasts 1.4 enemy actions on average" is like saying that a cold damage power is always better than a fire damage power. It ignores your assumptions how and when the power is being used.

No it isn't. "(save ends) lasts 1.4 enemy actions on average" means "(save ends) lasts 1.4 enemy actions on average." That's all it means. There are no assumptions being made on how or when a power is being used for that statement. In addition, even going up against a creature with a +5 save bonus, (save ends) powers still average a longer duration. Do the math, if you want.

Edit: I made an Excel spreadsheet to do the math for me (out to 100 failed saves, well beyond the point where the extra duration is not statistically significant anymore). With no save bonus, a (save ends) effect averages 1.8181 rounds, with a +2 bonus 1.538461538461 rounds, and with a +5 bonus 1.25 rounds.


Then perhaps it needs to be broken down into both the condition it applies, and for how long. It's more complex, but more thorough. 5 fire damage save ends and Dominated till the end of your next turn are clearly very different in power.

This is in fact something I suggested in the comment Telok quoted, and I certainly agree.

[testsubject27]

Is this for a specific homebrew game?

I love the idea by the way. I considered going through the entire power list for my player's classes and redesigning each power such that when a player had to choose there was some doubt as to which one they would choose. As-is usually without a strange trick, it's pretty apparent which 1 or 2 powers any character will have for any class at any level with very few exceptions.

Anxious to see what you come up with.

[Yakk]

As an aside, 5 fire damage save ends is really easy to model if you normalize your point system to "points of damage". Throw in some multiplier for delayed damage, and the fact that it deals less damage on average to elites/solos, and that it doesn't stack well with itself... on the other hand, it multi-taps, opening up vulnerability tricks, which can also be modeled explicitly.

The idea is that when you upgrade your heroic tier power to a paragon tier one, you are getting another "dollop" of power. So you can measure that "dollop" of power as the difference between the heroic and paragon tier power in rough units of "damage dealt".

This also works great with psionic powers. Each power point is a dollop of power that can be expended boosting a power's damage output (or other similar effects). Possibly there will be some bonus for channeling it through a higher level power, or some tax from being able to spend the dollops of powers faster.

Essentials style backstab and power attack also work extremely well this way, them being direct dollops of actual damage, and the same with the assassin's "all the dollops in one power" ability.