How many options should characters of a given level have?

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Let's take a 20th level Barbarian in 3.5 edition and see how many abilities from all sources (using the term loosely) a player needs to track other than their ability scores, attack bonus, saving throws, and HP that everyone has;
a) 8 feats
b) up to 8 skills that matter vs 20th level DCs
c) 5 class abilities (fast movement, imp. uncanny dodge, damage reduction, trap sense, indomitable mighty rage)
d) 12 kinds of bling (weapon, shield, armor, cloak, belt, boots, 2 rings, amulet, bracers, 2 misc. wondous items)

So, 33 abilities of all types for our 20th level Barb, less than 1/6 of which come from class and the class-based ones are set for all Barbs. Let's compare with the 20th level wizard;
a) 14 feats plus familiar.
b) up to 14 skills that matter vs 20th level DCs
c) 72 spells memorized. No, seriously.
d) 12 kinds of bling. (assuming he didn't do any extra crafting)

Total 112, 5/6 of which are due to class. That's, like, four times more abilities for the wizard compared to the barbarian in total, sixteen times as many being class abilities and up to player choice. This is the class imbalance quantified right there not in how powerful the class is (though that also applies), but in how many interesting stuff players can do with a given class.


Conclusions:
1) Characters currently have different numbers of options due to how classes are built.
2) Traditional martial classes have too few unique options, making them boring.
3) Traditional caster classes have too many options, making them overly complex and hard to balance.
4) By accumulating abilities over the course of levels, early abilities become useless baggage in some cases, or too much stuff to track in others.


Questions/opinions:
1) Should all characters regardless of build have roughly the same number of abilities? (IMHO yes)
2) Should abilities be hard-wired into classes in the way of the Barbarian, or should classes give access to a given type of abilities, like the wizard? (IMHO the latter; customizability is always better)
3) What is a good number of total options for characters to have? (IMHO 66 options, 9 +3/level would be fine)
4) Should magic items be limited by the ability cap, such as via attunement?
5) Should the number of abilities a character has from each source (race, skill, feat, class, item) be set within the total i.e. class X has Y choices, be entirely up to the player, or be calculated by some system?
6) What would a good system for calculating the ability spread be?





I have been working on an ability-score-based system myself. For example, a 10th level elven warrior/rogue would have a total ability score modifier of 36. Her stats would be Str 20, Dex 30, Con 24, Int 22, Wis 16, Cha 20. Her Dex is maxed, its 10 slots used for evasion and a few other rogue abilities and dex-based feats plus attuning her bow, her Con gives 7 slots, one of which is used to attune her armor, another for a protective item, three for defensive feats and two for smithing feats, her Str is for attuning her two swords, two fighter abilities, and Athletics training, her Int is for nifty rogue abilities like magical document forgery (falsify magic scroll FTW), poison-crafting, and potion-brewing, plus skill-training in four Int-based skills, Wis only gives three slots used for Perception training, Iron Will and a perception-based guard ability from fighter, and finally Charisma gives five slots. Two are used for attunement to wondrous items, and the remaining three are taken up by racial elf traits (spell resistance, suggestive speech, and something druidy I can't remember now)


All in all, nothing too complex and the system is both intuitive and resistant to exploitation. For a given ability score, you get to learn that many special abilities, no more no less. For a given level, you get that high ability scores regardless of source. To use a given ability/spell/item you need to have it on your race/class list or be part of your loot, and then assign it to an ability slot according to its prerequisites.

[Red Fel]

Let's take a 20th level Barbarian in 3.5 edition and see how many abilities from all sources (using the term loosely) a player needs to track other than their ability scores, attack bonus, saving throws, and HP that everyone has;

*SNIP*

So, 33 abilities of all types for our 20th level Barb, less than 1/6 of which come from class and the class-based ones are set for all Barbs. Let's compare with the 20th level wizard;

*SNIP*

Total 112, 5/6 of which are due to class. That's, like, four times more abilities for the wizard compared to the barbarian in total, sixteen times as many being class abilities and up to player choice.

Well, now, let's unpack this for a moment.

We have to first define "options." You seem to be defining it as "decisions you can make that distinguish this character from any other character with the same class levels." That's fair, but I don't think that's the same term everyone plays with.

For example, when I talk about a class having "options," I define an option as follows: In a given scenario, can this class contribute meaningfully?

So let's unpack what you describe above:
Feats. Well, most feats don't actually add options. A few do. Most just make you better at doing what you already do. Feats that let you hit harder or soak hits better, feats that let you cast spells more efficiently, feats that give you a bonus to X rolls or Y skills. So for the vast majority of feats - particularly martial feats, which consist primarily of "more, bigger numbers," they're not actually giving you more ways to contribute meaningfully.
Skills. Skills are potentially useful in certain situations. The key thing, however, is that anyone can take almost any skills. The distinctions between classes are (1) how many skill points they get, and therefore how useful their skills will be, and (2) which skills are class skills, and therefore how high their limits are.
Kinds of bling. With the exception of proficiency limitations and taboos (such as Druids not being able to use metal), pretty much anyone can wear pretty much any bling. While certain classes benefit more, particularly when the bling lets them do things they couldn't do on their own (such as a cloak that lets you fly), a rising tide raises all ships. Also, some types of gear (e.g. most weapon or armor enhancements) basically boil down to "more, bigger numbers" again, which doesn't actually add options. Point is, very few bling-related options are exclusive to any given class.
Class features. Here we go. Primary spellcasting classes really only have one class feature: Spellcasting, also known as the Swiss army knife. By contrast, non-casting classes get lots of class features, which frequently boil down to "more, bigger numbers."
So, the question as I see it is, again: In a given situation, can you contribute meaningfully?


Conclusions:
1) Characters currently have different numbers of options due to how classes are built.
2) Traditional martial classes have too few unique options, making them boring.
3) Traditional caster classes have too many options, making them overly complex and hard to balance.
4) By accumulating abilities over the course of levels, early abilities become useless baggage in some cases, or too much stuff to track in others.

Let's unpack these, now.
Absolutely true.
True, apart from "boring." A class is as boring as you make it. But yes, traditional non-casters are mostly limited to "I use X skill" and "I hit it with my axe."
Generally true. The "Spellcasting" class feature is a Swiss army knife - it provides a way to contribute meaningfully in almost any scenario.
Not necessarily true. Some class features, for example, scale. Such features are rarely rendered truly obsolete, at least in theory, because they grow with the character. Certain feature choices, such as spells chosen, may expire in utility. But compare psionics, which allows you to scale powers as needed in order to keep them relevant.


Questions/opinions:
1) Should all characters regardless of build have roughly the same number of abilities? (IMHO yes)
2) Should abilities be hard-wired into classes in the way of the Barbarian, or should classes give access to a given type of abilities, like the wizard? (IMHO the latter; customizability is always better)
3) What is a good number of total options for characters to have? (IMHO 66 options, 9 +3/level would be fine)
4) Should magic items be limited by the ability cap, such as via attunement?
5) Should the number of abilities a character has from each source (race, skill, feat, class, item) be set within the total i.e. class X has Y choices, be entirely up to the player, or be calculated by some system?
6) What would a good system for calculating the ability spread be?

It's not about number, it's about utility. Consider a Wizard who has 72 spells known, and all of them are Magic Missile, somehow. The Barbarian, despite having fewer class features (although why are we counting each spell known, but not each rage use?) is probably going to pull his weight pretty well by comparison. The problem isn't the number of spells the Wizard has, it's what they can do in a given situation. So, that said:
Irrelevant. It's not about number, it's about utility.
The latter. I think customizable classes are more fun and engaging.
Irrelevant. It's not about number, it's about utility.
Mostly irrelevant to this conversation. Magic items are generally fairly universal in their ability to grant options to characters; a discussion on the Christmas tree effect is a subject for another thread.
I wouldn't go in that direction. Doing so basically makes class selection almost meaningless, if you can use items, feats, skills, etc. to achieve the identical utility. A Wizard with a firebreathing sword and invisibility armor and a flying cloak and a feat that allows you to rock out at any time becomes identical to a Barbarian with the same things, if both have chosen those in lieu of class features.
Non-starter.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Yes, not all abilities are currently just as useful. But whether a character can contribute is not the only point;

a) How fun it is for the player to roleplay that contribution is also important. If in a melee fight you kill things with a hammer, in a ranged fight you throw your returning hammer, when needing to climb a sheer cliff you carve handholds with your hammer, against locks and traps you break open a way through the wall with a hammer, and in a social situation you intimidate your way to your goals by threatening to beat everyone with a hammer, then the game becomes repetitive... unless you're the Prince of Asgard, or something. Having multiple options in any given situation is usually superior to having just one.

b) How fun it is for players to build their character. For many people, building characters is as important as or even more important than playing them. Wanting to build a Barbarian but finding out that building him and thinking up combos and tactics for him is not fun because he can only do so much limits players. The current situation of traditional melee vs traditional caster is like having a Magic the Gathering deck with only five different cards repeated six times each, and another deck with forty different cards appearing one to four times each. The first deck is short, boring, and simplistic even though it could potentially win if it just repeats a very strong card, while the second deck is so big it's never going to be used fully in a game, its tactics are convoluted, and you spent a bazillion euros in booster cards to make it. Which is why M:tG decks limit the number of repetitions per card to four, and are usually only sixty cards long. (suggesting 66 abilities for a 20th level character wasn't accidental)

c) How fairly the various character archetypes are treated by the game mechanics. That melee/mundane characters can't have cool stuff happens due to the discrepancy in their number of abilities. And while specific abilities that are overpowered can be banned by the DM to make the available abilities a bit more even, some classes being far more limited in their choices is not something the DM can fix quickly.

d) How fairly new and experienced players are treated depending on what they want to roleplay. It is not fair that a new player can't play casters as well as he can fighters due to their complexity. It's not fair that experienced players who like complex tactics and mechanics have to play casters to challenge their inner min-maxer.

[Cosi]

Let's take a 20th level Barbarian in 3.5 edition and see how many abilities from all sources (using the term loosely) a player needs to track other than their ability scores, attack bonus, saving throws, and HP that everyone has;

You're conflating abilities and options. The Barbarian, for example, can't choose whether or not to use fast movement in a given round. His movement speed just is 10ft faster than everyone else.

Also, you're conflating build options and play options. Yes, you get to chose from more than 3,000 feats when picking a feat. But once you pick that feat, you're stuck with it. Indeed, many feats (both crappy feats like Weapon Focus and good feats like Natural Spell) simply provide a passive benefit which you, again, don't ever have to activate or think about.


12 kinds of bling (weapon, shield, armor, cloak, belt, boots, 2 rings, amulet, bracers, 2 misc. wondous items)

How are you getting twelve? I mean, I could totally believe twelve, but he does actually have to spend three quarters of a million GP. Sometimes that comes out to twelve items, but much more often it's going to level appropriate plusses and a bunch of random stuff.


2) Traditional martial classes have too few unique options, making them boring.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean. Giving people maneuvers (a la Tome of Battle) would certainly make martials more interesting and more useful. You could also make people more powerful by giving them passive abilities (a la Uncanny Dodge), but that's still boring. Giving people more abilities to chose from does essentially nothing.


3) Traditional caster classes have too many options, making them overly complex and hard to balance.

Complex yes, hard to balance no. There are thousands of spells, and some of those are planar binding. But there are also thousands of feats, and none of those are planar binding.


1) Should all characters regardless of build have roughly the same number of abilities? (IMHO yes)
2) Should abilities be hard-wired into classes in the way of the Barbarian, or should classes give access to a given type of abilities, like the wizard? (IMHO the latter; customizability is always better)

Not necessarily. As people point out in Fighter threads, there are people who want to have a simple character who just kills monsters. There probably should be some classes which are basically on rails, and just get a pile of abilities that add up to level appropriate fire magic, or sword swinging, or backstabbing without too much work.

Even when you get to classes that are intended to be played by people who want something complex, classes want different numbers of abilities. Consider the Crusader (who has a bunch of martial maneuvers from which he can use a random selection) and the Wizard (who prepares a bunch of spells). The Crusader's low level abilities conflict with his high level abilities (in that whenever he draws a 1st level maneuver he necessarily does not draw an 8th level maneuver), whereas the Wizard's low level abilities just sit there and wait for a problem to show up where they represent the idea solution. As such, the Crusader would be happy with a smaller pool of maneuvers, which would require him to have less chaff, while the Wizard would like a large pool of spells, which would allow him to keep more low level silver bullets on tap.


3) What is a good number of total options for characters to have? (IMHO 66 options, 9 +3/level would be fine)

Hard to say. At any given time, you should probably be looking at about a dozen options (be they prepared spells, granted maneuvers, or whatever), but the number of options you could theoretically load up each morning can be essentially infinite.


4) Should magic items be limited by the ability cap, such as via attunement?

I think you should probably have a pile of "sustain" slots into which you can stick things like Persistent divine power, or a Holy Avenger, or a pet demon, or being an Eldritch Giant, or whatever. Ideally, you'd have a system which could handle planar binding, magic swords, and monster PCs.


5) Should the number of abilities a character has from each source (race, skill, feat, class, item) be set within the total i.e. class X has Y choices, be entirely up to the player, or be calculated by some system?

Just balance things against equivalent things. Don't worry too much about options. Being a Rogue should be balanced with being a Wizard, being an Elf should be balanced with being a Gnome, and so on. But it doesn't really matter if Elf Rogues have the same number of options as Gnome Wizards. It's very much secondary to those classes being balanced.

[Vogie]

In addition to what has already been said, there are ways to "balance" the disparities between martial and spellcasting classes... at 20th level, even if you halved the number of spells a Wizard can have on him (burned into his mind?), they're still going to have more "options" due to the nature of those spells (Planar Binding & Wish, we're looking at you).

I don't play 3.5, but I know Pathfinder added the concept of "Called shots" in Ultimate Combat (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/calledShots.html#called-shot), making combat less of a spreadsheet vs spreadsheet beatdown and more "realistic", per se. It also has the possibilities of really bogging down the combat, or driving a DM mad if they're not building encounters thinking about it.

Too add to the Avengers references - Just because the Hulk has only variations of "Smash" doesn't limit his options as a combat-oriented character.

[Beheld]

Complex yes, hard to balance no. There are thousands of spells, and some of those are planar binding. But there are also thousands of feats, and none of those are planar binding.

I think you will find, that in practice, Leadership is very often Planar Binding.

[Cosi]

I think you will find, that in practice, Leadership is very often Planar Binding.

Alright. One of them is planar binding.

Even then, you can't use Leadership to get a CR 18 minion at level 11.

[Sahleb]

I think you're coming at it from the 'wrong' angle. There's definitely something to what you're saying, but just stating 'this class has # options' leaves a lot of stuff out.

For example, there are big variances the 'plasticity' of options. Sorcerers have more options than a barbarian, but both are equally fixed once made. A wizard has a functional limit on spells known (unless you're playing high-op), and then chooses from those, while a druid can make whatever choices he likes from day to day without setting it up, and then Erudites don't have to declare what they choose beforehand.

That sort of thing matters too, you know? I'm just saying that the option of a feat is not the same as the option of a spell prepared. Lumping them together is probably not that helpful.

[Jormengand]

At least two for each situation that they are supposed to be able to handle, at least one for each situation that they should be able to handle if they apply themselves really cleverly, and zero for each situation they shouldn't be able to handle. While one option - for the second case - can't really be considered an option, it feels enough like making a choice (even if there's only one way you could resolve the situation, you feel clever if you can work it out if it's not straightforwards).

That said, the answer is really as many as possible, but without any of them trivialising the problem (because otherwise they make other solutions less meaningful).

[OldTrees1]

Questions
1) Not if they choose otherwise. Ex:I want a third as many abilities(22) as you want(66) but want each of those abilities to be thrice as valuable. Then what reason would there be to side against either or both of us by setting it at a constant static amount? However you will notice that when measuring by value, I kept it equal.

2) I suggest a mixture. Fixed abilities help give the class an common ground (otherwise why have classes) however only having fixed abilities makes it more of a specific character than a class that many characters have in common.

3) Well, I said there should not be a fixed number independent of player choice, but I can identify bad numbers.
a) 9999 is a bad number of options since it is above the number of options people can think about even after compartmentalizing.
b) 0 is a bad number for obvious reasons. Numbers near 0 are almost as bad but "near" is player dependant
c) numbers less than 1 ability:1 level need special care to avoid creating dead levels (yes, it is possible but limiting)

[Barstro]

Conclusions:
1) Characters currently have different numbers of options due to how classes are built.
2) Traditional martial classes have too few unique options, making them boring.
3) Traditional caster classes have too many options, making them overly complex and hard to balance.
4) By accumulating abilities over the course of levels, early abilities become useless baggage in some cases, or too much stuff to track in others.

I disagree with your conclusions and thus have trouble following your questions.

I second what Red Fel stated; there needs to be a consensus on the definition of "options" to even attempt a meaningful conversation.
Martial classes have all sorts of options. There are hundreds of different weapons they can use in any given fight. It's not my fault they only carry a sword and a bow. Add several stances, etc. to it and things keep growing.
Caster classes can be complex, but only a small number of "options" make sense in a certain situation. Likewise, particular roleplaying styles can make casters simple.

I may be unique in this, but I almost never consider "character" options. I view the party as a whole. My tier-1 caster was often a one-trick-pony because that is what the party needed at the time. Meanwhile, the martial character was doing different things as the situations warranted.

IMO, a character should have as many options as the PLAYER wants. And that is typically the result, since the player chooses the character.

[Beheld]

Martial classes have all sorts of options. There are hundreds of different weapons they can use in any given fight. It's not my fault they only carry a sword and a bow. Add several stances, etc. to it and things keep growing.

But it totally is the fault of the game that all of those options are so similar as to make no difference, and therefore not be meaningful options.

[NomGarret]

To standardize the number of options across classes is essentially what was done in 4e with the AEDU system. All classes have the same framework of choices at the build level and at the in-game level.