Power measuring with a Point system (3.5)

[flappeercraft]

So for a campaign setting I am making I am for plot reasons in need for this. I made a point system which definitely isn't too accurate so I wanted your guys' help. This is for measuring power of PCs and NPCs alike.

What I have is this, definitely needs some pulling though.
Points:
Level/HD = +1 per HD
Non Synergistic LA = +0.5 per point
Synergistic LA = +1 per point
Extremely Synergistic LA = +2 per point
T1 = +9
T2 = +7
T3 = +3
T4 = +1
T5 = +0
T6 = -2
Spells = Maximum Spell level cast
Su/Sp/Ex non class Ability = Ad Hoc
Key Ability Score = ¾ Modifier
Non Key Ability Score = ½ Modifier
Not Optimized = -10
Low Optimized = +0
Low+ Optimized = +2
Practical Optimized = +5
Practical+ Optimized = +7
Theoretical Optimized = +10
Theoretical+ Optimized = +15 or more
Flaw = +1 Interfering +2 Non Interfering
Ad Hoc = Varies
Sparks:
Low Low = (-22) or lower
Low = (-21)-(-18)
High Low = (-17)-(-14)
Low Standard = (-13)-5
Standard = 6-9
High Standard = 10-15
Low High = 16-21
High = 22-26
High High = 27-31
Low Royal = 32-39
Royal = 40-44
High Royal = 45-49
Low Elite = 50-54
Elite = 55-60
High Elite = 61-66
Low Uber = 67-79
Uber = 80-89
High Uber = 90+

Basically, this is supposed to be what differentiates powerful people from not powerful in the setting and is some sort of status measure

[Kayblis]

The whole purpose of a point system is to quantify something. Throwing a bunch of unquantifiable stuff like "optimization level" or "synergistic or not" defeats the whole purpose from the start. "key/non-key ability score" is also arbitrary based on build, and even then people sometimes can't agree on what's key or not. The "Ad Hoc" value just cements my point further.

What does "Spark" even mean?

[flappeercraft]

"Spark" is just the fluff name

[Cosi]

Level/HD = +1 per HD

Level and HD are not equal. Like, they are super obviously not. Not even all HD or all levels are equal. This is a super obvious thing to tweak for a system like this.


T6 = -2

Don't have negative values. Move the other Tiers up two points instead.


Spells = Maximum Spell level cast

9th level Healer spells are not 9th level Wizard spells. Also 6th level Bard spells and 6th level Druid spells (at least in theory).


Su/Sp/Ex non class Ability = Ad Hoc

Uh, why is "everthing else you care about" defined as "undefined".


Key Ability Score = ¾ Modifier
Non Key Ability Score = ½ Modifier

Fractions are annoying. Multiply everything by four to make these simple multiplication. Also, what is a "key ability score"? Beguilers cast off of INT, presumably that's always key. Is CHA always key for them? Is it key for the ones with Diplomacy and other CHA skills but not the ones without?


Not Optimized = -10
Low Optimized = +0
Low+ Optimized = +2
Practical Optimized = +5
Practical+ Optimized = +7
Theoretical Optimized = +10
Theoretical+ Optimized = +15 or more

How are those defined? Also, what is "Theoretical+" optimization? Also, PO to TO is definitely not less of a power shift than T5 to T1.


Flaw = +1 Interfering +2 Non Interfering

Why is this not part of optimization?

Those are some basic problems. I might try to find some stupid equalities in this at some point.

[TheIronGolem]

It seems to me you're essentially just recreating CR, using a formula that is more complex with variables that are harder to quantify, and producing results that are no more likely to be accurate. Why not just use CR?

[flappeercraft]

CR doesnt differentiate casters from mundanes and similar problems.

[Sagetim]

"Vegeta, What's the Scouter Say About His Power Level?"

That's the first thing that comes to mind here. So you might want to start breaking things down beyond simply the tier system, and let your numbers go up quite a bit in the process. For example, every point of base attack bonus, commonly useful save bonuses (more stuff that can gib you tends to target reflex and fort, for example), hit die (as in, the number of hit dice and what hit die they are, 1d8 is better than 1d4, etc), how high your important stats are, what your highest spell level is, and how many spells per day you have (wizard spells per day < cleric spells per day < druid spells per day < sorcerer spells per day), and so on, and so on.

It wouldn't be a simple system, by any means, but you could get a pretty good feel for how much you don't want to screw with an npc if you can detect that they have a power level of 200 compared to your...like, 20, or 50.

Allowing people to use things like sense motive vs bluff (if they bother to hide their ability), tacking it onto some of the detection spells, or even just having a spell, feat, or ability to determine someone's 'power level' would thus serve your purpose here. After all, that could just be someone's job, they determine power levels (either as a service with a seal of guarantee, or as the personal power level measurer for a landed noble, or whatever).

Edit: At it's most simple, you could have the measure be the xp the character has, and (for 3.5) the amount of xp their gear cost to craft. In this manner, magical gear and character level would give you a general idea of how powerful someone is without being super in depth.

[Kayblis]

CR doesnt differentiate casters from mundanes and similar problems.

At least it's a quantifiable measure. You can simply use CR with adjustments, too. Sorry to say that, but your "system" is a mess from the very start.

On a sidenote, D&D isn't a simple game like d6 systems or the like where you can quantify how strong a character is by simply adding his numbers. Any brand-new rank system in D&D would need to address every single bit of the character(Wizard casting is not the same as DN or Healer casting, a d4 HD isn't the same as a d12 HD, full BAB isn't the same as poor BAB...), to the point you're not making any real progress because it would be so hard to calculate no one would use it. The Tiers and the CR system is already enough.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You can compile all the information known about a character, and place it on a single sheet of paper, creating an intricate glyph which completely describes a character's power level! You might call it... hmmm, can't come up with a good name right now.

[flappeercraft]

At least it's a quantifiable measure. You can simply use CR with adjustments, too. Sorry to say that, but your "system" is a mess from the very start.

On a sidenote, D&D isn't a simple game like d6 systems or the like where you can quantify how strong a character is by simply adding his numbers. Any brand-new rank system in D&D would need to address every single bit of the character(Wizard casting is not the same as DN or Healer casting, a d4 HD isn't the same as a d12 HD, full BAB isn't the same as poor BAB...), to the point you're not making any real progress because it would be so hard to calculate no one would use it. The Tiers and the CR system is already enough.

Doesn't really matter, it's something I made in 5 minutes. Fair enough, I guess CR system + adjustments it is.

[FreddyNoNose]

The whole purpose of a point system is to quantify something. Throwing a bunch of unquantifiable stuff like "optimization level" or "synergistic or not" defeats the whole purpose from the start. "key/non-key ability score" is also arbitrary based on build, and even then people sometimes can't agree on what's key or not. The "Ad Hoc" value just cements my point further.

What does "Spark" even mean?

Plus you have things like synergy going on with interactions of abilities/powers/spells. Not all things are equal. How do you compare a fireball vs a movement bonus vs gambling skill.

If you could, would it be situational?

[DarthPeleus]

If this is something you need for the plot, that is, some sort of "power ranking" system for the characters to talk about or know about in character, it doesn't have to be objectively correct. You could take a One Punch Man approach, where people are ranked based on the kinds of monsters/other people they can defeat. This has the plus side of allowing some characters to hide their power or be misunderstood to be stronger or weaker than they actually are.

Also a lot of characters might fall into the trap of thinking something like character "power" can be quantified in the first place.