Class ability "costs" and why classes are imbalanced.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

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


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



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

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

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

[Chrono22]

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

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

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

[Irreverent Fool]

Another solution: remove all spells except damaging ones, use fixed damage, and give them to everyone.

I see what you did there.

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

obnoxious
sig

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I mean, the closest I can come is the following.

Martial characters advance in a flat rate.

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

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


Spells advance exponentially.

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

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

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

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

[Doc Roc]

It's worse than that. The different classes use what amount to different rules systems. Let me put it a different way yet again.

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

How much is turning worth to a shugenja?

How much is blink worth to a fighter?


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

[Eurantien]

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

[Kurald Galain]

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

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

[TheCountAlucard]

Ever tried casting "ray of enfeeblement" on an ancient dragon? Hardly ever fail their saves.

There is no save for ray of enfeeblement. Of course, you still have to beat their spell resistance.

@V: My point exactly.

[Doc Roc]

I can get +18-25 to my caster level checks for beating SR. With a base caster level of 33. Much of this is applicable at lower levels too. The Tomebound Eye Of Boccob is a nice first stop for this stuff.

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

[Doc Roc]

Thank you, Count. I feel like most people skip the thread and just post, though, so we'll see if anyone noticed.

[Jack_Simth]

For this same reason, spellcasters need their higher-level spells to have an effect. Ever tried casting "ray of enfeeblement" on an ancient dragon? Hardly ever fail their saves.

Umm... ignoring that Ray of Enfeeblement has no save, Ancient Dragons tend not to fail their saves very often in any event - 30+ hit dice and a "good" save progression means a +17 or better save modifier ... and that's base save, before stats, items, spells, and feats (all of which dragons usually have in abundance).

[Doc Roc]

I am struggling to master the art of posting without posting.
Suffice to say that the man above me is correct in some senses, but most of the spells I rely on day-to-day permit no save.

[Riffington]

I think the clearest example of how such 'costs' make no sense is the Battle Sorcerer.

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

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

[Doc Roc]

I support this wholeheartedly, as does candlejack. In fac-

[bosssmiley]

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

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

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

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

[Eurantien]

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

[Doc Roc]

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

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

Support's a nebulous term. Let me explain.

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

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

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

[Eurantien]

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

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

[Doc Roc]

I don't know if I agree with that. What about gish builds?

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

Or

Aasimar
Battle Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 10

[Eurantien]

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

[Doc Roc]

:: gentle smile ::
I lose spells there because I was intentionally laying out a very simple build.
The first one, however, loses no caster levels, just stuff lost to battle sorcerer.

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

[Eurantien]

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

[Riffington]

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

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

[Eurantien]

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

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

[tyckspoon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eurantien]

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

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

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

[Doc Roc]

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

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

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

[Eurantien]

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

[Doc Roc]

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

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

[Roderick_BR]

Someone did a system like that under "Generic Classes" in the Homebrew forum. Can't find it now, now, tough.