I was browing some stuff for game and world development, when I came across the Class Construction Engine. I think I might have seen something similar before, and I imagine it's a fairly popular document, but for those not familiar with it, it can be found at http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/download/classconstruction.pdf
Now, I'm no expert at d&d mechanics, but as I was looking at this, I noticed a few things that seemed.... Well, for lack of a more technical term, "wonky". First, sorcerors are listed as the least powerful class, and bards are listed as the second most powerful. Druids, according to this, are the most perfectly balanced class, according to this, as they fall exactly on the average. I'm not going to get into a "which class is the best" discussion, but this seems a bit off, when you consider that a sorceror could take a d12 HD and simple weapon proficiency, and be even with bards.
Another thing is that the section on saves doesn't really go into the different types of saves; It pretty much just assumes that you're choosing a "saves package" from one of the core classes. Some major tweaking would be needed if you wanted more versatility in a class's saves.
Since we have some members that actually are experts at d20 crunch (*looks for Xeviat*), I suspect we could do much better then what's already there. Volunteers, anybody?
I suspect we could too.
Once I get some time (read June 4th), I'll take a look at this and help out.
Have you already tried this: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=282481 ? It is a similar approach, but imho better balanced. The problem is that some things are dependent on each other (like # of weapon proficiencies and BAB), and simply assigning each an individual, independent, numerical cost won't work.
That system is a mess. It gives monk the highest numbers. WTF?
'Familiar' is an excellent ability?
BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies are valued. *Cough*
Plus all skill points are valued equally? Wrong, dead wrong.
HD are also over valued in this system.
Alignment restrictions? Those are story effects.
Then all spells are valued equally. REGARDLESS OF LEVEL!!! That's just stupid on it's own.
----------------------------------
I have not nice things to say about this 'engine'.
In any case, the best way to determine how powerful a class is is by calculating it's ability to win fights. The standard bar that was set up for D&D is a 20% percent expenditure of resources removes 25% of the enemies. On average.
OR: A single lone character can defeat 50% of the enemies of a CR equal to his ECL.
After many years of game design I am of the opinion that (in d20 at least) the whole is more than the sum of the parts. No matter how precise an "class construction engine" is, it won't take into account the subtilties that result in a balanced or "wonky" class.
The best class construction engine I have seen to date is, oddly enough, the one from the BESM game system. My own system is loosely based upon theirs.
My system works off of the following principal: a feat is worth 2 points. Every ability in the game can be priced against feats. When I tested my system against the core classes, cleric and druids came out high, fighters and sorcerers came out low, and suprisingly, the ranger came out high (because it has so many special abilities). I'm not a fan of how I had to fandangle the spell pricings, but I wanted it for the non-casters mainly.
I would love to work with members of these boards to make a reasonable class balance estimator. I'll post my full system soon, so we can discuss it.
-----------
Edit: Aww, I just noticed that I was summoned in the original post. Funny, that I'm so predictable that I'd stumble upon a thread which called for me without realizing I was called for. Because of that, I will post my system right now.
Xeviat's Class Calculator
Function: 1 Feat = 2 points.
Class Features Character Points Evaluation
HD: 0.4 points per hit point (Based upon the notion that 5 HP for a feat would be balanced; we all know 3 HP for a feat isn't)
d4 20 (1 point per level)
d6 28 (1.4 points per level)
d8 36 (1.8 points per level)
d10 44 (2.2 points per level)
d12 52 (2.6 points per level)
SP: 0.4 points per skill point (Based upon Open Mind, a feat from XPH that grants 5 skill points)
2 16 (0.8 point per level)
4 32 (1.6 points per level)
6 48 (2.4 points per level)
8 64 (3.2 points per level)
BAB: 3 points per attack bonus (I made an attack bonus point worth slightly more than a feat because +1 to attack is a feat if it only applies to one weapon)
1/2 30 (1.5 per level)
3/4 45 (2.25 per level)
1/1 60 (3 per level)
Saves: 1 point per point (+2 to a save is a feat, so +2 to a save is 2 points)
High 10 (1/2 per level)
Low 5 (1/4 per level)
Ability
Proficiencies: 1 per; count all martials as 2 points, all simples as 2 points, each armor proficiency as 1 point, shields as 1 point; this is very debatable, though.
Animal companion: 2
Bardic knowledge: 2
Bardic music 20/day: 10
Bonus feat: 2
Camouflage: 1
Countersong: 0.5
Damage reduction 5/â,¬': 5
Divine grace: 2
Domain powers (each): 2
Evasion: 2
Fascinate: 0.5
Fast movement (10 ft.): 2
Favored enemy (5): 10
Granted Feat: 1
Greater rage: 2
Hide in plain sight: 2
Immunity to Poison: 2
Improved evasion: 2
Improved uncanny dodge: 2
Indomitable will: 1
Inspire competence: 0.5
Inspire courage +4 2 (0.5 per increase)
Inspire greatness: 0.5
Inspire heroics: 0.5
Ki strike (adamantine): 1
Ki strike (lawful): 1
Ki strike (magic): 1
Mass suggestion: 0.5
Mighty rage: 2
Nature sense: 1
Perfect self: 2
Purity of body: 2
Rage 6/day: 7
Resist natureâ,¬,,¢s lure: 1
Smite 5/day: 5
Sneak attack +1d6: 2
Song of freedom: 0.5
Special ability (Rogue): 2
Special mount: 2
SR 10+level: 4
Still mind: 1
Suggestion: 0.5
Summon familiar: 2
Swift tracker: 1
Timeless body: 2
Tireless rage: 2
Trackless step: 1
Trap sense +6: 3
Turn or rebuke undead: 2
Turn undead (-3 levels): 3
Unarmored AC bonus (Wis +4): 5
Uncanny dodge: 2
Wild empathy: 1
Woodland stride: 1
I'm still reworking the spell calculator, because my original was based on my MP system. This system balanced out to 200 points for most classes, with Cleric and Druid coming in high (around 220), and fighter and sorcerer coming in low (around 180). Ideally, a class would be designed to have 10 points per level, which allows me to gauge level adjustments (though level adjustments deserve an ad-hoc point increase for a lack of HD; while I priced the HP, BAB, Skills, and Saves that come from HD, I didn't price the HD themselves).
So, can this be used as a basis of discussion?
In all honesty, there is a severe flaw in my system: it assumes that 5 HP is worth a feat. It isn't. HP is a resource that increases as you gain levels, automatically. Improved Toughness is worth a feat.
At the core of the feat balance system, +1 to an ability score should be worth a single feat. This helps to determine the value of feats, because +2 to an ability score would be two feats. +2 to an ability score, like Con, boosts HP by 1 point per HD, boosts Fort saves by 1, and boosts Con skills by 1 (there's only one Con skill though, but there are raw several uses for raw Con checks). Thus, I believe 1 hp/HD is a feat, and similarly 1 skill point/HD is a feat (and it is; Nymph's Kiss from Book of Exhalted Deeds).
But such a calculator would require basic HD to be priced. I believe that +1 HD would have to be worth a feat for simplicity, since it would grant so much in such a system. The value of the class's HD size would have to be dispersed amongst their levels, which hurts the 10 points per level goal.
As you can see, I've put thought into this. I will be posting numbers from my 2 points is 5 HP assumption, since that's what the core system has right now, just to show you what they look like. I'll only test the non-casters for simplicity, though that's really only 4 classes in the PHB (though I think I can make some assumptions of the supposed Ranger and Paladin spellcasting ability, based on the non-casting versions from several sources).
Expect more soon.
Quote from: XeviatThe best class construction engine I have seen to date is, oddly enough, the one from the BESM game system. My own system is loosely based upon theirs.
My system works off of the following principal: a feat is worth 2 points. Every ability in the game can be priced against feats. When I tested my system against the core classes, cleric and druids came out high, fighters and sorcerers came out low, and suprisingly, the ranger came out high (because it has so many special abilities). I'm not a fan of how I had to fandangle the spell pricings, but I wanted it for the non-casters mainly.
...
So, can this be used as a basis of discussion?
That's actually quite interesting. I think I remember reading something somewhere on the WotC optimization board that saig Cleric and Druid are the most powerful core classes. Assuming this is accurate, it's a sort of confirmation, no?
And yes, I think this would be wonderful as the basis of discussion.
In the hands of a novice, the Cleric and Druid are fine; they're usually instantly relegated to bandaid status. In the hands of an experienced player, and especially an experienced party, they're the most powerful classes in the game, followed by the wizard, and then everyone else.
So yeah, it was confirmation to me.
Doh! I had a whole post written out, and now I have to rewrite it!
I re-ran my class calculator against the PHB non-casters, utilizing the Complete Warrior non-caster versions of the Paladin and Ranger. The Monk and Rogue came out reasonably balanced, with the Rogue falling behind by only 6 points (since it has 2 empty levels, I could easily see putting an ability in each, and thus it would only be behind by 2 points); the Barbarian and Monk came out perfectly to 200 points, though I must admit that the Monk was only balanced because I reduced the value of any ability that was negated by armor or only useful while unarmed.
The Barbarian comes out 10 to 5 points too high; I initially forgot to put their Damage Reduction in, and now I have to decide if 1/- DR is worth a feat, or 2/- DR (I want to say 2/- is a feat, since +2 damage is a feat).
The Paladin and Fighter both fell behind by exactly 20 points. I agree with the fighter being 20 points behind, and interestingly this would be fixed by adding a special ability at 1st and every odd level (which is very similar to the Starwars Saga Edition Soldier, who gets a bonus feat at 1st and every even level, and a special ability at 1st and every odd level). The Paladin's slipping behind by that much at first made me believe that the non-caster varient is underpowered, but powering up the Paladin would require 28 points of abilities (because the replacements for the spells are worth 8 points). While I believe the paladin's spellcasting is worth more than 4 feats (because that would set a bad precidence, what with the Paladin as a PrC from Unearthed Arcana casting as a 10th level cleric; there's no way a 10th level Cleric's spellcasting is worth only 4 or so feats), it isn't worth 14 feats.
Worse still, if the Paladin's spellcasting is really worth those missing 28 points, then the Ranger is grossly overpowered. The Ranger currently prices in at 221 points, a full 21 points higher than it should be. This comes from the fact that the ranger has high bab, high saves, and high skill points, all numerically intensive abilities that vastly increase the cost of the class. If Paladin spellcasting were to be priced at an additional 20 points, then the ranger would be a full 41 points overpowered!
This might be showing a flaw in the system. I have never seen a Ranger dominate a game like this suggests, but the Ranger does fall victim to one fault: it covers too many bases. Its BAB suggests that it is a full warrior, while it's skill points suggest it is an expert. You can't really have both and remain balanced numerically, even though you can't really do both at the same time. Additionally, the ranger's damage boosting ability (favored enemy) is in the hands of the DM, not the player (a rogue's sneak attack is largely in their own hands; it is up to the player to set them up, even though the DM can kill it with un-critable foes).
Luckily, the ranger's 21 point excess can be fixed by choosing a side: if the ranger is a warrior, drop its skill points back to 4 and reduce its high Reflex save, and it is balanced (while you're at it, trade out Evasion for something else); if the ranger is an expert (which I think it should be), drop it's BAB to 3/4ths and reduce its high Fort save. Reducing its skill points and a save will reduce its point cost by 22 points; reducing its BAB and a save will reduce its point cost by 21 points. Both all but perfectly balance the class, and they wouldn't hurt the ranger as long as the player is okay with sticking to one role.
And since I know at least one person will want to see the numbers, here they are. If there are any questions as to why I priced certain things as I did, I'm more than happy to explain.
[spoiler]Xeviatâ,¬,,¢s Class Calculator
Function: 1 Feat = 2 points.
Class Features Character Points Evaluation
HD: 0.4 points per hit point
-d4: 20 (1 point per level)
-d6: 28 (1.4 points per level)
-d8: 36 (1.8 points per level)
-d10: 44 (2.2 points per level)
-d12: 52 (2.6 points per level)
SP: 0.4 points per skill point
-2: 16 (0.8 point per level)
-4: 32 (1.6 points per level)
-6: 48 (2.4 points per level)
-8: 64 (3.2 points per level)
BAB: 3 points per attack bonus
-1/2: 30 (1.5 per level)
-3/4: 45 (2.25 per level)
-1/1: 60 (3 per level)
Saves: 1 point per point
-High: 12 (1/2 per point)
-Low: 6 (1/4 per point)
BARBARIAN, d12 HD, 4 SP (9)
Proficiencies: Simple, Martial, Shields, Light, Medium
Alignment: Non-Lawful
HD: d12: 52
SP: 4 (9): 32
BAB: 1/1: 60
Saves: High Fort: 24
Proficiencies: S, M, Sh, L, Med: 10
Fast Movement: 2
Illiteracy: -1
Rage 6/day: 6
Uncanny Dodge: 2
Trap Sense +6: 3
Improved Uncanny Dodge: 2
Greater Rage: 2
Indomitable Will: 2
Tireless Rage: 2
Mighty Rage: 2
Total: 200
FIGHTER, d10 HD, 2 SP (7)
Proficiencies: Simple, Martial, Shields, Tower, Light, Medium, Heavy
HD: d10: 44
SP: 2 (7): 16
BAB: 1/1: 60
Saves: High Fort: 24
Proficiencies: S, M, Sh, T, L, M, H: 14
Bonus Feat (11) : 22
Total: 180 (-20)
MONK, d8 HD, 4 SP (16, plus knowledge arcane and knowledge religion)
Proficiencies: Simple*
Alignment: Lawful
HD: d8: 36
SP: 4 (16+2) : 32
BAB: 3/4: 45
Saves: All High: 36
Proficiencies: S*: 2
Bonus Feat (3): 6
Flurry of Blows (-0): 4 (2)
Unarmed Strike (2d10): 4
Wis to AC: 2 (1)
Evasion: 2
Still Mind: 2
Speed +60: 6
Ki Strike (Magic): 2 (1)
Slow Fall (Any): 2
Purity of Body: 1
AC +4: 8 (4)
Wholeness of Body: 1
Improved Evasion: 2
Ki Strike (Lawful): 2 (1)
Diamond Body: 2
Greater Flurry: 2 (1)
Abundant Step: 1
Diamond Soul: 4
Quivering Palm: 1
Ki Strike (Adamantine): 2 (1)
Timeless Body: -
Tongue of the Sun and Moon: 1
Empty Body: 1
Perfect Self: 2
Total: 200
PALADIN, d10 HD, 2 SP (8 plus knowledge nobility and knowledge religion)
Proficiencies: Simple, Martial, Shields, Light, Medium, Heavy
Alignment: LG, and code of conduct
HD: d10: 44
SP: 2 (8+1): 16
BAB: 1/1: 60
Saves: High Fort: 24
Proficiencies: S, M, Sh, L, M, H: 12
Code of Conduct: -2
Aura of Good: -1
Detect Evil at will: 2
Smite Evil 5/day: 5
Divine Grace: 2
Lay on Hands: 2
Aura of Courage: 2
Divine Health: 2
Turn Undead (-3): 1
Special Mount: 2
Remove Disease 5/week: 1
Blessed Weapon: 2
Divine Might: 2
Tend to Mount: 2
Holy Sword: 2
Total: 180 (-20)
Blessed Weapon: Any weapon wielded by the paladin is good aligned for overcoming damage reduction.
Divine Might: 1/day, can add +4 to Str, Wis, or Cha for 1 minute/level.
Tend to Mount: Lay on Hands on mount heals 5 hp/1 hp spent, and can cure additional effects.
Holy Sword: Can cast Holy Sword 1/day, at caster level 1/2 level.
RANGER, d8 HD, 6 SP (16, plus knowledge dungeoneering, knowledge geography, knowledge nature)
Proficiencies: Simple, Martial, Shields, Light
HD: d8: 36
SP: 6 (16+3): 48
BAB: 1/1: 60
Saves: High Fort and Ref: 30
Proficiencies: S, M, Sh, L: 8
5 Favored Enemies: 10
Track: 1
Wild Empathy: 2
Combat Style (3): 6
Endurance: 1
Animal Companion 1/2: 1
Fast Movement: 2
Woodland Stride: 2
Swift Tracker: 2
Evasion: 2
Nature's Blessing: 2
Camouflage: 2
Healing Touch: 2
Freedom of Movement: 2
Hide in Plain Sight: 2
Total: 221 (+21)
Nature's Blessing:1/day, gain +4 to Dex, Con, or Wis for 1 minute/level.
Healing Touch: 1/day, can use Neutralize Poison or Remove Disease at caster level 1/2 level.
Freedom of Movement: 1/day on self, caster level 1/2 level.
ROGUE, d6 HD, 8 SP (28, plus knowledge local)
Proficiencies: Simple, Rogue (hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, short sword), Light
HD: d6: 28
SP: 8 (28+1): 64
BAB: 3/4: 45
Saves: High Ref: 24
Proficiencies: S, Rogue, L: 5
Sneak Attack +10d6: 10
Trap Finding: 1
Evasion: 2
Trap Sense +6: 3
Uncanny Dodge: 2
Improved Uncanny Dodge: 2
Special Ability (4): 8
Total: 194
[/spoiler]
Xeviat, while your numbers look ok, and I'm sure we all appreciate the work you put in your calculations, I think there is one inherent flaw to the very basis of your endeavor: that classes are at all creatable with such a system. I highly doubt that WotC or their hired freelancers do in fact use such a mathematical schema to create classes, but instead rely more on "gut feelings" and "play testing" to come out with their classes.
For example, both the warlock and the soulknife look indeed impressive stats-wise with their unlimited spell-like abilities, respecitvely virtually indestructable +9 weapon. However, in actual play both suffer from difficulties that greatly decrease their actual value (such as the warlock's inability to get off more than one attack with his eldritch blast, or the soulknife's moderate BAB + low AC for a frontliner).
Therefore I doubt that it is possible to find a system that allows to create balanced classes by swapping class ability (like replacing a wizard's familiar with a special mount - both value at 2pts according to your lists). I think "Crave" (in the thread I linked in my post above) had the right idea, that there are some inherent dependencies within classes that need to be taken into consideration (like weapon proficiencies being cheaper for someone with full BAB, or turn undead being cheaper - or even only available exclusively - to divine casters, etc.).
PS: I think I found a typo. In your post originally introducing your calculations, you value turn undead at 2 pts, and turn undead (-3 levels) at 3pts. The weaker turning costs more points?
That's a typo; it looks like it happened when I transfered my text from tabbed spacing to colons. It wasn't taken into consideration with the equasions.
While I agree that WotC and their affiliates never used such a system, the fact that, without trying to hard, my calculator prices the majority of the classes at the same 200 points, I think there's some value to it. I'll read over the Uber Generics stuff, but here's my method of thinking:
*You're right; certain abilities should be restricted to certain things. That is why I'm using a feat structure for balance, and feats have prerequisites. If I were to use this to create a classless system, there would be prereqs for most abilities.
*This is made primarily to eyeball balance. I've used it in the past for my own classes. You're right, the Soul Knife comes in reasonably strong when you count its abilities numerically ... my calculator just gave it a 207. The Soul Knife's problem is that its primary ability (the Mind Blade) doesn't synergize with their low BAB. If they were designed to be more of an expert, they could have lower HD to help pay for some other abilities which might make them more useful.
*Their Psychic Strike doesn't synergize with their Psionic Focus; if part of their power didn't rely upon using their psionic focus for special effects (which would cause them to waist every other round to be able to psychic strike and psionic weapon every round, with the cost of Psychic Meditation), they might work better. Their fault is from poor design, not missing points like the Fighter's.
*If you ad-hoc adjust the value of the Soul Knife's abilities to half the price of abilities which can only be used with the Mind Blade, one comes out with 188 points, only a little higher than the fighter. But, I wouldn't do this, because the Soul Knife and their Mind Blade are nigh inseparable. While I did the same for the Monk, enhancing a Monk's unarmed strikes is expensive, so there is reason for them to use other weapons. A Soul Knife should never have to use another weapon; the whole class is designed around that.
*I wouldn't know where to begin testing the Warlock, but I have a feeling that the Warlock balances against the warriors and experts a lot better than the Wizard does.
*I doubt the Soul Knife was extensively playtested. I really doubt that.
*I would never present my class calculator to players and tell them to design a class. Never would I ever.
I use mine primarily to help me gauge what I'm doing when making a class. Everything in the class is thematically linked, and nothing comes out of left field. The fact that the only classes that my system marks as overpowered are overpowered, or are questionably designed, vindicates me; though I'll admit that the Soul Knife is a bad mark. If the Soul Knife could use the GP they saved from not purchasing a weapon to shore up their weaknesses, then I'd have no problem (I saw a 12th level Soul Knife pull out a 30 AC, and his psychic feats made him an excelent skirmisher, with the ability to deal an extra +27 on the occasional attack. He didn't deal the damage that the Warblade charger in the party did, but he also wasn't a glass jaw like said Warblade (who frequently had an AC of 2, and had to be brought back from the brink of death after every fight).
PS: Familiar is a 2 point ability because it is a feat for Bards somewhere, and because the Psicrystal feat is a feat. Leadership can get you a mount that is comparable to a Paladin's mount, so I figure a Paladin's mount is worth a feat.
Ah, thanks for the explaining Xeviat. :) From your previous posts it sounded as if you used it to not only as a tool to confirm your designs, but based your designs on it.
Also, I didn't get the thing with feat prerequisites. Sorry for the confusion. x.
Quote from: XeviatPS: Familiar is a 2 point ability because it is a feat for Bards somewhere, and because the Psicrystal feat is a feat. Leadership can get you a mount that is comparable to a Paladin's mount, so I figure a Paladin's mount is worth a feat.
Complete Arcane, acquire familiar.
Aguably better than the class feature as the feat takes progression based on a combined caster level (base+prestige) instead of just the base. I think.
Did sdragon give up on this quest?
Oh, Ra-Tiel, I loosely base my designes off of my engine, but if anything, my homebrew classes have seemed just a little underpar (when compared to the stronger classes that is) than overpar. But you're right in your suspicion; it's mainly used to check something I've completed and make sure it's reasonable.
Quote from: XeviatDid sdragon give up on this quest?
Not at all, really. I've just been distracted by too many sidequests, as usual. Right now I'm trying to find a puppy for a little boy :)
Edit- By the way, I totally agree that this wouldn't be a viable option for players, even if only for the fact that it completely dismisses the idea of Class/Cross-Class skills.
Okay, well let me know when you want to work some more. I'll keep gathering ideas, especially on how to price spells.
I think I read somewhere that first level spells should be roughly equal to..... Something, but I forget what. I know that's not much help, but you might be able to find what I'm refering to.
Another thing to think about, as I mentioned earlier, is Class/Cross-Class skills. You could probably go the easy way out, and just give Class Skill "packages"- the new class get's the same Class Skills as one of the core base classes. Another option, although I imagine it to be a bit harder, is to figure out the relative power between the skills, and assign point values to the skills themselves.
One thing to consider is some sort of "synergy" pricing between Class Skills, and skill points. A class with 8 skill points isn't going to do much good with 5 Class Skills. Likewise, a class with 9 Class Skills would just be pointless (ha!) with 2 skill points.
I left class skills out of the pricing because I consider them to be more of a flavor thing really. Sure, there are mechanical reprecusions for it, but I'd just give classes class skills based on their natures. Sure, classes with more skill points deserve more skills, so that's the only thing I'd really do there.
I've been finding better and better ways to price feats, and most first level spells would be reasonable as feats usable at will if the damage didn't scale beyond 2d6. If my class calculator is correct, and I priced each spellcaster level of the cleric as a feat, then the cleric would price as reasonably balanced. Wizard casting would need to be priced more heavily.
I'll take a look at casters more closely over the next couple of days and reveal my findings soon.
Sounds good. Also, if you'd like to add a little more to the workload, it might be interesting to see how PrC's and NPC classes stack up using this. No real point, balance-wise, to see where NPCs stand, but it might be interesting nonetheless.
This might just be personal bias speaking, so ignore it at your choosing, but a part of me has always suspected Paladins of being underpowered. I think it might be because their mechanics are so alignment-based, and alignment is very probably the most confusing chunk of the entire game.
My calculator did show paladins as being underpowered, using the Complete Warrior spell-less paladin varient. Either that means the paladin's spells are worth more than that, or that they are underbalanced. I didn't price alignment as being that potent, only as a single negative feat for the code of conduct (I didn't consider an alignment restriction to be a balancing factor for the classes without a code of conduct, as the alignment restriction is more for the flavor of the class).
Still working on those casters. Today's my day off, so I'll see what I can do. I will base the assumption on the idea that the wizard is "balanced", to determine just how much arcane spells are worth in my system.
How'd you come up with the pricing for the paladin's Smite Evil? It seems a bit low, compared to a ranger's 5/Favored Enemies.
Well ... eh ... smite evil is a 1/day per ability thing, while favored enemy works all the time. Think about it: Weapon Specialization grants +2 to damage, where as one favored enemy is basically +4 to damage and +4 to a handful of skills, but only against one creature type (I say +4 because a balanced ranger will have 4 favored enemies at +4, and one at +2; I should drop the favored enemy bonus down to 9, since one of them is at half the power of the others).
Smite Evil, though, was priced based off of the Extra Smiting feat: extra smiting grants 2 extra smites per day, so I estimated smite evil at 1 feat per 2 smites. This doesn't really take into account that the damage bonus on the smite goes up with levels, though.
Oh, and right now, the cleric's spellcasting seems reasonably priced at 3 points per level, and the wizard's casting comes in at approximately 5 points per level. I don't want to price their casting as being worth more at higher levels, as I see it as a cumulative thing. Perhaps some of those points are tied to their caster level, and other points are tied to their spell level access. Clerics actually can cast more spells than wizards (as far as base spell slots are concerned), and they have the same caster level, so the line between the two has to be drawn by breadth of casting ability.
If the PHB is balanced, the Sorcerer's spontanious casting has to be considered more powerful than standard preparation casting, but I don't believe this works. The War Mage, Dread Necromancer, and Beguiler show otherwise (though some say they're very powerful, or they're very limited by their narrow spell selection).
Does the size of a caster's spell list really add that much strength? You can only have the same amount of spells prepared at any one time after all.
So I was probably right in saying that Smite is a little weak, point-wise, in comparison to Favored Enemy?
No, because smite evil is a little weaker than favored enemy. Smite is only useful once per combat, if you're going to keep it available. If you put it all into one fight, it can be great, but then the ability is gone the rest of the day.
Favored enemy, if your DM is reasonable, will be useful most of the time, or at least it should be. If your DM never throws favored enemies at you, your ability is worthless.
Again, just look at my distinction. Would you let someone get +4 damage and +4 to certain skills against a certain creature type as a feat?
Likewise, would you let someone take a feat that let them gain Cha to attack and level to damage twice per day?
Both seem fine to me.
Quote from: Kap'n XeviatDoes the size of a caster's spell list really add that much strength? You can only have the same amount of spells prepared at any one time after all.
To a lesser extent than spontaneous casters, but yes for both types. You're adding versatility, which is a big bonus. And remember, you can have only so many slots prepared, but it only takes 10-15 minutes to fill a 'blank' prepared slot (yes you can prepare them blank, oddly enough).
Okay, so the ability to change things up if needed is a benefit that they need to pay for; I can see that.
So, how could we build an adiquate progression? Each caster level should have a price, and there should be a cost for each spell level granted (bards have full caster level, but only up to 6th level spells). Then there should be more points charged for having larger spell lists.
As it looks right now, the Druid's spells are going to have to be considered much weaker than the Clerics, otherwise the Druid is grossly overpowered.
Quote from: Kap'n XeviatNo, because smite evil is a little weaker than favored enemy.
I should drop the favored enemy bonus down to 9, since one of them is at half the power of the others[/quote]This doesn't really take into account that the damage bonus on the smite goes up with levels, though.[/quote]
Implies that you might have priced Smite lower then you should have. If this is the case, then the adjustment would bring them even closer.
Still, not equal to each other, but closer.
Maybe, by slight amounts, but Smite Evil is still effectively a once per combat ability, while Favored Enemy comes up on every attack roll made against a valid target (and I'm thinking the "valid target" limitation is almost the same as smite evil's alignment restriction in the long run).
Right now, I'm worried about the casters. The druid is looking scary.
Just how scary are you talking?
If I'm gauging Wild Shape correctly, using some of the Unearthed Arcana variants as my guideline for pricing, when all things are said and done, the Druid has less than 30 points avalable to pay for their spellcasting. When Cleric casting was 60 points, and Wizard casting was 100 points, I have a hard time believing that the Druid's is that weak.
Well if you have access to complete mage and complete arcane, there are feats that grant per day uses of cantrips and first level spells. You could build your base with those, and work your way on up, but I'm afraid you might have to use guesses for spells beyond fourth level.
You might want to try those feats into the item creation rules, then divine the higher spells with that...
Do you mean try to determine the use activated item cost of a wizard's spells in gp, and then reverse engineer that into feat costs? That's difficult, because all of the items that grant a feat have differing costs (ranging from 2,000 gp to 8,000 gp).
I think he meant using the fact that X/day cantrips = 1 feat as the basis of your spellcasting prices.
Quote from: sdragon1984I think he meant using the fact that X/day cantrips = 1 feat as the basis of your spellcasting prices.
yeah. Then take the cost of making an item that uses those cantrips and compare to the cost of making items from higher level spells.
Well, again, I like pricing them liniarly. The current 3 points per level for cleric and 5 points per level for wizard seems reasonable. That's 6 points per 2 levels for the cleric (effectively being 1 feat for each spell level, and 1 feat for each caster level), and the wizard is 10 points per 2 levels (so 1 feat for each spell level, and 2 feats for each caster level).
With this as an example, we could say that the minimum cost for spellcasting is 1 feat per spell-level. The standard cost for caster levels would be 2 feats per caster level, wih a modifier for the breadth the caster has access to.
With this, the minimum we could charge for the Druid would be 20 points (2 points per spell level; I'm not counting cantrips right now, but I'm also counting the theoretical "10th" spell level). If the druid is really 30 points overall, then that ends up being 0.5 points per level for spell breadth. Is the druid's casting really 1/4th the power of a clerics? If it's half the power of a clerics, then the Druid needs to have 40 points of room for their casting, and that only takes them a little over.
Stargate, I see what you mean now. I'll make some charts.
Stargate, I started to crunch some numbers on that, but the problem is that it won't create a liniar flow at all; and if the wizard isn't allowed to scale liniarly, the calculator will show that they're grossly underpowered at low levels and grossly overpowered at high levels (and in my experience, they're fine as long as they augment their abilities with scrolls and wands at low levels, and that they don't get too spammy with cheep spells at high levels).
Right now, I want to discuss the overall power of wizard vs. cleric vs. druid spellpower. Are a wizard's spells really worth twice as much as a clerics, or four times as much as a druids?
Edit-> Snip
Xeviat (if I am allowed to save the "kap'n :P ), why do you want to keep the costs scaling liniarly? I can understand that it makes calculations more easy, but it does not represent the actual increase in power a wizard receives from a higher caster level.
Perhaps you could try some cubic or even exponential scaling for full-casters, something that more closely resembles their actual powercurve?
Quote from: Kap'n XeviatRight now, I want to discuss the overall power of wizard vs. cleric vs. druid spellpower. Are a wizard's spells really worth twice as much as a clerics, or four times as much as a druids?
No they are not. Cleric and wizard are about the same, with druid trailing a bit behind (nowhere as far as twice as powerful though). My opinion anyway.
And not having a non-linear power curve is not accurately showing the power of a caster.
I disagree. If you remove caster level from the equasion, because I'm sure we can all agree that +1 caster level is a pricable ability, all we have left is an ever increasing spell level access. If you compare a 1st level direct damage spell (lets say Burning Hands) to a 3rd level one (lets say Fireball), all we're really getting is an increase in area effect, or an increase in secondary effects. The damage all scales with caster level (aside from the caps, but psionics systems show how to remove those well).
If you look at the majority of a caster's power being the spell levels they have access too, and if problematic spells are adressed, going from a 1st level spell effect to a 2nd level spell effect really seems to be a pricable, feat-like ability.
Can you disagree?