The Campaign Builder's Guild

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.