Are warriors & rogues required at high level?

[Bauglir]

Interesting system. But what about class restrictions, such as the wizard & monk's effective inability to use armour (while retaining class features)?

Similarly what about proficiencies? The fighter for example being proficient in all martial weapons and all armour types equates to a lot of feats, although these feats have little synergy.

Hi Bauglir!

Its been an ongoing parallel project I have been working on for over a year now.

- Ability Score Increases:

+1/4 Levels CR +0.025

- Base Attack Bonus:

As Fighter CR +0.2
As Cleric CR +0.15
As Wizard CR +0.1

- Class Features:

Determined case by case.

A single feat adds +0.2, so you try and contrast all class features in this way.

ie.
Is the class feature an existing feat? (If so +0.2)
Is the class feature less powerful than similar feats? (If so take it as a fraction of the closest feat)
Is the class feature more powerful than similar feats? (If so take it as a multiple of the closest feat)

Spellcasting rates as follows:

Level of Sorceror/Wizard Spells = +0.35
Level of Cleric Spells = +0.3
Level of Druid Spells = +0.25
Level of Bard Spells = +0.15
Level of Paladin/Ranger Spells = +0.075

- Equipment adds:

+0.2/Level of PC valued equipment
+0.125/Level of NPC valued equipment

- Feats Progression:

+1/3 Levels = CR +0.066

- Hit Points:

d4 = CR +0.125
d6 = CR +0.175
d8 = CR +0.225
d10 = CR +0.275
d12 = CR +0.325

- Saving Throws:

Each Good save = CR +0.06
Each Poor save = CR +0.03

- Skill Points:

Int + 8 = CR +0.08
Int + 6 = CR +0.06
Int + 4 = CR +0.04
Int + 2 = CR +0.02

eg. Fighter Class Level (Deconstruction)

Ability Scores = CR +0.025
BAB (As Fighter) = CR +0.2
Class Features: +11 Feats/20 Levels = CR +0.11
Feats (+1/3 Levels) = CR +0.066
Hit Dice (d10) = CR +0.275
Saves (one good) = CR +0.12
Skills (Int + 2) = CR +0.02
Each Fighter Level = CR +0.806 (+1.006 with PC equipment)

Edit: had to reformat a bit.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Bauglir!

Interesting system.

Thanks.

But what about class restrictions, such as the wizard & monk's effective inability to use armour (while retaining class features)?

Similarly what about proficiencies? The fighter for example being proficient in all martial weapons and all armour types equates to a lot of feats, although these feats have little synergy.

I think you have to weigh the pros and cons of such elements to gauge their impact.

Does a restriction actually 'hurt' a class?

If so then does it impact to the full extent of its penalty (the 'synergy' you mentioned)?

The penalty of wearing armour is really only going to be felt at very low levels (before magic items become prevailant).

The lack of weapon/armour/shield proficiency for sorcerors/wizards is again not very penalising for the class.

Overall I penalise Sorcerors/Wizards to the extent of a single feat (divided over the course of 20 levels) for all the above. I don't penalise the Monk class at all for its restriction; though you could perhaps go to half a feat I suppose; which would be -0.005 to the previous Monk total.

 

[WizarDru]

Quite honestly, this showcases that different games play out differently. In my main game, the spellcasters sometimes dominate the game, but sometimes it's the archer...and sometimes it's the paladin. The rogue/shadowdancer rarely dominates a battle...but she's become known as the party 'monkey-wrench'. Her skills are so varied that as the levels climb higher, she frequently pull a rabbit out of her hat. Rogues and Shadowdancers are not about frontline combat effectiveness, and never will be. Grishnak, your character looks like he might be very effective in a very limited capacity...but overall, he appears built sub-optimally for his stated task. For example, one of the best uses of Shadows, for example, is support fighters to set up a rog/shad's sneak attacks, and to do STR draining touch attacks.

It looks like you've sacrificed many of the abilities of each class you're taking, or minimalized their value. That may be part of the problem, really. It looks like you've taken Shadowdancer for one or two of the abilities, and suffered as a result. A Ranger 16 with a ring of Dim Door would be a lot more effective towards what you're trying for, I'd wager.

I can tell you that while it's possible for a party with no fighters and rogues to survive at high levels, it's not necessarily easy. Just ask my party. Without the rogue, they would have discovered the sphere of annihilation trap the hard way...and in an anchored demi-plane that wasn't coterminous to the astral or ethereal (which meant no teleports or dim doors). She was also the one who opened the magically sealed portal to the BBEG's lair, sidestepped his wall of force barriers and deactivated the wall of force device keeping him safe. That last action alone prevented at least two character deaths. So did her successful snatching a ring of heal right off the claw of the dragon who was wearing it a few weeks prior to that.

And given how many times the party members have been swallowed whole lately, I can attest that the wizard may be able to dish it out, but he couldn't take it. Without a frontline fighter who can both give and take the damage, the spellcasters are toast. A fighter can operate in a windstorm without any real penalty...a spellcaster can't.

The DM can help this by making the spellcasters feel their weaknesses as much as every other party member. The claim that spellcasters run out of spells isn't really relevant unless you're having LOTS of encounters, or have no fighters at all. IME, spellcasters hold back their big guns until the last possible moment, and a 16th-20th level caster has more spells than he knows what to do wth. And in one level, they'll have 9th level spells, and all hell breaks loose. And it's fun.

I would consider what it is that you find fun in the game, and see if you can pursue it. It sounds like this character was based on a trick, and that trick isn't proving as effective as you'd hoped. Maybe you just need to ask about retooling him, with DM's approval.

 

[Bauglir]

Does a restriction actually 'hurt' a class?

If so then does it impact to the full extent of its penalty (the 'synergy' you mentioned)?

The penalty of wearing armour is really only going to be felt at very low levels (before magic items become prevailant).

I feel that it does. Armour can provide the wearer with more than just AC, most notably features such as fortification, which under core rules (ie PHB/MM/DMG) cannot be replicated through any other means. In that sense this is actually worse for the monk than for the casters, since the monk is much more likely to engage in melee and become vulnerable to sneak attacks and critical hits.

Overall I penalise Sorcerors/Wizards to the extent of a single feat (divided over the course of 20 levels) for all the above. I don't penalise the Monk class at all for its restriction; though you could perhaps go to half a feat I suppose; which would be -0.005 to the previous Monk total.

I honestly do not believe that it is possible to objectively measure classes' effectiveness this way. There are simply too many factors to consider, even down to things like certain skills being simply 'better' than others (and the fact that this depends largely on the game and the DM in question)

For example, based on my own experience I would not rate the monk nearly as high as it fares under the system.

All the same, if it works for your own game then good luck with it and have fun

Cheers,
Baug

 

[Synicism]

As an aside, there's an argument going around that warriors are better than spellcasters because over the course of a day they can crap out more damage. While this is technically true, it's a fallacious argument; when the wizard is out of spells and the cleric is out of heals, you're done. Generally speaking, at that point the whole party packs it up and looks for a nice spot to camp, making the fact that warriors can keep on trucking completely irrelevant. High level parties live and die by their spellcasters.

It depends on the GM. If he's being nice to you, sure, he'll give your Wiz 15/Archmage 5 and your Cleric 10/Runecaster 10 a break when they start running low on spells.

But when your party consists of 5-7 18th level characters, two of whom are full-progression casters, if you don't start seeing encounters composed of multiple advanced golems, with their handy magic immunity, outsiders and dragons with lots of SR and elemental resistance, or highly mobile assassin teams with special abilities of their own that allow them to evade magical defenses, then that is what you're going to get.

At high levels, players should be expected to be adaptable and flexible enough to handle enemies and attacks from all angles and at all times. The party should be getting attacked late at night, while the spellcasters are drained of their spells, or early in the morning, while the cleric is trying to pray for his spells back. Or they should be facing lots and lots of enemies or enemies with multiple elemental resistances.

Basically, the system fully supports a game that requires characters of all types to thrive. It's up to the GM to come up with the scenarios, though, and the standard "you see *insert baddie here,* roll initiative" is going to, by definiton, favor characters like spellcasters, who can lay down lots of damage over a wide area of effect.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Bauglir!

I feel that it does. Armour can provide the wearer with more than just AC, most notably features such as fortification, which under core rules (ie PHB/MM/DMG) cannot be replicated through any other means.

Yes it can, the cost is x1.5 according to the 3.5 DMG pg 285 (Table 7-33); explained under Body Slot Affinities pg 288.

In that sense this is actually worse for the monk than for the casters, since the monk is much more likely to engage in melee and become vulnerable to sneak attacks and critical hits.

I agree that Heavy Fortitude is the armour of choice at high levels...

...but are you saying then that melee combat is unbalanced at a certain point without immunity to critical hits?

If so, isn't that an indictment of the rules as a whole rather than my system?

Regarding the Monk class; its almost a given that it will have the highest AC of any core class already.

I honestly do not believe that it is possible to objectively measure classes' effectiveness this way.

Yet the results do paint a fairly accurate picture of class balance; based on feedback I have received.

There are simply too many factors to consider, even down to things like certain skills being simply 'better' than others (and the fact that this depends largely on the game and the DM in question)

Admittedly there are some assumptions; such as skills and feats being 'on the whole' balanced ~ something which I think the designers will have already strived for so its not such a great leap of faith. Of course some feats are weaker and some are stronger; and a few* that are just plain broken and as such need revision or omission, but overall I think we can utilise such an 'average'.

*A half-dozen in the splatbooks; and two or three in the Epic Level Handbook.

For example, based on my own experience I would not rate the monk nearly as high as it fares under the system.

Well I appreciate your candour and feedback mate.

I'll certainly take your suggestions and double check over my figures, theres a small measure of subjectivity involved and I want to get that to a minimum wherever possible.

All the same, if it works for your own game then good luck with it and have fun

Its very useful gauging the measure of monster Hit Dice; balancing both class levels and prestige classes: the system clearly shows the Mystic Theurge to be far more powerful than any other Class/Prestige Class* ~ which is again something feedback suggests.

*That I have so far rated anyway.

Cheers,
Baug

Thanks again.

 

[Bauglir]

Yes it can, the cost is x1.5 according to the 3.5 DMG pg 285 (Table 7-33); explained under Body Slot Affinities pg 288.

I don't actually have the 3.5 books yet myself, but I found this section in the SRD. Is this the bit you mean?

BODY SLOT AFFINITIES
Each location on the body, or body slot, has one or more affinities: a word or phrase that describes the general function or nature of magic items designed for that body slot. Body slot affinities are deliberately broad, abstract categorizations, because a hard-and-fast rule can’t cover the great variety among wondrous items.
You can use the affinities in the list below to guide your decisions on which magic items should be allowed in which body slots. And when you design your own magic items, the affinities give you some guidance for what form a particular item should take.
Some body slots have different affinities for different specific items.

That passage refers specifically to wondrous items. As far as I know, armour special abilities must still be gained through armour itself in 3.5e.

I agree that Heavy Fortitude is the armour of choice at high levels...

...but are you saying then that melee combat is unbalanced at a certain point without immunity to critical hits?

If so, isn't that an indictment of the rules as a whole rather than my system?

Regarding the Monk class; its almost a given that it will have the highest AC of any core class already.

It is a problem with the rules I think. Attack bonuses (particularly monster ABs) can rapidly outstrip player ACs at the very high levels. This makes special armour options, particularly fortification look much more attractive.

Yet the results do paint a fairly accurate picture of class balance; based on feedback I have received.

Class balance can vary wildly from game to game. I have not played a 3.5 monk as yet, but based on my experiences with them in 3.0 I would have rated them very near the bottom of the pile. While they are much improved under 3.5 I still would not consider them to be one of the best classes. At the same time others have found them to be very effective under both editions.

Admittedly there are some assumptions; such as skills and feats being 'on the whole' balanced ~ something which I think the designers will have already strived for so its not such a great leap of faith. Of course some feats are weaker and some are stronger; and a few* that are just plain broken and as such need revision or omission, but overall I think we can utilise such an 'average'.

I feel that one of the strong points of the rogue as a class is not only their extra skill points, but their access to key skills such as spot, or hide as class skills. Similarly the hide skill has synergy with the rogue's sneak attack, making it a more desirable skill for that class than a ranger or a monk.

Well I appreciate your candour and feedback mate.

I don't want to appear to be criticising for the sake of criticising (as I know I tend to come across that way ). I am just interested in how you feel these issues stand in relation to your system. (Plus, if I'm honest I enjoy a good discussion )

Its very useful gauging the measure of monster Hit Dice; balancing both class levels and prestige classes: the system clearly shows the Mystic Theurge to be far more powerful than any other Class/Prestige Class* ~ which is again something feedback suggests.

Now that you mention this I had a look at the spellcasting section. I notice that you rate a level of arcane casting as higher than one of clerical casting. Do you have a modifier to take into account the sorcerer/wizard's limited access to spells? (as compared to the cleric who automatically is able to prepare any spell of any level she can cast)

I've also just noticed you're a local as well (hailing from Lisburn myself). Nice to see a few locals frequent these boards

 

[S'mon]

I've also just noticed you're a local as well (hailing from Lisburn myself). Nice to see a few locals frequent these boards

Hi Bauglir - I went to school with U_K in Belfast - I'm his DM.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Bauglir mate!

I don't actually have the 3.5 books yet myself, but I found this section in the SRD. Is this the bit you mean?

Thats certainly part of it.

That passage refers specifically to wondrous items. As far as I know, armour special abilities must still be gained through armour itself in 3.5e.

At no point (that I can see) does it say wondrous items only.

It is a problem with the rules I think. Attack bonuses (particularly monster ABs) can rapidly outstrip player ACs at the very high levels. This makes special armour options, particularly fortification look much more attractive.

I have debated this exact point a number of times; when people bring up the eventual disparity between Attack Bonus and AC they often forget the opposed disparity between Hit Points and Damage which cancels it.

Class balance can vary wildly from game to game.

Absolutely; which is why I only rate the objective facts; not subjective elements.

I have not played a 3.5 monk as yet, but based on my experiences with them in 3.0 I would have rated them very near the bottom of the pile. While they are much improved under 3.5 I still would not consider them to be one of the best classes. At the same time others have found them to be very effective under both editions.

I have generally been told that Monks are one of the stronger classes: S'mon didn't you have a number of Monk players at one time - how did you find them as a class?

Though its certainly possible thats not the case in your campaign; but I would still not see that as an indictment of my system. I would envision if we polled every campaign we would see results that roughly parallel this system: Clerics and Druids at the top with Fighters and Rogues nearer the bottom.

I feel that one of the strong points of the rogue as a class is not only their extra skill points, but their access to key skills such as spot, or hide as class skills. Similarly the hide skill has synergy with the rogue's sneak attack, making it a more desirable skill for that class than a ranger or a monk.

Most classes do have their own synergistic skills though; the rogues broader access is indicative of their greater skill point allocation.

I don't want to appear to be criticising for the sake of criticising (as I know I tend to come across that way ).

Not at all mate.

I am just interested in how you feel these issues stand in relation to your system.

Okay.

(Plus, if I'm honest I enjoy a good discussion )

Then we have something else in common..

Now that you mention this I had a look at the spellcasting section. I notice that you rate a level of arcane casting as higher than one of clerical casting.

Yes.

Do you have a modifier to take into account the sorcerer/wizard's limited access to spells? (as compared to the cleric who automatically is able to prepare any spell of any level she can cast)

All the factors were considered (and then the results were rounded). Of course the accuracy is somewhat subjective I admit but I think I must be fairly close...? What do you think?

I've also just noticed you're a local as well (hailing from Lisburn myself). Nice to see a few locals frequent these boards

I am only aware of you, me and Kweezil. S'mon is technically Scottish though I imagine Northern Ireland is as much his home away from home?

There was one other guy whose name I cannot recall, who was from here but now lived in California. Lucky devil!

 

[S'mon]

I have generally been told that Monks are one of the stronger classes: S'mon didn't you have a number of Monk players at one time - how did you find them as a class?

Monks are certainly a strong class IMC (PCs have higher stats & generally less magic items than standard). I can see 2 reasons why Monks are often rated a poor class:

1. Monks are very stat dependent. They need high STR, DEX, WIS, CON, and INT never hurts. Many other classes can get by with 2 high stats. This means that in a 25-point-buy (or even 30-point buy) game, Monks can't cover all their bases well, and look weak. Monks gain the least benefit from having lots of magic items, also (as Fighters gain the most) so high-magic disfavours monks.

2. Monks are survivors, they are _Excellent_ at not dying. Taken as individual characters, they look very powerful. However their abilities are not very synergistic with other party members - and if everyone else dies, the Monk usually lacks the ability either to resurrect them or the offensive power to trash the baddies and recover the bodies. That said, the high-level Monk in my current game (StalkingBlue's Monk-10) has certainly proven very effective as a party member in an 8-person party (6 PC 2 cohorts); her 60' movement has run down and eliminated several fleeing foes (I find the PCs previously had lots of trouble preventing defeated NPCs escaping); and her high Will save enabled her to disbelieve an illusionary pit fiend that would otherwise have killed the party's two Fighters.

In all, I think your rating of the Monk as one of the stronger classes is reasonable, given the above. I think you've rated Clerics too low though, their spontaneous healing makes their spellcasting pretty much as good as the Wizard, plus they're vastly tougher & better at fighting. A 3.0 party with lots of Clerics really demonstrates this - it's a ridiculously powerful combination class.

Edit: Off-hand I'd say a Cleric in 3.5 was roughly worth a Fighter 1 level higher, which under the CR system implies they're around 50% more powerful! In 3.0 before the nerfing of the Buff spells I'd have said the Cleric was worth a Fighter 2 levels higher, ie around 100% more powerful. However if you surprise and attack an NPC Cleric in a dungeon, they're no better than an NPC Fighter of similar level, so that's one way to justify the equivalent CR rating.