DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet

[ouini]

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this.

Under normal rules, with classes, part of the reason Rogues are considered balanced, is because they get a lot of skill proficiencies (in-class skills). Other classes, except for Bards, don't. If, as we're doing now, you treat pretty much all skills as in-class skills, and don't have to buy the many in-class skill proficiencies, Rogues are going to be cheapcheapcheap.

So I don't have a problem with Rogues appearing to be cheap, or with implementing some kind of simple proficiency cost.

Right now, I'm looking at all skill ranks costing 1 SP each at 1st level.
After 1st, skills are considered cross-class until or unless you have 4 or more ranks in them.

 

[ouini]

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this.

Under normal rules, with classes, part of the reason Rogues are considered balanced, is because they get a lot of skill proficiencies (in-class skills). Other classes, except for Bards, don't. If, as we're doing now, you treat pretty much all skills as in-class skills, and don't have to buy the many in-class skill proficiencies, Rogues are going to be cheapcheapcheap.

So I don't have a problem with Rogues appearing to be cheap, or with implementing some kind of simple proficiency cost.

Right now, I'm looking at all skill ranks costing 1 SP each at 1st level.
After 1st, skills are considered cross-class until or unless you have 4 or more ranks in them.

 

[SSquirrel]

Well, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but I think I've essentially done that with the Near-Core & DrSpunj sheets. The Core Feats sheet outlines how I converted all the class abilities into feats.

Using those sheets you can see how I distributed CBs for each class through levels 1-20.

I've been so busy with work at the new job I haven't been able to really browse the new versions, but I'll look at them and comment soon. If you already have something in like I mentioned then cool heh.

1) You can take this feat multiple times increasing the Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6 each time, but maximum damage of +(1+Level/2)d6.

2) You can take this feat multiple times, but no more than once every other level. It's effects stack.

I would go for the first. It's entirely possible that someone could learn Sneak Attack down the line and focus on its specialties to play catch up.

I would thus go with the first version and word it something like this:

You can take this feat multiple times with each increase raising your Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6. You cannot have more levels of Sneak Attack than your level/2 rounded up.

Hagen

 

[DrSpunj]

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this.

I haven't ignored it. I've intentionally dropped it!

IMC currently all cross-class ranks cost 1 SP, just like class ranks do. My players & I are very happy with the change. They've been able to buy the skills they want to develop their characters and I've seen a more diverse array of skills being used across the entire party. IMO, that's A Good Thing (tm).

When I ask for a Spot check the Ranger & Ftr/Rogue are still the most likely to get the highest total, but with the few points others have put into that skill others can actually beat them with better than average rolls. This has helped them out several times when the Ranger was paying too much attention to his boot laces as they approach a dangerous situation.

Similar things have happened with various Knowledge checks, Spellcraft/Psicraft, Appraise, etc. Overall it's been one of the best House Rules I've used. I dislike how Core pigeon-holes every PC into a skill role (Spotter, Arcana-master, Appraiser, Tumbler, Sneaker, Diplomeister, etc.) based on their race & class such that once one PC has a hefty lead in a particular skill, no other PCs buy ranks in that skill. What you're left with are a group of super-specialists with no overlap. While that works great with high and even average rolls for most situations, if your super-specialist rolls low and misses the DC the whole party is SOL.

Since 3.5 did away with Restricted skills, the only Core ruling I've left in place is cross-class maximum ranks. In a classless system like this, "cross-class" skills don't make any sense at all.

Do the Rogue, Bard, Ranger & Monk lose something by doing away with class and cross-class skills? Relatively, yes, but absolutely? Maybe, but I personally don't feel it's enough in a classless system to try and make it up to them. Cross-class skills are a complicating factor that I'm happy to see kicked out the door and replaced by a good character background and growth/learning over time to justify the skills your PC has (always subject to DM approval, of course! ).

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

I've been so busy with work at the new job I haven't been able to really browse the new versions, but I'll look at them and comment soon. If you already have something in like I mentioned then cool heh.

Alright, cool. Take a look at it when you find some time (between those 12 hr work days, bleah!) and I'll wait for the feedback.

I would go for the first. It's entirely possible that someone could learn Sneak Attack down the line and focus on its specialties to play catch up.

I would thus go with the first version and word it something like this:

You can take this feat multiple times with each increase raising your Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6. You cannot have more levels of Sneak Attack than your level/2 rounded up.

Just a matter of semantics, but for consistency's sake I like keeping everything rounded down, hence the 1+Level/2 formula. Still, we're thinking along the same lines.

I guess it comes back to what abilities should tie directly to character level and what should be relative.

As an example, Bardic Lore in Core is a bonus based on your Bard Level. Since we don't have that here I make anyone who takes Bardic Lore keep track of which character level they took the Bardic Lore feat at, so they get a +1 for every level they've had the Bardic Lore feat. If you're a 13th level PC and took Bardic Lore at 10th level you have a Lore bonus of +4. If you had taken it at 1st level you'd have a +13. You're rewarded for prioritizing your abilities.

If you tie Bardic Lore directly to character level then you end up with some wacky situations where an 18th level character takes Bardic Lore and all of a sudden has a whopping +18 to his Lore checks. That doesn't work for me.

I used the same mechanic with Animal Companions. Your "animal companion level" only counts the level you took the Animal Companion feat and later levels so an 18th level PC doesn't end up with a super celestial grizzly bear by taking the Animal Companion feat at 18th level.

Now, I don't think you can focus on Bardic Lore or Animal Companion to play catch up, but I agree that you could do that with Sneak Attack damage. Still, it seems a bit awkward that things like Bardic Lore & Animal Companion only reward those who take them early while Sneak Attack allows you to play catch up. If you miss out on a Full +1 BAB at one level you can't take +2 BAB the next; the system doesn't work that way.

Hmm...for consistency across the board I may tie everything to relative character levels. If you want to be a Sneak Attack master, you better take the feat once every couple levels. If you want to know a lot about the world around you (or figure out the best way to delve into the Akashic memory) you better take Bardic Lore (or Delve into the Collective Memory) as early as possible.

You certainly don't have to take things as soon as they're offered, but you won't reach your maximum potential unless you do because you're focusing on other things. I'll think about it some more, but I think tying things to relative PC levels is more consistent across the board and offers a real opportunity cost to what feat paths to pursue at each level.

I like that!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[ouini]

I liked your altered breakdown of Martial Weapon groups, DrSpunj.

IMC currently all cross-class ranks cost 1 SP ... Do the Rogue, Bard, Ranger & Monk lose something by doing away with class and cross-class skills? Relatively, yes, but absolutely? Maybe, but I personally don't feel it's enough in a classless system to try and make it up to them.

That's fine. And you'll notice that the rule I mentioned doesn't use "cross-class" skills in any sense but name (which could be replaced by something like "proficient" vs. "not yet proficient").

The upshot is simply: cheap skills make non-skill monkeys absolutely gain power. Skill monkeys also absolutely gain power, since SPs are cheap relative to feat-paths and spellcasting. In an a la carte system, this makes cost comparisons of recreated old classes less direct, and a little more apple-to-orange-y.

But both our solutions are fine (and yours is simpler), since monkeys gain their same old amount of skill for fewer character points (i.e. they're effectively given more chactacter points to play with to make up for the fact that one of their advantages is now given freely to all PCs). It more or less works out, so long as you realize the power-level has been bumped up across the board.

On the feat front, "abilities" simply became feats for specialized characters. At first level:
- 2 points gains you a combative feat like: all "fighter" feats, abilities like Rage or +1d6 Sneak Attack, or even turning undead. Two highly-related such feats may be bought for 2 points each if the character is built around a strong related concept. Otherwise, further combat feats cost 4.
- Similarly, 1 point gains you one non-combative feat, like "Run" or a Druid’s Nature Sense. Two highly-related such feats may be bought for 1 point each if the character is built around a strong single concept. Otherwise, further non-combat feats cost 2.

At 2nd level and beyond:
4 points for a combative feat. If it's a prerequisite for another such feat, that feat costs you:
- 5 points to buy this level, 4 next level, 3 the level after that, 2 beyond then.
2 points for a non-combative feat. If it's a prerequisite for another such feat, that feat costs you:
- 3 points to buy this level, 2 points next level or beyond.

This brings Barbarians more into line (close enough for me), makes fighters work out fine, Rogues fine (given they'll spend another point on skills each level), and I haven't looked at Rangers.

 

[SSquirrel]

Alright, cool. Just a matter of semantics, but for consistency's sake I like keeping everything rounded down, hence the 1+Level/2 formula. Still, we're thinking along the same lines.

You were looking for a way to make the first easier to understand as you thought it sounded too complex. Hence my version of the wording. Says the same thing.

As an example, Bardic Lore in Core is a bonus based on your Bard Level. Since we don't have that here I make anyone who takes Bardic Lore keep track of which character level they took the Bardic Lore feat at, so they get a +1 for every level they've had the Bardic Lore feat. If you're a 13th level PC and took Bardic Lore at 10th level you have a Lore bonus of +4. If you had taken it at 1st level you'd have a +13. You're rewarded for prioritizing your abilities.

See and I'm wondering if it isn't better to just say the hell with it and make level based abilities into something to take each level instead of remembering what level it was taken at. Seems more likely to be something that wouldn't be as easily confused during play. "Aww crap was it 7th or 8th I took that Animal Companion:Bat for my Cat Burglar?"

edit:Are restrictions Nature and Divine minor or major? If they're major, should there maybe also be minor ones associated with Paladin for the code of ethics? Or is that included?

It would seem that in both the Core and AU systems giving out 24 pts for 1st level and 12 for each extra level (or 26 and 13 as the average of all classes is actually 12.06363 in Core and 12.054 in AU) and that way you can go completely classless and not even look at the class tables anymore. Which is what I would do if I switched to pure point buy.

Thief-Mage type using 24 pts:

HD:d6-0
BAB:Avg-1
Defense:Avg-1
Fortoor-0
Ref:Good-2
Will:Good-2
SP:10-3
WP:Two-2
AP:One-1
Magic:Full-7
Feats:Sneak Attack-5

Better than either in a couple of categories (esp saves). This would be more of a Magent in Rolemaster terms...a mage hunter type. Altho you could also drop his SP by a step and give him a better BAB or HD for that too.

So if I'm not going to run with Defense do I just zero it out at the top of the sheet and it reduces everything by 2 across the board? Nevermind I Just tried that. Reduced the per level average to 10.5 and first level to 20.6. W/o Defense I would probably run the game using 22 and 11 pts.

Hagen

 

[DrSpunj]

You were looking for a way to make the first easier to understand as you thought it sounded too complex. Hence my version of the wording. Says the same thing.

Right! Thanks. My apologies for leading you in the wrong direction with my statements. While I do believe the formula to be a bit complex, I much prefer consistency when I can have it. With literally everything else in the game rounding down, I'd personally rather go with the formula and round down than your simplified version and round up. <shrugs>

See and I'm wondering if it isn't better to just say the hell with it and make level based abilities into something to take each level instead of remembering what level it was taken at. Seems more likely to be something that wouldn't be as easily confused during play. "Aww crap was it 7th or 8th I took that Animal Companion:Bat for my Cat Burglar?"

ouini and I tried to do that with Familiars when we were trying to go with a point-based/Mana spell system over a year ago. That could certainly work here, but then you have to decide how many points to allocate in that direction. Is 1 CB a fair cost to improve your Familiar level? That should probably be pretty similar to whatever it takes to improve your Animal Companion and/or Special Mount level. And how does that compare to increasing your Bardic Lore level? Is a +1 to Lore checks worth the same cost as improving your Familiar/AC/Special Mount by one level? If not, which would you change?

I'd probably go along with +1 to Bardic Lore costing 1 CB. After all, 1 CB buys you 2 SPs at any given level which you could spend on 2 specific Knowledge areas (depth of knowledge), and Bardic Lore is essentially a chance to know something about just about anything & everything (breadth of knowledge).

But with that "measuring stick" in place how much should bumping your Familiar level be (given that a Familiar's abilities improve every other level)? How about your Animal Companion level (given that improves about every 3rd level)?

And while it sounds like you disagree, I don't think with a classless system like this that it's too much to ask from a player to keep track of how they spent their CBs each level. While it doesn't have to be something they keep on their character sheets for typical gameplay, it should be something that the DM keeps on hand for when they level. I'm already asking someone to keep track of the their fractional BAB, fractional Defense bonus and potentially Half/Full caster level. Writing down what feats you took at 1st level, then 2nd, 3rd, etc. is a pretty easy list to maintain, IMO.

edit:

Wow!

I missed your edit until just now. You zeroed in on several of the key points immediately. Thanks!

Are restrictions Nature and Divine minor or major? If they're major, should there maybe also be minor ones associated with Paladin for the code of ethics? Or is that included?

Let me start out by saying that I did the Core classes in nearly alphabetical order (I think I did Bard before Barbarian), so I struggled through how to do the Cleric & Druid before the Paladin & Ranger.

With the Bard it was easy to build his magic around Bardic Music. Originally I hadn't thought about the key magic ability score, so Bardic Music was just about the songs. His ability to cast in Light Armor was similar to the Spellsword's ability, so I wanted to do something along those lines but I didn't want it available to anyone because it would become a must-have for all casters. Bardic Casting could just as easily be worded to say "no Spell Failure while in Light Armor as long as your spells have a verbal component".

When I hit the Cleric, I also hit a big wall. Aside from all the martial abilities they get, along with 2 Good saves, they get an absolute ton of special/class abilities. No Spell Failure in armor, Spontaneous Casting, Turn Undead, 2 Domains, and their magic attribute is Wisdom. While each Domain and Turn Undead made sense to me as individual feats, No Spell Failure I couldn't put enough prereqs on to keep balanced, and Spontaneous Casting was just...awkward to put into feat form.

So that's when I started tinkering with Restrictions. What if all those abilities were gifts from your deity for your worship? After all, in Core if you snub your deity all your Clerical abilities are withdrawn. Shouldn't it be similar in this system? With that in mind I made the first feat a Cleric takes reflect their devotion & worship to their deity. In doing so, I granted them three things: No Spell Failure, Spontaneous Casting, and magic use dependent upon Wisdom. Now, that Divine Restriction feat could just as easily be called "Divine Training" and I've thought about renaming it that since I think it's a better reflection of what the feat represents, especially with the 3 ranks of Knowledge(Religion) prereq.

Regardless, while worshipping a deity gives you access to a lot of cool and powerful abilities, you just saddled yourself with a lot your deity's baggage to get them. That's why the Divine Training costs you zero points (net). While the feat costs 5 CBs just like all the others, you get -5 CBs back because of the roleplaying restrictions you just accepted. That's why this feat can only be taken with the DM's permission, as both of you should be very clear about your expectations about the whole thing.

When I came to the Druid I basically just copied the Divine Training feat and renamed it "Nature Restriction" which I'll probably change to Nature Training now. It gives you access to all the cool Nature abilities that Druids (& Rangers) get but brings with it similar baggage, namely the Druid's prohibition against metal armor & shields as well as a devotion to maintain the balance (if True Neutral, assuming you are using alignment like Core) or revere Nature above all other things.

When I finally got down to the Paladin I just used the Divine Training feat again, but this time the deal with the DM would include not only whatever your deity required for worship but also the Paladin's Code. Break it and you lose all your divine abilities (since if you lose a prereq you lose any feats higher up in the chain as well).

While I did originally separate restrictions into Major & Minor I didn't end up using the Minor restrictions anywhere. The Oathsworn's Swear an Oath ended up just being a variation of the above.

It would seem that in both the Core and AU systems giving out 24 pts for 1st level and 12 for each extra level (or 26 and 13 as the average of all classes is actually 12.06363 in Core and 12.054 in AU) and that way you can go completely classless and not even look at the class tables anymore. Which is what I would do if I switched to pure point buy.

EXACTLY!

I wanted to keep the same CB totals between Core & AU so I could run them together for my campaign this summer. That was also the primary reason I bumped the HD low to a d6 and the SP low to 4/level, so that Core didn't lose out to the AU classes. Keeping AU magic for all classes made that a whole lot easier to balance.

Anyway, while I did certainly use the Core & AU classes as a framework to figure out the balance of the system, you've picked up on the fact that if you're okay with how it works out you don't need classes anymore at all. They're meaningless. It's the feat paths that help distinguish most characters, though BAB vs Skills vs Magic still play a large part as well.

Thief-Mage type using 24 pts:
HD:d6-0
BAB:Avg-1
Defense:Avg-1
Fortoor-0
Ref:Good-2
Will:Good-2
SP:10-3
WP:Two-2
AP:One-1
Magic:Full-7
Feats:Sneak Attack-5

Better than either in a couple of categories (esp saves). This would be more of a Magent in Rolemaster terms...a mage hunter type. Altho you could also drop his SP by a step and give him a better BAB or HD for that too.

I'm not familiar with Rolemaster, so I can't say how close this would be to the mage hunter you're speaking of. Regardless, this PC hits the ground running with Full magic and max Skills. I'm curious what you plan on doing for 2nd level and beyond as you'd be hard pressed to continue with all of that. Keeping Full Magic at 7 CBs is a huge chunk of the 12 you get to spend.

And are you looking at the updated sheets? I've done skills differently with the new ones, though you may be using what ouini suggested. Instead of using the Poor/Average/Good progressions from Core & AU I'm going with a free +1 to any save at every level (including 1st), and then 1 CB to get another +1 thereafter. Max (per save) of +2 at 1st level and no more than +1 at all later levels. If you want +2 to Reflex & Will at 1st level that's a total of +4, but the first +1 is free so that only costs you 3 CBs. That gives you another point to play with somewhere.

So if I'm not going to run with Defense do I just zero it out at the top of the sheet and it reduces everything by 2 across the board? Nevermind I Just tried that. Reduced the per level average to 10.5 and first level to 20.6. W/o Defense I would probably run the game using 22 and 11 pts.

Yeah, that's another limitation of the sheet. If you don't want Defense you pretty much have to zero it out and rebalance the classes accordingly. Same thing happens if you want to keep d4 HDs and 2 SPs/lvl if you're following Core (though the latter's pretty easy to accomodate by leaving the values alone and just changing the labels for SPs/lvl to 2,4,6,8). As I've said before, I made this for selfish reasons. While I'm happy to share it with anyone who wants it, it's got some of my own idiosyncracies about 3.5 built into it.

Thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[SSquirrel]

ouini and I tried to do that with Familiars when we were trying to go with a point-based/Mana spell system over a year ago. That could certainly work here, but then you have to decide how many points to allocate in that direction. Is 1 CB a fair cost to improve your Familiar level? That should probably be pretty similar to whatever it takes to improve your Animal Companion and/or Special Mount level. And how does that compare to increasing your Bardic Lore level? Is a +1 to Lore checks worth the same cost as improving your Familiar/AC/Special Mount by one level? If not, which would you change?

And while it sounds like you disagree, I don't think with a classless system like this that it's too much to ask from a player to keep track of how they spent their CBs each level. While it doesn't have to be something they keep on their character sheets for typical gameplay, it should be something that the DM keeps on hand for when they level. I'm already asking someone to keep track of the their fractional BAB, fractional Defense bonus and potentially Half/Full caster level. Writing down what feats you took at 1st level, then 2nd, 3rd, etc. is a pretty easy list to maintain, IMO.

Good point heh. I forgot the rest of that pretty much.

His ability to cast in Light Armor was similar to the Spellsword's ability, so I wanted to do something along those lines but I didn't want it available to anyone because it would become a must-have for all casters. Bardic Casting could just as easily be worded to say "no Spell Failure while in Light Armor as long as your spells have a verbal component".

While I did originally separate restrictions into Major & Minor I didn't end up using the Minor restrictions anywhere. The Oathsworn's Swear an Oath ended up just being a variation of the above.

See I don't consider the fact that it's a must have to be a big issue honestly. SO what if you start seeing a bunch of casters unable to utilize armor. That leaves them LESS options and this system is about MORE options. I think we should maybe work out a system of Minors again and keep them priced at 1. So the Paladin code would be worth 1 etc and Paladin training could be its own feat with these various restrictions you take on. Some people would maybe make a wizard with a Paladin's style of ethics as it could be interesting. Not bloody likely, but possible *Grin* I mean if we're gonna go all the way let's REALLY go all the way.

I'm not familiar with Rolemaster, so I can't say how close this would be to the mage hunter you're speaking of. Regardless, this PC hits the ground running with Full magic and max Skills. I'm curious what you plan on doing for 2nd level and beyond as you'd be hard pressed to continue with all of that. Keeping Full Magic at 7 CBs is a huge chunk of the 12 you get to spend.

And are you looking at the updated sheets? I've done skills differently with the new ones, though you may be using what ouini suggested. Instead of using the Poor/Average/Good progressions from Core & AU I'm going with a free +1 to any save at every level (including 1st), and then 1 CB to get another +1 thereafter. Max (per save) of +2 at 1st level and no more than +1 at all later levels. If you want +2 to Reflex & Will at 1st level that's a total of +4, but the first +1 is free so that only costs you 3 CBs. That gives you another point to play with somewhere.

Yeah I'd probly drop that down to half magic honestly. The Magent is basically a fighter/mage, focused on lists of spells to help him find and combat spell casters.

Oh and yes these are teh current versions I was looking at, I just forgot about the +1 save...whihc for the Magent I would probly shove into Fort.

Yeah, that's another limitation of the sheet. If you don't want Defense you pretty much have to zero it out and rebalance the classes accordingly. Same thing happens if you want to keep d4 HDs and 2 SPs/lvl if you're following Core (though the latter's pretty easy to accomodate by leaving the values alone and just changing the labels for SPs/lvl to 2,4,6,8).

Oh it's not a problem at all. I tweaked it a little myself and found it to work out just fine.

BTW here's a redo of the Magent:

Thief-Mage type using 24 pts:
HD:d8-1
BAB:Good-2
Defense:NA-0
Fortoor-0
Ref:Good-2
Will:Good-2
SP:10-3
WP:Three-3
AP:Two-2
Magic:Half-4
Feats:Sneak Attack-5

Nasty bastard indeed heh

Hagen

 

[DrSpunj]

See I don't consider the fact that it's a must have to be a big issue honestly. SO what if you start seeing a bunch of casters unable to utilize armor. That leaves them LESS options and this system is about MORE options.

Um, I'm confused by that statement. If you meant "So what if you start seeing a bunch of casters able to utilize armor." then I'll have to look at the feat you're proposing to make a judgement. I think the Bard's "all Light armors are okay" is too much as a single feat for all arcane casters, but something less than that I don't think is necessarily unbalancing.

In fact, ouini played a dwarven Fighter/Wizard in one game we were in and I believe he took a feat like Armored Casting that reduced his ASF by 10%. I don't have a problem with that because 10% only allows you to wear Leather armor or use a light shield. But not being able to wear armor because it interferes with spellcasting is a balancing factor for classes like the Sorcerer, Wizard & Magister. I don't think a single feat should totally negate that disadvantage.

Now, I do agree that if they want to take Armored Casting several times (like the Spellsword essentially does) that they deserve the benefits of doing so. As you say, they're spending their CBs to buy the magic and these Armored Casting feats, so they're forgoing getting other nifty feats & abilities. That's a big opportunity cost in a free-form system like this, IMO.

I think we should maybe work out a system of Minors again and keep them priced at 1. So the Paladin code would be worth 1 etc and Paladin training could be its own feat with these various restrictions you take on. Some people would maybe make a wizard with a Paladin's style of ethics as it could be interesting. Not bloody likely, but possible *Grin* I mean if we're gonna go all the way let's REALLY go all the way.

Okay, back up a minute.

When you say "the Paladin Code would be worth 1", what exactly are you saying? Since we're talking about restrictions I'm assuming you mean they get a single point back to spend on other things.

Now let's look at that again. By tying my PC to the Paladin's Code I get a whopping 1 CB to spend elsewhere. Umm, YMMV but that's hardly ever a deal I'd consider fair as a player.

And if you mean 1 CB back per level (that's at least a more even deal, IMO) what happens when & if someone falls from paladinhood? Do you stop the game right then and there and say "You know those free points you've been getting for sticking to the Paladin's Code? Well now that you've ignored it you have to remove those extra points from your PC, but you may get them back if/when you atone. You're 14th level so that's 14 points so we'll just take away...let me see your sheet...."

If I'm totally off in the wrong direction on this, SSquirrel, please elaborate on your idea and correct me, but the latter option I don't see working too well during gameplay. The thing that so strongly appealed to me about the Divine Training & Nature Training is that the Core rules already have a system in place to take advantage of turning your back on your beliefs. If you no longer meet the prerequisites for a feat, you no longer have it, and therefore can't access any higher feats up the chain either.

If you take up the Paladin's Code (through Divine Training) you gain access to all sorts of nifty divine abilities. In Core this is limited to the Paladin, but in the Book of the Righteous (the religion book I'm going to be using in my summer campaign) this would need to be modified to account for any of the various Holy Warriors. Whatever you're getting needs to be explicitly worked out with the DM. Regardless, since many/most of your feats are built on that Divine Training cornerstone, losing it (by falling from Paladinhood) means you can't access those abilities (you still have them, you just can't access them, same as in the Core rules like when you can't use Cleave if your Strength falls below the 13 you need for Power Attack). Simple! With this method there are no points to reallocate.

Now, I have no problem at all allowing a Wizard to take on the Paladin's Code, but I have to ask you, what does that Wizard expect in return for doing so? If it's divine abilities along the lines of what a Paladin gets than I'll ask him to take 3 ranks of Knowledge(Religion) and the Divine Training feat. If it's something else, well, I'll just have to consider the request and see what prereqs and what type of Training feat I think is appropriate to balance out the abilities.

As ouini said a few posts ago, this is just a framework drawn wholly from the Core & AU classes. I'll definitely be open and consider requests for feats & abilities similar to what I've already defined, and I'll obviously have to do so for all the Prestige Class abilities out there. Anyone using this system for their campaign will likewise be faced with similar decisions to make.

BTW here's a redo of the Magent:
Thief-Mage type using 24 pts:
HD:d8-1
BAB:Good-2
Defense:NA-0
Fortoor-0
Ref:Good-2
Will:Good-2
SP:10-3
WP:Three-3
AP:Two-2
Magic:Half-4
Feats:Sneak Attack-5
Nasty bastard indeed heh

Realize that you're cheating a bit here. If you're dropping Defense out of the system then you don't really get 24 points to distribute, you get the 22 you figured out before, and only 11 for each level thereafter. Also realize that you've got two Armor Proficiencies, both of which will cause difficulty with your Half Magic because of Spell Failure without some kind of Armored Casting feat. Still, this is exactly the type of character build I would expect for someone looking to build a Hunter Mage or Assassin type. Nice!

Thanks.

DrSpunj