Abilities in exchange for Experience points: Good or Bad Idea.

[Iron_Chef]

I introduced special training for special abilities from FFG's "Path of" books with fun results. There is a GP and XP cost that increases with each rank of training the character receives. I also incorporated the XP cost for rising in rank in the clergy from Kalamar Player's Guide and expanded it to include advancement in the Zhentarim or any organization with corresponding benefits (new class skills, bonuses to skills, etc.). One PC spent so much on these things that he is a level behind everybody else, but he seems happy with it. I haven't noticed an imbalancing factor from this, as BAB and saves and skill points don't increase unless you level up, which you can't do if you don't keep your XP.

I like this concept as it gives characters without item creation feats something to spend their XP on, as well as their GP. Hard choices are part of the fun of the game! In many cases, it costs these guys more in XP and GP to gain these extra's than making a minor magic item, which is probably right, as a magic item can be lost or used up, whereas these extra's are part of the PC and useful basically forever.

FFG's "Path of" way of doing this (XP/GP cost and training time) is the way to go.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Power with cost

That can be fine in your game, where you control all aspects, but it destroys a vital compont of D20 - interoperability. I know there are strong and weak PrCs, feats, spells, ect, but LEVEL is a good starting point. If level doesn't even mean that much, you have taken away a very cool element of the rule system.

I take your point, and it's a good one. On the other hand, interoperability with what? Someone else's game? Any time an individual group uses ANTHING that's non-core, interoperability goes right out the window. Also, understand that I'm not advocating this as a tried and true system. I haven't used it. I've read about it, and seen nothing terribly unbalancing about it. That's not the same thing, and an important caveat, if I didn't make it clear.

A 20th level fighter who spent a lot of XP on styles is better than a 20th level fighter who didn't, assuming comparable magic items. I don't like rules that create that divide.

A good point, but I think it misses the main cost, comparative power. Most of the arguments about balance center around this concept, in one form or another. Someone who spends xp, gold and time to gain a new feat is now behind his peers, and won't be catching up unless they die and are raised poorly when he isn't. The issue isn't that player X is 20th level and has 6 abilities while Player Y is 20th with four...it's that player Y is 21st level.

Most of the abilities that these fighting styles provide are NOT terribly powerful. I'm not sure about the Evasion ability, as I'm pulling it from memory...but a 1st level rogue ability, without all the other benefits, isn't stellar. Especially when I can buy a pretty cheap magic item at that level to approximate it. What would you say if the player needed to take a feat, similar to an item creation feat? Instead of Craft Wondrous Item, you would get Student of Wu-Xia, and then be eligible for said lessons?

And I recognize that there's some serious downsides to having a similar (but not exactly similar) mechanic to play. I certainly don't accept a good DM should be the required balancing factor, because that's mechanically unsound and a sucker's bet. If I have to enforce the balance of something myself, I might as well make my own wacky mechanic, since it's not saving me any trouble.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Power with cost

I take your point, and it's a good one. On the other hand, interoperability with what? Someone else's game? Any time an individual group uses ANTHING that's non-core, interoperability goes right out the window. Also, understand that I'm not advocating this as a tried and true system. I haven't used it. I've read about it, and seen nothing terribly unbalancing about it. That's not the same thing, and an important caveat, if I didn't make it clear. [/B]

I think you can still have a good deal of interoperability even if there are 3rd party materials used because there is a level to base it on. As I said, I think it can be fine in one game, but I don't like the mechanic because it is counter to the system that has already been put in place (feats, PrC, items).

A good point, but I think it misses the main cost, comparative power. Most of the arguments about balance center around this concept, in one form or another. Someone who spends xp, gold and time to gain a new feat is now behind his peers, and won't be catching up unless they die and are raised poorly when he isn't. The issue isn't that player X is 20th level and has 6 abilities while Player Y is 20th with four...it's that player Y is 21st level.

Most of the abilities that these fighting styles provide are NOT terribly powerful. I'm not sure about the Evasion ability, as I'm pulling it from memory...but a 1st level rogue ability, without all the other benefits, isn't stellar. Especially when I can buy a pretty cheap magic item at that level to approximate it. What would you say if the player needed to take a feat, similar to an item creation feat? Instead of Craft Wondrous Item, you would get Student of Wu-Xia, and then be eligible for said lessons?

And I recognize that there's some serious downsides to having a similar (but not exactly similar) mechanic to play. I certainly don't accept a good DM should be the required balancing factor, because that's mechanically unsound and a sucker's bet. If I have to enforce the balance of something myself, I might as well make my own wacky mechanic, since it's not saving me any trouble. [/B]

If you spend XP and I don't, I wouldn't try to compare my character with more XP. Again, if we are in the same game, it isn't too bad, but what if you have been playing for a while I generate a character your level? As for power, I seem to recall Quintisential Fighter styles being relatively powerful, but I will have to check it later.

I think your last paragraph is the basis of my arguement: DMs need to balance the new system themselves. They might as well create their own house rules.

When it comes down to it, these "ability for XP" are just too much like kits, skills and powers, and all the other wonky 2e badness that made sure no two games could be compared at all. I like the style of varient systems, but I believe they harm the overall integrity of the rules. The game will be a big mess eventually, but why rush it? Feats and levels are a primary control factor, and are flexible enough to cover all these abilities.

If you like the ablities for XP system, I suggest you convert all of your advancement to that system. I really think taking levels out of D&D could make for a great source book. I played both ShadowRun and StarWars d6, both had that idea. The idea isn't bad, but I don't think it should not be combined with levels.

 

[Daelin_Farseer]

Considering I was one of the fellows that wrote that article for Dragon, I'd love to see that article...

EDIT: clarified which article was which.

Oooh. How interesting.

The short link: http://groups.google.com
search for 'Presige Races Redux'.

The long link:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...F-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.games.frp.dnd&start=50

 

[DonAdam]

I finally caught up on the whole thread, so no more making fun of me for that

Besides, I was responding to a rebuttal of my arguments from the 1st page, so it's not like I jumped in out of nowhere

FFG's system works fine as long as you remember to count the GP cost on the character's wealth limit. This is why magic items can be balanced.

As far as missing another balanced system by skipping those pages... no one suggested a new alternative.

There are several legitimate ways to add power to a character:
-Race
-Level (which includes ECL, which in theory should work since it scales)
-Feats (part of level, but crucial on this topic- why not just make it a feat?)
-Wealth

The key thing about any of these is that to have power from one you have to give up something else. That's not true of XP unless they're in increments large enough to effectively be ECL's.

I never said that FFG's system was unbalanced. In fact, I find it quite good, because it uses wealth.

The heart of the misunderstanding comes down to this statement for me:

What's the difference between gaining evasion from an always-on ring or from a fighting style?

The difference is that in an XP-for-power system you can get the evasion ability from the fighting style AND another item, thus throwing off the balance of the game. When you use wealth (as Path of the Sword does) as at least one part, then that's no longer an issue.

Edit: by the way, Path of the Sword is very much worth picking up. It blows away the Wizards classbooks by far.

 

[IceBear]

Edit: by the way, Path of the Sword is very much worth picking up. It blows away the Wizards classbooks by far.

That said, I'll probably never find it here in Canada I'm fed up with paying almost the price again for shipping and duties so I'm not ordering from the US Maybe Amazon.ca has it.

IceBear

 

[Ashy]

Oooh. How interesting.

The short link: http://groups.google.com
search for 'Presige Races Redux'.

The long link:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...F-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.games.frp.dnd&start=50

Well, I'll BE! Yup - that was the article! Pretty balanced in any event, IMHO....

 

[kreynolds]

In a previous post, you said that ECL can be used to balance out a character who buys abilities in this fashion.

Yes, I did, but only if you know how to use it. I know how, thus it works for me.

Therefore, a 1st level +9ECL character should roughly match a 10th level character.

Yes, but only if designed wisely. If a 1st level fighter does nothing but gain ECL mods from a boat-load of spell-like abilities, then yeah, he has a lot of stopping power from great range. On the flip side of that coin, one pop and he's down. He ends up being really power and really weak at the same time. Extreme advantages and extreme disadvantages, as opposed to a balance among the two.

Here you seem to be implying otherwise.

Not exactly. They are powerful and they are not. The two extremes as opposed to middle ground. Probably more fitting for a monster instead of a character, which is something any player/DM should take into consideration when designing a character/NPC.

Are we once again back to eye-balling it and diminishing the utility of the CR/EL system?

Diminishing th utility of the CR/EL system? You make it sound like the CR/EL system is a science. It isn't. It's an art. All of it has to be eyeballed already. There is no exact ECL system. Neither is there an exact CR system. Nor is there an exact EL system.

At first level, a +1ECL is worth a few of these virtual feats maybe. At 19th level, a +1ECL becomes worth dozens of these virtual feats?

Eh? How many bonus feats does a fighter get at 1st level (from his class)? One. How many do they get at 20th level? One. +1 ECL is +1 ECL.

Yeah, it's a problem with magic items too, albeit a lesser one due to the issues I presented in my second post.

I still don't see the problem you're talking about in your second post.

Is it a good idea, though, to find the loopholes and weak points of a system and expand upon them?

What loopholes and weakpoints? I don't see them. As far as I can tell, what you see as loopholes and weakpoints, I see bad planning. Spending XP for special abilities is fine, but if a player goes overboard with it, say purchasing a whole bunch of spell-like abilities, their character just isn't as versatile as they once were. They're still powerful, but at the same time, they aren't. Just take a 10th level Knight of the Chalice and throw him against a high level Rogue and you'll see what I mean. Focusing your character in a really tight path leaves you wide open for defeat in most other areas, even though you'll excel in those one or two areas.

 

[kreynolds]

I finally caught up on the whole thread, so no more making fun of me for that

It's not about "poking fun". It's just common courtesy to read the replys of others in a discussion.

As far as missing another balanced system by skipping those pages... no one suggested a new alternative.

Nobody said one was suggested. I just don't see the inherent problem that you do. Like I said, I think spending XP for special abilities, which you already do, there's no arguing that, is fine if those abilities are structured well together. If they aren't, you end up with a bunch of spell-like abilities and stuff with no hit die. You're now powerful in some areas and weak in others. Basically, you just end up taking levels in a class that isn't very versatile.

So, it all comes down to planning. If you plan ahead, just like you do when you're leveling your fighter, then you won't "spend" to much XP. If you do, you might just make it harder on yourself. However, even if you do spend a lot of XP, and you spend it wisely, you might do just fine.

There are several legitimate ways to add power to a character:
-Race

Like a prestige race that you spend XP on to take "levels" in? That was suggested.

-Level (which includes ECL, which in theory should work since it scales)

Like I said, already suggested.

-Feats (part of level, but crucial on this topic- why not just make it a feat?)

I think I might be misunderstanding you here. Do you mean that its OK to spend XP to buy extra abilities, so long as they look like feats, but its not OK to buy extra abilities if they don't look like feats? You could possibly end up with the same problem in the end anyways. It may take longer, but if you spend too much XP purchasing feats and not "purchasing" class levels, you could make it too hard on yourself.

-Wealth

Wealth is merely a reflection of your level. Your level is merely a reflection of what is available to you. They work together. If your ECL goes up, so does your wealth limit.

The key thing about any of these is that to have power from one you have to give up something else. That's not true of XP unless they're in increments large enough to effectively be ECL's.

Which is what I've been suggesting from the beginning of this thread.

The difference is that in an XP-for-power system you can get the evasion ability from the fighting style AND another item, thus throwing off the balance of the game.

Its not an issue to begin with. If you get a magic ring that gives you evasion, you sacrifice your character wealth for power. If you spend XP to get evasion, you sacrifice your character wealth for power. Why? Your wealth is dependant upon your level, and if you're spending XP, you're putting yourself that much further away from your next level. If you spend too much XP, now you've got lots of cool stuff but you're front-loaded, or just way too specialized.

 

[ruleslawyer]

This is an excellent point.

Character design rules, whether core or optional, should not be given the impossible task of balancing every character concept against every other character concept. There are optimal and suboptimal ways of designing characters, and really the only task that design rules should face is that of preventing certain optimally-designed characters from being measurably more powerful than other reasonably optimally-designed characters.

That said, I think a key restriction on abilities which cost a defined amount of XP (a mechanic of which I'm quite fond, at least as it appears in WotC's Lords of Darkness) is that such abilities be "one-offs" that don't contribute to what I'd see as the basic assets of a character: Stats, feats, skills, spells and spell levels, BAB, and base saves. Spending XP to be immune to fear, for instance, is a fine use of this mechanic IMHO. Spending it for a reasonable spell-like ability is likewise OK.

kenjib: Using that simple guideline, one should be able to answer your concern about XP costs meaning less with ascending levels. Immunity to fear is a great ability for a low-level character, but far less so for a high-level character who can probably afford a suitable magic item or have access to a mind blank spell. Thus, this ability should be fine with a fixed XP cost.