Class Construction Guide requesting feedback

[tjoneslo]

In theory the points are independent, and you can compare any two classes regardless of length. In practice, comparing them assumes that they are the same length, extending the shorter one without any additional bonuses. If the class features continue to improved with levels, you should add the additional points for the improved class features.

From your example, the 10 level figher clone is assumed to be 20 level, but no additional feats for the last 10 levels. If you wanted to assume one feat per level, add another 50 points.

I'll add a note to that effect, making it clearer how to use the final results.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'll add a note to that effect, making it clearer how to use the final results.

If nothing else, you should establish a good 'baseline' for classes of length 5, 10, and 20 (the common lengths), if not also 3 (the next most common length).

If you used a formula like

(level-based bonuses) + (one-time bonuses) / (number of levels)

then classes could be compared on one scale, which would be convenient. You could instead replace level-based bonuses with level-independant bonuses (XX points for each +1 base attack, YY points for each point of saves, etc.) and scale the final result so it's equal to a 20th-level class (double points for a 10-level PrC, and so on). This would give a more fair measurement of the power of 5-level classes, since it rounds poorly for medium/low base attack as well as for saves. (This is a real balance issue, not just a stupid 'for argument's sake' strawman.)

 

[devilish]

I can't access the PDF - it doesn't seem to be in the download section itself. Could someone send me the file, please? jaluber AT gmx DOT de. Thanks in advance.

Doesn't work for me either --- is it still there?

 

[Knight Otu]

Doesn't work for me either --- is it still there?

Apparently not... CR or tjoneslo, could you send me the most current version, please?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Apparently not... CR or tjoneslo, could you send me the most current version, please?

Sent.

 

[devilish]

Sent.

me too, por favor .. at devilishd ..at.. yahoo ..dot.. com

thanks,
-D

 

[CRGreathouse]

me too, por favor .. at devilishd ..at.. yahoo ..dot.. com

Sent, no problem.

tjoneslo, if you had any doubts about how interesting your project is, the number of people asking for copies should give a hint.

 

[Scion]

I'll also point out that the Epic Level Handbook has an [Epic] feat Improved Sneak Attack that grants +1d6 sneak attack

I personally dont think that sneak attack per die is worth a full feat. Maybe gaining the sneak attack ability that goes up at a certain rate is worth a feat or two, but just a single die? More feats for faster progression.

In the psionics handbook there is a feat which allows one to reroll a 1's on sneak attack dice. There is a feat, I believe, in the exalted handbook that changes the dice to d8's against evil foes.

The first is worth a sneak attack die, on average, once the character has 7 dice of sneak attack, and it only gets better from there.

In any event though, it certainly is a very weak epic feat. It wouldnt even make a very strong normal feat given the limitations on sneak attack (major limitations).

Maybe a feat that allows one to gain a sneak attack die every 4 levels, two of these would simulate the rogues progression. That seems much more feasible really.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The first is worth a sneak attack die, on average, once the character has 7 dice of sneak attack, and it only gets better from there.

It's worth less than a single sneak attack die when you have +8d6. Remember, you have to keep the second roll even if it's a 1.

In any event though, it certainly is a very weak epic feat. It wouldnt even make a very strong normal feat given the limitations on sneak attack (major limitations).

I agree that it's weak as an epic feat, but I still think +10d6 SA is worth more than 4 feats. Weapon Specialization is hard to get, and as such is considered 'better' than most feats (and certainly many/most fighters take it), but compared to 10/4 of a sneak attack die its damage is pathetic: +2 vs. +8.75. Yes, I understand the limitations of the SA, but a fourfold increase...!

Maybe a feat that allows one to gain a sneak attack die every 4 levels, two of these would simulate the rogues progression. That seems much more feasible really.

So you rate the progression at 2 feats, or +17.5 damage/feat. Wouldn't this make the fighter much better than the rogue? I mean, without SA fighters still tend to outdamage rogues against sneak-attackable targets, and this would just blow them out of the water.

 

[Scion]

It's worth less than a single sneak attack die when you have +8d6. Remember, you have to keep the second roll even if it's a 1.

At 7 dice is pretty much breaks even. You are right that the ability to roll a second one does reduce it slightly, but it doesnt reduce it by all that much overall

While the math is slightly off it still pretty much equals an extra die at +7d6, or at least 'almost' there.

I seem to recal another feat that gave +1d6 sneak attack die somewhere, but I couldnt remember nor find it so I dont like bringing it up. Anyone have UA? or a few other sources like that? (by 'like that' I mean sources I dont have ).

The psionics handbook version isnt an exact match, but it is something that is sometimes better and sometimes worse on average than a regular die (although in the normal 1-20 game it is usually worse, but since the epic feat was brought up naming a nonepic feat that does better preepic seemed like an ok move).

I agree that it's weak as an epic feat, but I still think +10d6 SA is worth more than 4 feats. Weapon Specialization is hard to get, and as such is considered 'better' than most feats (and certainly many/most fighters take it), but compared to 10/4 of a sneak attack die its damage is pathetic: +2 vs. +8.75. Yes, I understand the limitations of the SA, but a fourfold increase...!

Actually, I dont find weapon specialization to be a very good feat. It is limited and its use isnt great. However, it is one of the few feats to do what it does. I actually think weapon focus is a better feat by far, especially when combined with other feats.

4 feats though? I dont know how often sneak attack comes up in your games, but in the ones I have been in it isnt incredibly common. Sometimes on the first round of battle and sometimes when flanking. But those are hard conditions to reach, especially when there is a list of things a mile long that kills it. Even simple concealment. The higher the damage from it goes the more things that are around to nullify it.

Hence, it gets stronger but less useful. Weapon specialization is just as effective pretty much all of the time, so long as one is useing that weapon of course.

So, yes, a fourfold increase because one can be used effectively all of the time while holding the weapon (an easy condition) vs sneak attack which can be nearly impossible to use.

So you rate the progression at 2 feats, or +17.5 damage/feat. Wouldn't this make the fighter much better than the rogue? I mean, without SA fighters still tend to outdamage rogues against sneak-attackable targets, and this would just blow them out of the water.

Fighters have tons of ways to increase damage.

However, the problem is with point equivalencies. I dont see the sneak attack ratio for virtual feats to be anywhere near 4, 2 seems much more reasonable.

With those two the fighter could pick up a couple of other options or do some extra damage in the proper conditions. Roughly equivalent.

Take cleave for example. It is a single feat that can grant an entire extra attack now and then. Now, an extra attack means a chance at a whole hit of extra damage again. This feat also drops off in use at higher levels but does more damage. Very similar.

Sneak attack is 'very' conditional. There are quite a few items which negate it either directly or as a side effect. Tons of spells do the same. Various races and templates also grant this ability.

Given all of that, I think that 1 feat for a sneak attack die every 4 levels is pretty appropriate