DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet

[SSquirrel]

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.

I was saying that we should actually have a restriction feat that gives you a few point by disallowing armor or some such. You say taht spellcasters would automatically start taking it to have extra points, but I think a lot of the wizards, in this system, would want to keep their options a bit more open to having armor if they wanted it. So maybe having a restriction feat that denies them the use of armor completely as well as some sort of feat to show that some folks are good at maneuvering in their armor for 10% less spell failure could be cool. I'm just trying to put even more variations into the system to allow for even more choices.

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.

I was trying to show that Divine Training should be a series of codified prereqs leading up to it. A Paladin type and a Cleric type both take Divine Training but get different rewards for doing so. Qua? Make a series of restrictions that breaks down each of the issues. So Divine Training would become Cleric Training, Ranger Training, Druid Training and Paladin Training and Paladin Training would have 1 restriction prereq of Code of Ethics, another for etc etc. These restrictions would total the cost of the Paladin Training feat. This would also allow others to pick up the restrictions if they wanted to tailor their character in a different fashion but not to go down the exact same route.

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....".

Nope just 1 CB *grin* The Paladin has that stuff front loaded in the PHB and you don't take it each level so I see no reason to give them an extra point each level just b/c of the restriction. The extra point will count more at 1st level when you're trying to develop the initial character.

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.

True and this would still be accurate. I don't want to see points reallocated.

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.

The wizard would expect 1 extra CB as he wants to have a wizard with a very specific codde of ethics. That's all.

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.

Ok so drop 1 point from armor and 1 more from BAB or HD. heh. Still a nasty character.

Hagen

 

[DrSpunj]

I was saying that we should actually have a restriction feat that gives you a few point by disallowing armor or some such. <snip> I'm just trying to put even more variations into the system to allow for even more choices.

Ah! I think we're on the same page now. You're effectively just coming up with a different default for the magic system.

By that I mean, I look at Core and have come to believe that Arcane magic is the baseline. Since any PC can multiclass into an Arcane spellusing class, it's available to everyone and it comes with the inherent penalty of Arcane Spell Failure from Armor & Shields. OTOH, anyone accessing Divine magic (and the ability to ignore ASF) is doing so through an intermediate agency (usually a deity) that requires worship, respect and/or behaviors in return.

With that POV it seems "better" to me to leave ASF in and have feats like Armored Casting that remove some of it, or restrictions like Divine Training that abolish it entirely. That's certainly up for debate as I can easily see how you might prefer to have no ASF be the default but offer a restriction that imposes ASF to get back some points to spend elsewhere.

The reason that approach doesn't appeal to me much is I'm not a big fan of flaw systems. Their relatively easy to abuse and with a freeform system like this it's that much easier. While it doesn't break the system it would be easy to spend 4 CBs on Half magic at 1st level, then take the ASF restriction you offer for -5 CBs and effectively gain a point overall. Furthermore, you could easily build a character like a Monk/Martial Artist/Oathsworn that doesn't use Armor or Shields much at all and now you've managed to gain 5 extra CBs and a Half level of magic advantage over anyone else. At least in Core when you multiclass from Monk to Sorcerer you lose out on your BAB, Saves, HD, etc. Here those opportunity costs may not be near as significant.

I'm probably going to stick with these guidelines for magic:

• Anyone who takes Magic casts spells with Verbal & Somatic components (plus any other Spell-specific Material/Focus/XP components) and suffers from Spell Failure
• Any of these things can be effectively overcome with the proper feats (such as Modify Spell, Athame, Bardic Casting, Armored Casting, Divine Training or Nature Training)

I think doing it this way prevents abuse, but I'd be happy to get some feedback pointing out how I'm wrong if I've missed something.

I was trying to show that Divine Training should be a series of codified prereqs leading up to it. <snip> These restrictions would total the cost of the Paladin Training feat. This would also allow others to pick up the restrictions if they wanted to tailor their character in a different fashion but not to go down the exact same route.

If you flesh this idea out I'd love to see it, but at this point it's a level of granularity that I'm not sure is worth the work. A Paladin takes up the Code to worship, honor and respect his deity, alignment and/or cause. In return he gets a bunch of divine abilities (including no ASF with his magic). A Wizard can take up that Code, but it doesn't make too much sense to me that he'd then be able to use that single CB he got back to bump his SPs up for a single level, or push up his Fort save, improve his BAB a step, or whatever. The former makes a lot of roleplaying sense to me, that latter I'm just not seeing.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[SSquirrel]

If you flesh this idea out I'd love to see it, but at this point it's a level of granularity that I'm not sure is worth the work. A Paladin takes up the Code to worship, honor and respect his deity, alignment and/or cause. In return he gets a bunch of divine abilities (including no ASF with his magic). A Wizard can take up that Code, but it doesn't make too much sense to me that he'd then be able to use that single CB he got back to bump his SPs up for a single level, or push up his Fort save, improve his BAB a step, or whatever. The former makes a lot of roleplaying sense to me, that latter I'm just not seeing.

OK here goes. The Paladin takes a code of conduct. This code of conduct has several parts.

1)Alignment restriction:Lawful good
1a)Lose all abilities if deviate from said alignment
2)Respect authority, blah blah blah
3)Devotion to righteousness, a god, a belief in general to gain power

So if Paladin training costs 5 points, I would probably say that they would be rated at 2, 2 and 1CB respectively. Restrictions of 5 points would offset the Paldin Training cost of 5. The same can be done to Druids and Rangers probably. Yes it DOES allow for someone to twink their character a bit, but a good DM will make thr character responsible for the things they choose.

In my previous example of the wizard who decided he wanted the chivalrous code for his character, taht would give him 2 CB as he is taking on #2. He could also choose, for 1 point, to tie his magic into his belief in whatever. This second option goes back to the Palladium RPG system mechanically for me as you could have a superhero who had to eat a Twinkie before he could use his special power. They referred to it as the Popeye Syndrome.

I think Lawful Good is the only alignment that would be worth 2CB, all other restrictions (Druid's Neutral, etc) would be worth 1. It's hard to be THAT goody gody in a D&D group after all heh.

This was what I was trying to get at without actually typing the changes out *grin* On the other aspects I skipped over like restrictions for magic and such, I just thought the options could be there b/c while yes some people would only use it for twinking, it could come into good roleplaying ideas. Maybe someone would see that restriction and pick it up for say..their Fighter. Having this restriction negates teh value of your armor proficiencies. You know HOW to wear it, but you refuse to.

Hagen

 

[ouini]

As far as figuring out a system for Divine characters and their abilities / cost savings, I think buying magic, 1/2 magic, or feats with disadvantages is just fine. That is, if you save any points in buying an ability (say, paying 3 instead of 4 for a feat), or if you gain any advantage without paying for it (say, no ASF when you buy the ability to use magic), then the character has to follow whatever code was agreed upon when buying the ability. Then, either:
- LOSS OF POWER: If the PC breaks the code, he can't use the ability any more, period, until he has somehow atoned, or...
- LOSS OF OPTIONS: The PC is simply incapable of breaking the code.

Alignment restriction, codes of honor, manditory devotionals, a party line which must be proslytized or at least followed -- all these are good things to use as divine restrictions on powers, and any one, few, or all of them may be tied to any or all divine powers.


RE: cost of magic using classes
Well, my copy of Arcana Unearthed finally arrived. I'm still going through it, but I should be able to put together costs for magic use soon. I'm not thrilled with the races, but a lot of the other stuff is useful and well done, especially in the magic arena.

PS: DrSpunj, did you know there's a shop in North Liberty? They don't carry RPG stuff yet, but (it turns out) you can order anything.

 

[DrSpunj]

As far as figuring out a system for Divine characters and their abilities / cost savings, I think buying magic, 1/2 magic, or feats with disadvantages is just fine. <snip> Alignment restriction, codes of honor, manditory devotionals, a party line which must be proslytized or at least followed -- all these are good things to use as divine restrictions on powers, and any one, few, or all of them may be tied to any or all divine powers.

Yep. I think that's why I'm going to stick with a few very broad "you must work this out with the DM for specifics" feats, along the lines of Divine Training probably, just because the options are so diverse. A lot of common abilities can be codified relatively easily into feats, while others, IMO, are best left as something to work out between the player & DM.

PS: DrSpunj, did you know there's a shop in North Liberty? They don't carry RPG stuff yet, but (it turns out) you can order anything.

Yep, assuming you're talking about the MidAmerica Hobbies store just north of Hills Bank. I ordered a couple books through him when they first opened (Draconomicon & Complete Warrior, I think) but their distributor couldn't access (at the time) any of Monte Cook's stuff so I had to go online for some things I was after. I have to admit that I haven't been back because usually it's easier and cheaper to order on-line, but I do feel a bit guilty about not supporting a local shop like that, even if they don't stock RPGs and I have to know what I'm after before I go in there.

Did you buy AU from them? If so then they must now be able to get Monte Cook's stuff. Cool. I'll have to talk to them again.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[SSquirrel]

Yep. I think that's why I'm going to stick with a few very broad "you must work this out with the DM for specifics" feats, along the lines of Divine Training probably, just because the options are so diverse. A lot of common abilities can be codified relatively easily into feats, while others, IMO, are best left as something to work out between the player & DM.

See I' trying to make this as complete as it can possibly be and make the PHB as useless as we can *grin* All of the ways your abilities work are listed in here already, it wouldn't be too hard to adda few lines in the feat description section to make the PHB useless for character generation. Which is a suitable goal for something like this IMO. Make this spreadsheet a 1 stop shopping situation.

Yep, assuming you're talking about the MidAmerica Hobbies store just north of Hills Bank. I ordered a couple books through him when they first opened (Draconomicon & Complete Warrior, I think) but their distributor couldn't access (at the time) any of Monte Cook's stuff so I had to go online for some things I was after. I have to admit that I haven't been back because usually it's easier and cheaper to order on-line, but I do feel a bit guilty about not supporting a local shop like that, even if they don't stock RPGs and I have to know what I'm after before I go in there.

Did you buy AU from them? If so then they must now be able to get Monte Cook's stuff. Cool. I'll have to talk to them again.

Hmm haven't been out there as my friends no longer live in NL. Hobby Corner is about the only place I go looking for gaming products and since they have such a good selection I always have plenty to look at heh.

Hagen

 

[ouini]

Okay, so . . .

I saw a lot of neat ideas in AU, but I didn't see a whole lot in AU which dealt with 1/2 vs. whole casters. There are a lot of directions one could go with 1/2 vs. whole.

Using the low point-cost a la carte scheme (described earlier with 15 points at 1st level, 9 points each level thereafter), here's a rough draft of one way to do it, with a simple or a complex spell system.
.
.
.
SIMPLE - ASSIGN COSTS to SPELLCASTING, BUT LEAVE CHOICES PRETTY MUCH LIKE IN CORE

Choose a traditional caster type: Arcane (Mage, Sorc, Bard) or divine (Cleric, Druid).

At 1st level, being a Bard costs 4 points, being a Cleric or Druid costs 9 points, and being a Mage or Sorceror costs 12.

At 2nd level and beyond, gaining or starting a Bard spellcaster level still costs 4 points. Gaining further Cleric or Druid level costs 6, and gaining further Mage or Sorc levels costs 8. But becoming a Cleric or Druid spellcaster costs 12, and becoming a Mage or Sorceror costs 16. This means you'd have to save up points to become a spellcaster.
.
.
.
COMPLEX - ALLOW PCs to CHOOSE 1/2 or WHOLE CASTER EACH LEVEL, in ANY CLASS, and USE A MANA SYSTEM

Choose a spell list type: Arcane (Mage, Sorc, Bard) costs 4 points per 1/2 caster level. Divine (Cleric, Druid) costs 3 points per 1/2 caster level.

Anyone can pick up a level of 1/2 caster. At any level, it's 4 points for arcane, and 3 points for divine. At first level, this buys you your *caster* level in mana (1 point). At 2nd level and beyond, it buys you 1/2 your *caster* level in mana. This lets you memorize (or pray for) up to your mana in spell levels in the spell list you chose, with cantrips/orisons counting as a 1/2 spell level. You can never memorize more of a higher level spell than you have of a lower level spell.

Becoming a full caster, at any level, is tougher. At 1st level, the potential to be a full caster costs 4 points (arcane) or 3 points (divine). At 2nd level or beyond, it costs 8/6 to become an arcane/divine full caster. Once you buy the ability to be a full caster, you can buy mana twice per level instead of once. I.E. at first level, you can purchase arcane 1/2 caster (twice) for 8 points, or divine 1/2 caster (twice) for 6 points.

Nothing else changes. At first level, a full caster can buys his *caster* level in mana (1 point) twice (total of 2 points). At 2nd level and beyond, he can buy 1/2 his caster level in mana twice (total of his caster level in mana). Still can't memorize more of a higher level spell than he has of a lower level spell.

The trick, then, is that you have access to spell levels not based on feats, but based on how much mana you have. Anyone with 1 point of mana can cast cantrips/orisons. But you have to have 2 points of mana to cast 1st level spells. 6 points to cast 2nd level spells. 12 points to cast 3rd, 24 for 4th, 42 for 5th, 60 for 6th, etc. This way, 1/2 casters progress slower, simply because they have less mana.

I probably bungled the explanation, but that's the gist. Bonus spells might still be awarded based on a high casting stat. I still haven't figured out how spells/day would work with inherent casters like sorcerors, but that's a minor matter.

 

[DrSpunj]

I saw a lot of neat ideas in AU, but I didn't see a whole lot in AU which dealt with 1/2 vs. whole casters. There are a lot of directions one could go with 1/2 vs. whole.

Then here's where we're going to diverge pretty drastically.

I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. Period. I think it's cool, pretty intuitive, and offers far greater playability and versatility than the Core system without the balance issues that come up with a totally freeform Mana-based or Psionic Power Point system.

I'll certainly help convert spells (& powers) from other sources into an AU-compatible format, but since my system makes greater use of feats they'll almost always only be available with the Exotic Spell or Unique Spell feats. I'm not interested in keeping all the disjointedness that is the Core Class Magic System. Obviously, YMMV.

In a straight conversion (without balance considerations), Druids & Clerics should get Greenbond-like magic (that is, Full Magic with only Simple spells); Sorcerers & Wizards would get Magister-like magic (Full Magic with Complex spells); Bards, Paladins & Rangers would get Mage Blade-like magic (Half Magic with only Simple spells). Realize that Paladins & Rangers get a huge bump to their magical abilities with this conversion. That can obviously be toned back to down to near Core levels by taking far fewer levels of Half Magic.

Just to be clear, I'm using the term Half Magic to describe use of the Spell Slots Per Day & Spells Readied At One Time tables shared by Mage Blades, Runethanes & Witches. By Full Magic I'm referring to those same tables in the Greenbond & Magister sections.

Since taking 20 levels of Half Magic allows you to use 7th level spells, and taking 10 levels of Full Magic only allows the use of 5th level spells, the former should cost a bit more than the latter.

I was then trying to figure out how to add (or stack) the two different types of caster levels (Half & Full) like BAB from various classes stacks. Which set of tables should be used?

It's easy enough to say that you use the tables according to whether you have more Half or Full magic levels, and at first that's what I did. The problem I discovered was a 20th level caster can have 15 levels of Half magic & 5 levels of Full Magic which would mean he should use the Half magic tables...with a Half caster level of 25 (at 20th level, oops!). That doesn't work too well.

By comparing the two sets of tables directly I realized that it prevents abuse & goofiness if you only allow pure Half casters to use the Half Magic tables. Anyone who buys even a single level of Full magic must use the Full Magic tables by converting their Half Magic caster level to a Full Magic equivalent and adding it to their Full Magic levels for their total Caster Level.

For example, a 20th level PC might have taken 10 Half & 10 Full Magic levels. That means they have a Full Magic caster level of 15. Note that they spent 5 more CBs than if they simply took 15 levels of Full magic, but they got that Half Magic level one level earlier than if they'd waited 2 levels for another Full Magic level.

I think to make that worthwhile I'm going to allow someone to use the next higher level of Readied Spells At One Time. Since their Spell Slots Per Day doesn't increase that means they can only use the highest level of spells readied (assuming they gain access to a new spell level with this Half Magic level) by weaving two of their highest level spell slots together. In the right circumstances this could be worthwhile, but I think most times people would just rather wait and save their CBs to buy a level of Full Magic every other level instead of a Half Magic every level.

This does mean that it's better to buy all Half or all Full, rather than mix & match the two, but in a free-form system like this I don't see that as a bad thing. Again, YMMV.

I do have a document that I just remembered that broke down caster levels into a fractional system like the BAB stuff from my PbP game. I'll have to dig that out (or re-download it) and see if that might be a better solution to mixing Half & Full magic levels. Hmm....

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[ouini]

I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. Period. I think it's cool, pretty intuitive, and offers far greater playability and versatility ...

That's fine, and I may, too. I admit I don't fully understand it yet, and have never seen any AU ideas in play. I just didn't see, having skimmed the book, how AU gave a way to use half and full magic. I'm going to have to read further, to understand the terms you used in your post...

Druids & Clerics should get Greenbond-like magic (that is, Full Magic with only Simple spells); Sorcerers & Wizards would get Magister-like magic (Full Magic with Complex spells); Bards, Paladins & Rangers would get Mage Blade-like magic (Half Magic with only Simple spells) ... I'm using the term Half Magic to describe use of the Spell Slots Per Day & Spells Readied At One Time tables shared by Mage Blades, Runethanes & Witches. By Full Magic I'm referring to those same tables in the Greenbond & Magister sections.

I'll look up what this will entail. If it is simple enough to explain to 1st-time users, who definitely don't own, aren't likely to buy, and haven't read AU, then a feat-based system sounds great.

Either way, it's a kind of ad hoc system. The advantage of the feat-based system is consistency with the way everything else is bought. The advantage of the mana system is that you can stack 1/2 and full levels with no problem, no tables needed. (And the advantage of a skill-based system, like the Talislanta hybrid we toyed with, would be even more consistency!) But I think your approach will be fine, if it turns out to be as easy or easier than the mana kludge I suggested.

 

[SSquirrel]

I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. Period. I think it's cool, pretty intuitive, and offers far greater playability and versatility than the Core system without the balance issues that come up with a totally freeform Mana-based or Psionic Power Point system.

See I have no problems with a freeform mana system, and if you wanted a purely easy one just give 1 mana for every 0 level spell (but they cost no mana to cast) and then 1 mana/spell/spell level. SO if you have 4-4-3-2-1 for 0-4th level spells, you would have 4+4+6+4+1=19 mana points. The tables are only left to determine mana points. Once you have said points cast whatever spells you want. 0 level spells can be cast all freakin day long and teh only restriction I would place is that a healing spell can only be used 3 times on the same individual so you don't just free heal everyone.

In a straight conversion (without balance considerations), Druids & Clerics should get Greenbond-like magic (that is, Full Magic with only Simple spells); Sorcerers & Wizards would get Magister-like magic (Full Magic with Complex spells); Bards, Paladins & Rangers would get Mage Blade-like magic (Half Magic with only Simple spells). Realize that Paladins & Rangers get a huge bump to their magical abilities with this conversion. That can obviously be toned back to down to near Core levels by taking far fewer levels of Half Magic.

Of course, I would also probably create a non-caster Ranger (haven't browsed the UA variant yet) as well cuz I just don't feel a Ranger should be a spell caster, but that's just me *grin*

I was then trying to figure out how to add (or stack) the two different types of caster levels (Half & Full) like BAB from various classes stacks. Which set of tables should be used?

It's easy enough to say that you use the tables according to whether you have more Half or Full magic levels, and at first that's what I did. The problem I discovered was a 20th level caster can have 15 levels of Half magic & 5 levels of Full Magic which would mean he should use the Half magic tables...with a Half caster level of 25 (at 20th level, oops!). That doesn't work too well.

Wrong. Caster level is caster level is caster level. If someone takes 15 half and 6 full magic levels they're caster level 20. Their magic isn't nearly as impressive as it would be otherwise, but oh well. I assume with this system if you take 10 half levels and then grab a full you look at the level 11 full table for what spells you earn? This is what would make sense to me.

By comparing the two sets of tables directly I realized that it prevents abuse & goofiness if you only allow pure Half casters to use the Half Magic tables. Anyone who buys even a single level of Full magic must use the Full Magic tables by converting their Half Magic caster level to a Full Magic equivalent and adding it to their Full Magic levels for their total Caster Level.

Screw that. Conversion would be a bad idea and would force a drastic rework of the character. Use my above idea. It's simple and solves the whole issue.

I think to make that worthwhile I'm going to allow someone to use the next higher level of Readied Spells At One Time. Since their Spell Slots Per Day doesn't increase that means they can only use the highest level of spells readied (assuming they gain access to a new spell level with this Half Magic level) by weaving two of their highest level spell slots together. In the right circumstances this could be worthwhile, but I think most times people would just rather wait and save their CBs to buy a level of Full Magic every other level instead of a Half Magic every level.

I don't see any need for this really. Look at what their totals are if they have the tables mixed and just go with it. Not a big issue and there's enough spells available to you as is.

This does mean that it's better to buy all Half or all Full, rather than mix & match the two, but in a free-form system like this I don't see that as a bad thing. Again, YMMV.

Obviously mine does as I do see it as a bad thing. It should be neither better nor worse to do so, they should both be perfectly valid choices. If someone spends a few more points one level to get some full magic and thus manages a higher level of spell than they would have otherwise have...fabulous. They spent their points fair and square. If you're going freeform man you need to GO FREEFORM. They want it and it's there let them do it. Just make sure that you approve all character decisions, but that goes for any game.

I do have a document that I just remembered that broke down caster levels into a fractional system like the BAB stuff from my PbP game. I'll have to dig that out (or re-download it) and see if that might be a better solution to mixing Half & Full magic levels. Hmm....[/QUOTE]
Ya know fractions and such are one of the things people really hate about Champions. Do we REALLY want more than 1 set of fractional increases? I don't think so.

Hagen