DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet

[Videssian]

While it is the way it is in AU, I'm not sure that dividing weapons into all those groups really makes sense. I think in a lot of ways there's far too many categories making things needlessly complex, so perhaps you could combine some of those categories. I do think also that the "basic" weapons needs to change. (I assume here that the "basic" weapons are those that pretty much everyone including the studious mage apprentice will know how to use in combat).

The weapons I feel should be in the "basic" category are:

Club: A big stick, about as basic a weapon as you possibly can have.

Shortspear: A long pointy stick. Our human ancestors have been using a long pointy stick for hundreds of thousands of years. And how much skill does it take to jab someone with it? not much!

Handaxe: any rural folk and many townsfolk will have used an axe throughout their lives to cut firewood if nothing else (or to kill the turkey for dinner etc).. so they'll have had some experience at chopping things with it..

I removed Dagger because it takes some degree of skill to use properly, likely more skill than a sword would require.

I removed Quarterstaff because to use it as anything but a long club requires quite a bit of skill to use well. Again, probably more skill than using a sword.

I don't know if any of you would agree with me, but I thought I'd throw these two thoughts out there.. There's something to be said for not making things unnecessarily complex..

ttyl,
Videssian

 

[DrSpunj]

Well, I don't have a problem with doing that, either. But I will look to see whether there's some elegant, or at least fairly simple, solution to allow offering related chain-abilities at low level, within the point system. I'm thinking there is, but outside of seperate ability-chains which are de facto "related" because they're offered together in a core class, it would involve judgment calls by the GM.

Yeah, and I had to address that with my "feat chain" layout as well. Not the best example but one that comes to mind readily are the Bard Songs. While all of them require Bardic Music up front, there are easily two separate sets of abilities there: the Fascinate path and the Courage path.

The Fascinate path moves onto Suggestion then to Mass Suggestion (and I can make a reasonable argument to include Song of Freedom in that chain). The Courage path, aside from Courage continuing to improve with better bonuses, also includes Inspire Greatness & Inspire Heroics. I honestly can't remember what I did with Inspire Competence at the moment.

Anyway, point being that just because the Core rules have combined those two paths of abilities in the Core Bard class doesn't mean I think everyone who plays a Bard like character should be forced to take both of them. I much prefer to leave both paths open so that someone can choose to take one, both or neither.

Looking at the Barbarian, all his Rage feats make a good chain/path. His Uncanny Dodge abilities (and arguably Trap Sense abilities) make another. His Damage Reduction, IMO, is a third, and completely separate from the other two. Why? Because there are other classes that gain DR in a similar manner that don't get Rage or Uncanny Dodge, and I think it would be fun to play a tank-like defense-oriented warrior without the ferocity of Rage and/or the sixth sense & nimbleness of Uncanny Dodge. Separating the Barbarian's abilities into 3 chains gives me that versatility in my system.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

Good job guys! Jus started a new job (Blooming Prairie in Iowa City) so I'm workin 12+ hr days and have no time to play with the spreadsheet, but I'm enjoying the read.

Oo, brutal. Good luck with the new job!

When you get a chance, can you provide links to the new/updated files I sent you so others can download them?

Before Spunj started in on the first few levels of different core classes you guys seemed to be worrying about making sure barbarians would only be able to take barbarian style evasnion skills...uhm...that's counter to what this is trying for. Once the system is hammered into place, you'll be able to have someone make a barbarian under core rules, but that woll mean they CHOOSE to pick up Barbarian style evasion. Otherwise, you'd see them pick up better evasion which isn't hurting anything..it just shows taht maybe this barbarian is more agile than otehrs.

Right. I totally agree! It's been quite awhile since I started this thread, and I haven't read back through it recently, so I'm not sure if my past posts gave that impression (or said that exact thing!) or not. I can only say that, after working on this for quite some time my goal is to allow someone to build whatever type of balanced character they want to. If they want Barbarian DR without Rage or Uncanny Dodge, and want to put that with Heavy Armor proficiency and an increased Defense & d12 HD, more power to them!

If my CB system works the way I hope it does, as long as they have the points to get those abilities things should work out fine.

The devil's in the details though. I agree that Sneak Attack is too powerful to be taken every level, but I think it's okay to take every other level (like the Rogue). So how to keep someone from taking it every level?

My current approach was to directly tie it to character level. I could also see a requirement like "your BAB has to increase by at least +1.5 before you can take this feat again". You could limit it to only be taken at odd levels if you wanted to.

All of those keep you from taking it every level, but the first one (my way) bugs ouini, I think, because someone could it take it for the first time at 3rd level and get it twice. If they had saved some points they could take it for the first time at 5th level and get it three times! That really doesn't bother me. That PC paid a pretty big opportunity cost in saving those points to splurge all at once rather than buying abilities he could use right away (assuming he lived long enough to spend them!).

Also, there is NOTHING wrong with requirements for some of these class abilities cum feats. I know when I made Evasion a feat I gave it a dex req.

In the 3.0 DMG I remember reading a section about when to ask for a Save vs when to ask for an Ability check. I'm not sure if that section is in the 3.5 DMG or not, but I really liked what that section had to say. At the core it came down to, "If you're trying to avoid something, it's a Save. If you're trying to accomplish something, it's an Ability check."

I tried applying that concept where I could in the Prereqs I came up with for the class ability feats. Evasion only kicks in when you're making a Reflex save, so I gave it a Reflex save prereq. DR is about avoiding damage, so I gave a Fort save prereq.

Rage I struggled with a bit. It allows you to do something, so I thought about linking it to Constitution, but with the fatigue/exhaustion and Tireless Rage abilities I came to see Rage as something that pretty much anyone can do, most people just don't have the stamina/fortitude to resist tearing themselves up (and perhaps even killing themselves) doing it. Here I could probably be swayed to add or change it to a Constitution requirement, but I really liked how the Fort save POV allowed me to scale the prereq for the higher level abilities.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[ouini]

I'm not sure that dividing weapons into all those groups really makes sense ... perhaps you could combine some of those categories.

I completely agree. And while I also completely agree that an amazing amount of skill and finesse can be used in wielding daggers and quarterstaffs in the real world, I have no trouble with putting them in the "Basic" category along with clubs, or even slings (now *those* require more skill than a bow!), because they're common and cheap weapons a non-fighter may have plausibly practiced with growing up. Crossbows are usually in the "Basic" category because, moreso than bows or slings, they are point-and-shoot easy.

"Simple Weapons" I'd likely keep the same. As for Martial Weapons, I'd shorten the list, too. Axes Picks & Hammers, Bows, Flails, Swords, Clubs, Pole weapons.

Bottom line: I'd offer a suggested "Basic" list, and suggested Martial categories, but work with any player who wanted to modify it.

just because the Core rules have combined those two paths of abilities in the Core Bard class doesn't mean I think everyone who plays a Bard like character should be forced to take both of them.

Right. And with ability-chains, it'd be very easy to address this problem. That is, A few of the early Bardic skills would be prerequisite for either the later Combat-Bard or Fascinate-Bard ability chains. (Just like Rage4x might be prerequisite for the continued Rage5x,6x,etc chain *and* for Greater Rage, NoFatigue Rage chain.)

Conversely, there could be more than one option for a prerequisite. That is, an ability chain needn't be a single early ability-chain splitting later into several greater ability-chains. It could sometimes be that a later ability-chain (like DR) could be based on *either* of two+ earlier ability-chain prereqs.

Remember, the idea is just that ability-chains are highly *conceptually* related. That's not something you can always plan for -- players can be ingeniuosly surprising in coming up with coherent concepts you hand't thought of. If one of them included having, say, Evasion (and later on, Improved Evasion), I might allow them to have the Dodge ability-chain as a prereq. *Or* I might allow high reflex as a prereq, or Fast Movement.

I think the best you can plan for, is to have a solid example of a prereq for a later ability-chain, and if the player comes up with something equally good, allow it.

 

[DrSpunj]

ouini, reading back through my responses to SSquirrel I realized that we're taking similar approaches to the class abilities, with some important differences.

I'm basically converting all class abilities into feat paths. I'm trying to link them only when absolutely necessary for the abilities in question, so that if one feat path is appealing to a player they aren't stuck with other, similar but very different, feat paths. For example, the Druid's Wild Shape abilities are a very straightforward feat path. All of her nature abilities (Woodland Stride, Trackless Step, Resist Nature's Lure, Venom Immunity, Animal Companion) are a separate feat path, IMO. The latter makes a lot of sense for any nature-oriented character, while the Wild Shape path may not be what every nature-oriented character is really after.

As we've all said, we're really dumping classes altogether with this system. Can you explain why you feel it's important to keep ability chains separate and distinct from feats & feat paths? What do you think I'm losing (or ignoring? missing?) by turning everything into feat paths?

Just curious!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

Videssian, I completely agree that the groups are a bit too complex and need some work. While I think I understand why UA has so many different groups, I want tinker with them a bit, too.

I like most of ouini's Basic list, mostly because it's what I was thinking of changing it to!

I see the Basic list as a "you can find one of these and play with it growing up if you lived in the Middle Ages" subset of the Simple Weapons outlined in the PHB. To me that would likely mean:

Unarmed Strike, Dagger, Club, Shortspear, Quarterstaff, Dart & Sling.

I can see your points about the handaxe, but I'm not adding it because it's a Martial Weapon. That may seem a bit arbitrary. That's because it is.

I have to disagree about Xbows though. While pointing one and shooting one may not require a lot of training, reloading, dealing with jams, and keeping the thing working beyond that first shot does requires a bit of training. Enough that I think it should remain out of the Basic category.

"Simple Weapons" I'd likely keep the same. As for Martial Weapons, I'd shorten the list, too. Axes Picks & Hammers, Bows, Flails, Swords, Clubs, Pole weapons.

I'd probably go with these:
Basic as above, then Axes, Bows, Claw Weapons, Crossbows, Flails & Chains, Light Blades, Heavy Blades, Maces/Clubs/Picks/Hammers, Polearms/Spears/Lances & Thrown Weapons, with the Exotic Double Weapons & Exotic Weapons on top of that.

I know I didn't shorten their list much, but:

• The Druid & Monk lists are classed based so those go.
• I've not trained with any of these weapons, but how I imagine someone would use a Mace or Club just isn't different enough from a Pick or Hammer to require separate categories.
• Same thing with Polearms, Spears & Lances.
• Claw Weapons & Thrown Weapons are pretty useless unless you take Exotic Weapons, and I personally like that stair step approach to gaining proficiency with those weapons.
• Same thing for double weapons.

Obviously YMMV.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[ouini]

Can you explain why you feel it's important to keep ability chains separate and distinct from feats & feat paths?

Short answer: no.

Or rather, not for any reason important enough to keep the system more (rather than less) complicated. All you gain are two things:
1 - An echo of the classes (in the form of grouped ability-chains), so that it's easier to lump abilities together (prereq-wise) which normally wouldn't go together as prereq feats chains.
2 - That the fighter-feat list stays a known entity: a set list of about four dozen feats which are overwhelmingly (maybe only) useful in combat, which any "fighter" (a class which has ostensibly disappeared) might wish to learn. While there's no doubt some abilities are powerful enough and appropriately-themed (Rage, Sneak Attack) to be on such a list, others are not so black and white. Either they're powerful but not exclusive to fighting (Fast Movement or Wild Shape), or they're exclusive to combat, but arguably require too narrow a character type to make available to all "fighters" (Smite Evil, Ki Strike, even Turn Undead and Inspire Courage). Ability-chains, on the other hand, can be classified as fighting or non-fighting (or better vs. worse) arbitrarily, based essentially on utility.

So to lump them together, the hardest and most time-consuming step (to keep game consistency) would be determining which feats, which used to be non-fighter's feats, should now be considered powerful enough to join the ranks of the "fighter" feats and feat-chains.

 

[SSquirrel]

Heh, glad I managed to help ya realize important points Spunj. This is really getting to the chocolate and peanut butter stage I think. What we should focus on is doing BOTH. Work the system so that it is completely freeform and baalnced, then have examples setup for each class progression. This would allow someone who wanted to easily lok and grab the benefits of a particular class level to do so yet it would also allow someone to make a Wizard with DR, Wild Shaping and Bardic Music.

So maybe we need a separate tab in Excel which shows how each close runs from 1st thru 20th...or even 1 tab for each class.

Oh yeah, in AU there is a Fleet of Foot (or similar name) feat that gives +10 to movement. +10 seems more balanced as a feat than 5' does. So just swap it out straightup.

Morning addition:

New version of the spreadsheet is available here, here and here:

www.giant.net/~hagen/AU_Classes.xls
www.giant.net/~hagen/Core_Classes.xls
www.giant.net/~hagen/Intro_Notes.xls

This takes up the most recent bouts of changes that have been debated recently.

Hagen

 

[DrSpunj]

New version of the spreadsheet is available here, here and here:

Thanks much for hosting the files!

Heh, glad I managed to help ya realize important points Spunj. This is really getting to the chocolate and peanut butter stage I think. What we should focus on is doing BOTH. Work the system so that it is completely freeform and balanced, then have examples setup for each class progression.

That's definitely what I'm working towards.

So maybe we need a separate tab in Excel which shows how each close runs from 1st thru 20th...or even 1 tab for each class.

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.

Now, I'd be happy to hear any criticism on ability->feat prerequisites as I think that's at the heart of any major discrepancies between what ouini's suggesting and what I've come up with. Much of it is very similar already.

On a slightly different note, I've been wondering which method of limiting some repetitive feats is better. Which of the following is easier to understand WRT limiting Sneak Attack:

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.

The former requires a bit of math that ends up being different for most abilities (different formula for Sneak Attack vs Rage vs Wild Shape vs Smite) and allows you to play catch up at later levels. The second doesn't allow catch up buying but requires you to keep track of what level you purchase each feat at.

Personally, I think the second is simpler and quite a bit better overall, and likely worth the extra bookkeeping. I tried to stay away from it, but I kind of had to do that with things like Bardic Lore & Animal Companion already. Opinions?

Oh yeah, in AU there is a Fleet of Foot (or similar name) feat that gives +10 to movement. +10 seems more balanced as a feat than 5' does. So just swap it out straightup.

I agree...which is why I did exactly that for Fast Movement in the Core Classes spreadsheet.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

Short answer: no

Or rather, not for any reason important enough to keep the system more (rather than less) complicated.

Good! Or rather, I'm glad I'm not missing something.

I'm not interested in #1 enough, and #2 isn't distinct enough, IMO, to keep things more complicated.

BTW, this:

...which any "fighter" (a class which has ostensibly disappeared)...

made me chuckle!

So to lump them together, the hardest and most time-consuming step (to keep game consistency) would be determining which feats, which used to be non-fighter's feats, should now be considered powerful enough to join the ranks of the "fighter" feats and feat-chains.

Well, I've tried to do that already, though there are a lot of ways to do the chains and the prereqs and I'm certainly not commited to what I've offered up. Still, it's a place to start if we're looking for common ground.

The thing I ran into was there seemed to be three types of feats when I was trying to organize things:
1) Combat feats
2) Non-Combat feats
3) Non-Combat feats that served as the entry point for a feat path

Now, YMMV, but I felt that feat types #1 & #3 should cost more, hence I gave them the Base cost. #2 I felt shouldn't be as expensive and priced them at the Expansion cost. I ended up using PRIME to distinguish those abilities that were at the front of a distinct feat path.

Overall I think this would be a lot easier to understand if it was laid out according to the Feat table in the PHB or using flowchart diagrams. I may take some time to at least separate the feat chains rather than alphabetizing them like I did before.

Thanks.

DrSpunj