DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet

[DrSpunj]

- Good work, Spunj! It looks like you worked out a lot of the earlier kinks, and extended the scope and useability of the chart remarkably.

Thanks! I was very pleasantly surprised after reading through Unearthed Arcana and combining it with what I already liked from Monte's AU that most of our stumbling blocks had been fixed for us. I then simply broke down the various class attributes into categories and "levels of power" (like a BAB having Poor @ +1/2, Average @ +3/4 and Good @ +1). Building the Excel spreadsheet was the most time-consuming part. I really wish I knew how to make "cell menus" to clean it up a lot. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

- Being in an archaic 3E campaign, myself, I don't know what a defense bonus is. Quick explanation?

It's just what it sounds like, a class ability that increases with level to defend against attacks by adding to your AC, just the opposite of your BAB. There are, however, a lot of variations. In WoT, for instance, it doesn't stack with Armor, it's one or the other, so the values tend to be a bit higher. In others they do stack so the defense bonuses tend to be lower. Some give the Fighter a high defense bonus since he's a combat master, others give him a low bonus because he's trained to shrug off blows with his armor, not dancing around in combat to avoid them completely. Most everyone agrees a Monk should have a high (if not the best) defense bonus while Mages should get the least. The other classes fit somewhere in between.

Me? I very much like the idea of a swashbuckler-type, unarmored Fighter. To get that I think I'm forced into making Armor & the Defense Bonus overlap insead of Stack. I like several things about this.

• Most importantly, it allows the generation of two distinct Fighters, very similar to Monte's Unfettered & Warmain; the Swashbuckler/Duelist and the Turtle/Tank. The former is at least viable at low levels under this system.
• Even the Tank gets some benefit if ambushed in camp when not in his/her armor and doesn't have the several requisite minutes to don it, hastily or normally.
• By using whichever one is better for any given situation, the Tank can benefit again when faced with incorporeal foes that ignore their Armor bonuses or when trying to avoid Touch attacks.

That third point has a caveat: Your Armor Check Penalty reduces your Defense Bonus. Why? Because otherwise the Tank gets the best of both worlds at all times. If you subtract the ACP from the Defense Bonus, then he's paying a real price to his Defense Bonus for the benefit of Armor and whatever magical enhancements it may offer.

- Along the same lines, I can guess in general terms what the Weapon Group Variant is about, but where can I find specifics?

CRG has it again, but the basics are pretty simple. Basic Weapons only include a small handful of weapons. IDHMBIFOM but IIRC they're Quarterstaff, Club, Xbow and one or two others.

If you want proficiency with any other weapon you have to get that "group". Some examples are Punching Weapons (Punching Dagger, Gauntlet), Spears, Polearms, Swords, etc. There are only two Exotic Weapon Proficiency groups in this system (I can't remember their names or distinctions, anyone wanna help here? I remember it being different than Monte's Heavy & Agile/Ranged grouping), and each of them give you potential access to a large variety of Exotic Weapons. I say potentially because you also need to have the Weapon Proficiency Group for similar weapons. For instance, to become proficient with the Dwarven Urgrosh you need to have the Axe & Spear groups (so you can use both ends) as well as one of the Exotic Weapon groups (so you can use it as a double weapon).

- I haven't tried any tweaking, yet, but was the general idea when assigning these values to find out how much should be assigned to each class to have them come out being worth the same, or were these values previously arrived at by Monte or some other person/thread?

The values on the Near-Core sheet are all mine. I made them up. I tried to think about relative worth between attributes and used existing Core Feats as guidelines (for instance, Dodge is effectively the same as +1 Defense, while Weapon Focus is a limited +1 BAB, and Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes give +2 to a single save, so the cost of a Combat Feat should be similar, etc.) but in essence I just played with them in several ways to get something I liked.

You'll note with a bit of study they are all linear progressions. I like the fact that half again as many skill points cost half again as much, and twice as many skill points cost twice as much. Same with with BAB. Defense bonus seemed like it should be the same as BAB, IMO. Saves could arguably be less, but since you can't easily get below 0, 1 & 2 you'd have to increase all the other attribute values to make Saves worth less (not a big deal, but maybe not so intuitive for someone looking at the sheet for the first time).

As I've said here and in the sheet itself I do not believe I've found the perfect values, and that's why I'm looking for feedback.

I personally think one level of magic (half or full) is worth more than a single Combat feat (and the Core rules support that opinion since you can't buy any more than a single spell known or cast per day with a feat). I think a Combat feat is worth more than a General feat. Obviously the Mage Blade's (like a Bard's spell progression) spells readied & spells per day that I've labeled as "Half" should be worth less than the Magister (like a Wiz/Sor's spell progression) spells readied & per day that I've labeled "Full", even if you don't feel the cost for the former should be literally half of the cost for the latter.

This last I ask because I don't think the main beef -- the fighter being undervalued unless feats are added -- is a real beef if, say, hit dice or BAB were worth more, or the fighter somehow pays for his proficiencies at each level he uses them. (Or barring that, the fighter buys a few more weapons and armor at higher levels, once he can financially afford them.)

Absolutely, and if you come up with a different set of values for all the attributes that arrive at most classes being very close to the average values, PLEASE share them! I realize it's not going to be exact because of the default changes I've already implemented into the spreadsheet (like no more 2 SPs/lvl).

Even if you can't, I'd be interested in your opinions (and anyone else's) on why one particular attribute should be valued more or less than another attribute.

Realize, though, that I'm expecting the Fighter (and most other classes) to have to buy more proficiency groups (both Weapon & Armor) as their character level increases. So as I have set things up on my sheet the Fighter uses an average of 13.2 (I think) CBs from levels 2-20. That leaves him with nearly 16 CBs over 20 levels if every gets 14 CBs per level to distribute. That translates into 8 General feats (at a cost of 2 each) which can buy him 8 additional proficiency groups over and above the 2 Weapon & 2 Armor groups he starts with at 1st level. If that's where you want to spend your points, more power to you. You've got them.

Most every other class works that way as well. Since the average for all classes came up at ~13+, it's better to round up to 14 to account for needing to buy extra proficiency groups as General Feats. You aren't going to have them at your early levels unless that's how you choose to spend your points. Again, more power to you (and your character concept!).

But hey, with the spreadsheet as versatile as it is, that's not even a real issue! I can just assign my own experimental values until I find something that works for me!

Right! And then share them!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

EDIT: I see DrSpunj's explanation is that you always round down, but add in the 0.33 immediately at 1st level. Though this gives the exact same results for all three categories, it is more consistent with 3E's "always round down" rule.

I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not, so I'll be explicit. The spreadsheet labels for those columns should read as: Poor = 0+(0.33*Level); Average = 1+(0.4*Level); Good = 2+(0.5*Level).

So at 1st level the values for Poor, Average, Good would actually be 0.33, 1.4 & 2.5; rounded down you get +0, +1, +2.

At 20th level you get 6.66, 9 & 12; rounded down you get +6, +9, +12.

I looked at these formulas very carefully many months ago, then just incorporated them exactly as I had them in my notes, so I apologize if I've miscalculated. Hopefully the confusion stems from me just being unclear as to what I've done (and have now corrected that! ).

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[ouini]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Right. I originally read them as
Poor = 0 at 1st level, +0.33 per subsequent Level
Average = 1 at 1st, +0.4 per subsequent Level
Good = 2 at 1st, +0.5 per subsequent Level

...which, rounding up for .5 and above, works out exactly the same.

 

[DrSpunj]

...which, rounding up for .5 and above, works out exactly the same.

Ah! Very close, but I don't think exactly. For instance, at level 2 a Poor save would be .66. With my version you still get +0, while yours would round up to +1. I believe under Core that should be +0 at 2nd level, but I haven't checked (though I'll try and do so tonight).

EDIT: Nevermind, figured it out on the way home. Your formula at 2nd level would yield 0+0.33 = 0.33, which would round down to +0. At 3rd level it'd be .66 which would round up to +1. I should've known to trust you with the math, ouini.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Tessarael]

I had a quick look at it.

In my opinion, you need to include d12 HD and try to balance the core classes. e.g. Barbarian really needs d12 HD to be balanced vs. Fighter in my opinion.

Here's what I see as the core cost decisions you need to make:
+4 skill points
+1 BAB
+1 feat
+5 HP
+1 spellcasting level Cleric
+1 spellcasting level Druid
+1 spellcasting level Wizard
+1 spellcasting level Sorcerer

Based on discussions on Sean Reynold's boards, and my own attempts to balance things, I'd suggest that +5 HP, +4 skill points, and +1 feat are all about the same value. +1 BAB is worth more than this baseline, because Weapon Focus is a feat giving +1 to hit, but not as good as +1 BAB.

+1 Cleric spellcasting level has to be worth much less than +1 Wizard spellcasting level, if you assume that Wizard and Cleric are balanced. However, they're not - Clerics are generally considered better. This is a 3.0E and 3.5E design problem.

A useful comparison point: Wizard vs. Fighter. Fighter gets +10 BAB, 6 more feats, and 60 more HP than Wizard - Wizard gets Summon Familiar (worth a feat or two at most) and 20 Wizard spellcasting levels. (Oh and I'm forgetting Fighter weapon, shield and armor feats - but these are front-loaded => easy to get with a prestige class for a Wizard at later levels.)

You could just argue that Sorcerers are underpowered vs. a Wizard specialist, and give them those extra 5 feats.

This still leaves Cleric as more powerful than the other classes (in terms of "feat cost equivalent"), unless you make Cleric spellcasting worth much less than Wizard.

Other comments: Don't use roleplaying restrictions to balance class mechanics. i.e. I wouldn't give Paladin or Cleric any extra points. Sean Reynold's has a long rant on this sort of thing, and you'll notice that Unearthed Arcana Paladin variants and Arcana Unearthed Champions have a fair range of different alignment options, without it weakening the characters notably.

You've over-priced Bard. Bards are weaker than the other classes. Again, try to get the core classes balanced as they are currently (with tweaks if you think one class is more powerful than another).

Argh, it's a mess. I more or less gave up on a point build system. It's very hard to do, without changing the classes and some of the core mechanics for spellcasting.

Just my muddled thoughts ...

 

[DrSpunj]

I had a quick look at it.
<snip>
Just my muddled thoughts ...

Thanks!

And they match a lot of mine, at least those that I've read about and/or experienced first hand at the gaming table.

I won't go through point by point but I would like to say I agree with much of what you said. Disagree with some, too, but that's to be expected with this many variables.

I agree the Bard is weak, I agree that the Cleric is more powerful and the Sorcerer needs to be tuned up.

The thing is, for me and my campaign, I'm dumping the Core magic system. As you said, it's flawed and difficult to balance. Monte's is so much cleaner and, IMO, more elegant that I won't have a "standard" Cleric IMC. I still plan on having something close; a class that offers Full magic and a few Domains (taken as Feat equivalents) and Turning Undead will be available (though I'll have to tweak it since there are no divine levels to measure it against).

So I have the same cost on the spreadsheet for +1 spellcasting level of Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers & Wizards. It's whatever you value a Full magic at. Like a Magister, for the Complex spells and Exotic ones, it'll cost you some Feats.

And I totally agree about not using roleplaying restrictions for mechanical gain. The problem is, the Core rules have already done that, IMO. If the DM doesn't hold the Cleric to their deity's wishes, I hope you'd admit they get more mechanical bang for their buck than most any other class! Oathsworn, too, gets a lot, though I'm not at all convinced they're overpowered as I haven't played one or seen one in play yet. It's not such a big deal with a Paladin or a Druid, but the restrictions are built into the Core rules set, and I have to assume the designers balanced the classes the way they did with those roleplaying restrictions in mind.

Thanks alot for the feedback! I appreciate it.

DrSpunj

 

[Tessarael]

The thing is, for me and my campaign, I'm dumping the Core magic system. As you said, it's flawed and difficult to balance. Monte's is so much cleaner and, IMO, more elegant that I won't have a "standard" Cleric IMC.
[..]
Oathsworn, too, gets a lot, though I'm not at all convinced they're overpowered as I haven't played one or seen one in play yet. It's not such a big deal with a Paladin or a Druid, but the restrictions are built into the Core rules set, and I have to assume the designers balanced the classes the way they did with those roleplaying restrictions in mind.

Using Arcana Unearthed's magic system makes your life a lot easier. The classes that get full spellcasting only get BAB +1/2, so that makes it a lot easier to cost spellcasting levels vs. BAB. In that case, I think a point system like you want is doable and quite worthwhile.

One thing I think you need to add to Arcana Unearthed's magic system is a feat for spontaneous casting of healing spells. Other than that, it shouldn't be too hard to cost - Magister gets the complex spell feat for each spell level; Greenbond's access to all Plant and Positive Energy spells is a feat (or two at most); etc.

Without roleplaying restrictions, I don't think Druids or Oathsworn are overpowered. And we agree regards Clerics. Paladins can be overpowered if you have high abilities - that uncapped CHA bonus to saves is really nice. Same deal with Monks getting a WIS bonus to AC - if they have great DEX, WIS, STR, and CON ... something is wrong (DEX, STR, CON, CHA for Paladin).

I did an Arcana Unearthed mini-campaign. I generated all the characters. The Oathsworn really didn't seem that great compared to any of the tanks, and couldn't match Akashic or Rogue for skills either ... so I think Oathsworn are probably ok.

Regards balance of Clerics in 3E ... frankly, I think the game designers had legacy issues with AD&D, which prevented them being balanced vs. Wizard. i.e. the d8 HD, 2/3 BAB in AD&D. Wizard spells got nerfed a little in 3E, Cleric spells improved, and a disparity results.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[DrSpunj]

Using Arcana Unearthed's magic system makes your life a lot easier. The classes that get full spellcasting only get BAB +1/2, so that makes it a lot easier to cost spellcasting levels vs. BAB. In that case, I think a point system like you want is doable and quite worthwhile.

I hope so. As you pointed out before, one of the biggest questions becomes how much to value a "Magister's worth" of spellcasting, or what I've chosen to label Full.

The Magister has all those Complex Spell Feats floating around (technically two at first level, for Cantrips & 1st level spells, that I just rolled into a single feat to keep the point spread reasonable).

The Greenbond gets Full magic as well, but doesn't benefit from the 9 Complex Spell bonus feats. Instead she gets the Infuse & Greenbond abilities (which I'm not sure how to truly convert into feats yet). She also gets the Plant & Positive spell access. I've chosen to make that two separate feats, just to keep things clean, but I'm giving Positive spell access back to the Blessed Mage feat.

[Sidetrack]If you look at the Corrupt Mage and Blessed Mage feats they are not nearly equal and opposite. The former grants access to Complex/Exotic spells with the negative energy descriptor while the latter does not do this for spells with the positive energy descriptor. Why? Monte, in an interview, said there were no balance issues with it either way, but he wanted to keep Positive Energy spells only accessible to the Greenbond, to keep them unique. Since I'm breaking things down into components I'm going the other way, so someone building a Greenbond from scratch IMC will end up taking the Blessed Mage feat to get access to Positive spells.[/Sidetrack]

Anyway, to get back to how much Full magic is worth, my version of a Wizard or Sorcerer is so similar to that of the Magister that I've pretty much dropped both classes entirely. The only real unique thing about them, Familiars, is easily replaced with a single Feat that scales up according to your Caster Level. Improved Familiar is a second feat that just has Familiar as a prereq. That way if someone really wanted one they could have both a Staff & a Familiar. Whatever.

So originally I had chosen to value Full magic a bit higher, I think at 8 CBs, and Half magic at 4 CBs. While that worked fairly well with the AU classes, it ended up making the Core casting classes look a bit too powerful for my tastes. It widened the gap between the casters and the non-casters beyond what I thought was representative of my time tableside seeing them all in play over the last 3+ years.

And, getting back to your comment above, the Cleric & Druid enjoy a +3/4 BAB along with Full magic access. It's true that BAB could be weighed more heavily, and that might help fix the discrepancy between casters & non-casters, but the Cleric & Druid get pushed further & further towards the top of the pile. This worsens quite a more if you don't recognize any Restrictions in place, giving them even higher totals. Now, as I said before, they may actually deserve to be at the top of the list as far as power goes, but how much more (and what to take away to make them more balanced) I'm not sure about.

One thing that just occured to me: the Druid's Wildshape times per day could be reworked & consolidated into 3 Combat Feats (at +2x/day) instead of 6 which it is currently (at +1x/day). I base that upon the Extra Wild Shape feat in MotW. Same could be done with Rage. Hmm....

More random thoughts and ramblings in general.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Abisashi]

If/when you get around to fixing the spreadsheet, you should note that Defense bonus is calculating off of BAB (row 4, where it should be 5).

If you don't want to use class defense bonus, just set all three to 0 (which is how I noticed the above bug.)

Thanks! I'll definitely tinker around with this.

 

[DrSpunj]

If/when you get around to fixing the spreadsheet, you should note that Defense bonus is calculating off of BAB (row 4, where it should be 5).

Yep! Thanks. Just figured that out for myself last night, and have already updated one of the two calculating sheets accordingly (along with the d12, a blank "Build-Your-Own-PC" work area, the possibility of 10 SPs/lvl as well as 3 Prof groups for Weapons & Armor). Stupid copy/paste errors with all those blasted '$'s!

As soon as I'm able to finish adjusting/correcting the other sheet I'll send a new copy to SSquirrel and ask him to post here when it's available for download.

If you don't want to use class defense bonus, just set all three to 0 (which is how I noticed the above bug.)

Actually, to get the effect you're describing, you'll need to enter 'Poor' in there, which will get you a value of '0'. I didn't notice it before because until last night I always valued BAB and Defense Bonus equally, which also works.

Thanks! I'll definitely tinker around with this.

Good. Please post if you find any more problems and/or work out a better value system.

Doing some more tinkering of my own, I tried pushing BAB to 0-2-4 (twice as much as I had listed before) and Magic to 0-6-10 (a definite step up from 0-3-6). I did the latter instead of 0-5-10 because I was trying to better balance (at Tessarael's suggestion) all the Half magic classes. I *think* it closed some of the disparity gap between casters & non-casters, but I still had to leave the Restrictions in there, otherwise Druids, Clerics, Monks & Oathsworn had too much "point-bloat" compared to the other classes.

Grrr!

Thanks.

DrSpunj