DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet

Okay, I've mailed SSquirrel with the new & improved version! I've added options for a d12 HD, Three Weapon & Armor Proficiency groups as well as 10 SPs/lvl, along with the much requested "Blank" class section at the top of both pages for build-your-own-class tinkering.

I've also rebalanced everything based on some of the feedback I've gotten. While I'm sure others will still disagree with some (or much) of what I have, I'm a lot happier with how things are valued now because it took less tweaking to get all the classes in line better. (I was also able to remove most all of the Restrictions I originally had in there, and at least one I think has to be there so I'm leaving it! :))

Here's some of what I came up while rebalancing things:
  • Defense in D&D is nearly always cheaper than Offense. Look at the cost of Magical enhancements for starters, and it's similar when you look over spells (though often they are equal instead of lower), magic items, etc. When I looked at how I had things before I realized I had valued Attack pretty cheaply (since for 2 CBs you get a full +1 BAB) while Defense was pretty expensive (since for those same 2 CBs you got a one-time +2 bonus at 1st level but then only +1/2 thereafter). So I doubled the cost of Attack to 0-2-4 to at least make them equal (so 1 CB gets you +1/4 of either).
  • I still liked the "linearness" of a lot of what I had, so I kept that whenever it made sense. (It costs you nothing to get 4 SPs/lvl, but getting 6 costs you 1 CB and getting two costs 2 CBs, 10 SPs/lvl (should anyone want to them) would naturally cost 3 CBs. Same with BAB & Proficiency Groups.)
  • I agree with Tessarael thinking 1 Feat was worth about 4 Skill Points. Since I'm basing much of my system on each SP beyond 4/lvl costing 1 CB (like MnM and other systems do that I've seen & liked), that translates nicely into a Feat costing 4 points. Now, I can see an argument that a non-Combat feat should cost 4 because of how Skill Focus and all the Double-Skill feats work, but that didn't work out nearly as well as when General & Combat were valued at 2 & 4, respectively.
  • Originally I had priced Half Magic at only 3 CBs while Combat Feats were 4 CBs. Since there's no way I'd allow someone to take a level Mage Blade magic at the cost of a single Feat I'm not sure what the h311 I was thinking when I came up with those values. I tinkered around with it a bit and ended up with Half magic at 6 CBs and Full magic at 10 CBs. Since 20 levels of what I've labeled as Half magic is actually a bit better than 10 levels of Full magic, I was happy to see things worked out well with 2 Half levels costing a bit more than 1 Full level. (Hope that made sense! :p)
  • As always, since this is extremely subjective, YMMV! Have a nice day. :)

Ugh, I just realized I didn't adjust my commentary appropriately on the "Notes" page after rebalancing things. Since I need to finish prepping for my game tonight I'll try and get to that tomorrow. SSquirrel, I'll mail it to you as soon as I have it, but that shouldn't affect the real functionality of the spreadsheet at all so please put up the new version, perhaps with another link in your post, as soon as you're able.

Thanks!

DrSpunj
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Well, I've had a chance to look it over more completely. It's a great tool, especially with the d12 and other extensions (thanks again!), though I'm sure I'll completely revamp the costs.
  • The skills cost, I like. As others have noted, it seems a good baseline for each SP beyond 4/lvl costing 1 CB. The original hit die costs, I like (d6 free, d8 costs 2, d10 costs 4...) The BAB cost, too, was good. All these things are good, because the math is pretty straightforward, whether you're buying a "class" as a whole, or if you're buying bonuses a la carte at each level.
  • The save bonuses, then, are tricky. Yes, they can be bought a la carte, where you get .33 each level, and can pay to increase by .4 or .5 instead if you like. But that's hard math for many gamers (tracking three values which might soon add up to 2.56 or 1.73, or some such). It works out pretty close if either A) each +1 simply costs a single amount, probably 2, or B) each +1 costs 3, but you get a free +1 in one save at every level.
  • Presently, I value feats at much higher costs than skills. For instance, to me, the ever-popular non-combat feat which gives you +2 in two different skills should be worth certainly no fewer than four times as much as a skill point. However, I value it even higher than that, since it allows players to exceed the level-cap for skills (you always pay a premium to be ahead of the learning-curve). I'm working with numbers, but presently I'm trying out non-com feats at 5, and combat feats at 8 or so. DrSpunj, do you have a rule-of-thumb for why you figure some feats and special abilities are combat feats, and others aren't?
  • Defense I'm getting rid of entirely for now. It may be a great mechanic, but I'm completely unfamiliar with its specifics. I agree, though, that defense is almost always cheaper than offense.
  • Restrictions, I agree, should be assigned point costs ahead of time when possible. Some of the more common ones (armor-limited casting, metal-wearing, alignment restrictions) especially. Most others, I think, can often be worked out between GM and player during creation.
  • A lot of the sheet, I admit, I'm lost on. I'm not familiar with any of the non-core classes, or Monte's magic system ... is there a link?. Regardless, I 'get' the idea of half and full magic levels, the costs of which I'm playing with (6 and 12, for now).

Thanks again, both Slappy and DrSpunj ... this is a great tinker tool.
 

ouini said:
A lot of the sheet, I admit, I'm lost on. I'm not familiar with any of the non-core classes, or Monte's magic system ... is there a link?. Regardless, I 'get' the idea of half and full magic levels, the costs of which I'm playing with (6 and 12, for now).

Thanks again, both Slappy and DrSpunj ... this is a great tinker tool.
Hey I just host it *grin*

www.montecook.com and look in the older design diary entries for lots of AU info. Also you can search kazaa for "way of the sword" or "way of the staff" which are the combat and magic classes and magic system specifically in pdf.

Heck there are whole versions of the AU book, illegally of course. I highly reccomend checking the stuff out, then if you don't like it delete it. if you like it, delete it and buy AU as it's a truly fabulous setting and system.

Hagen

Hagen
 

ouini said:
Well, I've had a chance to look it over more completely. It's a great tool, especially with the d12 and other extensions (thanks again!), though I'm sure I'll completely revamp the costs.

Somehow I figured you would. :lol:

And your welcome! I was really hoping you, of all people, would enjoy messing around with it. :)

ouini said:
The skills cost, I like. As others have noted, it seems a good baseline for each SP beyond 4/lvl costing 1 CB. The original hit die costs, I like (d6 free, d8 costs 2, d10 costs 4...) The BAB cost, too, was good. All these things are good, because the math is pretty straightforward, whether you're buying a "class" as a whole, or if you're buying bonuses a la carte at each level.

By "original HD costs" do you mean what we'd priced them at when we were working on this together over a year ago? 'Cuz now I believe I have them at 0-1-2-3 for a d6-d8-d10-d12; I'm probably going to stick with those. Why? Because you gain, on average, a single Hit Point by increasing your HD size one step. I personally don't feel a single HP, on average, should cost more than a single CB, even if you can potentially roll something much greater than that (because it could also be much less ;)).

You may remember that I'm not fond of "random ability scores" and "random hit point rolls"; they are the only random things about character generation and levelling. There are so many other places in the game where d20 randomness is welcome and a much-needed factor.

However, missing a few attack rolls or saves during a session only very rarely drastically alters the "fun-ness" and playability of a character (and many/most of those save-or-die situations have been addressed with the 3.5 revision already), but when rolling for abilities and HPs while levelling a few poor rolls can dramatically impact whatever concept a player is working towards. And this can work both ways; remember "Astronaut" & Meeshka which definitely colored the tenor of our playgroup, and not usually in a good way.

ouini said:
The save bonuses, then, are tricky. Yes, they can be bought a la carte, where you get .33 each level, and can pay to increase by .4 or .5 instead if you like. But that's hard math for many gamers (tracking three values which might soon add up to 2.56 or 1.73, or some such). It works out pretty close if either A) each +1 simply costs a single amount, probably 2, or B) each +1 costs 3, but you get a free +1 in one save at every level.

I remember this being troublesome for us back when as well. If you can figure out a flat cost to buy them at +1 each, then I'd love to see it. However, these fractional bonuses from UA are what got me working on this whole classless generation system again.

From a design standpoint, I really like the fact that everything continues to improve based on your character level, but you have to pay to get something better. Even in the Core rules the worst you can do is a Commoner; at every level you can do no worse than: d4, poor BAB, poor Fort/Refl/Will saves, 2 SPs/lvl, no Feats, no Magic. I like how that is mirrored with the system I've laid out. If you don't want to spend any points on buffing your Reflex save, fine, you'll still end up with +6 at 20th level just like you would in Core.

For that reason, I'd prefer to go with your option B, and I remember looking at this before. With only one good save over all 20 levels you'd end up with +12, +6 & +6 for a total of +24, however you got a +2 bonus at 1st level on your good save, so you're only "paying" for +22. That's only slightly different than getting a free +2 at 1st level and then a free +1 for the next 19 levels, totaling +21.

So it'd probably work. I'm just not sure it's worth it. You have a good point that you may have to do fractional math for each save every time you level, but that's not an overly significant burden, IMO, even for someone who's scared of the calculator. After all, there's a fair amount of work involved whenever you level between Ability point allocation q4, SPs distribution, Feat choice & Magic/Spells. Doing a little bit of math and then rounding it down isn't unreasonable, IMO, especially since you only have to keep track of the total of each save on your character sheet, and not how you got there (though if I use this worksheet IMC I'll probably be providing people with a blank worksheet of some kind so we can see how they've allocated their points at each level).

ouini said:
Presently, I value feats at much higher costs than skills. For instance, to me, the ever-popular non-combat feat which gives you +2 in two different skills should be worth certainly no fewer than four times as much as a skill point. However, I value it even higher than that, since it allows players to exceed the level-cap for skills (you always pay a premium to be ahead of the learning-curve). I'm working with numbers, but presently I'm trying out non-com feats at 5, and combat feats at 8 or so.

See, to me being "ahead of the learning curve" is spending enough CBs on Skill Points to max out those particular skills in the first place, then actually spending more CBs on the General Feat to improve them further. You've already paid a significant cost in my mind by allocating all those CBs to this particular skill set. Penalizing you even further for the choice you've made of not putting those CBs elsewhere is, IMO, ... mean. Sorry! :heh:

Having said that, I can see that valuing the "+2 to 2 skills" feat at anything less than what it costs to actually buy 2 ranks in 2 skills is counterproductive, as the munchkins of the world would simply buy the Feat instead of actual skill ranks to save CBs. Since I, too, like the 1 CB = 1 SP cost we've got going, along with the fact that the "+2 to 2 skills" are General Feats to me, that means General Feats need to be priced at 4, meaning Combat Feats are probably worth 6 or 8, pushing Half and Full Magic up to something much greater than the cost I've allocated now.

Ugh. I think this is what starts to bother me with this system. Saying you have 23 CBs at 1st level and 17 to spend at each later level isn't so intimidating. But somehow it just seems more daunting when you're up to allocating 40-50 pts at 1st level and 30-40 for later levels. Bleah. :\

ouini said:
DrSpunj, do you have a rule-of-thumb for why you figure some feats and special abilities are combat feats, and others aren't?

Any time a feat/ability gives a substantial benefit in combat (even if only situational) I chose to make it a Combat Feat. Skill-related feats/abilities are almost always General Feats (I'd say always 'cuz I can't think of a situation where it'd be Combat, but there's probably one out there). Spell-related and Metamagic are almost always Combat, while Item Creation would usually be General.

As I said in the sheet, the best example I can think of is Woodland Stride. While it does increase your speed traveling cross-country, it is a dramatic bonus when fighting in undergrowth (just ask our Human Druid during a night battle with Orcs!), so to me it's a Combat Feat. Trackless Step, OTOH, may be helpful at avoiding a battle entirely, but doesn't do anything significant in the midst of one (that I've thought of) so it's a General Feat.

ouini said:
Defense I'm getting rid of entirely for now. It may be a great mechanic, but I'm completely unfamiliar with its specifics. I agree, though, that defense is almost always cheaper than offense.

Yeah, it's not for everyone, and now that I've (hopefully) fixed the sheets properly, putting '0's in there for everything shouldn't detract anything.

ouini said:
Restrictions, I agree, should be assigned point costs ahead of time when possible. Some of the more common ones (armor-limited casting, metal-wearing, alignment restrictions) especially. Most others, I think, can often be worked out between GM and player during creation.

I'm still not sure what I'll do with those if faced with a request for one or more of them for my campaign this summer. Guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I am now pretty firmly convinced that an ability like ignoring Arcane Spell Failure as a Divine Caster in a campaign that doesn't recognize Arcane vs Divine magic is...something that needs to be worked out with the DM. ;)

ouini said:
A lot of the sheet, I admit, I'm lost on. I'm not familiar with any of the non-core classes, or Monte's magic system ... is there a link?. Regardless, I 'get' the idea of half and full magic levels, the costs of which I'm playing with (6 and 12, for now).

I'm afraid not, and I don't want to upset anyone by publically posting copyrighted material, but I'll try and email it to you personally if I get the chance soon. I can, though, safely outline what he does with his magic system since you're not familiar with it.

All spellcasters use the same spell list, and like Core divine casters they potentially have access to every spell on that list. I say potentially because the spells are separated into Simple, Complex & Exotic spell categories.

If you can cast spells of a given Spell level, then you can cast any Simple spell of that level. To cast the Complex spells of a given level you have to take the Complex Spell Feat for that level of spells (look at the sheet, the Magister gets this for "free" in AU since he's the big-wig caster, hence my giving him that Combat Feat at every odd level when he gains access to a new level of spells). Exotic spells, OTOH, are so special and unique that each exotic spell requires you to take the Exotic Spell feat. They are meant to be signature spells so carry a significant cost.

The AU magic system only recognizes two kinds of casters: those with a slower spell progression and those with a faster spell progression. The slower spell progression tops out with access to 7th level spells with fewer spells cast and readied per day while the faster progression reaches 9th level spells and has more spells cast and readied per day. So while each magic-using class has tables in their class description for spells cast per day and spells readied per day, there are truly only two sets of tables being used; one for the slower classes and one for the faster classes.

So all casters have access to the same spell list like a Core Divine caster. They all have a limited number of "slots" castable per day like a Sorcerer, that reset after a good night's rest. However, any time they spend an hour in meditation they can "ready" a certain number of spells for each level; how many is delineated in the the "Spells Readied at One Time" table. As long as they have the proper level slot available they can cast any of the spells of that level that they've readied.

To further add some flexibility you can "weave" and "unweave" spell slots. By combining three slots of a lower level you can weave a single slot of the next higher level (so 3 unused 1st level slots can be weaved into a single 2nd level slot, and if you had 2 other 2nd level slots available you could further weave all 3 of them into a single 3rd level slot). Unweaving wastes some spell energy, so you only get 2 lower level slots when you unweave a higher level slot (and you can't further unweave those new lower level slots to prevent a 20th level caster from having over a hundred 1st level magic missile slots! ;)). Obviously with "un/weaving" available you can't use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell like a Sorcerer can in the Core rules.

Hope that helps.

Thanks.

DrSpunj
 

Looks interesting. ;)

Only one comment for now: After "DrSpunj rebalancing", the fighter still is at the bottom of the pack. Why?
 

Nail said:
Looks interesting. ;)

I wondered when you'd drop by. I didn't think your "Yahoo woes" would affect your ability to contribute here on EN World. :)

Nail said:
Only one comment for now: After "DrSpunj rebalancing", the fighter still is at the bottom of the pack. Why?

See my "Notes" box at the far right hand side, but briefly: because depending on the concept I'd put the couple CBs he has leftover to use in different places.

The averages at the top show, at the current values, all classes should get ~22-23 CBs at 1st level and ~17 CBs for levels 2-20. That means the Fighter has 2 CBs leftover to use however he sees fit depending on the concept

If I was building a Tank, I'd likely skip the Fighter build entirely and use the Warmain build. If a Swashbuckler I'd go for Unfettered. If trying to build an Archer I'd push his Reflex up to Good for a CB/level and use the remaining CB wherever I needed (probably buying proficiencies, or extra feats every few levels, or whatever).

The Fighter is still the most versatile combat class out there with this system. I want to keep him that way. :)

Thanks.

DrSpunj
 

Sure! Ftrs should be fun to play....and be a legitimate class at higher levels.

But: Sticking with Core Rules (that is, excluding AU classes or UA defence bonus; I'm just not familiar enough with these to contribute meaningfully), how could a fighter become a balanced class, using your spreadsheet as a guide?
 
Last edited:

Nail said:
But: Sticking with Core Rules (that is, excluding AU classes or UA defence bonus; I'm just not familiar enough with these to contribute meaningfully), how could a fighter become a balanced class, using your spreadsheet as a guide?

Hmmm. Maybe it'd be best if I separated the AU & Core classes, gave each of them their own page. Regardless, the process is the same. Here's what I do:

1) Focus on the very top of the sheet and set the values for various HD types, BAB & Save progressions, SPs/lvl, etc. to whatever you feel is about right.

2) Check out the 1st level and All level Averages computed in the upper right of the sheet and keep them in mind.

3) Scan down to the classes you're interested in and take note of how that class compares (at 1st level and then all levels) to the averages for all classes.

4) If it's significantly different, figure out why. If you're happy with how most of the classes come out at a particular set of values, but one or more classes are way too low or way too high, figure out why. Is it because they get magic? Too many feats? Not enough of something? Do you agree that, based on your experience with Core classes, the class actually is over/under-powered so the point system is just reflecting an imbalance inherent in the system?

5) Then take that analysis and head back to the top of sheet. Adjust any values you think need adjusting. Rinse & Repeat until you're happy with how things look.

6) Once you've got your values set, find a class that comes in too low or too high. For me, no matter how I value things, the Fighter always comes out low and the Druid always comes out high. Figure out what you'd add or subtract from a class to make it more balanced and get it's total closer to the averages for all classes. I recommend you do this on a copy of the Near-Core sheet so you don't overwrite something you may want to look back at later.

I know you've got some opinions on some classes being over or under powered relative to all the others. Most everyone does. This spreadsheet just tries to help you figure out why the difference exists and give you a means of rebalancing them according to a somewhat objective system. It's true that the values are completely arbitrary, but they should be meaningful to you, even if I don't happen to agree with them.

Right now I'm starting where ouini's starting: 1 SP/lvl beyond the 4 everyone gets is worth 1 CB. As in my posts above, that pretty much dictates the value of a General Feat (+2 to 2 skills like Alertness = 4 SPs) being 4. Now it's tougher.

How much would you pay for a Combat Feat if a General Feat is worth 4? Do you think it should be double, so 8? Somewhere in between, so 6? 7?

Once you've got that, how much should Half magic cost? Another way to ask that is: How many Combat Feats should a level of Half magic cost?

And since 20 levels of Half magic get you 7th level spells, while 10 levels of Full magic only get you 5th level spells, how much more expensive should 2 levels of Half magic be compared to 1 level of Full magic?

I'm still doing a lot of tinkering, but I believe I'm getting closer and closer. The "combo" classes, those with a number of Abilities/Feats as well as some Magic, are proving to be the toughest to balance. Since I don't believe they're vastly over/under-powered compared to the straight Fighter/Ability types or the casters, I'm trying to find a set of values that keeps their Class Averages reasonable while at the same time keeps both extremes (the Fighter and the Sor/Wiz, usually) from being too far off.

It's coming slowly, but it's not easy. Good luck! :)

Thanks.

DrSpunj
 

Okay, I think I've got it! At least for me... ;)

Here's how I valued things for anyone who cares:
HD: d6 - 0, d8 - 2, d10 - 4, d12 - 6
BAB: Poor - 0, Average - 2, Good - 4
Defense/Saves: Poor - 0, Average - 1, Good -2
SPs/Lvl: 4 - 0, 6 - 2, 8 - 4, 10 - 6
Weapon/Armor Group Proficiencies: One - 2, Two - 4, Three - 6
Special Abilities: General Feat - 4, Combat Feat - 7
Magic: Half - 9, Full - 14
Restrictions: Minor - -2, Major - -4

Many of the classes required little to no work at all, while those that needed more were mostly limited to shifting around when they got their abilities (and that was usually only one level earlier or later than what's printed). I did have to consolidate some abilities here and there but either without a change in power or, if necessary, a slight boost in the player's favor.

Anyone else care to share what they've come up with?

Thanks.

DrSpunj
 

Remove ads

Top