question on analyzing character classes

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Thinking too hard about fantasy is bad. -- Hong's Third Law

Yeah, it's unfortunate that all the fun stuff is so bad for you

 

[Taren Nighteyes]

Breaking down a character class into a point buy system isn't so easy or straight forward.

Synergies exist between certain class abilities and whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Someone should design a "Class Building Engine", where based on what you've bought so far, the values of the synergistic feats/powers/etc increase in cost.

Extremely complication, but it would be the only close to "balanced" way to do it.

This "Class Building Engine" would also have to value the negatives in the same manner (armour restrictions, etc).

Taren Nighteyes

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's largely an excersise in futility.

The only way you can see how these balance out is by playtesting them -- the same way you can see how CR's and ECL's are done. You can't point-buy/min-max it. It's all about perceptions and eyeballing.

To take those extra skill points at first level as a rogue, what are you giving up? At first, just a few cantrips and magic missle, really. But eventually, 9th level magic...are a few extra skill points worth not being able to cast wish?

It depends upon the campaign, the character concept, exactly how important to you having a lot of skills is, etc.

It's an eyeball. It just so happens that the core classes are the best-balanced things I've seen in D&D since...well...never. Heck, even compared to the few other systems I've tried. Just because, if you want skill points, a rogue is better to take at first level than any other class, doesn't mean that it's unbalanced.

After all, think of what the "time before 1st level" represents -- training. Training as a rogue emphasises skills. Training as a Sorcerer emphasises wieldin' magic and cleanin' out your familiar's cage.

So....yeah....not so much imbalance. I don't see everyone takin' Rogue at first level, so I don't think it's a problem so much, ya?

 

[hong]

Yeah, it's unfortunate that all the fun stuff is so bad for you

You haven't been online long, have you?

I can tell.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Re

The majority of classes are fairly balanced from 1st level on except for the ranger. The 1st level ranger obtains free two-weapon fighting. It is much better to take one level of ranger for any lightly armored fighter-type than to try to purchase the feats later. That is the only major imbalance in my opinion.

You could equally say "the 1st level paladin gets +Cha bonus to all saves for free" or "the 1st level barbarian gets rage and fast movement for free" or "the 1st level monk gets all good saves, evasion, Tumble as a skill and adds Wis bonus to AC for free"

While the first two obviously make excellent options for fighters, the latter could be a brilliant option for a cleric and quite good for some wizards.

Basically 1 level of any almost class can make sense. The issue of the ranger is IMO purely because there isn't much reason to take the 2nd level in the class. Paladins get fearlessness, fighters get a feat, barbarians get uncanny dodge, rogues get evasion... etc.

Cheers

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You haven't been online long, have you?

I can tell.

Quite some time, actually. I've only been lurking about here relatively recently, but I've been well-traveled in the online world for a number of years now.


EDITED when I realized situational variables weren't really the topic of discussion

 

[Frostmarrow]

I used the engine and calculated an alternate ranger I did a while ago. Didn't think I would have any use for it but here it can be used as a reference.

Hitdie: 1d8 (30 pts)
Simple and martial weapons (25)
Light and medium armor and shields (25)
Skillpoints: 4 (30)
Class skills: 18 (as ranger minus concentration) (20)
Attack bonuses: Melee as cleric and ranged as fighter (45*)
Saves: Good Fort and Ref (25)
Track as free feat (5)
Four free archery feats on 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th level (20**)
Excellent ability (Marksmanship) (15***)

Adds up to 240 pts.

* Fighter is 50 pts and cleric is 30 pts so this should be 40 pts. However, split BAB is better than that so I asigned it to 45.

** Point Blank Shot at first level. Three more are picked from the following list: Precise Shot, Far Shot, Rapid Shot or any other feat with shot in the name for which the character qualifies.

*** May treat any ranged weapon hit as a critical threat X times per day. X is 1 at 1st level, 2 at 5th level, 3 at 9th level, 4 at 13th level and 5 at 17th level.

What do you think?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Originally posted by Frostmarrow What do you think?

About the Ranger? Or the Calculator?

As for the Ranger...
I like

Anything to make the Ranger a better archer than a Fighter. The role-player in me is pleased. The power-gamer in me is a little bothered by the Cleric BAB for melee, but I can pacify him by raining death from above.

As for the calculator... I think I need to play with it some more...

 

[Frostmarrow]

About the Ranger? Or the Calculator?

About the way this ranger is 240 pts as per the engine builders instructions and if that's fair and balanced? I think it works in this case but I suppose it's pretty easy to make an ubermage for 240 points that would end the wizard career-path for good.

The power-gamer in me is a little bothered by the Cleric BAB for melee, but I can pacify him by raining death from above.

That's what I thought so I payed 45 pts for the fight/cler-BAB instead of 40.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

What do you think?

This class is less a Ranger and more an Archer. Not a bad thing, as an Archer class is neat and the way you did it was balanced.

However, I dislike the PHB ranger because not every Ranger, IMHO, should be a TWF/AMB master. Your Ranger has the same problem, but with projectile weapons instead.
.
.
.
BTW, check one of my previous posts for the link to my variant Ranger. I'd like your criticism as well...