Should character trade-offs be less effective?

[Driddle]

((Not sure if the header of this thread got the point across, but I was trying to keep it short.))

I notice once again, in the latest issue of Dragon magazine, that at least one of the proffered feats -- something about a dragonblooded arcane origin, I think -- allows a character to "buy" a special ability of lesser value. In this case, the expenditure of the feat provides a single 0-level spell castable once a day. But in other supplements, the cost of a feat usually provides the gnome-like equivalent of three 0-level spells.

This is a fairly common trend in Dragon magazine versus other gaming supplements. The mag feats usually provide an ability less powerful than what you'd find in 'homebrewed' campaigns or professionally published d20 game books.

Another example leading to my question below: Let's say you and the DM work out an origin that allows your PC to somehow rage like a barbarian even though he doesn't take the barbarian class, and in exchange you're giving up one of your other standard class abilities to get there (a feat perhaps, or sneak attack, or familiar, or whatever) ... Should your 'rage' ability be less powerful than the standard barbarian rage?

Should there be an inherent cost in character customization? Or, should you lose something of greater value to modify your PC a little bit?

 

[Thanee]

Hope I understand you right.

Yes, the advantage of choice must have a cost.

Simple example. Human versus Elf.

Human has choice of favored class (well, somewhat), choice of feat, choice of skill.
Elf gets more total, but everything is fixed.

The difference is made up with choice.

Now there are certain character concepts where the Elf is simply superior, since they make use of all their abilities and the Human cannot recreate them as a whole. But in most cases, the Elf will only make decent use of some of the abilities while the Human can always use them to full degree.

That advantage, the Human has, costs the difference between the total of the Human's and the Elf's racial abilities.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Driddle]

The advantage of choice must have a cost.

So, if we wanted to suggest a rule about choice trade-offs, it could be something like this:

"If you allow a player to customize his character away from the standard rules archetypes, make sure the abilities swap is generally equivalent ... and then reduce the effectiveness of the trade by at least ten percent. Because the advantage of choice must have a cost."

Is that acceptable?

 

[Stormborn]

So, if we wanted to suggest a rule about choice trade-offs, it could be something like this:

"If you allow a player to customize his character away from the standard rules archetypes, make sure the abilities swap is generally equivalent ... and then reduce the effectiveness of the trade by at least ten percent. Because the advantage of choice must have a cost."

Is that acceptable?

I don't think the advantages of choice must have a cost. But trade offs should be relatively equal...something that is not always easy. For example I am about to start playing a Paladin, but instead of a Mount I am taking a Celestial Companion that can be summoned for 2 hours per level. This is mainly for setting flavor. I got the idea from Dragon.


And, as the author of the article refered to in the first post, let me clarify that ithe feat gives a detect magic usable 3 times a day, not just once. The gnome gets 3 spells, each usable once per day. To me this is pretty much the same thing.
Some other things to keep in mind: all of those feats are geared for sorcerers. That feat automatically frees up 3 0 level castings. Which makes it doubly benificial.

Also, Dragon has to take into account that what is in it is considered "cannon" by some people. There are thigns I would allow in a homebrew that I know might be abused in a different setting or with different players, so its fine for my campaign but not for Dragon publication.

 

[Scribble]

One thing I think that should be taken into consideration is that there are already rules for multiclassing. If you allow a one for one swap on abilities the idea behind multiclassing is kind of negated. It moves it into a classless game almost. Which is ok if thats what you want. Just make sure that you then figure out which abilities = which abilities. In a true classless game you'd probably have to assign values to the different D&D abilities.

In a class based game, having the ability be less powerfull seems appropriate. At least story wise... Think about it, a character who's taking "someone else's" ability basically does not put the same amount of effort into it as someone who specializes in it would.

 

[Voadam]

Different from the norm should not be inherently weaker than the norm.

If that were so then any new class should be weaker than the core ones because it offers the advantages of a different selection that meets a different concept better.

An alternate ranger class should be balanced against the existing ranger, not detrimented for being different and meeting a different concept.

The unfettered from AU is a good swashbuckler class about equivalent to a multiclass fighter rogue with a better fit of mechanics to swashbuckling concept. They should not be detrimented balance wise because it is not the default D&D option.

If you want people to have options but be rewarded for hewing to the existing concepts then customized options could reasonably be given a cost. This is the philosophy behind ECLs, that it is usually a bit better to play a straight PH character rather than an equivalent ECL adjusted monster race.

If you want to provide options that are balanced then the customized differences should not be detrimented.

However if the argument is that the flexibility of a class is part of its power then you get the converse rule, take a customizable class like the fighter, restrict its options to fit a narrower concept, and you can boost the power of the class above what an existing fighter trying for the same concept can do. This would lead to the AU warmain, arguably a fighter with fewer choices of bonus feats plus d12 hit points who out tanks a fighter who specializes as a heavy armor big weapons tank.

I dislike this design choice because any flexible class option can be restricted in the creation of a new similar class for the same character but stronger and more focused on what the character already is trying for.

 

[Scribble]

What I'm saying though is that in a class based system, you need to take the class as a whole into cosideration. You need to find out what abilities = what abilities. A good class is balanced out against the rest of the classes. Or should be. A new ranger class should be balanced against the other classes. In adition to looking at what abilities match what abilities you also have to, in a class based system, look at how the ability effects the class as a whole. One ability when matched with another set of abilities may not be as powerfull then when it is matched with others.

For instance take the Ranger: He can cast divine spells. Not as well as a cleric right? Which is because matched up with his other abilities being able to cast divine spells with the force of a cleric would be uber powerfull.

Matched up against the ability package of a cleric it's not.

If you want a ranger with the force of a cleric, the Multiclassing rules give you a way. If you want to instead create a new class altogether that's fine, but you have to put a little more elbow grease into it as opposed to just haphazardly trading abilities around.

 

[Driddle]

... just haphazardly trading abilities around.

How did you infer that? "Haphazard?!"

 

[Scribble]

My appologies I didn't mean to imply you were doing that.

I meant that you can't just randomly pick one ability and trade it for another without thinking about the outcome.

I didn't mean you specificaly.

 

[Voadam]

What I'm saying though is that in a class based system, you need to take the class as a whole into cosideration. You need to find out what abilities = what abilities. A good class is balanced out against the rest of the classes. Or should be. A new ranger class should be balanced against the other classes. In adition to looking at what abilities match what abilities you also have to, in a class based system, look at how the ability effects the class as a whole. One ability when matched with another set of abilities may not be as powerfull then when it is matched with others.

For instance take the Ranger: He can cast divine spells. Not as well as a cleric right? Which is because matched up with his other abilities being able to cast divine spells with the force of a cleric would be uber powerfull.

Matched up against the ability package of a cleric it's not.

If you want a ranger with the force of a cleric, the Multiclassing rules give you a way. If you want to instead create a new class altogether that's fine, but you have to put a little more elbow grease into it as opposed to just haphazardly trading abilities around.

Saying you need to carefully evaluate powers of a class as a whole is different from saying that customization should have an increased cost.

Take your example, a core ranger and a core cleric. Assume that as class packages they are balanced.

If you modify the cleric to be more like a ranger (say trading turn undead for some wilderness abilities) should you swap powers on the cleric so that in the end the new cleric is equivalent "as a package" to the power of a ranger or standard cleric; or should the new cleric have an extra cost for going against the default archetype suite of powers and be detrimented for straddling the concepts?