Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 5054607" data-attributes="member: 94">The game session is not a relevant measurement of time. The PCs don't reset between game sessions.I was not aware that low level spell slots had been redeemed. Perhaps I should revisit the multiclass spellcaster without the emphasis on those top level spell slots.A mid-level spell slot is a mid-level spell slot regardless of whether or not it's a true mid-level spell or a metamagicked low-level spell. Regardless, mid-level spells fall within the range of "top 3-4 levels of spells."Craig's tool is not well suited to a point-by-point micro-analysis of class power. It is useful as a benchmark. Even if you could get a point-by-point breakdown of the exact power of every class feature, the tool becomes less and less reliable as soon as the first die is rolled. There are simply too many variables in any D&D combat-- too many variables and yet too small a sample size (5 rounds of combat?) for the variance to wash out. The model simply can't maintain any predictive value.Do NOT mistake precision for accuracy. Craig's system gives the false impression of accuracy because the point-to-point comparisons he uses appear very precise (down to the 1/1000th of a CR).What Craig does is set baseline values so that you can make apples-to-apples comparisons between the classes. It is still just a benchmark.If you compare two computers, you will benchmark many different values-- CPU speed/memory, GPU speed/memory, HD access speed, etc.-- hopefully weighting them along the same value scheme, but at the end of the day you'll just look at the "Best Computer" bar graph and see how they shake out. If the final analysis shows the DELL slightly behind the HP, you can go back and add a better graphics card to the DELL, which WILL improve the final benchmark value of the DELL-- it's a "better" computer than it was-- but don't lose sight of the fact that your benchmark deals with many variables in aggregate. You don't necessarily know if the improvement in graphics speed puts the two computers on the same footing. That comes down to the accuracy of your value weighting.I don't have much confidence in the value weighting between feats and spells and-- indeed-- even between feats. There is uncertainty built in to Craig's model and it is not exactly hiding.The disparity between spellcasters and martial characters is well known and needs no highlighting. It's also well known that the spellcaster's power scales more quadratically and the fighter scales more linearly. Is it a problem? And how are you proposing to fix it?Ah, I see what you did there. So the familiar is worth more than 0.2. Good methodology.Is Power Attack worth more than Endurance? Will you apply a different value to each fighter depending on what feats he chooses?You see where I'm going here, I hope.Only if the problem warrants the effort.Book of Nine Swords.4e.</blockquote>

Verification