More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by MrWaeseL »

Bigode wrote:FVCKING FVCKERS! Pratically everything Frank pointed out was better in the last version I'd seen! I could say "read it in the Feybook, since Talisman hasn't updated it yet", but I'll do one better and pre-empt a possible upgrade (a.k.a. down-): read it here, which's the version I rated as "decent" - then you can tell me what's wrong. Regardless, that may well mean the Feybook's dead to me, though maybe I should give Talisman some credit for not yet updating the changes in the original.


I didn't read the WOTC thread, but it looks like that one has been updated as well, since the last edit was december 23rd.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Username17 »

There's too much stupid on that thread for me to actually read all of it, but as far as I can tell, a bunch of people started talking about how the original writeup might have larger numbers or more abilities than a Bard/Paladin multiclass.

OK, leaving aside for the moment that Bards suck, Paladins suck, and Bard/Paladin multiclass characters suck even more (and aren't even legal, but we we won't go there); there's still the massively important question:

SO WHAT?!

The whole entire point of having classes at all is so that you don't have to balance a point system in a game with as many variables as D&D. And so that you can assure that characters are getting the numbers they need offensively and defensively to do their job.

This means that characters with weird jobs, strange equipment loads, or unusual methodologies may end up with "numbers" and "abilities" that are hugely larger than what other characters get and that's OK.

A character who fights without Armor needs huge AC bonuses that you wouldn't even think of waving at a character who is allowed iron-enhanced pants. Because frankly there are sample characters in the basic book who start at first level with scale and a shield. That's 6 points of AC, and it gets alot worse from there. A character who only gets +5 AC is still operating at a penalty.

And if a character is supposed to do things that are vaguely the province of spellcasters they will need a list of "abilities" that is intractably long if they are supposed to do it vaguely well. And this is completely unsurprising when you think about it for a second because the the spells section is one hundred and twenty three pages long! Making a character who is supposed to stand on his own in a world with Mind Flayers and Cloud Giants in it is not a simple problem. And you can't throw down some sort of inane measuring stick of how "many" abilities it has and have that mean... anything at all.

Making an actually balanced and effective class requires identifying a niche, and writing an ability set which as a whole causes the character to fill that niche. It does not involve asking if some ability number in particular is bigger, smaller, or the same size as one of a different class.

And another thing. Base Attack Bonus is almost worthless. The best melee artistists in the game at high level are wizards because they can transform into horrible monsters, wreathe themselves in soul draining fire, and then cast Persistant wraithstrike on themselves so that they bypass your "armor." And they're only off 6-8 points of Base Attack Bonus against the best available in the game while they are doing it. Since there aren't any monsters with Armor + Shield + Natural Armor bonuses at that level totalling less than ten, Wizards have a better melee attack than you no matter how good your BAB is. People spazz all over the numbers in the table as if they meant something, but honestly they really don't. Once you're past level 4 or so a multiclass character with all "bad" saves in each class is still going to have better saves than a single classed character with all "good" saves, so I don't even pretend to care.

-Username17
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by JonSetanta »

Jesus. Why don't you all go comment on Bright Blade on the Feybook?


edit:
Meh whatever. Review where you want, I'll bring him here.
I informed Talisman of your reviews.
It's a good idea for him to know, since he's the creator and all.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
NineInchNall
Duke
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by NineInchNall »

Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
User avatar
Talisman
Duke
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: The Cliffs of Insanity!

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Talisman »

Hey guys, Talisman here...creator of the bright blade.

Just to explain, I made this class to be a fey-flavored alternative to the paladin. It's been through several incarnations, and I posted it at WotC to get more feedback.

Interestingly, Bigode's take was "this is weak!," while the folks at WotC pretty much said "this is overpowered!" Hence the hacking of class abilities. The Feybook version hasn't been altered yet, though...

Any suggestions on how to fix it? Keep in mind, I don't really want a spellcasting class, any more than the ranger or paladin are spellcasting classes...I want a fey-flavored champion.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
Surgo
Duke
Posts: 1924
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Surgo »

LoneFlame hurts my brain.

Don't look now, but here comes Archtyrant Terevoth with his usual idiocy.
User avatar
the_taken
Knight-Baron
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lost in the Sea of Awesome

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by the_taken »

Surgo at [unixtime wrote:1198548132[/unixtime]]
LoneFlame hurts my brain.

Don't look now, but here comes Archtyrant Terevoth with his usual idiocy.


The punch line is you can't help these people 'cause they're having opinions when dealing with facts. (Am I saying this correctly?)
I had a signature here once but I've since lost it.

My current project: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56456
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by MrWaeseL »

Talisman at [unixtime wrote:1198547186[/unixtime]]Hey guys, Talisman here...creator of the bright blade.

Just to explain, I made this class to be a fey-flavored alternative to the paladin. It's been through several incarnations, and I posted it at WotC to get more feedback.

Interestingly, Bigode's take was "this is weak!," while the folks at WotC pretty much said "this is overpowered!" Hence the hacking of class abilities. The Feybook version hasn't been altered yet, though...

Any suggestions on how to fix it? Keep in mind, I don't really want a spellcasting class, any more than the ranger or paladin are spellcasting classes...I want a fey-flavored champion.


You're the first person to come here and defend his stuff like that. Given the nature of this board, that's pretty ballsy of you. I like that.
I haven't really inspected the class though, so I can't give you any useful criticism, but someone will be along shortly ;)
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by MrWaeseL »

also, archtyrant's post:

Half the problem with character comparisons is that people tend to leave out the effect of magic items. If the fighter has death ward armor, he makes short work of the shadows. If he has boots of flying he can do alright against the flying creatures.


:lmao:

And what's the terrain? Melee characters are obviously weaker on wide open fields where mobile creatures can kite them, as opposed to enclosed caverns.


:lmao:

The rogue is a case of a class that "can be" awesome, but often ends up just being a sneak attack machine.


:lmao:

The rogue is pretty much an all-or-nothing class.


:lmao:
Surgo
Duke
Posts: 1924
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Surgo »

Hey look, more idiocy from LordFlame:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph ... 2[br][br]I respect RadicalTaoist, but LordFlame is just bloody stupid.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Bigode »

Waesel: the version I linked last was updated according to my suggestions, and I copied it to my page to save the version I considered decent in case Talisman made the Feybook version mirror's WotC's, so the last link is right. But it appears my university shut the server down for maintenance right now ... At least at quick glance, it seems current Feybook version is still as the one I saw despite the update (maybe it was a typo corrected).

Frank: since you allude to "a large amount of stupid", it appears you're still looking to WotC - or have you looked at the (very short) thread in the Feybook, or my page, as linked in the previous post?

Talisman: as said, it looks like the Feybook version hasn't gotten any significant change since my suggestions; I ask that you keep it like it was before you posted it at WotC so that TGD folks interested take a look at it as it was, because the opinion on the WotC version's ... bad. And if you mind me having made a copy of your thread elsewhere, just tell me.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
User avatar
Talisman
Duke
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: The Cliffs of Insanity!

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Talisman »

Bigode at [unixtime wrote:1198595261[/unixtime]]Talisman: as said, it looks like the Feybook version hasn't gotten any significant change since my suggestions; I ask that you keep it like it was before you posted it at WotC so that TGD folks interested take a look at it as it was, because the opinion on the WotC version's ... bad. And if you mind me having made a copy of your thread elsewhere, just tell me.


Heck, I'm glad you're interested enough in my work to bother! Just to specify, the version at Feybook hasn't been altered since you last critiqued it...I posted it at WotC to get more opinions, and have been altering the one at WotC to reflect their feedback.

I don't plan to change the Feybook version until I reach something I'm truly happy with. WotC's version, however, will be altered again, quite soon.

Bring it on, guys!
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Crissa »

We cry when people give blocking statements or laugh when comparisons fail.

We love it when someone wants to make something useful. I love the idea, it just does suffer the problem of trying to be a little of this and that that don't stack, unfortunately.

Personally, I'd focus on the mount, and go towards the hunt and perhaps disguise/glamours as part of some codes that it stays paladinish.

-Crissa
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Bigode »

Yeah, Crissa has it (with the exception that I happen to think version 1.3* at "It's My Own Invention" is at least close already to what it should be). And yes, I know you lean towards 1.6.

*: assuming 1.3's the same as in the Feybook.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by JonSetanta »

The Hunt... hm.
That would be an odd class objective; the entire progression of capabilities helps the Fey knight/rider hunt beings better, by using a pack of animals, synergy with other riders (Sneak Attack?), and something like Phantom Steed for mobility.
Like a MM5 Master of the Hunt Fey race statted out as a 20 level class.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Crissa »

'The Hunt' really has nothing to do with hunting, per se, but are a group of mounted fey who are a bit like a party on horseback.

Think english hunting, and all.

-Crissa
User avatar
Leress
Prince
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Leress »

NineInchNall at [unixtime wrote:1198538142[/unixtime]]http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph ... ]LoneFlame hurts my brain.


I'm trying hard to just have LoneFlame to at least understand where I am coming from.

Here is the conversation we are having over PM. If they are problems with my argument please tell me.


Leress wrote:
LoneFlame wrote:I post this here because I think this debate might would end up cluttering the topic it's intended for. So rather than clutter the topic, perhaps more would be gained for all parties if the debate was isolated, with only the end product making it to the thread.
Okay fair enough

That said... You're logic can only be sound when it involves PCs vs NPC opponents(as in characters with class lvs & NPC book gear).

It completely falls apart when compared to monsters that don't rely on gear(or have gear that's not based on any standard wealth system), which happens to be a most of the creatures in the Monster Manual.
No, my logic is based off of the monsters. Since the CR of a PC classed (with NPC wealth) character is supposed to equal that of a monster of the same CR. Of course there are some monster that are under/over CRed (ie dragons). PCs with PC wealth are about equal to CR+1 (since the PCs are suppose to have the edge).

Also, character wealth is often relative to the game. The suggested character wealth is a guideline that often is only used in character generation(if it even gets used there).
We have to use that too since it is part of the system, it has to be used since I can assume it was supposed to be used for making classed opponents.

This is part of the problem with the Vow of Poverty(Book of Exalted Deeds) feat. The effectiveness of Vow of Poverty(which has a fixed quantity of power) is relative to the wealth base of the game.

Thus, it is unreasonable to base things off of character wealth.

VoP replaces a characters Wealth and wasn't it found to be lower than the wealth guideline of the DMG? Also I am basing power off the CR of monsters not wealth. Since classes are also part of the CR system it also includes them as well (using the NPC wealth guidelines),
[/QUOTE]


LoneFlame wrote:The fact remains that gear is varies too much, and throws off the figures. With the logic of basing things off of gear, the Artificer is the king of classes.

Also, classed NPCs with NPC gear are not necessarily properly CRed verses a monster based off of gear value. A good percentage of the CR value of the NPCs with class lvs comes from the assumed to be limitless strategy flexibility of sentient, classed people, rather than monsters who follow a predictable way of acting. You can run into a thousand giant snakes or zombies and each one would use about the same strategy, but every person is different(meaning different strategies/actions).

Now, if all of the character classes are balanced(on at least a near lv per lv basis), the Challenge Rating of monsters can be calibrated properly. That means that any class will generally have about the same chance against a monster as another class(other than things that need special gear to beat).

Since the Core Classes weren't balanced, it is logical to assume that the CR monsters also were not balanced(likely due to not testing against each class).

So, if the classes & challenge rations aren't balanced, then it is also logical that when testing the balance of classed NPCs, some of the same bad assumptions and flaws that the inaccuracies of the CRs of Monsters carried over into classed NPCs.

Thus, since Challenge Rating is relative & flawed, it is better to balance classes against similar & not sucky classes, because like I said earlier, 'once the classes are balanced with each other, you can calibrate challenge ratings appropriately.


LoneFlame wrote:For the sake of balance, the current CR system would have to be thrown out & the system would have to be reworked as follows...

When creating the classes, first establish all of the critical/needed niches. The main stereotype niches seem to be Front-line melee, Ranged, Blasting/Utility, Healing/Utility, & Scout/Spy/Thief(Rogue literally is the best word for it). They should all be equally strong, but for different reasons(ie, the Front-line melee guy & the Blaster mage person should have about the same chance of killing each other).

Once you've got the main 5 down, you've got a good norm to compare any classes made afterwards to(due to the weak design of Fighter, things compared to it in design, such as Samurai & Swashbuckler, ended up sucking). The next things to be made would be hybrids of the existing classes(they're an inevitability). The should have about 60% of the each classes capabilities(about 5% more if they overlap in in some areas & 10% more if they overlap a lot), but set up in such a way that they don't/can't outshine either parent class, but don't completely suck on their own(part of that balance thing).

Note that to test things, you do need some basic gear first, but not the more elaborate stuff, such as Wands & Boots of Flying. That comes later.

If by this point, the main classes(5) and the hybrid classes(something like 10) are balanced, you can move on to monsters, which will be created based off of what a party of 3 or 4. Most of the initial monsters will have to be land-based & without gear during this phase of design.

After establishing how well parties do against what types of monsters, you take the average and dub it their temporary Challenge rating(guaranteed to change after the implementation of the following).

With balanced classes and a group of monsters to use as a control, now's good time to focus on magical gear(This is where we take the well-kept clay we've been preparing and start to mold it into a discernible shape). D&D does place a good deal of importance/dependence on gear and goes under the impression that parties are guaranteed to have X number of gear at X lv. Often, this is not the case, however, it really can't be helped(or can it).

To handle gear, first, come up with vague classifications for gear, such as Universal(everyone can use it with about the same benefits), Slightly biased(everyone can use it, but it is a little better suited to one or 2 genres, though only by a little), or Genre-specific(only one group of character types can use it and it's really good for what they do). Universal should be the cheapest, followed by Slightly-biased, and then Genre-specific. The reason for this is that the more specialized an item is, the more potent it has to be to make people want to use it over something just anyone could use.

After arbitrarily coming up with items and pricing them based off of assumed usefulness, come up with a rough estimate of what kind of money the characters should have, based off of the current costs of gear & about what lv characters could be assumed to have that stuff at. To do this, assume that the gear should do no more than raise the party's ability to take on challenge ratings up to 2 lvs higher than the current control CRs of the party's lv. It's not much of an increase, but it'll cut down the impact of gear inconsistencies that will come up in future games.

Any gear that doesn't have the intended level of effect should either have it's price of capabilities modified. From test & revise again until the kinks are worked out(which is what is supposed to have been done for classes & monsters).

Once gear has been situated, adjust the CRs of existing monsters to adjust for the change in gear that's available to the party(which should mean that you lower the CRs by about 2).

From this point on, you can now create things for the party to fight that has gear. The goal impact of the enemy gear budget should increase the original(temporary) CR by no more than 1 or 2. Why 1 or 2? Why not?! That and liberally handing out gear to players is usually a game killing idea. By this point, balance should be solid as the central command center Norad(complete with buildings on springs & within a massive network of complex caves & tunnels... oh wait...).

With the established villain wealth setup, it should be possible to make villains that use the NPC gear allotment & have class lvs. Since the gear is designed to raise the CR by 1 & CRs are based off of 3 or 4 characters, rather than just one, some trial and error must be done to figure out what a lone NPC's CR is. However, once that's established for 1, it won't be that hard to test that assessment with the rest of the classes.

Once it has been well established how much of a lv increase is needed to make an NPC's CR acceptable for the party. Everything should be balanced and all that's left to do is to play the game.



This is as far as it has gotten...
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
I want him to tongue-punch my box.
]
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by RandomCasualty »

Lone Flame wrote:

To handle gear, first, come up with vague classifications for gear, such as Universal(everyone can use it with about the same benefits), Slightly biased(everyone can use it, but it is a little better suited to one or 2 genres, though only by a little), or Genre-specific(only one group of character types can use it and it's really good for what they do). Universal should be the cheapest, followed by Slightly-biased, and then Genre-specific. The reason for this is that the more specialized an item is, the more potent it has to be to make people want to use it over something just anyone could use.


I really have no idea what he's talking about here. Why should the fact that gear is specialized automatically make it more expensive? So magic lockpicks should be more expensive than magic armor? Why?

Then he says universal gear should be the cheapest and goes to say that specialized gear has to be more potent to make people want to use it. Well... um... someone has to let Lone Flame know that this game is more about the relative cost of magic items instead of the potency. The amber amulet of vermin in the MIC isn't awesome becuase it summons a CR 7 scorpion, but rather because it does so at such a small cost.

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Username17 »

I'll give it a shot.
  • Player Characters have equipment. Period. That is part of the consideration, that is part of the parameters, that is part of the argument, because it is true. There is indeed overpowered and underpowered equipment, and there are games where you get more or less of it. But the DMG has guidelines for how much characters are "supposed" to get. So for the purposes of a discussion online, we can either assume that those guidelines are pretty much followed or we can agree to not have a discussion at all, because that is the absolute closest to neutral ground you are ever going to get.

  • Player Characters fight monsters. That's what they do. They also role play and have arguments about what alignment various actions are and put treasure into santa sacks and do all kinds of other crap. But basically they fight monsters. And indeed, since all the other stuff can be done pretty much without a character sheet, your "class" is there to assist you in fighting monsters. So the worth of your class is defined by how well it handles the monster fighting portion of the game.

  • There are 11 Core Classes. If you count all the extra base classes in expansion books it goes up to like 50. That's a lot. But there are over 3000 monsters in D&D. And if you honestly think that you would rather spend your time rebalancing all the monsters than adjusting the classes to the monsters which already exist, be my guest! Since the players fight the monsters, you could achieve overall "balance" by adjusting the players (a small data set) to match the monsters (a large data set), or vice versa. But altering a large data set to conform to a small data set is really hard.

  • Character classes don't do the same things. A wizard casts a color spray and a Warblade does a flying ninja sword slash. These actions don't "balance" in any meaningful abstract way. Because frankly, they are actually apples and oranges. They are not directly comparable in any meaningful fashion. Except that they happen to be used in the accomplishment of the same goal: fighting monsters. So while we could go on all day about whether you think the stunning effect of color spray is "prettier" or "more powerful" or, I don't know, "softer" than the raw damage output of a Warblade ninja strike - the only meaningful comparison is whether it is more useful in that thing you are both doing: fighting monsters.


-Username17
User avatar
Leress
Prince
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Leress »

The PMs continue...

Leress wrote:
LoneFlame wrote:For the sake of balance, the current CR system would have to be thrown out & the system would have to be reworked as follows...
Umm...once you do that you might as well just play a different game, since that is the core of the D20 System.

When creating the classes, first establish all of the critical/needed niches. The main stereotype niches seem to be Front-line melee, Ranged, Blasting/Utility, Healing/Utility, & Scout/Spy/Thief(Rogue literally is the best word for it). They should all be equally strong, but for different reasons(ie, the Front-line melee guy & the Blaster mage person should have about the same chance of killing each other).
Okay, how can you make healing as powerful as killing someone. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Once you've got the main 5 down, you've got a good norm to compare any classes made afterwards to(due to the weak design of Fighter, things compared to it in design, such as Samurai & Swashbuckler, ended up sucking). The next things to be made would be hybrids of the existing classes(they're an inevitability). The should have about 60% of the each classes capabilities(about 5% more if they overlap in in some areas & 10% more if they overlap a lot), but set up in such a way that they don't/can't outshine either parent class, but don't completely suck on their own(part of that balance thing).
How did you know that they are sucky? How do you make comparison like that when you don't have a gauge to even balance it against.

Note that to test things, you do need some basic gear first, but not the more elaborate stuff, such as Wands & Boots of Flying. That comes later.
You don't calculate that in at all unless it is an item that give just a numerical bonus only since that is expected of the system.

If by this point, the main classes(5) and the hybrid classes(something like 10) are balanced, you can move on to monsters, which will be created based off of what a party of 3 or 4. Most of the initial monsters will have to be land-based & without gear during this phase of design.
How could you tell that the classes are balanced when you have nothing to balance them against? This makes no sense, that like saying a table is even before cut the wood.

After establishing how well parties do against what types of monsters, you take the average and dub it their temporary Challenge rating(guaranteed to change after the implementation of the following).
Umm, wouldn't take an extremely long time and pretty much make any discussion about class balance completely moot, since you are using a different balance point then the very game itself.

With balanced classes and a group of monsters to use as a control, now's good time to focus on magical gear(This is where we take the well-kept clay we've been preparing and start to mold it into a discernible shape). D&D does place a good deal of importance/dependence on gear and goes under the impression that parties are guaranteed to have X number of gear at X lv. Often, this is not the case, however, it really can't be helped(or can it).
What why talk about gear after the classes are "balanced" since the classes are suppose to have gear starting at level 1 how can just now think about gear after making the monsters

To handle gear, first, come up with vague classifications for gear, such as Universal(everyone can use it with about the same benefits), Slightly biased(everyone can use it, but it is a little better suited to one or 2 genres, though only by a little), or Genre-specific(only one group of character types can use it and it's really good for what they do). Universal should be the cheapest, followed by Slightly-biased, and then Genre-specific. The reason for this is that the more specialized an item is, the more potent it has to be to make people want to use it over something just anyone could use.
That makes no sense, that would mean that a magical lockpick should be more expensive than magical boots. Slight biased is a very vague, a scythe is "slightly biased" since it is for the two hander crowd, than a longsword.


Leress wrote:

After arbitrarily coming up with items and pricing them based off of assumed usefulness, come up with a rough estimate of what kind of money the characters should have, based off of the current costs of gear & about what lv characters could be assumed to have that stuff at. To do this, assume that the gear should do no more than raise the party's ability to take on challenge ratings up to 2 lvs higher than the current control CRs of the party's lv. It's not much of an increase, but it'll cut down the impact of gear inconsistencies that will come up in future games.
The usefulness of an item changes from character to character, and you can't assume that they will have that item.

Any gear that doesn't have the intended level of effect should either have it's price of capabilities modified. From test & revise again until the kinks are worked out(which is what is supposed to have been done for classes & monsters).

Once gear has been situated, adjust the CRs of existing monsters to adjust for the change in gear that's available to the party(which should mean that you lower the CRs by about 2).
But what if the party doesn't have that gear? Then the monster ends up being under CRed and your party gets clobbered. You can't assume that someone will have specific gear only that they will have a weapon and protection.

From this point on, you can now create things for the party to fight that has gear. The goal impact of the enemy gear budget should increase the original(temporary) CR by no more than 1 or 2. Why 1 or 2? Why not?! That and liberally handing out gear to players is usually a game killing idea. By this point, balance should be solid as the central command center Norad(complete with buildings on springs & within a massive network of complex caves & tunnels... oh wait...).
What are you talking about, you just re-invented the wheel but when about it in a top down way.

With the established villain wealth setup, it should be possible to make villains that use the NPC gear allotment & have class lvs. Since the gear is designed to raise the CR by 1 & CRs are based off of 3 or 4 characters, rather than just one, some trial and error must be done to figure out what a lone NPC's CR is. However, once that's established for 1, it won't be that hard to test that assessment with the rest of the classes.

Once it has been well established how much of a lv increase is needed to make an NPC's CR acceptable for the party. Everything should be balanced and all that's left to do is to play the game.


So the way to balance classes is to remake the entire system from the ground up...at that point you might as well play a completely different game. Since you don't even use the guidelines for this system is hard to find any thing close to neutral ground for the discussion. You threw out everything and it making have a discussion pretty much pointless if you are talking about a completely different game then DnD d20 version.

You seem to put the cart before the horse. There are 11 Core Classes. If you count all the extra base classes in expansion books it goes up to like 50. That's a lot. But there are over 3000 monsters in D&D. And if you honestly think that you would rather spend your time re-balancing all the monsters than adjusting the classes to the monsters which already exist, be my guest! Since the players fight the monsters, you could achieve overall "balance" by adjusting the players (a small data set) to match the monsters (a large data set), or vice versa. But altering a large data set to conform to a small data set is really hard.



LoneFlame wrote:Unfortunately, I didn't have room(there's a cap off on how much crap it'll let me type). That was how you make a system. You use that logic that one player class should have as good a chance at beating another player class as being beat itself by the opposing player class. It's the ideal way to create an RPG. It starts with coming up with some rough estimates of what might be what power. From there you test & fine tune until it's not a broken piece annoyance(like GURPS).

Since we don't have that luxury, we instead take the classes that don't suck(Samurai & Swashbuckler are balanced towards/weaker than Fighter, & Fighter is kinda under powered itself). How you pick classes for comparison is pretty simple. Take some of the more potent core classes for comparison. Ranger & Barbarian for melee. Cleric & Wizard for casters. And Rogue for stealthy type thingy(it gets it by default, though Rogue often does a good job of doing what it's supposed to do).

A good Barbarian(or any halfway decent one) usually stomps Fighter into the ground. While a Ranger, not only does decently against the Fighter in combat, but kicks the crap out of it in the Skills department, too. Ranger & Barbarian are good combat classes. Paladin is usually just taken up to lv 6 and abandoned for a prestige class(Fighter suffers from that too, but usually, people get out of it after lv 4). Once you've taken 6 lvs in Paladin, there's little reason keep going in it & Fighter's a dip & prestige into something else class.

By beefing up Fighter(& all the classes that used Fighter for a power comparison) to the point where it better compares to Ranger & Barbarian(not greatly exceeding either, but not being stomped into the ground by them, either), you would balance melee against one another. Though, it might would help to give Monk full BAB(but don't give them any more than that).

That won't, however, change the fact that the casters will still stomp melee guys into the ground. So, the caster guys would either have to be toned down or have all the melee guys beefed up more. I'd avoid doing either, since the casters have a few key weakness that the melee guys(if they're smart) can take advantage of. If all the martial classes are balanced towards the strong ones of the category, then the power gap between casters & combat guys can be bridged with good strategy.

However, I would have the casters balanced against one another. Druid, Cleric, & Wizard are the 3 best casters in the game. Cleric & Druid have a combination of blasting, utility, & healing pretty early on(Wizards have to use a few tricks to get themselves healing, but they can still pull it off with relative ease). Of those 3, Druid is the one that needs to be scaled back the most. 9th lv spells + Wild shape + Animal Companion = Holy crap that's mean. Wild Shape can be watered down by just about any variant for it in existence & Animal Companion can always be scaled back(like how the Ranger's is). If that doesn't cut it, the Shapeshift variant in PHB2 will. Wizard's fine as is. Cleric could stand to be toned down a little(turning them into a Spontaneous Caster would do that quite effectively). Sorcerer just needs 4 + Int Mod skill points & a limited selection of bonus feats at lvs 5, 10, 15, & 20(they seriously over-estimated Spontaneous Casting).


Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
I want him to tongue-punch my box.
]
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by JonSetanta »

Glad you posted that, as long as it is. LoneFlame does have some good points in there..
Now all I have to do is figure out what the fuck you two were debating.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Crissa »

I hate the 'It's okay for someone to fill either slot badly!' because that means that players will never ever opt for the 'badly' part if they can avoid it. And players can always avoid it.

-Crissa
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by MrWaeseL »

Quotes are absolutely awful the read with the broken CSS.

And vow of poverty gives more 'wealth' than the DMG guidelines (somewhere between 800k and 1M, iirc).
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13895
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Koumei »

I thought that, after a certain (low) level, it gave less. Though even if it does give more, most of it is crap and you can't specifically choose what you do get.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
Leress
Prince
Posts: 2770
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Post by Leress »

Until I get a response here are some threads to bite on...
Gestalt Characters

Level 1 feats
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
I want him to tongue-punch my box.
]
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
Locked