# DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet



## DrSpunj (Apr 4, 2004)

*[EDIT: Much of the system has changed thanks to the comments in this thread, but the underlying system is essentially the same. For the latest downloads go to post #199! Thanks!]*

In this thread we've been discussing a variant fighter, and talking about whether he deserves a "dead level" at every odd level beyond 1st.

Because of that very question I started working on a spreadsheet a couple months ago that assigns values to each of the various class attributes that I've chosen to use in an upcoming campaign I hope to start midsummer. I did this to try and discover whether a Bonus Combat Feat really is so powerful that getting one more often than every even level would unbalance the character.

The attributes are:

HD - d6, d8, d10 (a d12 is easy to add)
BAB - Poor, Average, Good (using fractional bonuses from UA)
Defense Bonus - Poor, Average, Good, similar to the UA variant
Fort/Refl/Will Saves - Poor, Average, Good, again using fractions from UA
Skill Points/lvl - 4, 6, or 8 per lvl
Weapon Group Proficiencies - as per the UA variant
Armor Group Proficiencies - extrapolated from the UA Weapon variant
Special Class Abilities - General vs Combat
Magic - either Half or Full caster levels, as per Monte's AU Magic system
Restrictions - like a Cleric's devotion to their deity, Druid's reverence for Nature, an Oathsworn's Oath and a Paladin's Code
The system is 'Feat driven", and by that I mean I've categorized all Special Class abilities as either General or Combat feats, and valued them accordingly. While this does require a minor bit of tweaking with some abilities, it's not nearly as much work as I expected it might be. For instance, Bardic Lore gets a +1 for every Bard level. Since +1 didn't seem like enough of a bump, I changed the General Feat to give a +2 bonus with the limitation it can only be taken no more often than every other level.

Because the values of each of these class attributes, as well as the various Special Class Abilities, are very "user-dependent", I've setup the spreadsheet so *anyone* can easily change the values of everything to something more to their liking in a small table at the top of the spreadsheet. Then all 20 class levels for all the Core & AU base classes are recalculated using the new values. It's easy to compare the relative worth of each class, at each level, using the totals and averages (that are computed for each class over 20 levels, all classes at 1st level, and all classes over all 20 levels).

I've already sent this out to a small number of people this weekend, at their request. *SSquirrel* has been kind enough to offer it for download from his website here.

I'd be interested in any feedback, criticism or comments people have regarding the spreadsheet, whether it's because they've found an error, think the spreadsheet would function better in some other way, and/or have a differing viewpoint on how the various class attributes should be valued than what I've started with.

Thanks!

DrSpunj


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 4, 2004)

Just wanted to say I got the spreadsheet, thanks. Looks nice.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 6, 2004)

Is John the only one that's looked at this?   

Could be, but I'm hoping to get some comments, feedback and/or criticism from many of you. Please chime in!   

****BUMP****

Thanks.

DrSpunj

EDIT: I just downloaded the version *SSquirrel* has hosted, and it seems a few font/formatting errors slipped in somehow. A couple of the text boxes are no longer big enough to view all the text, but by selecting the cell you can read all the text. Second, the Averages Cells at the top of both calculation sheets I needed to reformat to a Font Size of ~14-18 to see the numbers & text correctly. Go figure.


----------



## Videssian (Apr 6, 2004)

I've had a looksee at it, pretty impressive!  Is your intent with this as a worksheet to figure out appropriate characteristics for each class, then use what you've gained from that to produce a word document that would apply to your campaign?

I also see that you could easily use this as the basis for a "design your own class" document, where you give all these options and say that it must equal xx CBs.. that could be interesting.. (the final result would still need vetting by you since there'd be DM interpretation about how much a particular unlisted ability would be in CBs, but it would mean more distinctiveness than is present now).

Some comments about the document itself:
1)  Definitely add d12 HP to the chart

2)  Consider adding a "blank" character class region where you can put various values in to experiment with (and exclude it from the average value calcs), so that it's easier to compare with other classes.

3) On the Intro page, it's unclear what the values  "0+0.33" , "1.2+0.4", "2+0.5" mean.  For instance, for average saves, do you add 1.2 or 0.4?  Also, in the Unearthed Arcane, there's four classes of defense bonuses, yet you only list three categories.  So you might want to split defense bonuses off, I personally find it a bit confusing.

4)  What's the rationale for using defense bonuses in the first place?  From a quick read of the UA, it will tend to devalue the use of armor.  Is this your intent?  One disappointing thing I do have with how armor changed from 2e to 3e is that there's not usually much benefit to wearing the heavier armors unless you have a really low dex.  Though giving DR rating to armor would help with that.  I also note that Exotic armors help too, though at the cost of a feat.

Good work!


----------



## CRGreathouse (Apr 6, 2004)

I got the spreadsheet, but I haven't had much time to look it over.  It looks good at the first glance.

I should have more constructive thoughts once I'm not so busy -- in a few days, I hope?

Edit: Videssian, I think "1.2+0.4" means that the save bonus is 1.2 + 0.4 * level.  Level 1 gets +1, level 5 gets +3, and level 20 gets +9.


----------



## ouini (Apr 6, 2004)

*The more things change...*

Nice work, DrSpunj. This chart is definitely meant to be used as a step-off point to either make new and balanced classes, or to make point-based classless characters, level-by-level. And a lot looks similar to the much earlier work you did on classless character building.


Videssian, to address some of your comments:
1) I agree, add d12

2) I agree, that would be invaluable for new class-building, or classless experiments.

3) CRGreathouse has got it. The "0+0.33" values, et al, seem to be the coefficients of a linear progression. Start at first level with "0", and add 0.33 to your save at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. levels, rounding up at 0.5 and above.

EDIT: I see DrSpunj's explanation is that you always round down, but add in the 0.33 immediately at 1st level. Though this gives the exact same results for all three categories, it is more consistent with 3E's "always round down" rule.

4) (I dunno what a defense bonus is.)

Which brings me to a few comments of my own:
- Good work, Spunj! It looks like you worked out a lot of the earlier kinks, and extended the scope and useability of the chart remarkably.

- Being in an archaic 3E campaign, myself, I don't know what a defense bonus is. Quick explanation?

- Along the same lines, I can guess in general terms what the Weapon Group Variant is about, but where can I find specifics?

- I haven't tried any tweaking, yet, but was the general idea when assigning these values to find out how much should be assigned to each class to have them come out being worth the same, or were these values previously arrived at by Monte or some other person/thread?

   This last I ask because I don't think the main beef -- the fighter being undervalued unless feats are added -- is a real beef if, say, hit dice or BAB were worth more, or the fighter somehow pays for his proficiencies at each level he uses them. (Or barring that, the fighter buys a few more weapons and armor at higher levels, once he can financially afford them.)

   But hey, with the spreadsheet as versatile as it is, that's not even a real issue! I can just assign my own experimental values until I find something that works for me!


----------



## CRGreathouse (Apr 6, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> - Being in an archaic 3E campaign, myself, I don't know what a defense bonus is. Quick explanation?




It's not a part of 3.5.  It's a class-based feature that adds to AC.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - Along the same lines, I can guess in general terms what the Weapon Group Variant is about, but where can I find specifics?




Unearthed Arcana (3.5)


----------



## Videssian (Apr 6, 2004)

> It's not a part of 3.5. It's a class-based feature that adds to AC.




If I understand it correctly, it only sometimes adds to AC.. the rationale being that it is largely treated like armor (it's an armor bonus), in that it doesn't stack with armor.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 6, 2004)

My clinic is underway for this afternoon, so I'll answer a few of these now and see what others I can get to later today.



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> I've had a looksee at it, pretty impressive!  Is your intent with this as a worksheet to figure out appropriate characteristics for each class, then use what you've gained from that to produce a word document that would apply to your campaign?
> 
> I also see that you could easily use this as the basis for a "design your own class" document, where you give all these options and say that it must equal xx CBs.. that could be interesting.. (the final result would still need vetting by you since there'd be DM interpretation about how much a particular unlisted ability would be in CBs, but it would mean more distinctiveness than is present now).




Some of both. It started out working with *ouini* as a classless generation system, but we couldn't get some major flaws worked out. Once Monte released AU and addressed some of them, and UA came out and addressed most of the others, it didn't really take all that long for me to pull everything together into a workable form.



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> 1)  Definitely add d12 HP to the chart




Umm, that was me being lazy. 

Every other category (except maybe Weapon Prof groups) broke down easily into 3 groups. BAB/Defense/Saves/Magic are all Low, Medium & High. After getting the d6, d8 & d10 in there I ran out of room for the d12! It's not overly difficult to add, but I only wanted to do it if I really found this useful. Well, *I* have, so I'll probably go back and add it.



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> 2)  Consider adding a "blank" character class region where you can put various values in to experiment with (and exclude it from the average value calcs), so that it's easier to compare with other classes.




Ooo! That's good! Consider it on the list!



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> 3) On the Intro page, it's unclear what the values  "0+0.33" , "1.2+0.4", "2+0.5" mean.  For instance, for average saves, do you add 1.2 or 0.4?  Also, in the Unearthed Arcane, there's four classes of defense bonuses, yet you only list three categories.  So you might want to split defense bonuses off, I personally find it a bit confusing.




*CRG* has it correct (and *ouini* almost does). The formulas for Poor & Good I believe generate _exactly_ the proper save bonuses for levels 1 through 20 in the PHB. The Medium path (from +1 to +9) is a tad different than Monte's offering in AU (which starts at +0, which I didn't like) and is, in fact, identical to that used in WoT. @*Ouini*: You don't round up for 0.5, you always round fractions down. So at 1st level with a Good save you get +2 as a base, then add (1*0.5 =) 0.5 for a total bonus at level 1 of +2.5. That rounds down to +2, which is exactly what you get in the PHB for a Good save. At 2nd level you get another 0.5 making your total +3, again the same as the PHB.

@*Videssian*The Defense bonus I want to use is NOT exactly like the UA version. It's closer to the variation found in WoT. I can see where others may want a different set of Defense bonuses (whether it's those from UA or some other source) but I originally created this for me to use personally. It was only after I had already hard-coded most of the sheet that I realized it may be useful for others but they may have very different ideas about some things, so I went back and added quite a bit of versatility (or tried to). That said, I'm not looking to make money of this and am not going to spend a great deal of my limited time making it perfect for everyone else. I will use the d12 and will use the blank character section you mentioned so I'll be adding those next.



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> 4)  What's the rationale for using defense bonuses in the first place?  From a quick read of the UA, it will tend to devalue the use of armor.  Is this your intent?  One disappointing thing I do have with how armor changed from 2e to 3e is that there's not usually much benefit to wearing the heavier armors unless you have a really low dex.  Though giving DR rating to armor would help with that.  I also note that Exotic armors help too, though at the cost of a feat.




I personally like the idea of higher level characters being better at avoiding blows because of their improved abilities, and not just because they have a bunch of magical stuff. I first saw this option in the d20 system in WoT and liked it immediately. There, Defense does not stack with Armor Bonus, you get one or the other. The only exception are the Armsman (essentially Fighters). Since they are trained at letting their Armor absorb the blow, they don't dodge as well. Because of that they get the lowest Defense bonus available. However, they get a special class ability at level ?3? called Armor Compatibility that allows them to stack their Defense bonus with their Armor bonus, because they're trained to use them together.

I'm still deciding which UA variants aside from Defense bonus to use. I like the Armor as DR variant and a couple of the others. IMC currently Medium Armor doesn't reduce your Base Speed, just your Run speed, so more people actually find Medium armor appealing (after all, in the Core rules you go from a Chain Shirt with a +4 to a Breastplate with a +5, whoop-dee-frickin'-doo! Why drop your base speed for a measly +1?!?). To compensate for that change I gave all Heavy Armors a DR of 1/-, which people have enjoyed.

As for the campaign this summer, I'm still trying to figure out what I'd like to run with, and also trying to imagine what my players are willing to try out variant-wise. We'll see.



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> Good work!




Thanks!


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 6, 2004)

Personally I'm a pretty big fan of Monte's wider variety of armor in AU.  Leather Coat is great!  +4AC -2 Check Penalty 10% Spell Failure No speed loss.

Naturaly Spunj, when you make an update, email it to me and I'll post it.

Oh and for those interested in another house rule thread on this board, I'll be using Ken Hood's Revised Ggrim N Gritty rules in the AU campaign I'm starting next month heh.  So long as my players don't revolt between now and then.

Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 6, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> - Good work, Spunj! It looks like you worked out a lot of the earlier kinks, and extended the scope and useability of the chart remarkably.




Thanks! I was very pleasantly surprised after reading through Unearthed Arcana and combining it with what I already liked from Monte's AU that most of our stumbling blocks had been fixed for us.  I then simply broke down the various class attributes into categories and "levels of power" (like a BAB having Poor @ +1/2, Average @ +3/4 and Good @ +1). Building the Excel spreadsheet was the most time-consuming part. I really wish I knew how to make "cell menus" to clean it up a lot. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?  



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - Being in an archaic 3E campaign, myself, I don't know what a defense bonus is. Quick explanation?




It's just what it sounds like, a class ability that increases with level to defend against attacks by adding to your AC, just the opposite of your BAB. There are, however, a *lot* of variations. In WoT, for instance, it doesn't stack with Armor, it's one or the other, so the values tend to be a bit higher. In others they _do_ stack so the defense bonuses tend to be lower. Some give the Fighter a high defense bonus since he's a combat master, others give him a low bonus because he's trained to shrug off blows with his armor, not dancing around in combat to avoid them completely. Most everyone agrees a Monk should have a high (if not the best) defense bonus while Mages should get the least. The other classes fit somewhere in between.

Me? I very much like the idea of a swashbuckler-type, unarmored Fighter. To get that I think I'm forced into making Armor & the Defense Bonus overlap insead of Stack. I like several things about this.

 Most importantly, it allows the generation of two distinct Fighters, very similar to Monte's Unfettered & Warmain; the Swashbuckler/Duelist and the Turtle/Tank. The former is at least viable at low levels under this system.
 Even the Tank gets some benefit if ambushed in camp when not in his/her armor and doesn't have the several requisite minutes to don it, hastily or normally.
 By using whichever one is better for any given situation, the Tank can benefit again when faced with incorporeal foes that ignore their Armor bonuses or when trying to avoid Touch attacks.

That third point has a caveat: Your Armor Check Penalty reduces your Defense Bonus. Why? Because otherwise the Tank gets the best of both worlds at all times. If you subtract the ACP from the Defense Bonus, then he's paying a real price to his Defense Bonus for the benefit of Armor and whatever magical enhancements it may offer.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - Along the same lines, I can guess in general terms what the Weapon Group Variant is about, but where can I find specifics?




*CRG* has it again, but the basics are pretty simple. Basic Weapons only include a small handful of weapons. IDHMBIFOM but IIRC they're Quarterstaff, Club, Xbow and one or two others.

If you want proficiency with any other weapon you have to get that "group". Some examples are Punching Weapons (Punching Dagger, Gauntlet), Spears, Polearms, Swords, etc. There are only two Exotic Weapon Proficiency groups in this system (I can't remember their names or distinctions, anyone wanna help here? I remember it being different than Monte's Heavy & Agile/Ranged grouping), and each of them give you potential access to a large variety of Exotic Weapons. I say potentially because you also need to have the Weapon Proficiency Group for similar weapons. For instance, to become proficient with the Dwarven Urgrosh you need to have the Axe & Spear groups (so you can use both ends) as well as one of the Exotic Weapon groups (so you can use it as a double weapon).



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - I haven't tried any tweaking, yet, but was the general idea when assigning these values to find out how much should be assigned to each class to have them come out being worth the same, or were these values previously arrived at by Monte or some other person/thread?




The values on the Near-Core sheet are all mine. I made them up. I tried to think about relative worth between attributes and used existing Core Feats as guidelines (for instance, Dodge is effectively the same as +1 Defense, while Weapon Focus is a limited +1 BAB, and Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes give +2 to a single save, so the cost of a Combat Feat should be similar, etc.) but in essence I just played with them in several ways to get something I liked.

You'll note with a bit of study they are all linear progressions. I like the fact that half again as many skill points cost half again as much, and twice as many skill points cost twice as much. Same with with BAB. Defense bonus seemed like it should be the same as BAB, IMO. Saves could arguably be less, but since you can't easily get below 0, 1 & 2 you'd have to increase all the other attribute values to make Saves worth less (not a big deal, but maybe not so intuitive for someone looking at the sheet for the first time).

As I've said here and in the sheet itself I do *not* believe I've found the perfect values, and that's why I'm looking for feedback.  

I personally think one level of magic (half or full) is worth more than a single Combat feat (and the Core rules support that opinion since you can't buy any more than a single spell known or cast per day with a feat). I think a Combat feat is worth more than a General feat. Obviously the Mage Blade's (like a Bard's spell progression) spells readied & spells per day that I've labeled as "Half" should be worth less than the Magister (like a Wiz/Sor's spell progression) spells readied & per day that I've labeled "Full", even if you don't feel the cost for the former should be literally half of the cost for the latter.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> This last I ask because I don't think the main beef -- the fighter being undervalued unless feats are added -- is a real beef if, say, hit dice or BAB were worth more, or the fighter somehow pays for his proficiencies at each level he uses them. (Or barring that, the fighter buys a few more weapons and armor at higher levels, once he can financially afford them.)




Absolutely, and if you come up with a different set of values for all the attributes that arrive at most classes being very close to the average values, PLEASE share them! I realize it's not going to be exact because of the default changes I've already implemented into the spreadsheet (like no more 2 SPs/lvl).

Even if you can't, I'd be interested in your opinions (and anyone else's) on why one particular attribute should be valued more or less than another attribute.

Realize, though, that I'm _expecting_ the Fighter (and most other classes) to have to buy more proficiency groups (both Weapon & Armor) as their character level increases. So as I have set things up on my sheet the Fighter uses an average of 13.2 (I think) CBs from levels 2-20. That leaves him with nearly 16 CBs over 20 levels if every gets 14 CBs per level to distribute. That translates into 8 General feats (at a cost of 2 each) which can buy him 8 additional proficiency groups over and above the 2 Weapon & 2 Armor groups he starts with at 1st level. If that's where you want to spend your points, more power to you. You've got them.

Most every other class works that way as well. Since the average for all classes came up at ~13+, it's better to round up to 14 to account for needing to buy extra proficiency groups as General Feats. You aren't going to have them at your early levels unless that's how you choose to spend your points. Again, more power to you (and your character concept!).



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> But hey, with the spreadsheet as versatile as it is, that's not even a real issue! I can just assign my own experimental values until I find something that works for me!




Right! And then share them! 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 6, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> EDIT: I see DrSpunj's explanation is that you always round down, but add in the 0.33 immediately at 1st level. Though this gives the exact same results for all three categories, it is more consistent with 3E's "always round down" rule.




I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not, so I'll be explicit. The spreadsheet labels for those columns _should_ read as:  Poor = 0+(0.33*Level); Average = 1+(0.4*Level); Good = 2+(0.5*Level).

So at 1st level the values for Poor, Average, Good would actually be 0.33, 1.4 & 2.5; rounded down you get +0, +1, +2.

At 20th level you get 6.66, 9 & 12; rounded down you get +6, +9, +12.

I looked at these formulas very carefully many months ago, then just incorporated them exactly as I had them in my notes, so I apologize if I've miscalculated. Hopefully the confusion stems from me just being unclear as to what I've done (and have now corrected that! ).

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 6, 2004)

*Six of one, half dozen of the other.*

Right. I originally read them as 
Poor = 0 at 1st level, +0.33 per subsequent Level
Average = 1 at 1st, +0.4 per subsequent Level
Good = 2 at 1st, +0.5 per subsequent Level

...which, rounding up for .5 and above, works out exactly the same.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 6, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> ...which, rounding up for .5 and above, works out exactly the same.




Ah! Very close, but I don't think exactly. For instance, at level 2 a Poor save would be .66. With my version you still get +0, while yours would round up to +1. I believe under Core that should be +0 at 2nd level, but I haven't checked (though I'll try and do so tonight).

EDIT: Nevermind, figured it out on the way home. _Your_ formula at 2nd level would yield 0+0.33 = 0.33, which would round down to +0. At 3rd level it'd be .66 which would round up to +1. I should've known to trust you with the math, *ouini*. 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Tessarael (Apr 6, 2004)

I had a quick look at it. 

In my opinion, you need to include d12 HD and try to balance the core classes. e.g. Barbarian really needs d12 HD to be balanced vs. Fighter in my opinion.

Here's what I see as the core cost decisions you need to make:
+4 skill points
+1 BAB
+1 feat
+5 HP
+1 spellcasting level Cleric
+1 spellcasting level Druid
+1 spellcasting level Wizard
+1 spellcasting level Sorcerer

Based on discussions on Sean Reynold's boards, and my own attempts to balance things, I'd suggest that +5 HP, +4 skill points, and +1 feat are all about the same value. +1 BAB is worth more than this baseline, because Weapon Focus is a feat giving +1 to hit, but not as good as +1 BAB.

+1 Cleric spellcasting level has to be worth much less than +1 Wizard spellcasting level, if you assume that Wizard and Cleric are balanced. However, they're not - Clerics are generally considered better. This is a 3.0E and 3.5E design problem.

A useful comparison point: Wizard vs. Fighter. Fighter gets +10 BAB, 6 more feats, and 60 more HP than Wizard - Wizard gets Summon Familiar (worth a feat or two at most) and 20 Wizard spellcasting levels. (Oh and I'm forgetting Fighter weapon, shield and armor feats - but these are front-loaded => easy to get with a prestige class for a Wizard at later levels.)

You could just argue that Sorcerers are underpowered vs. a Wizard specialist, and give them those extra 5 feats.

This still leaves Cleric as more powerful than the other classes (in terms of "feat cost equivalent"), unless you make Cleric spellcasting worth much less than Wizard.

Other comments: Don't use roleplaying restrictions to balance class mechanics. i.e. I wouldn't give Paladin or Cleric any extra points. Sean Reynold's has a long rant on this sort of thing, and you'll notice that Unearthed Arcana Paladin variants and Arcana Unearthed Champions have a fair range of different alignment options, without it weakening the characters notably.

You've over-priced Bard. Bards are weaker than the other classes. Again, try to get the core classes balanced as they are currently (with tweaks if you think one class is more powerful than another).

Argh, it's a mess. I more or less gave up on a point build system. It's very hard to do, without changing the classes and some of the core mechanics for spellcasting.

Just my muddled thoughts ...


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 7, 2004)

Tessarael said:
			
		

> I had a quick look at it.
> <snip>
> Just my muddled thoughts ...




Thanks!  

And they match a lot of mine, at least those that I've read about and/or experienced first hand at the gaming table.

I won't go through point by point but I would like to say I agree with much of what you said. Disagree with some, too, but that's to be expected with this many variables.

I agree the Bard is weak, I agree that the Cleric is more powerful and the Sorcerer needs to be tuned up.

The thing is, for me and my campaign, I'm dumping the Core magic system. As you said, it's flawed and difficult to balance. Monte's is so much cleaner and, IMO, more elegant that I won't have a "standard" Cleric IMC. I still plan on having something close; a class that offers Full magic and a few Domains (taken as Feat equivalents) and Turning Undead will be available (though I'll have to tweak it since there are no divine levels to measure it against).

So I have the same cost on the spreadsheet for +1 spellcasting level of Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers & Wizards. It's whatever you value a Full magic at. Like a Magister, for the Complex spells and Exotic ones, it'll cost you some Feats.

And I totally agree about not using roleplaying restrictions for mechanical gain. The problem is, _the Core rules have already done that_, IMO. If the DM doesn't hold the Cleric to their deity's wishes, I hope you'd admit they get more mechanical bang for their buck than most any other class! Oathsworn, too, gets a lot, though I'm not at all convinced they're overpowered as I haven't played one or seen one in play yet. It's not such a big deal with a Paladin or a Druid, but the restrictions are built into the Core rules set, and I have to assume the designers balanced the classes the way they did with those roleplaying restrictions in mind.

Thanks alot for the feedback! I appreciate it.

DrSpunj


----------



## Tessarael (Apr 7, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> The thing is, for me and my campaign, I'm dumping the Core magic system. As you said, it's flawed and difficult to balance. Monte's is so much cleaner and, IMO, more elegant that I won't have a "standard" Cleric IMC.
> [..]
> Oathsworn, too, gets a lot, though I'm not at all convinced they're overpowered as I haven't played one or seen one in play yet. It's not such a big deal with a Paladin or a Druid, but the restrictions are built into the Core rules set, and I have to assume the designers balanced the classes the way they did with those roleplaying restrictions in mind.




Using Arcana Unearthed's magic system makes your life a lot easier. The classes that get full spellcasting only get BAB +1/2, so that makes it a lot easier to cost spellcasting levels vs. BAB. In that case, I think a point system like you want is doable and quite worthwhile.

One thing I think you need to add to Arcana Unearthed's magic system is a feat for spontaneous casting of healing spells. Other than that, it shouldn't be too hard to cost - Magister gets the complex spell feat for each spell level; Greenbond's access to all Plant and Positive Energy spells is a feat (or two at most); etc.

Without roleplaying restrictions, I don't think Druids or Oathsworn are overpowered. And we agree regards Clerics. Paladins can be overpowered if you have high abilities - that uncapped CHA bonus to saves is really nice. Same deal with Monks getting a WIS bonus to AC - if they have great DEX, WIS, STR, and CON ... something is wrong (DEX, STR, CON, CHA for Paladin).

I did an Arcana Unearthed mini-campaign. I generated all the characters. The Oathsworn really didn't seem that great compared to any of the tanks, and couldn't match Akashic or Rogue for skills either ... so I think Oathsworn are probably ok.

Regards balance of Clerics in 3E ... frankly, I think the game designers had legacy issues with AD&D, which prevented them being balanced vs. Wizard. i.e. the d8 HD, 2/3 BAB in AD&D. Wizard spells got nerfed a little in 3E, Cleric spells improved, and a disparity results.

Just my thoughts ...


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 7, 2004)

Tessarael said:
			
		

> Using Arcana Unearthed's magic system makes your life a lot easier. The classes that get full spellcasting only get BAB +1/2, so that makes it a lot easier to cost spellcasting levels vs. BAB. In that case, I think a point system like you want is doable and quite worthwhile.




I hope so. As you pointed out before, one of the biggest questions becomes how much to value a "Magister's worth" of spellcasting, or what I've chosen to label Full.

The Magister has all those Complex Spell Feats floating around (technically two at first level, for Cantrips & 1st level spells, that I just rolled into a single feat to keep the point spread reasonable).

The Greenbond gets Full magic as well, but doesn't benefit from the 9 Complex Spell bonus feats. Instead she gets the Infuse & Greenbond abilities (which I'm not sure how to truly convert into feats yet). She also gets the Plant & Positive spell access. I've chosen to make that two separate feats, just to keep things clean, but I'm giving Positive spell access back to the Blessed Mage feat.

[Sidetrack]If you look at the Corrupt Mage and Blessed Mage feats they are not nearly equal and opposite. The former grants access to Complex/Exotic spells with the negative energy descriptor while the latter does not do this for spells with the positive energy descriptor. Why? Monte, in an interview, said there were no balance issues with it either way, but he wanted to keep Positive Energy spells only accessible to the Greenbond, to keep them unique. Since I'm breaking things down into components I'm going the other way, so someone building a Greenbond from scratch IMC will end up taking the Blessed Mage feat to get access to Positive spells.[/Sidetrack]

Anyway, to get back to how much Full magic is worth, my version of a Wizard or Sorcerer is so similar to that of the Magister that I've pretty much dropped both classes entirely. The only real unique thing about them, Familiars, is easily replaced with a single Feat that scales up according to your Caster Level. Improved Familiar is a second feat that just has Familiar as a prereq. That way if someone really wanted one they could have both a Staff & a Familiar. Whatever.

So originally I had chosen to value Full magic a bit higher, I think at 8 CBs, and Half magic at 4 CBs. While that worked fairly well with the AU classes, it ended up making the Core casting classes look a bit too powerful for my tastes. It widened the gap between the casters and the non-casters beyond what I thought was representative of my time tableside seeing them all in play over the last 3+ years.

And, getting back to your comment above, the Cleric & Druid enjoy a +3/4 BAB along with Full magic access. It's true that BAB could be weighed more heavily, and that might help fix the discrepancy between casters & non-casters, but the Cleric & Druid get pushed further & further towards the top of the pile. This worsens quite a more if you don't recognize any Restrictions in place, giving them even higher totals. Now, as I said before, they may actually deserve to be at the top of the list as far as power goes, but how much more (and what to take away to make them more balanced) I'm not sure about.

One thing that just occured to me: the Druid's Wildshape times per day could be reworked & consolidated into 3 Combat Feats (at +2x/day) instead of 6 which it is currently (at +1x/day). I base that upon the Extra Wild Shape feat in MotW. Same could be done with Rage. Hmm....

More random thoughts and ramblings in general.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Abisashi (Apr 7, 2004)

If/when you get around to fixing the spreadsheet, you should note that Defense bonus is calculating off of BAB (row 4, where it should be 5).

If you don't want to use class defense bonus, just set all three to 0 (which is how I noticed the above bug.)

Thanks! I'll definitely tinker around with this.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 7, 2004)

Abisashi said:
			
		

> If/when you get around to fixing the spreadsheet, you should note that Defense bonus is calculating off of BAB (row 4, where it should be 5).




Yep! Thanks. Just figured that out for myself last night, and have already updated one of the two calculating sheets accordingly (along with the d12, a blank "Build-Your-Own-PC" work area, the possibility of 10 SPs/lvl as well as 3 Prof groups for Weapons & Armor). Stupid copy/paste errors with all those blasted '$'s! 

As soon as I'm able to finish adjusting/correcting the other sheet I'll send a new copy to *SSquirrel* and ask him to post here when it's available for download.



			
				Abisashi said:
			
		

> If you don't want to use class defense bonus, just set all three to 0 (which is how I noticed the above bug.)




Actually, to get the effect you're describing, you'll need to enter 'Poor' in there, which will get you a value of '0'. I didn't notice it before because until last night I always valued BAB and Defense Bonus equally, which also works.



			
				Abisashi said:
			
		

> Thanks! I'll definitely tinker around with this.




Good. Please post if you find any more problems and/or work out a better value system.

Doing some more tinkering of my own, I tried pushing BAB to 0-2-4 (twice as much as I had listed before) and Magic to 0-6-10 (a definite step up from 0-3-6). I did the latter instead of 0-5-10 because I was trying to better balance (at *Tessarael*'s suggestion) all the Half magic classes. I *think* it closed some of the disparity gap between casters & non-casters, but I still had to leave the Restrictions in there, otherwise Druids, Clerics, Monks & Oathsworn had too much "point-bloat" compared to the other classes.

Grrr! 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 7, 2004)

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! )
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


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 8, 2004)

Updated version of the file is found at http://www.giant.net/~hagen/DrSpunj_s_Class_Balance.xls 

I'll go back and check the old addres earlier in the thread and edit it if it's different

Hagen


----------



## ouini (Apr 8, 2004)

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.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 8, 2004)

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


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 8, 2004)

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.  

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!   

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


----------



## Nail (Apr 8, 2004)

Looks interesting.  

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


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 8, 2004)

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


----------



## Nail (Apr 9, 2004)

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?


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 9, 2004)

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


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 10, 2004)

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


----------



## Tessarael (Apr 12, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Special Abilities: General Feat - 4, Combat Feat - 7




Sorry, what do you mean by a combat feat? If you mean proficiency in all martial weapons, yes it's worth more than a general feat (at least in PHB - I forget how Arcana Unearthed handles it). Other than that, I think combat feats are worth about the same as general feats ... unless you're going to go to a feat pricing system like Sean Reynolds proposed.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 12, 2004)

*Tessarael*, can you please provide a link to SKR's feat pricing proposal? I poked around a bit on his site and couldn't find whatever you're referring to.

To answer your question, realize that I enjoy D&D because it offers both combat & non-combat (roleplaying) opportunities. I enjoy both combats and a lot of the roleplaying situations and try to keep a good balance between the two at my table when I DM, but I feel D&D is combat-oriented and that's the way I enjoy playing it. If I wanted solely a roleplaying experience with essentially no combat I'd go play a LARP.   If I wanted a primarily roleplaying game I'd probably go with another system entirely to take the focus away from the tactical combats, minis & the battlegrid.

Now, having said that, I do not feel that all Feats are equal. Those that have a primary non-combat effect, at least in my games, are just not "worth" as much as a combat feat. As an example, you will never get as much mileage out of Negotiator [+2 on Diplomacy & Sense Motive checks] in my game as you would out of Lightning Reflexes [+2 on Reflex saves] even though both have no prerequisites and are available to any PC at 1st level. Under Core those feats have the same opportunity cost (1 feat slot), even though they don't offer the same benefit.

As I was saying up above to *ouini*, most skill affecting Feats to me are non-combat. I can see some arguable points (Tumble & Concentration being the biggest, but also Bluff, Intimidate & Sense Motive) but across the board skills are largely used outside of combat (except for the uncommon "make a balance check while fighting on that slippery ice" scenario).

Spells offer both non-combat & combat utility, and because of that all metamagic feats I've classified as Combat Feats. While it's useful to use something like Still & Silent Spell to cast a spell during the king's coronation ceremony, overall metamagic feats find greater usage in my games in combat. Natural spell is a prime example of that: casting a spell to put the archer/guard to sleep so you can slip by while you're a gold finch is pretty cool, but being able to casting Call Lightning while in bear form has a larger impact in most situations.

Magic Item creation feats, OTOH, are entirely non-combat, and therefore General feats.

While there are certainly exceptions to these broad generalities, I'd rather call them out specifically as exceptions to the basic guidelines of "Skills = General, Metamagic = Combat, Magic Item Creation = General, etc." If there are reasons it could be classified as General or Combat, I usually go with Combat and see if the feat/ability needs a little buffing.

Now, looking at class abilities, it's not too difficult to separate things out. A druid's Nature Sense doesn't really have any direct effects in the middle of combat, so it's a General feat. Wild Shape, OTOH, has dramatic effects in combat, so it & any related abilities are Combat feats.

This does mean some existing feats & abilities need to be tweaked. For instance, Dodge IMC is +1 dodge bonus to AC vs all opponents (as a house rule). Using the Weapon Proficiency groups I'm changing Weapon Focus & Specialization (including Greater forms) to select a weapon group instead of a single weapon.

Thinking back to Lightning Reflexes, it offers a +2 at the cost of a Combat Feat, which for me is 7 CBs. Since you get +1/2 per level by paying 2 CBs per level, that's a total of +2 for 8 CBs. 8 vs 7 is close enough for me so I consider that feat okay as is (as are Great Fortitude & Iron Will).

Does anyone have any Feats or Class Abilities that they are having a hard time categorizing? I'd be interested in discussing them since I've tried to look for repercussions from using this system and have probably certainly missed some key points.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Videssian (Apr 12, 2004)

Some miscellaneous thoughts:

Are you planning on incorporating Psionics at all in your campaign?  If so, I'd like to see entries in your spreadsheet for the classes in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (when you have it in your hands; mine's on order)..

Are you planning on incorporating anything defensewise to raise AC like attacks can be generally raised?  What I mean is, in standard D&D, attack ability rises much faster than PC armor class.. there's some ways around that, and I'm wondering if that's something you're considering..  one way (off the top of my head) since you're making Dodge a +1 AC to all combatants, is to have a Greater Dodge, Improved Dodge and so forth, much like there already is for Two-Weapon Defense and like there is for weapon specialization.. something that would be perhaps tied to shields.. I've always wondered why there's been no real shield *defense* feats (as it is now, shields are rarely worth taking).. and one could also add helmets to the equation.. they ought to add some defensive capability, as it is now you can't even buy one unless it's a helm of teleportation or the like..

ttyl,
Videssian


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 12, 2004)

Videssian said:
			
		

> Are you planning on incorporating Psionics at all in your campaign?  If so, I'd like to see entries in your spreadsheet for the classes in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (when you have it in your hands; mine's on order)..




As is mine, and one of the first things I want to do when I get my copy is add a Psionics sheet and see how they work out.

As to whether or not I'll allow them this summer...maybe, but probably not. 

I like the "slickness" of Monte's AU system, which already includes Psionic spells. Adding Psionics may become too confusing and/or redundant. I want to look at both closely. It doesn't sound fun to me to play a Mind Witch if there are already a bunch of Psionic classes out there.

OTOH, Augmentation sounds like a nifty way to steal spells from the EPH and convert them into AU-like spells with Diminished, Normal and Heightened effects, oftentimes with the Psionic descriptor. And feats from there should be easy enough to rework.

The Psychic Warrior sounds kind of like a Mageblade to me (some magic/psionics but also a decent warrior with some combat feats), and the Mind Witch creates a weapon similar to a Soulknife. There's quite a bit of overlap already.

I guess the best I can say is "not wholeheartedly, but anything you like in there can likely be incorporated pretty easily."



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> Are you planning on incorporating anything defensewise to raise AC like attacks can be generally raised?




A Defense Bonus already accomplishes some of this, and incorporating a feat similar to WoT's Armor Compatibility stretches that a bit more. Monte already has Shield Specialization in AU and I have no problem with Improved Dodge upping the dodge bonus to +2 and Greater Dodge going to +3. If you want to spend your feats becoming a turtle, I'm fine letting you do it.

BTW, *Videssian*, would you be willing to play a character in a game that you generated using the values I listed a couple posts earlier? Do they seem fair to you? If not, why not?

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Tessarael (Apr 12, 2004)

Sean's feat point system is here:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html
There was some quite extensive discussion of it on his boards, but I'm not going to go looking for that thread. Keep in mind that the pricings Sean put there are provisional - it's not a final version, and there was some debate about the right pricing: e.g. Sean undervalued Maximize Spell and Empower Spell, because he was thinking about the value of the other weaker metagmagic abilities.

So yes, I agree not all feats are equal, but there are some really bad combat feats too.


----------



## Videssian (Apr 13, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> BTW, *Videssian*, would you be willing to play a character in a game that you generated using the values I listed a couple posts earlier? Do they seem fair to you? If not, why not?




If you mean would I be willing to generate a character using the values/spreadsheet that you've created as a basis for it, and play it in a game that you're running, sure!  (otherwise I'm misunderstanding what you mean)

The values seem reasonable to me..

ttyl,
Videssian


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 13, 2004)

Videssian said:
			
		

> The values seem reasonable to me.




That's what I was asking. I was just curious if the way I valued/priced something seemed out of whack, in your opinion.

Cool!   

It still needs some tweaking, and some of the class abilities need to be better defined. For instance, I'm playing a Mage Blade in a PbP game and just leveled to 4th. On the sheet I've broken the Athame into a number of separate feats (for each +1, Summon 1 & 2, Athame Defense, etc.) that might actually work better if some of them were treated like a Familiar's abilities based upon either character level, caster level, of levels of Half magic (the latter would probably be least abusive). I'm thinking that way for two reasons: 1) not all the Athame abilities are worth a true Combat Feat, and 2) Shimmering Shield probably deserves to be a Combat Feat every 4th level as it's really too powerful as a single feat, and currently I haven't worked that into the Mage Blade.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 14, 2004)

Well, at this point, I think I'll be going with a very conservative (low-cost) point system.

- d6, d8, d10, d12 cost 1, 2, 3, 4
- BAB costs 0, 1, 2
- Adding +1 to a save always costs 1
- 4, 6, 8, 10 SPs cost 0, 1, 2, 3
- Weapon and Armor Profs cost 0, 1, 2, 3
- Feats/Specials cost 3 (general) and 5 (combat)
- Restrictions give -2 and -4

I have a couple working philosophies with regards to feats/specials which makes this work out okay. Some big ones are:
- The ability to *choose* a feat when you level is better (i.e. worth more points) than having to choose them many levels ahead of time (laid out for you as class abilities are). So a Druid's or Ranger's or Barbarian's feats, the type and timing of which are laid out from level one, aren't worth as much as a fighter's feats, which he can capriciously or prudently choose as he goes to match the flavor of the world or campaign situations he's likely to encounter.
- Feats are sometimes based on level, and get better on their own as you advance. Bardic Knowledge, therefore, is one feat, which gets better as you advance.
- Feats which have prerequisites, are more powerful than ones which don't. Feats which have prereqs, but which don't offer more to the character than the prerequisite does (like Barbarian 2x, 3x, 4x Rage, and all progressive class abilities similar to it), should not cost as much as the original feat.


Also, just as the base hit die (d6) and base skill points (4 per level) cost absolutely nothing, I'm tinkering with regular saving throw progression (one save gets to +18 at 20th, the other two get to +6) costing nothing. This works out to giving two +1's at odd levels, and one +1 at even levels, for free.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 14, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> - d6, d8, d10, d12 cost 1, 2, 3, 4
> 
> Also, just as the base hit die (d6) and base skill points (4 per level) cost absolutely nothing....




These two statements don't mesh. Your d6 costs 1 pt as you list it.

And you don't list how much you've priced magic at. What are you doing there? Going to a feat based magic system?



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I have a couple working philosophies with regards to feats/specials which makes this work out okay. Some big ones are:
> <snip>




These are all really good points, but I'm not sure how they relate to the simplified costs you list. Does a Barbarian's 3rd Rage/day feat cost less than a Fighter's Bonus Feat? If so, how?

You speak about the Druid/Ranger/Barb abilities almost like they are feat paths. Are you using something along those lines? What happens if/when you want to deviate from the path? One of best things, IMO, about 3E was the ability to multiclass, and it can be difficult to keep that level of built-in flexibility with something like feat paths.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - Feats are sometimes based on level, and get better on their own as you advance. Bardic Knowledge, therefore, is one feat, which gets better as you advance.




I like this idea, but I wasn't sure how to keep PCs from becoming overpowered. If you link Bardic Lore to character level, what stops anyone from purchasing that feat and enjoying the benefits? What keeps someone from using their 18th level General feat that all PCs get to buy the Bardic Lore feat and suddenly get a +18 on a Lore check?

When you find the time, please email me a copy of what you've done with the sheet. I'd be interested to see how things work out under your system. I'm very interested in what people think are reasonable "single feat" abilities, like the Bardic Lore up above. I agree that making someone pay for 10 General feats, each of which increases the Lore bonus by +2, is a bit much, but lumping everything into a single feat looks like way too much, especially when you compare it to something like Dodge.   

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 15, 2004)

DrSpunj,

Good catch. I meant d6, d8, d10, d12 cost 0, 1, 2, 3.

So powerful or combat feats cost 5, and general or expansion feats cost 3. Since I think pre-mapped abilities, and low-power prereq'd feats should cost less, feats which fall into one or especially both categories (like the Barbarian's pre-mapped 2nd and 3rd Rage per day ability/feats), cost less than a Fighter's Bonus Feat. I price them as general or expansion feats (3).

I noticed many of the costs I was using originally (weeks ago) were divisible by 2, which is why my costs are about half the original listed costs. Magic I'll likely price at 4 and 7 for half and full, but I'm still tinkering, not being as familiar with that system (thanks for the details you gave).

I do think the Druid/Ranger/Barb abilities, in the core classes, are pretty concrete feat paths. Now, I too liked that in 3E you can multiclass. But the thing about multiclassing I didn't like was the fact that the 1st level of many classes was where much of the power lay. (Want a truckload of abilities and amazing saving throws by 3rd level? Take three different classes). The thing I like about a la carte character levelling is that you get flexibility, without reckless freebies.

But if someone wanted to commit to being a Barbarian or Druid (or whatever well thought-out theme they came up with) for several levels, and committed to buying themed/expansion feats a few levels ahead of time, I'd likely drop the cost of those future, pre-mapped feats.

This rule sort of applies to Bardic Lore, as well. Actually, there are lots of abilities based on class level, though usually they're based on prestige class levels. Since a la carte purchasing doesn't have "classes" per se, just make sure players can't buy feats that don't fit their concept. Not all feats are general feats, after all. If I remember right, some can only be taken at first level. Some improve with / are limited by other bonuses (like expertise and power attack are limited by BAB). Personally, I'd probably make Bard Lore have Bard-like feat prereqs, and/or be based on applicable levels relative to their attainment, just like caster-level abilities or prestige-class abilities are.


----------



## ouini (Apr 15, 2004)

DrSpunj,

Good catch. I meant d6, d8, d10, d12 cost 0, 1, 2, 3.

So powerful or combat feats cost 5, and general or expansion feats cost 3. Since I think pre-mapped abilities, and low-power prereq'd feats should cost less, feats which fall into one or especially both categories (like the Barbarian's pre-mapped 2nd and 3rd Rage per day ability/feats), cost less than a Fighter's Bonus Feat. I price them as general or expansion feats (3).

I noticed many of the costs I was using originally (weeks ago) were divisible by 2, which is why my costs are about half the original listed costs. Magic I'll likely price at 4 and 7 for half and full, but I'm still tinkering, not being as familiar with that system (thanks for the details you gave).

I do think the Druid/Ranger/Barb abilities, in the core classes, are pretty concrete feat paths. Now, I too liked that in 3E you can multiclass. But the thing about multiclassing I didn't like was the fact that the 1st level of many classes was where much of the power lay. (Want a truckload of abilities and amazing saving throws by 3rd level? Take three different classes). The thing I like about a la carte character levelling is that you get flexibility, without reckless freebies.

But if someone wanted to commit to being a Barbarian or Druid (or whatever well thought-out theme they came up with) for several levels, and committed to buying themed/expansion feats a few levels ahead of time, I'd likely drop the cost of those future, pre-mapped feats.

This rule sort of applies to Bardic Lore, as well. Actually, there are lots of abilities based on class level, though usually they're based on prestige class levels. Since a la carte purchasing doesn't have "classes" per se, just make sure players can't buy feats that don't fit their concept. Not all feats are general feats, after all. If I remember right, some can only be taken at first level. Some improve with / are limited by other bonuses (like expertise and power attack are limited by BAB). Personally, I'd probably make Bard Lore have Bard-like feat prereqs, and/or be based on applicable levels relative to their attainment, just like caster-level abilities or prestige-class abilities are.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> So powerful or combat feats cost 5, and general or expansion feats cost 3. Since I think pre-mapped abilities, and low-power prereq'd feats should cost less, feats which fall into one or especially both categories (like the Barbarian's pre-mapped 2nd and 3rd Rage per day ability/feats), cost less than a Fighter's Bonus Feat. I price them as general or expansion feats (3).




Hmmm. That's interesting. So the first feat, or a significant add-on ability, would cost more, but upgrades would cost less. Hmmm. I like that! Definitely a different way to classify abilities than I'd originally done, but it may very well work better.

Now it's just a matter of opinion on what's an add-on and what's an upgrade. Mind if we work on the Bard as an example? Let's try to flesh these out as much as possible. May need to use different terminology for the feats since we're categorizing them differently than Combat & non-combat. Not sure what to use though...what about "Base" and "Expansion"?

*Bardic Music*
Prereq: Caster Level >0, Perform 3 ranks
Allows 1 song per level per day. Choose one "song" from: Inspire Courage +1, Countersong, Fascinate to start with. Others may be gained with the appropriate Expansion feat.
Cost: Base
_Notes_: So this is obviously a base. I know I originally started with Inspire Courage as the freebie here, but it seems natural under this expansion classification that any of the 1st level songs could be taken for free with the others being picked up as Expansion feats.

*Bardic Lore*
Prereq: Bardic Music
Allows Lore checks with a +1 bonus/level
Cost: Base
_Notes_: Bardic Lore is certainly not a Combat ability, but it is definitely an "add-on" or "new" ability from Bardic Music so under your classification I see it as costing more. By taking it at low levels you enjoy it's power over the lifetime of the PC. By taking it at high levels you start using it with a hefty +Level bonus. Either way, I think it's worth the higher cost. Actually, now that I think about it, it's not unreasonable to consider it an expansion power from Bardic Music but then I'd only allow the bonus to accrue from the time you took the feat, not your class level. By that I mean, if you took it at level 1, by level 20 you'd get a +20; if you took it at level 18, by level 20 you'd get a +3. That's far more consistent with Core but is a snitch more bookkeeping.

*Spellsong*
Prereq: Bardic Music
Allows you to ignore/reduce Arcane Spell Failure by up to 10%.
Cost: Base

*Inspire Courage*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 3 ranks
Allows use of the Inspire Courage song. Starts at +1. Every 6 levels can be taken again to increase the bonus by 1.
Cost: Expansion

*Countersong*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 3 ranks
Allows use of the Countersong song.
Cost: Expansion

*Fascinate*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 3 ranks
Allows use of the Fascinate song.
Cost: Expansion

*Inspire Competence*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 6 ranks
Allows use of the Inspire Competence song.
Cost: Expansion

*Suggestion*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 6 ranks
Allows use of the Suggestion song.
Cost: Expansion

*Inspire Greatness*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 12 ranks
Allows use of the Inspire Greatness song.
Cost: Expansion

*Song of Freedom*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 15 ranks
Allows use of the Song of Freedom song.
Cost: Expansion

*Inspire Heroics*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 18 ranks
Allows use of the Inspire Heroics song.
Cost: Expansion

*Mass Suggestion*
Prereq: Bardic Music, Perform 21 ranks
Allows use of the Mass Suggestion song.
Cost: Expansion

Well, that wasn't too bad. It worked out rather well, if a bit simplistic because the Bard really only has his songs.   

Alright, maybe I'll try the Barbarian next since he's a bit more varied...



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I noticed many of the costs I was using originally (weeks ago) were divisible by 2, which is why my costs are about half the original listed costs. Magic I'll likely price at 4 and 7 for half and full, but I'm still tinkering, not being as familiar with that system (thanks for the details you gave).




Good, that's also _very_ close (doubled) to my values of 9 & 14. At least we're working along the same lines.

The thing that prevents me from cutting the points in half as you have done keeping the Save paths. By switching to the "you get so many free +1's to your saves" each level you've bypassed that. I honestly I don't _think_ I like it as well, but it's not overly complicated and using less points to allocate at each level is very appealing. I'll think about it. It certainly _is_ a lot more versatile.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> But if someone wanted to commit to being a Barbarian or Druid (or whatever well thought-out theme they came up with) for several levels, and committed to buying themed/expansion feats a few levels ahead of time, I'd likely drop the cost of those future, pre-mapped feats.




What do you mean by "a few levels ahead of time?" If you mean paying points now for abilities you don't get until later, well, that's not something I much care for. What I most like about the methodology we're using is that you get an immediate benefit wherever you spend your points. I do think paying more up front to open the door to a set of related abilities makes a lot of sense, and I want to keep pursuing it and see how it works out, but that's about all the "investment" I'm willing to buy (or offer, as the DM).



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd probably make Bard Lore have Bard-like feat prereqs, and/or be based on applicable levels relative to their attainment, just like caster-level abilities or prestige-class abilities are.




I think I'm leaning towards this as well. As I said above with the Bardic Lore feat, which also fits for Bardic Music, someone using this character system is going to have to keep track of when they purchased each class ability. You can only take Sneak Attack every other level, so you have to know if you took it last level or the level before. That's the most basic example I can think of, and not all that difficult for someone to remember, but what if you're looking at the Barb's DR which is every 3rd? Or his extra Rages at every 4th?

The Core character sheet has that long open column on the back for Feats & Special Abilities. With this system I see people using that to keep track of specifically which level they took their abilities. I think I'm really warming to the idea that certain abilities *will* scale with character level, but only count the levels _after_ you take the ability. That is, if you take Bardic Lore at 1st level you'll have a nice +20 bonus at 20th; however, if you waited until 11th level to pick it up, you'll max out with only a +10 bonus at 20th level.

Bardic Music would work the same way since it offers 1 song per level. That probably shouldn't allow someone who takes Bardic Music at 20th level to all of a sudden get to play 20 songs a day. Instead, they should be limited to just 1 song.

Thanks for the input, *ouini*! I really appreciate the sounding board. Things are definitely improving and headed in the right direction, I think!   

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Also, just as the base hit die (d6) and base skill points (4 per level) cost absolutely nothing, I'm tinkering with regular saving throw progression (one save gets to +18 at 20th, the other two get to +6) costing nothing. This works out to giving two +1's at odd levels, and one +1 at even levels, for free.




Okay, I've been mulling this over for a bit, and here's what I'm proposing:

You admit that a d6 and 4 SPs/lvl cost nothing, yet with what you've outlined for saves you're offering at least 1 Good save progression for everybody. Commoners (my "what's the worst it could be" metric) don't get _any_ Good saves, they're stuck with all Poor saves. Three Poor saves nets you a +6 at 20th level for each save (actually +6.66 under the fraction system) which, multiplied by three, gives you a total of +18 (with fractions it's even better since it exactly _equals_ 20!  ).

So instead of your "two +1's at odd levels and one +1 at even levels" I'm thinking that should be a flat, simple, free +1 to any save you want at every level. That's it.

Anything more/better you have to pay points for. You also can't have any save greater than [(half your level) +2] (rounded down, of course). That keeps a lid on anyone's best saves and yet still allows for a save progression _very_ close to Core's, regardless of how many points are spent. Furthermore, at 1st level you are thereby allowed to spend 1 point for a +1 to any save up to the formula-calculated maximum of +2. Voila!

Whaddya think?   

Thanks.

DrSpunj

PS. I still have to think about how Defense goes, but I expect it would work exactly the same. Just haven't thought through all the repercussions there....


----------



## ouini (Apr 15, 2004)

What I mean when I say someone can commit to a thought-out theme for several levels (and commit to buy themed feats a few levels ahead), I meant to say they're presently *commiting* to buying certain feats later, not that they're presently *paying* for later feats. If, upon reaching a level they said they were going to buy feat X and Y at, and decide instead that those feats wouldn't be fun to play for them, then I don't see why they couldn't drop X and Y and instead go with Z (at full cost). I also like getting immediate benefit where you spend points.

Some things (like Barbarian DR and Rages, and Rogue Sneak Attack) can be worded to preclude needing to track the level at which they were bought. S.A., for instance, was originally made with the understanding that an extra die of damage weighs about the right amount at 1st level, and 3d6 weighs about right at 5th level. So, just give the +1d6 sneak attack feat a maximum xd6 value of level / 2 or some such. Give the Barbarian DR a maximum value of level / 5 or so. Rage, level / 4 (or one more than that). You get the idea.

The Bardic Lore feat is tricky, but not terrible. Like you imply, what's the difference between keeping track of a few class levels, and instead keeping track of a few feat-gained levels?


----------



## ouini (Apr 15, 2004)

I admit I don't know squat about commoners. Didn't know they were a real (NPC?) class, rarely use anything like them, and in any case never go to the trouble of rolling them up/buying them in detail. If you do, and commoners get d6 HP (not d4?), and get 4 SPs/lvl (not 2 SPs?), then for consistency's sake you would probably want to give them just +1 to a save per level.

I don't / probably wouldn't limit saves to [(half your level) +2, rounded down]. I'd let anyone who wants uber-saves to buy them up, the only cap being +2 at 1st level, and +1 at later levels. That seems simpler, but to each his own!

I'm not locked to any system yet, so this sort of back and forth is handy. Keep it coming!


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> ...I meant to say they're presently *commiting* to buying certain feats later, not that they're presently *paying* for later feats.




Okay, then I _think_ we're on the same page. To "enter" a theme costs more since you're opening the door to an entire new set of abilities, hence the higher cost of a Base feat (do you have better name?). Once in there, if you're just really expanding what you can do with that ability, then Expansion feats cost less. OTOH, something that is more powerful in that theme and/or is an entirely different set of abilities, even if closely related to the theme, starts out again at the higher cost.

This method breaks away from "class" and instead focuses on abilities being grouped into different "themes". I like that.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> ...can be worded to preclude needing to track the level at which they were bought. S.A., for instance.... You get the idea.




I think so. You still have to pay for each upgrade, though, right? Whatever the Expansion feat cost is? So it *is* possible to pick up 3d6 of Sneak Attack in a single level _as long as_ you're at least a 5th level PC and have enough points to buy a Base feat (for SA @ 1d6) plus 2 Expansion feats (for +2d6, total of 3d6). Correct?


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

No one really messes with Commoners, but they are the built-in "worst case scenario" for character generation. In Core they do, indeed, have a d4 HD and only 2 SPs/lvl, but IMC I'm raising those lows to d6 & 4 SPs/lvl. They get a Poor BAB, all bad saves, no special abilities and are only proficient with a single Simple weapon (no armor/shield profs). I'm very interested in having that be what this system generates if you have absolutely no CBs to use. It keeps things internally consistent, IMO.

Offering a single, flat +1 to any save at every level isn't exactly like a Core Commoner, but it's more than close enough for gov't work, IMO.   



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I don't / probably wouldn't limit saves to [(half your level) +2, rounded down]. I'd let anyone who wants uber-saves to buy them up, the only cap being +2 at 1st level, and +1 at later levels. That seems simpler, but to each his own!




Damn. You always seem to be able to turn exactly what I say into something much simpler and/or user-friendly. 

Alright, screw the formula. Here's the rules for saves:
1) +1 to any save at each level (including 1st)
2) 1 CB = +1 to any save
3) Max per level for each save is +2 at 1st & +1 thereafter

Good? The way #3 is worded someone could actually end up at 20th level with a base +21 to all three saves, but as you say, if that's how they want to spend their CBs more power to them.   

I think that allows me to downgrade my costs to match up with yours, so it should drop the CBs involved (even at 1st) by at least half. I'll rebalance the Core classes when I find some time (maybe tonight), then move on to AU (and the Expanded Psionic Handbook whenever mine gets shipped!  :\  )

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

Okay, here's a quick try at the Barbarian's abilities. Please help me flesh these out as the prerequisites here are quite a bit tougher than the Bard's.   

*Rage*
Prereq: Fort save +2
Allows use of the Rage ability 1x/day. May be taken more than once allowing additional uses per day but maximum limited to (1+Level/4) (round down).
Cost: Base
_Notes_: I'm a bit flexible on the Prereqs here, but I don't think it should necessarily be tied to HD, BAB or most other things. I could see a minimum Con requirement of something fairly low like 13+. Any ideas?

*Fast Movement*
_AU equivalent: Fleet of Foot_
Prereq: ??? _Ceremonial Feat: Truename_
Grants +10 to Base Speed if not encumbered by Heavy Armor or a Heavy Load.
Cost: Base
_Notes_: Again, the Prereqs need to be worked out. Minimum Dex 13+ makes a bit of sense since the ability doesn't work if you're overly burdened (and Dex is limited in the same situations). I could also see the Con 13+ again since maintaining that extra fast pace all the time is a pretty good mark of physical fitness. Any ideas? [EDIT: Monte's Fleet of Foot doesn't have anything beyond being a Ceremony, and doesn't limit the feat with heavy armor or encumbrance either]

*Uncanny Dodge*
_AU equivalent: Intuitive Sense_
Prereq: _Dex 13+, Truename_
Allows use of the Uncanny Dodge ability.
Cost: Base
_Notes_: Hmm, the Prereqs are killing me here. The ability says "to react to danger before his senses would normally allow him to do so". I can see tying that into Wis 13+ or a Reflex save or Dex 13+. Not sure, but it should be something pretty easy for both the Barbarian and Rogue to get at very low levels (though I'm not worried about it being exactly like Core; I think both the Barb & Rogue should get Uncanny Dodge at about the same time, personally). [EDIT: Again, Monte only requires a Truename making this a Ceremonial feat, but I personally like the Dex 13+ since it only helps those who have a positive Dex modifier.]

*Trap Sense*
Prereq: Uncanny Dodge
Allows use of the Trap Sense ability. May be taken more than once increasing the bonus by +1 each time, maximum Level/3.
Cost: Expansion

*Improved Uncanny Dodge*
_AU equivalent: Improved Intuitive Sense_
Prereq: Dex 13+, Truename, Uncanny Dodge/Intuitive Sense
Allows use of the Improved Uncanny Dodge ability.
Cost: Expansion
_Notes:_: EDIT: Going back through AU, Monte doesn't even have a Dex requirement or a level requirement here, just the Truename so it's a Ceremonial feat again.

*Damage Reduction*
Prereq: ???, 4th level
Allows use of the Damage Reduction 1/- ability. May be taken more than once increasing the DR by +1 each time, maximum of Level/4.
Cost: Base
_Notes_: Prereqs again here have me stymied. The only other Core class/PrC with DR I can think of OTTOMH are Dwarven Defenders, who also get Uncanny Dodge at an earlier level, as well as a Rage-like ability. Still, I'm not sure those are links I want to force/hard-code. They each make some sense, and DR is a pretty hefty benefit, so I want some tough prereqs.

*Greater Rage*
Prereq: Rage, 11th level
As the Greater Rage ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Indomitable Will*
Prereq: Rage, Greater Rage, 14th level
As the Indomitable Will ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Tireless Rage*
Prereq: Rage, Greater Rage, Indomitable Will, 17th level
As the Tireless Rage ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Mighty Rage*
Prereq: Rage, Greater Rage, Indomitable Will, Tireless Rage, 20th level
As the Mighty Rage ability.
Cost: Expansion

Probably try the Druid next.   

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Nail (Apr 15, 2004)

Hey-ho.

I'm afraid I'm not following much of what you and Ouini are working on right now.....in part because I'd like to stick to Core....and in part because I know how "assigning points to abilities" can be of dubious value.  (Seriously.)

Still, it's fun playing with your spreadsheet, DrSpunj, expecially when everything is simple and transparent!

I took the liberty of putting a "Comparison Calc" at the top of the sheet, so I could see, at a glance, how the core classes compared with each other.  As I mentioned before, I'm ignoring the AU classes (for familiarity's sake).  I've also removed the Defence Bonus (that is: set cost to zero), as that's not interesting to me (YMMV, of course!).  I've also restored the skill points per level to the Core values.  Finally, I'm not going to try to address the "point value" of different skill lists, spell lists, and spell casting types.  To really get a handle on the balance, that'll have to be done!  Maybe some other time.....

...*Anyway*....

It seems pretty clear that most classes fall into a narrow range.  That's good!  (and expected, right!!?)  

Except the Ftr, of course.

But when you give Ftrs 4 skill points per level (instead of 2), and an extra few feats (1 per level!), they are much closer to the mean of all classes.  They are still, however, on the bottom.   Average CBs for the Ftr are 14.3, a distinction they share with the Rog and the Pal.  Compare that to the Drd (20.9) and the Rgr (21.1). Ah well. 

So: we change the Ftr, eh?


----------



## ouini (Apr 15, 2004)

For themed feat sets, I figure you're paying base cost for the first feat in a series. If the player puts enough thought into hir character to come up with a theme (woodland, cavalry, whatever) and explains what feats are in line in the coming levels, then later related feats only cost expansion cost. It wouldn't cost more to enter a theme than it would to buy feats on the fly, though. I think we're both saying the same thing.

As for picking up 3d6 of Sneak Attack in a single level ... it's up to the GM. Personally, I think I'd differentiate PRE-requisites from CO-requisites. I'd be okay with a 5th level character buying +1d6 at 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, but not so okay with a 5th level character buying 3d6 at once. But that's just me.

As far as Commoners go, I have no trouble with them having d4 HD and only 2 SPs/lvl. But it's unlikely I'll ever sit down and create some, so it's moot!

And I realize now that my math was off for saves (gasp!). A fighter doesn't get +18 FORT at 20th level, does he? He just gets +12. That and two +6s makes +24 total. So +2 at 1st, and +1 every level after (free), is about right.

As for Rage, et al, I don't know. I would more likely tie things which are presently class-related themes, to other theme-related feats. You're a barbarian from a primitive war-culture? Sure, you can get Rage and Fast Movement if you buy them together, and plan on getting on the Uncanny Dodge and DR paths later, and of course the Rage expansions. You're a Half-Orc shock trooper? Sure, you can get Rage and Unarmed Combat if you buy them together, and plan on Rage and UC expansions. That kind of thing. If the idea sounds sound, allow it. If it's pure munchkinism, don't.

I don't think anyone who realizes they can buy +1 to reflex save for one point will buy any kind of Trap Sense as a feat.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I'm not following much of what you and Ouini are working on right now.....in part because I'd like to stick to Core....and in part because I know how "assigning points to abilities" can be of dubious value.  (Seriously.)




Well, realize we're only really categorizing feats into two types. Originally I was using Combat & non-Combat, while *ouini* has tried organizing instead along themes and has a Base cost and an Expansion cost. If you're truly going to use the sheet to see how things balance the classes you really must use some sort of guideline to compare abilities. After all, is Nature Sense really equivalent in value to a Fighter Bonus feat? In your opinion, it may be, but it's a question that needs to be answered.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Still, it's fun playing with your spreadsheet, DrSpunj, expecially when everything is simple and transparent!




Thanks!   



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> It seems pretty clear that most classes fall into a narrow range.  That's good!  (and expected, right!!?)




Usually that's true, though depending upon how you organize/classify the class abilities, some are definitely out of whack. As you noted the Druid & Ranger both come out looking pretty good. With the Druid I'm sure that's accurate. With the Ranger, well, I'd agree that he's a bit on the high side, but not so much as the Druid, IMO. The Bard also _can_ look too good depending on how you organize his abilities.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Except the Ftr, of course. So: we change the Ftr, eh?




I am!    I'll see how things turn out after playing with *ouini*'s ability classifications, but so far they are working well. I'm almost done with Druids...

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> It wouldn't cost more to enter a theme than it would to buy feats on the fly, though. I think we're both saying the same thing.




Yeah, we're just going about it differently. You're going to look at things "on the fly" and reward a good concept. That works really well as long as you're willing to step in and tell the player you don't agree with the association they're trying to make and therefore this feat is going to be more expensive than they were originally planning on. I, OTOH, would prefer things to be structured quite a bit more and am more interested in feat trees that make sense and are internally and externally consistent. My way means quite a bit more work, of course...   



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> And I realize now that my math was off for saves (gasp!). A fighter doesn't get +18 FORT at 20th level, does he? He just gets +12. That and two +6s makes +24 total. So +2 at 1st, and +1 every level after (free), is about right.




Umm, yeah, I noticed that!  But I figured you were doing things differently than I was. I'm still going with the rules I outlined before so that no points gets you a commoner. In your world all the commoners are a bit beefier, is all.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone who realizes they can buy +1 to reflex save for one point will buy any kind of Trap Sense as a feat.




Ah, right. Well, both Trap Sense and the +2 Save feats (GF, IW, LR) do have an inherent advantage as they can be used to "catch up" a save you've neglected for a few levels and need to pump (since you can't put more than a +1 into a save at every level) and/or to push a save over the maximum even on a save you've kept maxed out. But you're right, I may have to expand its abilities or dump it entirely. We'll see.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

Here's what I got for the Druid abilities:

*Nature Sense*
Prereq: None
+2 on Know(Nature) & Survival checks and allows use of the Wild Empathy ability.
Cost: Base
_Notes_: As this is the entry feat I'm using for a Nature type theme this would be a bit overpriced as a Base feat, IMO, without absorbing Wild Empathy to make it more worthwhile. Neither are spectacular but definitely beneficial to a Nature lover. The fact that the Ranger will benefit by combining the two Core abilities doesn't seem out of place to me given how much the Ranger benefits from Know(Nature) & Survival checks and the fact that his points are already spread pretty thin.

*Animal Companion*
Prereq: Caster level >0, Nature Sense
Allows use of the Animal Companion ability. Your caster level is used to determine your Animal Companion's abilities.
Cost: Base

*Woodland Stride*
Prereq: Nature Sense
Allows use of the Woodland Stride ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Trackless Step*
Prereq: Nature Sense, Woodland Stride,
Allows use of the Trackless Step ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Resist Nature's Lure*
Prereq: Will save +4, Nature Sense
As the Resist Nature's Lure ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Venom Immunity*
Prereq: Fort save +6, Nature Sense, Wild Shape
As the Venom Immunity ability.
Cost: Expansion

*A Thousand Faces*
Prereq: Caster Level 13+, Nature Sense, Wild Shape
As the A Thousand Faces ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Timeless Body*
Prereq: Caster Level 15+, Nature Sense, Wild Shape, A Thousand Faces
As the Timeless Body ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Wild Shape*
Prereq: Caster Level 5+, Nature Sense, Animal Companion
Allows use of the Wild Shape ability 1x/day allowing you to change into Animals of your size or one size smaller. May be taken more than once allowing additional uses per day but maximum of Level/3 per day.
Cost: Base

*Wild Shape - Size*
Prereq: Caster Level 8+, Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Wild Shape
Grants the ability to Wild Shape into Animals of one additional size category (either larger or smaller) than your current size range which must be selected at the time the feat is chosen. This feat may be taken more than once and each time increases the size range by one step, but cannot be taken more often than every 4 levels.
Cost: Expansion

*Wild Shape - Type*
Prereq: Caster Level 12+, Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Wild Shape, Wild Shape - Size
Grants the ability to Wild Shape into Plants or Vermin (must choose which at the time the feat is chosen) of appropriate sizes for her Wild Shape abilities. May be taken again to allow both types.
Cost: Expansion

*Wild Shape - Elemental*
Prereq: Caster Level 16+, Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Wild Shape, Wild Shape - Size, Wild Shape - Type
Grants the ability to Wild Shape into an Elemental of appropriate sizes for her Wild Shape abilities 1x/day. May be taken more than once allowing additional uses per day but maximum of Level/6 per day.
Cost: Expansion

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 15, 2004)

And here's what I ended up with for the Ranger:

*Favored Enemy*
Prereq: Track, BAB 1+
As the Favored Enemy ability. May be taken more than once granting another Favored Enemy at +2 and increasing one of your Favored Enemy bonuses by an additional +2, but can't be taken more often than Level/4.
Cost: Base

*Combat Style*
Prereq: per DM
As the Combat Style path outlined in the PHB or something similar worked out with your DM. This allows for cheaper bonus feats at levels 6 & 11.
Cost: Base

*Improved Combat Style*
Prereq: 6th level, Combat Style, per DM
As the Combat Style paths.
Cost: Expansion

*Combat Style Mastery*
Prereq: 11th level, Combat Style, per DM
As the Combat Style paths.
Cost: Expansion

*Swift Tracker*
Prereq: Endurance, Nature Sense, Track, Woodland Stride
As the Swift Tracker ability.
Cost: Expansion

*Camouflage*
Prereq: Sneak 12 ranks, Nature Sense
As the Camouflage ability.
Cost: Base

*Hide in Plain Sight*
Prereq: Sneak 15 ranks, Nature Sense, Camouflage
As the Hide in Plain Sight ability.
Cost: Expansion

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 16, 2004)

Here's the few for the Cleric:

*Domain Power*
Prereq: Caster level 1+, Must worship Divine Source or per DM
As the Domain Power. May only be taken with the DM's permission because of Restrictions in effect.
Cost: Base

*Turn or Rebuke Undead*
Prereq: Caster level 1+, Must worship Divine Source or per DM
As the Turn/Rebuke Undead ability. Effect is tied to caster level. May only be taken with the DM's permission because of Restrictions in effect.
Cost: Base

*Domain Spells*
Prereq: Caster level 1+, Domain
Allows a single domain spell slot at a designated spell level. May be taken once for each spell level.
Cost: Expansion

*Spontaneous Casting*
Prereq: Must worship Divine Source or per DM
As the Spontaneous Casting ability.
Cost: Restriction

*Divine Armored Casting*
Prereq: Must worship Divine Source or per DM
Allows no Arcane Spell Failure chance.
Cost: Restriction

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Theocrat (Apr 16, 2004)

*I'm still reading and understanding it all*

Hi all-
Wow, DrSpunj, this is excellent. I"d love to see the core classes from the Miniatures Handbook and Complete Warrior. See how those classes fit the overall overpowering aspect of things. 
I'm still digesting this. It's massive and must have taken ages to workout. I certainly like the added Average saves and defensive portions. I'm looking at adding just that alone before I do more additions to my game. 
Thanks for this, and I'm certainly a believer now. And I'm suprised, the fighter is the weakest before adjustments. Wow. 
Thanks-


----------



## ouini (Apr 16, 2004)

For "Spontaneous Casting" and "Divine Armored Casting", what does

Cost: Restriction

mean? I'm guessing it means that, working with your GM, you get this bonus feat/ability, but the price you pay is in-play -- how you have to play the character -- rather than out-of-play points?

Anyway, neat that you're working out a robust system.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 16, 2004)

Theocrat said:
			
		

> Wow, DrSpunj, this is excellent. I"d love to see the core classes from the Miniatures Handbook and Complete Warrior. See how those classes fit the overall overpowering aspect of things.




As soon as I get the Core & AU classes into a system format I'm happy with, I'll be doing the work on Expanded Psionics Handbook & Complete Warrior classes, as well as a bunch of Prestige Classes I'm interested in (both as a player and for my campaign this summer). I don't have the Miniatures Handbook but I've flipped through it, and once things are well-defined for the Core classes I can't imagine it'll be really tough for anyone to download the updated sheet and have much trouble converting much of any class to a similar format.



			
				Theocrat said:
			
		

> Thanks for this, and I'm certainly a believer now. And I'm suprised, the fighter is the weakest before adjustments. Wow.
> Thanks-




You're welcome! But I hope I don't come off evangelizing here. There are lots of threads going all the time about this class being underpowered or that one being overpowered or whatever. It just seemed to me almost from the beginning of 3E that most decent class abilities come in two basic groups: good & better. If you strip things down as much as possible and look at the underlying structure of how the classes are built you can at least see general trends of power levels, even if you don't wholly agree with how I or anyone else have valued things.

The Fighter's numbers always come out low to me, no matter how I value things. That's representative of what I've experienced at the game table, so I'm starting from there and seeing how the rest of it works out!   

Please post if/when you have anything to share. Everyone's comments have helped refine things for me substantially already!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 16, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> For "Spontaneous Casting" and "Divine Armored Casting", what does Cost: Restriction mean? I'm guessing it means that, working with your GM, you get this bonus feat/ability, but the price you pay is in-play -- how you have to play the character -- rather than out-of-play points?




Yeah, something along those lines. A Paladin's actions and options in many situations are, IMO, definitely altered by their code. A Cleric's, because of their deity's outlook, are similarly affected. I'm not trying to say that these outlooks mean all Paladins & Clerics need to be played the same way (they represent a lot of fun roleplaying opportunities) but at the same time the Core classes were obviously balanced with these roleplaying restrictions in mind.

Cleric's get a lot of benefits, and most would agree they are one of the most powerful Core classes available, but they come with a lot of baggage from their deity or divine source that is supposed to limit their options in many situations. Converting their abilities into a system like this becomes a bit tough if you don't take into account those roleplaying restrictions.

Since AU magic doesn't use arcane vs divine magic, I'm not going to be able to handwave Arcane Spell Failure away for some classes. That ability needs to come from somewhere. A Mage Blade uses his Athame (chosen bladed weapon) as his magical focus, so he doesn't have any somatic components (and therefore no ASF) while holding it. Making him pay for the Athame covers that ability. As long as he has the Athame he can cast his spells without any Somatic components. Easy.

For a Cleric, however, you can't just wrap that up into a single feat. To continue to avoid ASF they must continue to worship their divine source, level after level. When they stop, the abilities go away. Since there is nothing material to take from them (like the Mage Blade's Athame), I'm left with relying upon roleplaying restrictions...unless you see a different way to accomplish that goal.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 19, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> For a Cleric, however, you can't just wrap that up into a single feat. To continue to avoid ASF they must continue to worship their divine source, level after level. When they stop, the abilities go away. Since there is nothing material to take from them (like the Mage Blade's Athame), I'm left with relying upon roleplaying restrictions...unless you see a different way to accomplish that goal.




*ouini*, over the weekend I was able to work something out that works rather well. It still relies on roleplaying restrictions but I think, given that many of these abilities are supposedly granted by an outside source (like a deity, for Clerics), that's necessary in some cases.

Anyway, what I did is take advantage of a Core rule about feats. If you, for some reason, no longer meet the prerequisites for a feat then you no longer gain its benefit. If your Strength falls below 13, you can't use Power Attack, and therefore can't use Cleave either.

*[EDIT: I'm now calling this Divine Training (& Nature Training) instead; it sounds better & is a better descriptor of what I'm after here).]*

Using that I created a feat called "Divine Restriction". It's a PRIME feat that costs the same as a Base feat (5 pts). When you take it you agree to a number of roleplaying restrictions laid out by your DM (for the Cleric it would be based upon the deity and their outlook, wishes, etc.). In return, you get no ASF, have a Divine Aura for alignment purposes, and pick up Spontaneous Casting as a Cleric. At the level you take this feat you get a Major Restriction that is worth -5 pts. That way it's +5 for the feat and -5 for the restriction, so a net of 0 for the points. I figure you're paying for those benefits with the roleplaying restrictions.

With that in place, I then use that Divine Restriction as a prerequisite feat for all the other Divine Abilities. Namely Domains & Turn/Rebuke Undead. The nifty part is if the DM doesn't think you're following your deity's wishes you lose all the abilities, just like you should in Core.

I use the same thing for Paladin's and I created a Nature Restriction for Druids & Rangers. The Prereqs for those Restriction feats are 3 ranks of Knowledge(Religion) for Divine and Knowledge(Nature) for Nature.

Everything came together rather easily then. I also wanted to let you know that with the point values you came up with I didn't have to make nearly as many adjustments to the Core classes that I felt were pretty balanced. The only major change I had to make to get everything to work is dropping the Druid's magic from Full to Half, which I feel isn't unreasonable at all given that the Druid has most every advantage of the Cleric PLUS all their Wild Shape abilities.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 25, 2004)

*poink*
 *BUMP*

 That is all.

 Hagen


----------



## ouini (Apr 27, 2004)

Well, I really like the idea of making a prerequisite into an official feat. I can't say I'm thrilled about making a feat cost five, and then giving a five point bonus for taking the feat -- that doesn't seem very straightforward.

But anyway, I've realized some stuff. (Others may have already figured this stuff out).

Essentially, feats and class abilities are the same thing. Class abilities (like Tireless Rage) are intricately prerequisited feats -- the prerequisites being earlier feats (like Greater Rage), and a certain class level.

Ahh, then the logical conclusion is that, all that most "classes" really are, is a group of related feat-chains and a corresponding set of tables to keep track of when you received earlier feats X and Y in a feat-chain, so you know when it's okay to take feat Z. We were complaining about keeping track of when you get feats X, Y, and Z in a classless system, but I now think it's totally okay, since I'm ditching classes, and that's all classes really were in the first place.

The Solution in buy-as-you-go terms? Simple. The longer you wait to take the next feat in a feat-chain, the cheaper the feat becomes. So buying Rage and Rage 2x at 1st level is inhibitively expensive. If Rage costs 8, make it cost 8 (or more) to buy Rage 2x at the same level, but cost a little bit less if you buy it one level later, and even less if you buy it two levels later, and so on down to a minimum cost after three or four levels.

That's what I'm tinkering with now, DrSpunj, using the feats for Druid, Ranger, Bard, Cleric, and Barbarian as you've described them.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 27, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> But anyway, I've realized some stuff. (Others may have already figured this stuff out).
> 
> Essentially, feats and class abilities are the same thing. Class abilities (like Tireless Rage) are intricately prerequisited feats -- the prerequisites being earlier feats (like Greater Rage), and a certain class level.
> 
> ...



I've previously changed various class abilities like Sneak Attack and Evasion into regular feats, so this is no news to me *grin*  Maybe what should be done is say ok Rage costs 8 and Rage 2 costs 7 etc.  Min cost is 3.  So As you advance along a feat chain, the moves get easier as they are just built on the strong foundation you already have.  So Whirlwind Attack has 4 feat prereqs.  8-4=4.  When you are eligible for WA (base attack +4 and stats of appropriate amounts) it will only cost you 4 points to grab.  This would seem easier t odo than say "well Rage 3 should cost you 8 if you buy it at level 2, but if you buy it at level 10 it will only cost you 4, etc.  Just have a standard of each level up the chain costs 1 less, minimum cost of 3.  Same goes for non combat feats, whatever non combat feat chains there are.

Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 28, 2004)

@*ouini* & *SSquirrel*: The problem I have with that approach is that it's not at all unbalancing to be able to, for example, Rage 3x/day right from the start.

Extra Rage is a feat that first appeared in MotW and has been reprinted in the Complete Warrior. It allows 2 additional uses of Rage per day, and the only prereq is that you have the ability to Rage or Frenzy already. I've seen that feat taken as early as 1st level in play, and IMO it wasn't unbalanced at all.

I don't believe Extra Smite, Extra Wildshape, and Extra Favored Enemy (as other examples that appeared in the Splatbooks) have yet been reprinted and/or updated in 3.5, but I don't see real problems with allowing those feats as is IMC (except maybe Extra Favored Enemy now that the Ranger has been powered up vs 3.0, it would need retooling for 3.5 IMO).

Instead, I've adapted something from one of *ouini*'s previous posts and inserted a flat level-based limit in most places. Sneak Attack maxes out at +(Level/2)d6, so while you can take the feat every level, the bonus damage is based upon your character level.

While I'm still tinkering with those limits here and there, here's what I've currently got for the Rage feats:

Rage
Prereqs: Fort save +2
Benefit: PRIME; Allows use of the Rage ability 1x/day. You can take this feat multiple times allowing additional uses per day, but maximum of (1+Level/3) per day.

Rage, Greater
Prereqs: Fort save +6, Rage
Benefit: As the PHB Barbarian's Greater Rage ability.

Rage, Tireless
Prereqs: Fort save +10, Greater Rage
Benefit: As the PHB Barbarian's Tireless Rage ability.

Rage, Mighty
Prereqs: Fort save +12, Tireless Rage
Benefit: As the PHB Barbarian's Mighty Rage ability.

With the level limit for taking Rage at 1+Level/3 the fastest/most you could take it is at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 at which time you'd have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Rages per day, respectively. Compared to Core you end up potentially getting your extra Rages a few levels earlier (if you take each one as soon as you can) and end up with a potential maximum of 7 Rages/day instead of just 6 as a Core Barbarian, but I'm not worried about that since I've seen Rage in play quite a bit and don't feel Extra Rage is unbalancing as early as 1st level. Obviously, YMMV.

And yes, with limits in place in this system based upon Levels instead of classes (as *ouini* was alluding to in his last post) you _could_ take Rage twice as early as level 3 (assuming you didn't take it at levels 1 & 2, of course), but I don't think that should necessarily cost more as *ouini* suggests. In Core that's pretty much like taking your 3rd character level as a multiclassed 1st level Barbarian and taking the Extra Rage feat at that level as well. No big deal to me! 

I'll try to email both of you soon with what I've got so far, *ouini* for early feedback and *SSquirrel* for that and to host the files again (thanks much, dude! ).

I'm done revamping both Core and AU classes (and pretty much the XPH classes as well) and I've fractured them into separate files for ease of use. I happily, using the values *ouini* and I both independently came up with, didn't have to alter the Core & AU classes much at all, which was very pleasing. The biggest change (and really the only major one, IMO) I made was to downgrade the Druid from a Full caster to a Half caster, but their Wild Shape abilities are a bit cleaner overall, more versatile and slightly more powerful at later levels.

Thanks for the feedback!

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 28, 2004)

The biggest bang for your buck, far and away, is when you get Rage in the first place. I don't see a problem with Rage 3x/day right from the start, either. That is, it's not unbalancing at first level like having 3d6 of Sneak Attack, or Wild Shape:Large. Allowing a person to take Rage 3x at 1st level, while it shouldn't be as cheap as 1x, is fine, I agree.

So, my having classed it as an ability rather than a feat is just a matter of my not being familiar with MotW's having already named it a feat. It could be either, as could Extra Smite, Extra Wildshape, and Extra Favored Enemy (so long as "extra" doesn't mean "and up the bonus of your 1st Favored Enemy").

However, taking rage 3x all at once when you reach Xth level is goofy (like gaining a level and spending seven skill points to suddenly become an expert weaponsmith). A flat level-based limit for Sneak Attack allows similar goofiness, but isn't mechanically unbalanced. Hey, they're *paying* for it -- it's fair point-wise, just weird. Same for Greater, Tireless, or Mighty Rage. So far, I think I'll stick with making Sneak Attack cost more to buy concurrent, and less the longer you wait for your next die. Same for the Greater, Tireless, Mighty Rage chain, possibly including the Rage 1,2,3x etc. in there for spacers.

This is mostly because I'm lazy, and I'm all about the one rule fits all concept, when it makes the game that much simpler for the players (most of whom are *not* the math-a-holics GMs tend to be). Regular Fighting/non-fighting feats cost a flat rate. What used to be class ability-chains based on level, you can now buy expensively if you want it all at once, or cheaply if you progress slower, as the classes used to. Costs more to progress quicker -- simple concept.

The one hangup I have at this point, is that I haven't taken the plunge to buy the book which explains half- and full-casters. Was that Arcana Unearthed (AU)? I'd hate to sit down and plot out a simple home-rule half-full caster cost system, and reinvent the wheel.


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 28, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> The one hangup I have at this point, is that I haven't taken the plunge to buy the book which explains half- and full-casters. Was that Arcana Unearthed (AU)? I'd hate to sit down and plot out a simple home-rule half-full caster cost system, and reinvent the wheel.



Yes Arcana Unearthed.  I think you'll really enjoy the book.  Very different from core in feel and that's why I'm gonna be running it soon.  Granted, I'm using Ken Hood's new Grim n Gritty revision heh.

Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 28, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> However, taking rage 3x all at once when you reach Xth level is goofy (like gaining a level and spending seven skill points to suddenly become an expert weaponsmith).




Which, as you know, the Core rules allow you to do. It's not really any sillier to me than going 19 levels as a Fighter/Rogue and deciding at the end of your career that you're going to pick up all the training that goes a long with being a Wizard to cast some magic at your 20th level.

The system, Core's or mine, handwave's a lot of that silliness away to the background. Too much? Maybe, since there aren't hard-coded training rules built-in like Werewolf has with the check system. Still, it's a level of detail that I personally don't want to force into the game. The rewards, while certainly more realistic, don't seem more fun to me.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> A flat level-based limit for Sneak Attack allows similar goofiness, but isn't mechanically unbalanced. Hey, they're *paying* for it -- it's fair point-wise, just weird. Same for Greater, Tireless, or Mighty Rage.




Well, you could certainly save enough points and go from no Sneak Attack to +3d6 sneak attack if you were 5th level (I just realized that formula has to be changed to +(1+Level/2)d6 since Sneak Attack is allowed at 1st level, oops! ) or higher, but it would cost you 5+3+3=11 points. Since I'm handing out 12 pts per level, you ain't gettin' much else that level, so you better really want to do that! 

But as you say, they're paying for it by not being able to upgrade their SPs, HD, BAB, Defense, whatever. The Greater/Tireless/Mighty is a bit different, though, because of it being tied to Fort save. Sneak Attack doesn't do that, it's only level-based.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> So far, I think I'll stick with making Sneak Attack cost more to buy concurrent, and less the longer you wait for your next die. Same for the Greater, Tireless, Mighty Rage chain, possibly including the Rage 1,2,3x etc. in there for spacers.
> 
> This is mostly because I'm lazy, and I'm all about the one rule fits all concept, when it makes the game that much simpler for the players (most of whom are *not* the math-a-holics GMs tend to be). Regular Fighting/non-fighting feats cost a flat rate. What used to be class ability-chains based on level, you can now buy expensively if you want it all at once, or cheaply if you progress slower, as the classes used to. Costs more to progress quicker -- simple concept.




Yeah, the concept _is_ simple, but what about the execution? Show me what you've got, please! I admit, my Feat sheets are littered with Level based formulas that are many & varied, but I wasn't sure what else to do when trying to limit Wild Shape, Rage & Sneak Attack with the same mechanic. Your concept is easy enough, but I'm curious how you mechanically represent the fact that Sneak Attack is okay to take every other level, Rage about every 3rd, and Wild Shape every level from 5th-8th!



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> The one hangup I have at this point, is that I haven't taken the plunge to buy the book which explains half- and full-casters. Was that Arcana Unearthed (AU)? I'd hate to sit down and plot out a simple home-rule half-full caster cost system, and reinvent the wheel.




Yes, it's all from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Buy it. It's a wonderful book full of a lot of really good stuff that I'm positive you won't regret paying for. The races, the classes, the magic system, the feat system (Talents, General, Ceremonial), truenames, etc. It's *all* good, man! 

Show me what you've done with your feat mechanics, please!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 28, 2004)

I'll work on it today at lunch, and post or email a chunk of it tomorrow, or possibly today. Like I said, though, there will be a huge gaping hole in it, with regards to every type of spellcasting out there, as I don't yet have AU.

EDIT:


			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> The Greater/Tireless/Mighty is a bit different, though, because of it being tied to Fort save. Sneak Attack doesn't do that, it's only level-based.



Well, they're both level-based in core classes. I won't base either on Fort saves, just on relative level.


----------



## ouini (Apr 29, 2004)

Okay. Everyone knows that characters get a whole lot more benefit at first level (your hit points are maxed out, you get four times as many skill points, better saves, etc.), than at any level which follows. So, in order to create an a la carte point system, one either has to give a lot more points to a character at first level, or each point has to buy more at first level than at later levels. I did a bit of both.
So then tentatively, at 1st level,

FREE:
- Gain +1/2 to your Base Attack Bonus (useless in and of itself)
- Gain 4 Hit Points
- Gain (2+INTMOD)x4 Skill Points
- Gain +2 in one save
- Gain proficiency in a very few select weapons
- Gain 1 feat.

Then, spend or bank up to 30 points:
- 4 points gains you another +1/2 BAB
- Each point gains you another Hit Point
- Each point gains you four skill points
- 2 points gains you +2 in a second save, 4 points gains you +2 in both other saves
- 2 points for proficiency in Shields or Light Armor or Simple Weapons
-  - Light Armor is prereq for Medium then Heavy Armor (2 points each)
-  - Simple Weapons is prereq for any one sub-class of Martial Weapons (2 points each)
- 8 points gains you a fighter's feat, 4 points gains you a non-fighter's feat
- 4 points gains you an ability in an ability chain.

"Ability chains" are those abilities which used to be assigned to individual classes at very specific levels (Wild Shape, Rage, etc), where each ability was essentially a prerequisite to the next ability. Ability chains look an awful lot like feats (there are "fighting" and "non-fighting" ability chains), but each link in a chain is always strongly related to each other. Something like:

FIGHTING ABILITY CHAINS:
- Rage 1x  >> 2x >> 3x >> 4x >> 5x >> 6x ...
(...  Rage 4x >> Greater Rage >> NoFatigue Rage)
- Sneak Attack 1d6 >> 2d6 >> 3d6 >> 4d6 >> ...
- Uncanny Dodge (Dex) >> Uncanny Dodge (Flank)
(...Uncanny Dodge (Dex) + Evasion >> Improved Evasion)
(...Uncanny Dodge (Dex) + Fort Save 5 >> DR1 >> DR2 >> DR3 >> DR4 ...)

NON-FIGHTING ABILITY CHAINS:
- Still Mind or Purity of Body >> Wholeness >> Diamond Body >> Diamond Soul >> etc...
- Evasion >> Slow Fall 20' >> Leap of Clouds >> Slow Fall 50'
(...Slow Fall 50' + Improved Evasion >> Abundant Step or Slow Fall Any Distance)

At 2nd level and beyond, you get fewer points to spend, and each point doesn't do quite as much for you.

FREE:
- Gain +1/2 BAB
- Get a d4 to roll for Hit Points
- Gain 2+INTMOD Skill Points
- Gain +1 in one save.

Then, spend (or bank to save up for your next level) up to 18 points:
- 4 points gains you another +1/2 BAB
- 2 points adds 2 sides to your Hit Die type for this level (you have to buy +1/2 BAB to get a d10 or d12)
- 1 point gains you a skill point
- 2 points gains you +1 in a second save, 4 points gains you +1 in both other saves
- 8 points gains you a fighter's feat, 4 points gains you a non-fighter's feat
- 8 points for the first ability in a "fighting" ability chain. If you want the next feat in that chain, it’s
- - 10 points to buy it at the same level
- - 8 points to buy it at the next level
- - 6 points to buy it at the next level
- - 4 points to buy it at the next level or beyond.
- 4 points for the first ability in a "non-fighting" ability chain. If you want the subsequent feats in a chain, it’s
- - 6 points to buy it at the same level
- - 4 points to buy it at the next level or beyond

Obviously, you could easily decrease the granularity of this system by chopping all costs in half, and giving 15 points out at first level, and 9 points out at subsequent levels.

Just as obviously, this sytem does not yet deal with any magical class, as I haven't yet bought AU.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 29, 2004)

Interesting. Some random, initial thoughts...



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> FREE:
> - Gain +1/2 to your Base Attack Bonus (useless in and of itself)
> - Gain 4 Hit Points
> - Gain (2+INTMOD)x4 Skill Points
> ...




That's in addition to the General 1st-level feat that every PC gets, right? What are the limitations on that 1 feat? Can it be either a Fighter Feat or a Non-Fighter feat? What about the beginning of an Ability chain?

I'm starting to work through the Rogue who gets Sneak Attack +1d6 & Trapfinding at 1st level. If I can choose which one is "free" I'm always going to choose Sneak Attack since it costs twice as much as Trapfinding.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> FIGHTING ABILITY CHAINS:
> - Rage 1x  >> 2x >> 3x >> 4x >> 5x >> 6x ...
> (...  Rage 4x >> Greater Rage >> NoFatigue Rage)
> - Sneak Attack 1d6 >> 2d6 >> 3d6 >> 4d6 >> ...
> ...




First off, I noticed you used a Fort Save prereq for DR. I thought you said you weren't going to do that! 

Second, why is Evasion the beginning of a Non-Fighting Ability chain? It's only useful in combat? I could see Evasion, Improved Evasion and Uncanny Dodge 1 & 2 all being part of a similar Fighting Ability chain, but Monk's only get the former and Barbarian's only get the latter; Rogue's are the only Core class to get both.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - 8 points gains you a fighter's feat, 4 points gains you a non-fighter's feat
> - 8 points for the first ability in a "fighting" ability chain. If you want the next feat in that chain, it’s
> - - 10 points to buy it at the same level
> - - 8 points to buy it at the next level
> ...




When you say "fighter's feat", do you mean only those feats that appear on the Fighter's Bonus feat list? Or do you mean those feats that are only/primarily useful in combat?

And I'm working on the Rogue now, mostly because with his every other level Sneak Attack he seems to get the worst end of these costs. He's stuck paying 6 points for every other level Sneak Attack while a Barbarian gets away with 4 points for an extra Rage/day every 3 levels. I'll post him when I have things worked out.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Obviously, you could easily decrease the granularity of this system by chopping all costs in half, and giving 15 points out at first level, and 9 points out at subsequent levels.




So why don't you? I know you're a big fan of K*I*S*S, so there must be something you feel you'd lose if you cut all the costs in half. Spending 1 point to get 2 skill points doesn't decrease the value of that price/purchase if everything else costs half as much.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 29, 2004)

Okay, *ouini*, you can correct me if I use your system incorrectly, but here are my quick calculations for a Rogue through the first few levels.

Level 1
Hit Points: 6 (4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +0 (+.5 free, +0 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod)x4 (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +0/+2/+0 (+2 free, +0 pts)
W/A Profs: Simple Weapons, Swords & Bows; Light Armor (Basic Weapons free, +2 pts for Simple Weapons, +2 pts for Swords, +2 pts for Bows, +2 pts for Light Armor; +8 pts total)
Feats: Trapfinding (free; +4 pts for Ability chain - Sneak Attack +1d6; +4 pts total)

Total points = 20 pts, 10 "banked"

Level 2
Hit Points: d6 (d4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +1 (+.5 free, +0 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod) (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +0/+3/+0 (+1 free, +0 pts)
W/A Profs: None
Feats: Evasion (+4 pts for Non-Fighting Ability chain; +4 pts total)

Total points = 12, 16 "banked"

Level 3
Hit Points: d6 (d4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +2 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod) (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +1/+3/+1 (+1 free, +1 for +2 pts)
W/A Profs: None
Feats: Sneak Attack (+6 pts for Fighting Ability chain 2 levels later; +6 pts total)

Total points = 20, 14 "banked"

Level 4
Hit Points: d6 (d4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +3 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod) (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +1/+4/+1 (+1 free, +0 pts)
W/A Profs: None
Feats: Uncanny Dodge (Dex) (+8 pts for Fighting Ability chain; +8 pts total)

Total points = 20, 12 "banked"

I could go on, but I want to make sure that I've paid the appropriate costs, *ouini*. Overall, this Rogue is holding back a lot of points. I know for my own version I bumped his HD to a d8, so that would account for 8 of the 12 banked points over these 4 levels, and that might be too much in your system, though he still had quite a few points left over in mine even after that change. Hmmm....

Thanks!

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 29, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> [The free 1st level feat]'s in addition to the General 1st-level feat that every PC gets, right?



[/quote]No, I was thinking that was the feat all PCs get at first level. No limitations as a feat (it can be either fighter or non-fighter), but it is a feat, and not a class ability.

Looking at my scribbles, I notice I said at 1st level, "4 points gains you an ability in an ability chain."
I think I meant to say, "4 points for each ability in one ability chain, 8 points for each ability in a second chain."

As for ...a Fort Save prereq for DR, I agree I'd prefer not to use save bases as prereqs for old class-ability chains if possible.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ...why is Evasion the beginning of a Non-Fighting Ability chain?



Well, I don't think of evasion as a fighting chain (I think of fighting chains like fighter's feats -- they're made to be more useful in melee than against traps or in magic-fights), but I guess it certainly could be. I don't see Evasion and Uncanny Dodge being in one ability chain. Evasion was at the beginning of the Monk non-fighting chain because, well, that's the order of non-fighting feats the Monk gets in the PHB. But this is all fairly arbitrary and very malleable at this point, and really probably wouldn't work out for Monks at all at this point, which is fine by me -- what a screwy class. I don't even know that I'd try to plot out the esoteric Monk just so as it is in the PHB.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> When you say "fighter's feat", do you mean only those feats that appear on the Fighter's Bonus feat list?



Yes.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> And I'm working on the Rogue...he seems to get the worst end of these costs. ...a Barbarian gets away with 4 points for an extra Rage/day every 3 levels.



Right, just like in core. That is, if you think a Barbarian and Rogue are fairly balanced in core, then this system does all right. Slowing down a Rogue's S.A. progression to once every three levels would, logically, allow him to do something else with those points he saves.

The reason I listed a highly granular system first, then explained you could cut costs in half, is because I'm a fan not only of K*I*S*S, but of YMMV. Different people have different tastes.

A Rogue then, depending on how weapons are classified (thanks for doing math for me ) would look something like:

Level 1
Hit Points: 6 (4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +0 (+.5 free, +0 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod)x4 (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +0/+2/+0 (+2 free, +0 pts)
W/A Profs: Simple Weapons, Swords & Bows; Light Armor (Basic Weapons free, +2 pts for Simple Weapons, +2 pts for Swords, +2 pts for Bows, +2 pts for Light Armor; +8 pts total)
Feats: One Freebie, Trapfinding (free; +4 pts for Trapfinding Ability chain - +8 pts for Sneak Attack +1d6; +12 pts total)

Total points = 28 pts, 2 "banked"

Level 2
Hit Points: d6 (d4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +1 (+.5 free, +0 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod) (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +0/+3/+0 (+1 free, +0 pts)
Feats: Evasion (+4 pts for Non-Fighting Ability chain; +4 pts total)

Total points = 12, 8 "banked"

Level 3
Hit Points: d6 (d4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +2 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod) (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +1/+3/+1 (+1 free, +1 for 2 pts, +2 pts total)
Feats: Sneak Attack (+6 pts for Fighting Ability chain 2 levels later; +6 pts total)

Total points = 20, 6 "banked"

Level 4
Hit Points: d6 (d4 free, +2 pts)
BAB: +3 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (8+IntMod) (+2 free, +6 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +1/+4/+1 (+1 free, +0 pts)
Feats: Uncanny Dodge (Dex) (+8 pts for Fighting Ability chain; +8 pts total)

Total points = 20, 4 "banked"

...Though realistically, it's foolish to bank any points at 1st level. It makes much more sense at any other level.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> No, I was thinking that was the feat all PCs get at first level. No limitations as a feat (it can be either fighter or non-fighter), but it is a feat, and not a class ability.




Ah. Then I think you need to remove the line. All characters also get feats at 3rd, 6th, etc. but you don't talk about those, nor do you mention anything about the free Ability point increase all characters get every 4th level. Listing "Gain 1 feat" is very deceiving in this regard.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Looking at my scribbles, I notice I said at 1st level, "4 points gains you an ability in an ability chain."
> I think I meant to say, "4 points for each ability in one ability chain, 8 points for each ability in a second chain."




Okay, just to make this easy/clean, would you mind editing your post up above to clarify this point and remove the "Gain 1 feat" thing?



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> As for ...a Fort Save prereq for DR, I agree I'd prefer not to use save bases as prereqs for old class-ability chains if possible.




Well, I'll admit it might be a bit cleaner, but sometimes it just fits. Reflex saves are used to move out of the way of sudden effects. Making it a prereq for something like Evasion or Uncanny Dodge makes good sense to me. Same thing with Fort saves (how well can you shrug off or resist physical effects) and DR.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think of evasion as a fighting chain ... but I guess it certainly could be. I don't see Evasion and Uncanny Dodge being in one ability chain.




Alright, and I agree (they should be separate chains). I'm still coming from a POV that combat-oriented abilities generally get more mileage than non-combat abilities. I realize that's somewhat campaign specific, but as I said earlier, D&D is a more combat-oriented system than some others out there. From that standpoint, Evasion just seems like it would be a Fighting-Ability chain to me.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Right, just like in core. That is, if you think a Barbarian and Rogue are fairly balanced in core, then this system does all right. Slowing down a Rogue's S.A. progression to once every three levels would, logically, allow him to do something else with those points he saves.




Well, they're reasonably close.  I'll figure out a Barbarian for the first four levels to compare and we'll see how that stacks up against the Rogue you outlined. 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Level 4
> Feats: Uncanny Dodge (Dex) (+8 pts for Fighting Ability chain; +8 pts total)
> Total points = 20, 4 "banked"




Realize that you didn't pay for any extra Reflex save yet to balance out the loss of Trap Sense +1 at 4th level for a Core Rogue (and that ability also improves AC from traps). Point being you'd probably spend 2 of those 4 banked points back at level 3 to buy all three saves up by +1 if you aren't going to have a Trap Sense ability. OTOH, if you do make it it's own ability, you just spent those 4 points on it! 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> ...Though realistically, it's foolish to bank any points at 1st level. It makes much more sense at any other level.




Right. I noticed that with my system as well. Only in a few case was it worth it and that was generally so you could get another ability nearly right away at level 2.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

Okay, so here's my attempt at the first four levels of the Core Barbarian.

Level 1
Hit Points: 8 (4 free, +8 pts)
BAB: +1 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (4+IntMod)x4 (+2 free, +2 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +2/+0/+0 (+2 free, +0 pts)
W/A Profs: Simple Weapons, Axes & Bows; Light & Medium Armor & Shields (Basic Weapons free, +2 pts for Simple Weapons, +2 pts for Axes, +2 pts for Bows, +2 pts for Light Armor, +2 pts for Shields, +2 pts for Medium Armor; +12 pts total)
Feats: Fast Movement, Rage 1/day (+4 pts for Fast Movement Ability chain, +8 pts for Rage Ability chain; +12 pts total)

Total points = 38 pts, 8 "under"

Notes: Oops. This didn't work out too well. Since you can't really afford Medium Armor at 1st level you can drop that. If you're going to use a Greataxe you're not going to be using a shield either, so that's maybe another 2 pts. You've still overspent by 4 pts and I'm not sure what I'd take away next. 

Level 2
Hit Points: d12 (d4 free, +8 pts)
BAB: +2 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (4+IntMod) (+2 free, +2 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +3/+0/+0 (+1 free, +0 pts)
Feats: Uncanny Dodge (+8 pts for Fighting Ability chain; +8 pts total)

Total points = 22, 4 "under"

Notes: Okay, this isn't working out too well!   There's nothing to trim away here, no excess fat! I know we've gone around & around on this before, but I'm going to throw it out again:

If you're rolling your Hit Points randomly each level, a higher HD only gets you +1 HP on average. I personally would never spend +8 pts to get a d12 when 33% of the time I'm going to roll what I could have had for free (a 1, 2, 3 or 4). Have you thought about pricing each increase in HD as a single point? That is, d6, d8, d10 & d12 would cost 1, 2, 3 or 4 pts? That would help the Barbarian out here a lot, though I'm not sure what impact it would have on the classes.

Level 3
Hit Points: d12 (d4 free, +8 pts)
BAB: +2 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (4+IntMod) (+2 free, +2 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +3/+1/+1 (+1 free, +1 for 2 pts, +2 pts total)
Feats: None

Total points = 14, 4 "banked"

Notes: Well, since I'm not sure what you want to do with Trap Sense, I'm not sure what to put here. It's certainly not a combat ability, so I wouldn't classify it as a Fighting Ability chain. Therefore, if it was an ability chain it would only cost 4 pts and this level would work out just fine. OTOH, if you just want to bump your Reflex save directly you have to do it next level (or last level, but we don't have any extra pts there!) since Reflex was already bumped this level.

Level 4
Hit Points: d12 (d4 free, +8 pts)
BAB: +2 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (4+IntMod) (+2 free, +2 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +4/+1/+1 (+1 free, +0 pts)
Feats: Rage 2/day (+4 pts for a Fighting Ability chain 3 levels later, +4 pts total)

Total points = 18, 4 "banked"

Notes: Works out okay, but Trap Sense needs a ruling for you as to how you want it handled. You could simply push Reflex up by 1 here at 4th level and still have 2 pts banked.

Overall, I don't think the Core Barbarian is all that unbalanced, certainly pretty close to the Rogue, and I need help with the first 2 levels to make a playable Barbarian. As it is he's still 4 pts over at 1st level even after we've pigeon-holed all Barbs into Greataxe using, non-Shield & Medium Armor wearers. Bleah! :\ 

Help, *ouini*!  

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

While I've got some time I thought I'd hammer out the Ranger, too.

Level 1
Hit Points: 8 (4 free, +4 pts)
BAB: +1 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (6+IntMod)x4 (+2 free, +4 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +2/+2/+0 (+2 free, +2 pts)
W/A Profs: Simple Weapons, Swords & Bows; Light Armor & Shields (Basic Weapons free, +2 pts for Simple Weapons, +2 pts for Swords, +2 pts for Bows, +2 pts for Light Armor, +2 pts for Shields; +10 pts total)
Feats: Track, Wild Empathy, Favored Enemy #1 (+4 pts for Track as a Non-Fighter feat, +4 pts for Wild Empathy Ability chain, +8 pts for Favored Enemy Ability chain; +16 pts total)

Total points = 40 pts, 10 "under"

Notes: Wow! 
Any ideas?

Level 2
Hit Points: d8 (d4 free, +4 pts)
BAB: +2 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (6+IntMod) (+2 free, +4 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +3/+3/+0 (+1 free, +1 for 2 pts, +2 pts)
Feats: Combat Style (+8 pts for Fighting Ability chain; +8 pts total)

Total points = 22, 4 "under"

Notes: Not looking too good here either.

Level 3
Hit Points: d8 (d4 free, +4 pts)
BAB: +3 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (6+IntMod) (+2 free, +4 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +3/+3/+1 (+1 free, +0 pts)
Feats: Endurance (Non-Fighter feat for +4 pts)

Total points = 16, 2 "balanced"

Notes: This one works out, but Non-Fighting Feats are pretty few and far between across all the Core classes, so this is far more an exception rather than the rule.

Level 4
Hit Points: d8 (d4 free, +4 pts)
BAB: +4 (+.5 free, +.5 for +4 pts)
SPs: (6+IntMod) (+2 free, +4 pts)
F/R/W Saves: +4/+4/+1 (+1 free, +1 for 2 pts, +2 pts total)
Feats: Animal Companion (+4 pts for an Ability chain 3 levels later, +4 pts total)

Total points = 18, even

Notes: This level works out, _almost_. I realized it didn't matter whether you treated Animal Companion as part of Fighting or Non-Fighting Ability chain since it's 3 levels from Wild Empathy, so the cost is 4 pts either way. I said "almost" before because the Ranger is supposed to get his first 1st level spell at this level (assuming his Wisdom is at least 12) and he's got no points left to buy that.

Overall, I think the Ranger is on the high end of the classes. Not on par with the Cleric or Druid, but definitely up there. In my version I toned down his Fort save to Average (something not really doable in your system, but it's not an option in Core either) and his Combat Style altogether, but he ended up getting *a lot* more magic under the Half AU system than he does under Core. It's simple enough to trade some of that away for more feats if preferred.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

Just so everyone's on the same page I thought I'd type up the UA Weapon Groups.

*Axes*: handaxe, battleaxe, greataxe, dwarven waraxe (2-handed use)
*Basic*: club, dagger, quarterstaff
*Bows*: shortbow, longbow, composite shortbow, composite longbow
*Claw Weapons*: punching dagger, spiked gauntlet
*Crossbows*: heavy Xbow, light Xbow, repeating heavy Xbow, repeating light Xbow
*Druid Weapons*: dart, scimitar, sickle, short spear, sling, spear
*Flails & Chains*: light flail, heavy flail
*Heavy Blades*: longsword, greatsword, falchion, scimitar, bastard sword (2-handed use)
*Light Blades*: punching dagger, rapier, short sword
*Maces & Clubs*: light mace, heavy mace, greatclub, sap, warmace (2-handed use)
*Monk Weapons*: kama, nunchaku, sai, shuriken, siangham
*Picks & Hammers*: light pick, heavy pick, light hammer, warhammer, scythe, maul (2-handed use)
*Polearms*: glaive, guisarme, halberd, ranseur
*Slings & Thrown Weapons*: dart, sling
*Spears & Lances*: javelin, lance, longspear, shortspear, trident

Now, some of those groups look mighty weak, I know, but there are also two Exotic Weapon groups. They each have a prereq of BAB +1 and give you proficiency with any exotic weapons of the appropriate types as long as you have the base weapon group(s) already. If you take additional base weapon groups after taking the Exotic Weapon proficiency, you become proficient with both the base weapons in the new group and all exotic weapons of that group. Here they are:

*Exotic Double Weapons*:
_Axes_: orc double axe, dwarven urgrosh (must also have Weapon Group [spears & lances])
_Flails & Chains_: dire flail, gyrspike (must also have Weapon Group [heavy blades])
_Heavy Blades_: double scimitar, gyrspike (must also have Weapon Group [flails & chains]), two-handed sword
_Maces & Clubs_: double mace
_Picks & Hammers_ double hammer, gnome hooked hammer
_Spears & Lances_: dwarven urgrosh (must also have Weapon Group [axes])

*Exotic Weapons*:
_Axes_: dwarven waraxe (1-handed use)
_Bows_: elven double bow, greatbow, composite greatbow
_Claw Weapons_: bladed gauntlet, claw bracer, panther claw, stump knife, tiger claws, ward cestus
_Clubs & Maces_: warmace (1-handed use), tonfa
_Crossbows_: great Xbow, hand Xbow
_Druid Weapons_: greatspear
_Flails & Chains_: chain-and-dagger, scourge, spiked chain, three-section staff, whip, whip-dagger
_Heavy Blades_: bastard sword (1-handed use), khopesh, mercurial longsword, mercurial greatsword
_Light Blades_: kukri, sapara, triple dagger, war fan
_Monk Weapons_: butterfly sword, tonfa
_Picks & Hammers_: dire pick, gnome battlepick, maul (1-handed use)
_Polearms_: heavy poleaxe
_Slings & Thrown Weapons_: bolas, chakram, gnome calculus, halfling skiprock, orc shotput, shuriken, throwing iron
_Spears & Lances_: duom, greatspear, harpoon, manti, spinning javelin

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 30, 2004)

Good job guys!  Jus tstarted a new job (Blooming Prairie in Iowa City) so I'm workin 12+ hr days and have no time to play with the spreadsheet, but I'm enjoying the read.

 Before Spunj started in on the first few levels of different core classes you guys seemed to be worrying about making sure barbarians would only be able to take barbarian style evasnion skills...uhm...that's counter to what this is trying for.  Once the system is hammered into place, you'll be able to have someone make a barbarian under core rules, but that woll mean they CHOOSE to pick up Barbarian style evasion.  Otherwise, you'd see them pick up better evasion which isn't hurting anything..it just shows taht maybe this barbarian is more agile than otehrs.

 Also, there is NOTHING wrong with requirements for some of these class abilities cum feats.  I know when I made Evasion a feat I gave it a dex req.

 Hagen


----------



## ouini (Apr 30, 2004)

*Rangers? Blech.*

I admit I don't have a great grasp of the new vs. old Rangers, except that the old core Rangers are terribly front-loaded, and I wouldn't expect them to work in any point-system which approaches linear or level-for-level balanced. In fact, I'd be very worried if I had a system in which core Fighters and Rangers, or Rogues and Rangers, turned out to cost the same at first level.

RE: Barbarians
I don't know if I think of Fast Movement as part of an ability chain or not. What is it chained to? The most obvious answer is "Rage", as it was obviously made part of the Barbarian class because Rage doesn't do you any good unless you can get to your enemy quickly.

For some reason I got the impression it was already a feat? If so, a non-fighter feat is four points, and 1st level Barbarians still come in as way too expensive (eight points over).

But okay. If Fast Movement is part of an ability chain, then it's even worse, and there's some rework to do. Over several levels, Barbarian cost drops down below that of Rogues, but in the early levels, they're costly.

What it comes down to, I think, is two things. Core seems fine with giving low-level classes a passel of highly-related abilities, so long as:
1 - none of them are unbalancing, and 
2 - later on, the class suffers a good dry spell of abilities. (That's actually one of the things I don't like about playing classes -- there are many levels in a row where it's boring to advance a high level Paladin, or Ranger, or Barbarian, or even Rogue unless you're heavily into avoiding traps.)

What to do? Well, some options might be:
- somehow *borrowing* points from your later levels (very core-like, but BLECH!)
- lowering the cost of co-requisite skills at low levels (not *pre*requisite).

I'll think about it.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> I admit I don't have a great grasp of the new vs. old Rangers, except that the old core Rangers are terribly front-loaded, and I wouldn't expect them to work in any point-system which approaches linear or level-for-level balanced. In fact, I'd be very worried if I had a system in which core Fighters and Rangers, or Rogues and Rangers, turned out to cost the same at first level.




Well, then you've just admitted that you feel Fighters & Rogues are less powerful than Rangers. 

Either way, the new Ranger's much better. Not front-loaded and the Favored Enemy mechanic works a lot better. Go here and check out the 3.5 Ranger if you haven't already done so. If you remember how we tried to revamp the Favored Enemy mechanic, you'll see pretty quickly that 3.5 does essentially the same thing we came up with! 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> RE: Barbarians
> I don't know if I think of Fast Movement as part of an ability chain or not. What is it chained to? The most obvious answer is "Rage", as it was obviously made part of the Barbarian class because Rage doesn't do you any good unless you can get to your enemy quickly.
> <snip>
> But okay. If Fast Movement is part of an ability chain, then it's even worse, and there's some rework to do. Over several levels, Barbarian cost drops down below that of Rogues, but in the early levels, they're costly.




I'm thinking more globally than that, looking at the whole system. You're right that there is a feat called Dash that gives you +5' in no or light armor and not encumbered, but I don't know of a feat that gives you +10'. We went around on some of this back when we were working on the old system. 

Regardless, I was treating Fast Movement as the start of an Ability chain (and I'd say Fighter more than Non-Fighter given how useful movement is in combat) which the Monk gets more use from over the course of 20 levels. So the Ability chain is identical for both, but the Barbarian only takes the first feat, while the Monk keeps pushing it to get to those supernatural speeds. I wouldn't tie it to Rage because there are lots of other non-Core base classes and many Prestige Classes that offer Rage-like abilities without increased speed, and vice versa.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> What it comes down to, I think, is two things. Core seems fine with giving low-level classes a passel of highly-related abilities, so long as:
> 1 - none of them are unbalancing, and
> 2 - later on, the class suffers a good dry spell of abilities. (That's actually one of the things I don't like about playing classes -- there are many levels in a row where it's boring to advance a high level Paladin, or Ranger, or Barbarian, or even Rogue unless you're heavily into avoiding traps.)




Right, and while I have no problem with #1, I loathe #2. I admit that a few times in my spreadsheets I had to occasionally push an ability that Core gave at one level back a level or two, because the points just didn't work out. This occurred at 1st level and occasionally at other levels. Once I was done rearranging everything that Core said that class should have, I looked to see if I had enough points left over to hand out some bonus feats to avoid "dead levels". Thankfully, that never happened, IMO, to classes that I already felt were already too powerful and didn't need the bump in power.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I'll think about it.




I'll be interested to see what you come up with. 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 30, 2004)

Yes, up front, Fighters & Rogues *are* less powerful than Rangers. Eventually though, I believe they even out. (I took a look at the new one ... you're right, The new Ranger's better.) Rogues, though, will always be less or more powerful than other classes depending on how skill vs. combat oriented the campaign is.

But if Fast Movement is a feat, I personally won't classify it as a *fighter* feat unless it's on the fighter's list. Otherwise, the classifications shouldn't be "fighter" or "non-fighter", but simply "very useful" or "sometimes handy".

If F.M. is the start of an ability-chain, though, it sounds like you'd put it at the head of a Monk-like bigger'n'bigger movement bonus path. And sure, that seems to work.

RE: Core gives low-level classes many related abilities if none are unbalancing and later on, the class suffers a good dry spell.


			
				DrSpunj" said:
			
		

> ... a few times in my spreadsheets I had to occasionally push an ability that Core gave at one level back a level or two ... This occurred at 1st level and ...



Well, I don't have a problem with doing that, either. But I will look to see whether there's some elegant, or at least fairly simple, solution to allow offering related chain-abilities at low level, within the point system. I'm thinking there is, but outside of seperate ability-chains which are de facto "related" because they're offered together in a core class, it would involve judgment calls by the GM.


----------



## Videssian (Apr 30, 2004)

While it is the way it is in AU, I'm not sure that dividing weapons into all those groups really makes sense.  I think in a lot of ways there's far too many categories making things needlessly complex, so perhaps you could combine some of those categories.  I do think also that the "basic" weapons needs to change. (I assume here that the "basic" weapons are those that pretty much everyone including the studious mage apprentice will know how to use in combat).

The weapons I feel should be in the "basic" category are:

*Club*: A big stick, about as basic a weapon as you possibly can have.

*Shortspear*: A long pointy stick.  Our human ancestors have been using a long pointy stick for hundreds of thousands of years.  And how much skill does it take to jab someone with it?  not much!

*Handaxe*: any rural folk and many townsfolk will have used an axe throughout their lives to cut firewood if nothing else (or to kill the turkey for dinner etc).. so they'll have had some experience at chopping things with it..

I removed Dagger because it takes some degree of skill to use properly, likely more skill than a sword would require.

I removed Quarterstaff because to use it as anything but a long club requires quite a bit of skill to use well.  Again, probably more skill than using a sword.

I don't know if any of you would agree with me, but I thought I'd throw these two thoughts out there.. There's something to be said for not making things unnecessarily complex..

ttyl,
Videssian


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Well, I don't have a problem with doing that, either. But I will look to see whether there's some elegant, or at least fairly simple, solution to allow offering related chain-abilities at low level, within the point system. I'm thinking there is, but outside of seperate ability-chains which are de facto "related" because they're offered together in a core class, it would involve judgment calls by the GM.




Yeah, and I had to address that with my "feat chain" layout as well. Not the best example but one that comes to mind readily are the Bard Songs. While all of them require Bardic Music up front, there are easily two separate sets of abilities there: the Fascinate path and the Courage path.

The Fascinate path moves onto Suggestion then to Mass Suggestion (and I can make a reasonable argument to include Song of Freedom in that chain). The Courage path, aside from Courage continuing to improve with better bonuses, also includes Inspire Greatness & Inspire Heroics. I honestly can't remember what I did with Inspire Competence at the moment. 

Anyway, point being that just because the Core rules have combined those two paths of abilities in the Core Bard class doesn't mean I think everyone who plays a Bard like character should be forced to take both of them. I much prefer to leave both paths open so that someone can choose to take one, both or neither.

Looking at the Barbarian, all his Rage feats make a good chain/path. His Uncanny Dodge abilities (and arguably Trap Sense abilities) make another. His Damage Reduction, IMO, is a third, and completely separate from the other two. Why? Because there are other classes that gain DR in a similar manner that don't get Rage or Uncanny Dodge, and I think it would be fun to play a tank-like defense-oriented warrior without the ferocity of Rage and/or the sixth sense & nimbleness of Uncanny Dodge. Separating the Barbarian's abilities into 3 chains gives me that versatility in my system.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Good job guys!  Jus started a new job (Blooming Prairie in Iowa City) so I'm workin 12+ hr days and have no time to play with the spreadsheet, but I'm enjoying the read.




Oo, brutal. Good luck with the new job! 

When you get a chance, can you provide links to the new/updated files I sent you so others can download them?



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Before Spunj started in on the first few levels of different core classes you guys seemed to be worrying about making sure barbarians would only be able to take barbarian style evasnion skills...uhm...that's counter to what this is trying for.  Once the system is hammered into place, you'll be able to have someone make a barbarian under core rules, but that woll mean they CHOOSE to pick up Barbarian style evasion.  Otherwise, you'd see them pick up better evasion which isn't hurting anything..it just shows taht maybe this barbarian is more agile than otehrs.




Right. I totally agree! It's been quite awhile since I started this thread, and I haven't read back through it recently, so I'm not sure if my past posts gave that impression (or said that exact thing!) or not. I can only say that, after working on this for quite some time my goal is to allow someone to build whatever type of balanced character they want to. If they want Barbarian DR without Rage or Uncanny Dodge, and want to put that with Heavy Armor proficiency and an increased Defense & d12 HD, _more power to them!_

If my CB system works the way I hope it does, as long as they have the points to get those abilities things should work out fine.

The devil's in the details though. I agree that Sneak Attack is too powerful to be taken every level, but I think it's okay to take every other level (like the Rogue). So how to keep someone from taking it every level?

My current approach was to directly tie it to character level. I could also see a requirement like "your BAB has to increase by at least +1.5 before you can take this feat again". You could limit it to only be taken at odd levels if you wanted to.

All of those keep you from taking it every level, but the first one (my way) bugs *ouini*, I think, because someone could it take it for the first time at 3rd level and get it twice. If they had saved some points they could take it for the first time at 5th level and get it three times! That really doesn't bother me.  That PC paid a pretty big opportunity cost in saving those points to splurge all at once rather than buying abilities he could use right away (assuming he lived long enough to spend them!).



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Also, there is NOTHING wrong with requirements for some of these class abilities cum feats.  I know when I made Evasion a feat I gave it a dex req.




In the 3.0 DMG I remember reading a section about when to ask for a Save vs when to ask for an Ability check. I'm not sure if that section is in the 3.5 DMG or not, but I really liked what that section had to say. At the core it came down to, "If you're trying to avoid something, it's a Save. If you're trying to accomplish something, it's an Ability check."

I tried applying that concept where I could in the Prereqs I came up with for the class ability feats. Evasion only kicks in when you're making a Reflex save, so I gave it a Reflex save prereq. DR is about avoiding damage, so I gave a Fort save prereq.

Rage I struggled with a bit. It allows you to do something, so I thought about linking it to Constitution, but with the fatigue/exhaustion and Tireless Rage abilities I came to see Rage as something that pretty much anyone can do, most people just don't have the stamina/fortitude to resist tearing themselves up (and perhaps even killing themselves) doing it. Here I could probably be swayed to add or change it to a Constitution requirement, but I really liked how the Fort save POV allowed me to scale the prereq for the higher level abilities.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 30, 2004)

Videssian said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that dividing weapons into all those groups really makes sense ... perhaps you could combine some of those categories.



I completely agree. And while I also completely agree that an amazing amount of skill and finesse can be used in wielding daggers and quarterstaffs in the real world, I have no trouble with putting them in the "Basic" category along with clubs, or even slings (now *those* require more skill than a bow!), because they're common and cheap weapons a non-fighter may have plausibly practiced with growing up. Crossbows are usually in the "Basic" category because, moreso than bows or slings, they are point-and-shoot easy.

"Simple Weapons" I'd likely keep the same. As for Martial Weapons, I'd shorten the list, too. Axes Picks & Hammers, Bows, Flails, Swords, Clubs, Pole weapons.

Bottom line: I'd offer a suggested "Basic" list, and suggested Martial categories, but work with any player who wanted to modify it.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> just because the Core rules have combined those two paths of abilities in the Core Bard class doesn't mean I think everyone who plays a Bard like character should be forced to take both of them.



Right. And with ability-chains, it'd be very easy to address this problem. That is, A few of the early Bardic skills would be prerequisite for either the later Combat-Bard or Fascinate-Bard ability chains. (Just like Rage4x might be prerequisite for the continued Rage5x,6x,etc chain *and* for Greater Rage, NoFatigue Rage chain.)

Conversely, there could be more than one option for a prerequisite. That is, an ability chain needn't be a single early ability-chain splitting later into several greater ability-chains. It could sometimes be that a later ability-chain (like DR) could be based on *either* of two+ earlier ability-chain prereqs.

Remember, the idea is just that ability-chains are highly *conceptually* related. That's not something you can always plan for -- players can be ingeniuosly surprising in coming up with coherent concepts you hand't thought of. If one of them included having, say, Evasion (and later on, Improved Evasion), I might allow them to have the Dodge ability-chain as a prereq. *Or* I might allow high reflex as a prereq, or Fast Movement.

I think the best you can plan for, is to have a solid example of a prereq for a later ability-chain, and if the player comes up with something equally good, allow it.


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

*ouini*, reading back through my responses to *SSquirrel* I realized that we're taking similar approaches to the class abilities, with some important differences.

I'm basically converting all class abilities into feat paths. I'm trying to link them only when absolutely necessary for the abilities in question, so that if one feat path is appealing to a player they aren't stuck with other, similar but very different, feat paths. For example, the Druid's Wild Shape abilities are a very straightforward feat path. All of her nature abilities (Woodland Stride, Trackless Step, Resist Nature's Lure, Venom Immunity, Animal Companion) are a separate feat path, IMO. The latter makes a lot of sense for any nature-oriented character, while the Wild Shape path may not be what every nature-oriented character is really after.

As we've all said, we're really dumping classes altogether with this system. Can you explain why you feel it's important to keep ability chains separate and distinct from feats & feat paths? What do you think I'm losing (or ignoring? missing?) by turning everything into feat paths?

Just curious! 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Apr 30, 2004)

*Videssian*, I completely agree that the groups are a bit too complex and need some work. While I think I understand why UA has so many different groups, I want tinker with them a bit, too.

I like most of *ouini*'s Basic list, mostly because it's what I was thinking of changing it to! 

I see the Basic list as a "you can find one of these and play with it growing up if you lived in the Middle Ages" subset of the Simple Weapons outlined in the PHB. To me that would likely mean:

Unarmed Strike, Dagger, Club, Shortspear, Quarterstaff, Dart & Sling.

I can see your points about the handaxe, but I'm not adding it because it's a Martial Weapon. That may seem a bit arbitrary. That's because it is. 

I have to disagree about Xbows though. While pointing one and shooting one may not require a lot of training, reloading, dealing with jams, and keeping the thing working beyond that first shot does requires a bit of training. Enough that I think it should remain out of the Basic category.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> "Simple Weapons" I'd likely keep the same. As for Martial Weapons, I'd shorten the list, too. Axes Picks & Hammers, Bows, Flails, Swords, Clubs, Pole weapons.




I'd probably go with these:
Basic as above, then Axes, Bows, Claw Weapons, Crossbows, Flails & Chains, Light Blades, Heavy Blades, Maces/Clubs/Picks/Hammers, Polearms/Spears/Lances & Thrown Weapons, with the Exotic Double Weapons & Exotic Weapons on top of that.

I know I didn't shorten their list much, but:

The Druid & Monk lists are classed based so those go.
I've not trained with any of these weapons, but how I imagine someone would use a Mace or Club just isn't different enough from a Pick or Hammer to require separate categories.
Same thing with Polearms, Spears & Lances.
Claw Weapons & Thrown Weapons are pretty useless unless you take Exotic Weapons, and I personally like that stair step approach to gaining proficiency with those weapons.
Same thing for double weapons.

Obviously YMMV.   

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Apr 30, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Can you explain why you feel it's important to keep ability chains separate and distinct from feats & feat paths?



Short answer: no.

Or rather, not for any reason important enough to keep the system more (rather than less) complicated. All you gain are two things:
1 - An echo of the classes (in the form of grouped ability-chains), so that it's easier to lump abilities together (prereq-wise) which normally wouldn't go together as prereq feats chains.
2 - That the fighter-feat list stays a known entity: a set list of about four dozen feats which are overwhelmingly (maybe only) useful in combat, which any "fighter" (a class which has ostensibly disappeared) might wish to learn. While there's no doubt some abilities are powerful enough and appropriately-themed (Rage, Sneak Attack) to be on such a list, others are not so black and white. Either they're powerful but not exclusive to fighting (Fast Movement or Wild Shape), or they're exclusive to combat, but arguably require too narrow a character type to make available to all "fighters" (Smite Evil, Ki Strike, even Turn Undead and Inspire Courage). Ability-chains, on the other hand, can be classified as fighting or non-fighting (or better vs. worse) arbitrarily, based essentially on utility.

So to lump them together, the hardest and most time-consuming step (to keep game consistency) would be determining which feats, which used to be non-fighter's feats, should now be considered powerful enough to join the ranks of the "fighter" feats and feat-chains.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 1, 2004)

Heh, glad I managed to help ya realize important points Spunj. This is really getting to the chocolate and peanut butter stage I think. What we should focus on is doing BOTH. Work the system so that it is completely freeform and baalnced, then have examples setup for each class progression. This would allow someone who wanted to easily lok and grab the benefits of a particular class level to do so yet it would also allow someone to make a Wizard with DR, Wild Shaping and Bardic Music.

So maybe we need a separate tab in Excel which shows how each close runs from 1st thru 20th...or even 1 tab for each class.

Oh yeah, in AU there is a Fleet of Foot (or similar name) feat that gives +10 to movement. +10 seems more balanced as a feat than 5' does. So just swap it out straightup.

Morning addition:

New version of the spreadsheet is available here, here and here:

www.giant.net/~hagen/AU_Classes.xls
www.giant.net/~hagen/Core_Classes.xls
www.giant.net/~hagen/Intro_Notes.xls

This takes up the most recent bouts of changes that have been debated recently.

Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 3, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> New version of the spreadsheet is available here, here and here:




Thanks much for hosting the files!



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Heh, glad I managed to help ya realize important points Spunj. This is really getting to the chocolate and peanut butter stage I think. What we should focus on is doing BOTH. Work the system so that it is completely freeform and balanced, then have examples setup for each class progression.




That's definitely what I'm working towards.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> So maybe we need a separate tab in Excel which shows how each close runs from 1st thru 20th...or even 1 tab for each class.




Well, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but I think I've essentially done that with the Near-Core & DrSpunj sheets. The Core Feats sheet outlines how I converted all the class abilities into feats.

Using those sheets you can see how I distributed CBs for each class through levels 1-20.

Now, I'd be happy to hear any criticism on ability->feat prerequisites as I think that's at the heart of any major discrepancies between what *ouini*'s suggesting and what I've come up with. Much of it is very similar already.

On a slightly different note, I've been wondering which method of limiting some repetitive feats is better. Which of the following is easier to understand WRT limiting Sneak Attack:

1) You can take this feat multiple times increasing the Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6 each time, but maximum damage of +(1+Level/2)d6.

2) You can take this feat multiple times, but no more than once every other level. It's effects stack.

The former requires a bit of math that ends up being different for most abilities (different formula for Sneak Attack vs Rage vs Wild Shape vs Smite) and allows you to play catch up at later levels. The second doesn't allow catch up buying but requires you to keep track of what level you purchase each feat at.

Personally, I think the second is simpler and quite a bit better overall, and likely worth the extra bookkeeping. I tried to stay away from it, but I kind of had to do that with things like Bardic Lore & Animal Companion already. Opinions?



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, in AU there is a Fleet of Foot (or similar name) feat that gives +10 to movement. +10 seems more balanced as a feat than 5' does. So just swap it out straightup.




I agree...which is why I did exactly that for Fast Movement in the Core Classes spreadsheet. 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (May 3, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Short answer: no
> 
> Or rather, not for any reason important enough to keep the system more (rather than less) complicated.




Good! Or rather, I'm glad I'm not missing something. 

I'm not interested in #1 enough, and #2 isn't distinct enough, IMO, to keep things more complicated.

BTW, this:



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> ...which any "fighter" (a class which has ostensibly disappeared)...




made me chuckle! 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> So to lump them together, the hardest and most time-consuming step (to keep game consistency) would be determining which feats, which used to be non-fighter's feats, should now be considered powerful enough to join the ranks of the "fighter" feats and feat-chains.




Well, I've tried to do that already, though there are a lot of ways to do the chains and the prereqs and I'm certainly not commited to what I've offered up. Still, it's a place to start if we're looking for common ground.

The thing I ran into was there seemed to be three types of feats when I was trying to organize things:
1) Combat feats
2) Non-Combat feats
3) Non-Combat feats that served as the entry point for a feat path

Now, YMMV, but I felt that feat types #1 & #3 should cost more, hence I gave them the Base cost. #2 I felt shouldn't be as expensive and priced them at the Expansion cost. I ended up using PRIME to distinguish those abilities that were at the front of a distinct feat path.

Overall I think this would be a lot easier to understand if it was laid out according to the Feat table in the PHB or using flowchart diagrams. I may take some time to at least separate the feat chains rather than alphabetizing them like I did before.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (May 3, 2004)

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this.

Under normal rules, with classes, part of the reason Rogues are considered balanced, is because they get a lot of skill proficiencies (in-class skills). Other classes, except for Bards, don't. If, as we're doing now, you treat pretty much all skills as in-class skills, and don't have to buy the many in-class skill proficiencies, Rogues are going to be cheapcheapcheap.

So I don't have a problem with Rogues appearing to be cheap, or with implementing some kind of simple proficiency cost.

Right now, I'm looking at all skill ranks costing 1 SP each at 1st level.
After 1st, skills are considered cross-class until or unless you have 4 or more ranks in them.


----------



## ouini (May 3, 2004)

... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this.

Under normal rules, with classes, part of the reason Rogues are considered balanced, is because they get a lot of skill proficiencies (in-class skills). Other classes, except for Bards, don't. If, as we're doing now, you treat pretty much all skills as in-class skills, and don't have to buy the many in-class skill proficiencies, Rogues are going to be cheapcheapcheap.

So I don't have a problem with Rogues appearing to be cheap, or with implementing some kind of simple proficiency cost.

Right now, I'm looking at all skill ranks costing 1 SP each at 1st level.
After 1st, skills are considered cross-class until or unless you have 4 or more ranks in them.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 3, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but I think I've essentially done that with the Near-Core & DrSpunj sheets. The Core Feats sheet outlines how I converted all the class abilities into feats.
> 
> Using those sheets you can see how I distributed CBs for each class through levels 1-20.



 I've been so busy with work at the new job I haven't been able to really browse the new versions, but I'll look at them and comment soon.  If you already have something in like I mentioned then cool heh.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> 1) You can take this feat multiple times increasing the Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6 each time, but maximum damage of +(1+Level/2)d6.
> 
> 2) You can take this feat multiple times, but no more than once every other level. It's effects stack.



 I would go for the first.  It's entirely possible that someone could learn Sneak Attack down the line and focus on its specialties to play catch up.

 I would thus go with the first version and word it something like this:

 You can take this feat multiple times with each increase raising your Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6.   You cannot have more levels of Sneak Attack than your level/2 rounded up.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 4, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> ... one thing which we've pretty much ignored is this.




I haven't ignored it. I've intentionally dropped it!  

IMC currently all cross-class ranks cost 1 SP, just like class ranks do. My players & I are very happy with the change. They've been able to buy the skills they want to develop their characters and I've seen a more diverse array of skills being used across the entire party. IMO, that's A Good Thing (tm).

When I ask for a Spot check the Ranger & Ftr/Rogue are still the most likely to get the highest total, but with the few points others have put into that skill others _can_ actually beat them with better than average rolls. This has helped them out several times when the Ranger was paying too much attention to his boot laces as they approach a dangerous situation.

Similar things have happened with various Knowledge checks, Spellcraft/Psicraft, Appraise, etc. Overall it's been one of the best House Rules I've used. I dislike how Core pigeon-holes every PC into a skill role (Spotter, Arcana-master, Appraiser, Tumbler, Sneaker, Diplomeister, etc.) based on their race & class such that once one PC has a hefty lead in a particular skill, no other PCs buy ranks in that skill. What you're left with are a group of super-specialists with no overlap. While that works great with high and even average rolls for most situations, if your super-specialist rolls low and misses the DC the whole party is SOL.

Since 3.5 did away with Restricted skills, the only Core ruling I've left in place is cross-class maximum ranks. In a classless system like this, "cross-class" skills don't make any sense at all.

Do the Rogue, Bard, Ranger & Monk lose something by doing away with class and cross-class skills? Relatively, yes, but absolutely? Maybe, but I personally don't feel it's enough in a classless system to try and make it up to them. Cross-class skills are a complicating factor that I'm happy to see kicked out the door and replaced by a good character background and growth/learning over time to justify the skills your PC has (always subject to DM approval, of course! ).

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (May 4, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I've been so busy with work at the new job I haven't been able to really browse the new versions, but I'll look at them and comment soon.  If you already have something in like I mentioned then cool heh.




Alright, cool. Take a look at it when you find some time (between those 12 hr work days, bleah!) and I'll wait for the feedback.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I would go for the first.  It's entirely possible that someone could learn Sneak Attack down the line and focus on its specialties to play catch up.
> 
> I would thus go with the first version and word it something like this:
> 
> You can take this feat multiple times with each increase raising your Sneak Attack damage by an additional +1d6.   You cannot have more levels of Sneak Attack than your level/2 rounded up.




Just a matter of semantics, but for consistency's sake I like keeping everything rounded down, hence the 1+Level/2 formula. Still, we're thinking along the same lines.

I guess it comes back to what abilities should tie directly to character level and what should be relative.

As an example, Bardic Lore in Core is a bonus based on your Bard Level. Since we don't have that here I make anyone who takes Bardic Lore keep track of which character level they took the Bardic Lore feat at, so they get a +1 for every level they've had the Bardic Lore feat. If you're a 13th level PC and took Bardic Lore at 10th level you have a Lore bonus of +4. If you had taken it at 1st level you'd have a +13. You're rewarded for prioritizing your abilities.

If you tie Bardic Lore directly to character level then you end up with some wacky situations where an 18th level character takes Bardic Lore and all of a sudden has a whopping +18 to his Lore checks. That doesn't work for me.

I used the same mechanic with Animal Companions. Your "animal companion level" only counts the level you took the Animal Companion feat and later levels so an 18th level PC doesn't end up with a super celestial grizzly bear by taking the Animal Companion feat at 18th level.

Now, I don't think you can focus on Bardic Lore or Animal Companion to play catch up, but I agree that you could do that with Sneak Attack damage. Still, it seems a bit awkward that things like Bardic Lore & Animal Companion only reward those who take them early while Sneak Attack allows you to play catch up. If you miss out on a Full +1 BAB at one level you can't take +2 BAB the next; the system doesn't work that way.

Hmm...for consistency across the board I may tie everything to relative character levels. If you want to be a Sneak Attack master, you better take the feat once every couple levels. If you want to know a lot about the world around you (or figure out the best way to delve into the Akashic memory) you better take Bardic Lore (or Delve into the Collective Memory) as early as possible.

You certainly don't have to take things as soon as they're offered, but you won't reach your maximum potential unless you do because you're focusing on other things. I'll think about it some more, but I think tying things to relative PC levels is more consistent across the board and offers a real opportunity cost to what feat paths to pursue at each level.

I like that! 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (May 4, 2004)

I liked your altered breakdown of Martial Weapon groups, DrSpunj.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> IMC currently all cross-class ranks cost 1 SP ... Do the Rogue, Bard, Ranger & Monk lose something by doing away with class and cross-class skills? Relatively, yes, but absolutely? Maybe, but I personally don't feel it's enough in a classless system to try and make it up to them.



That's fine. And you'll notice that the rule I mentioned doesn't use "cross-class" skills in any sense but name (which could be replaced by something like "proficient" vs. "not yet proficient").

The upshot is simply: cheap skills make non-skill monkeys absolutely gain power. Skill monkeys also absolutely gain power, since SPs are cheap relative to feat-paths and spellcasting. In an a la carte system, this makes cost comparisons of recreated old classes less direct, and a little more apple-to-orange-y.

But both our solutions are fine (and yours is simpler), since monkeys gain their same old amount of skill for fewer character points (i.e. they're effectively given more chactacter points to play with to make up for the fact that one of their advantages is now given freely to all PCs). It more or less works out, so long as you realize the power-level has been bumped up across the board.

On the feat front, "abilities" simply became feats for specialized characters. At first level:
- 2 points gains you a combative feat like: all "fighter" feats, abilities like Rage or +1d6 Sneak Attack, or even turning undead. Two highly-related such feats may be bought for 2 points each if the character is built around a strong related concept. Otherwise, further combat feats cost 4.
- Similarly, 1 point gains you one non-combative feat, like "Run" or a Druid’s Nature Sense. Two highly-related such feats may be bought for 1 point each if the character is built around a strong single concept. Otherwise, further non-combat feats cost 2.

At 2nd level and beyond:
4 points for a combative feat. If it's a prerequisite for another such feat, that feat costs you:
- 5 points to buy this level, 4 next level, 3 the level after that, 2 beyond then.
2 points for a non-combative feat. If it's a prerequisite for another such feat, that feat costs you:
- 3 points to buy this level, 2 points next level or beyond.

This brings Barbarians more into line (close enough for me), makes fighters work out fine, Rogues fine (given they'll spend another point on skills each level), and I haven't looked at Rangers.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 4, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Alright, cool. Just a matter of semantics, but for consistency's sake I like keeping everything rounded down, hence the 1+Level/2 formula. Still, we're thinking along the same lines.



 You were looking for a way to make the first easier to understand as you thought it sounded too complex. Hence my version of the wording. Says the same thing.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> As an example, Bardic Lore in Core is a bonus based on your Bard Level. Since we don't have that here I make anyone who takes Bardic Lore keep track of which character level they took the Bardic Lore feat at, so they get a +1 for every level they've had the Bardic Lore feat. If you're a 13th level PC and took Bardic Lore at 10th level you have a Lore bonus of +4. If you had taken it at 1st level you'd have a +13. You're rewarded for prioritizing your abilities.



 See and I'm wondering if it isn't better to just say the hell with it and make level based abilities into something to take each level instead of remembering what level it was taken at. Seems more likely to be something that wouldn't be as easily confused during play. "Aww crap was it 7th or 8th I took that Animal Companion:Bat for my Cat Burglar?"

 edit:Are restrictions Nature and Divine minor or major?  If they're major, should there maybe also be minor ones associated with Paladin for the code of ethics?  Or is that included?

 It would seem that in both the Core and AU systems giving out 24 pts for 1st level and 12 for each extra level (or 26 and 13 as the average of all classes is actually 12.06363 in Core and 12.054 in AU) and that way you can go completely classless and not even look at the class tables anymore.  Which is what I would do if I switched to pure point buy.

 Thief-Mage  type using 24 pts:

 HD:d6-0
 BAB:Avg-1
 Defense:Avg-1
 Fortoor-0
 Ref:Good-2
 Will:Good-2
 SP:10-3
 WP:Two-2
 AP:One-1
 Magic:Full-7
 Feats:Sneak Attack-5

 Better than either in a couple of categories (esp saves).  This would be more of a Magent in Rolemaster terms...a mage hunter type.  Altho you could also drop his SP by a step and give him a better BAB or HD for that too.  

 So if I'm not going to run with Defense do I just zero it out at the top of the sheet and it reduces everything by 2 across the board?  Nevermind I Just tried that.  Reduced the per level average to 10.5 and first level to 20.6.  W/o Defense I would probably run the game using 22 and 11 pts.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 5, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> You were looking for a way to make the first easier to understand as you thought it sounded too complex. Hence my version of the wording. Says the same thing.




Right! Thanks. My apologies for leading you in the wrong direction with my statements. While I do believe the formula to be a bit complex, I much prefer consistency when I can have it. With literally _everything_ else in the game rounding down, I'd personally rather go with the formula and round down than your simplified version and round up. <shrugs>



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> See and I'm wondering if it isn't better to just say the hell with it and make level based abilities into something to take each level instead of remembering what level it was taken at. Seems more likely to be something that wouldn't be as easily confused during play. "Aww crap was it 7th or 8th I took that Animal Companion:Bat for my Cat Burglar?"




*ouini* and I tried to do that with Familiars when we were trying to go with a point-based/Mana spell system over a year ago. That could certainly work here, but then you have to decide how many points to allocate in that direction. Is 1 CB a fair cost to improve your Familiar level? That should probably be pretty similar to whatever it takes to improve your Animal Companion and/or Special Mount level. And how does that compare to increasing your Bardic Lore level? Is a +1 to Lore checks worth the same cost as improving your Familiar/AC/Special Mount by one level? If not, which would you change?

I'd probably go along with +1 to Bardic Lore costing 1 CB. After all, 1 CB buys you 2 SPs at any given level which you could spend on 2 specific Knowledge areas (depth of knowledge), and Bardic Lore is essentially a chance to know something about just about anything & everything (breadth of knowledge).

But with that "measuring stick" in place how much should bumping your Familiar level be (given that a Familiar's abilities improve every other level)? How about your Animal Companion level (given that improves about every 3rd level)?

And while it sounds like you disagree, I don't think with a classless system like this that it's too much to ask from a player to keep track of how they spent their CBs each level. While it doesn't have to be something they keep on their character sheets for typical gameplay, it should be something that the DM keeps on hand for when they level. I'm already asking someone to keep track of the their fractional BAB, fractional Defense bonus and potentially Half/Full caster level. Writing down what feats you took at 1st level, then 2nd, 3rd, etc. is a pretty easy list to maintain, IMO.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> edit:




Wow! 

I missed your edit until just now. You zeroed in on several of the key points immediately. Thanks! 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Are restrictions Nature and Divine minor or major?  If they're major, should there maybe also be minor ones associated with Paladin for the code of ethics?  Or is that included?




Let me start out by saying that I did the Core classes in nearly alphabetical order (I think I did Bard before Barbarian), so I struggled through how to do the Cleric & Druid before the Paladin & Ranger.

With the Bard it was easy to build his magic around Bardic Music. Originally I hadn't thought about the key magic ability score, so Bardic Music was just about the songs. His ability to cast in Light Armor was similar to the Spellsword's ability, so I wanted to do something along those lines but I didn't want it available to anyone because it would become a must-have for all casters. Bardic Casting could just as easily be worded to say "no Spell Failure while in Light Armor as long as your spells have a verbal component".

When I hit the Cleric, I also hit a big wall. Aside from all the martial abilities they get, along with 2 Good saves, they get an absolute ton of special/class abilities. No Spell Failure in armor, Spontaneous Casting, Turn Undead, 2 Domains, and their magic attribute is Wisdom. While each Domain and Turn Undead made sense to me as individual feats, No Spell Failure I couldn't put enough prereqs on to keep balanced, and Spontaneous Casting was just...awkward to put into feat form.

So that's when I started tinkering with Restrictions. What if all those abilities were gifts from your deity for your worship? After all, in Core if you snub your deity all your Clerical abilities are withdrawn. Shouldn't it be similar in this system? With that in mind I made the first feat a Cleric takes reflect their devotion & worship to their deity. In doing so, I granted them three things: No Spell Failure, Spontaneous Casting, and magic use dependent upon Wisdom. Now, that Divine Restriction feat could just as easily be called "Divine Training" and I've thought about renaming it that since I think it's a better reflection of what the feat represents, especially with the 3 ranks of  Knowledge(Religion) prereq.

Regardless, while worshipping a deity gives you access to a lot of cool and powerful abilities, you just saddled yourself with a *lot* your deity's baggage to get them. _That's_ why the Divine Training costs you zero points (net). While the feat costs 5 CBs just like all the others, you get -5 CBs back because of the roleplaying restrictions you just accepted. That's why this feat can only be taken with the DM's permission, as both of you should be very clear about your expectations about the whole thing.

When I came to the Druid I basically just copied the Divine Training feat and renamed it "Nature Restriction" which I'll probably change to Nature Training now. It gives you access to all the cool Nature abilities that Druids (& Rangers) get but brings with it similar baggage, namely the Druid's prohibition against metal armor & shields as well as a devotion to maintain the balance (if True Neutral, assuming you are using alignment like Core) or revere Nature above all other things.

When I finally got down to the Paladin I just used the Divine Training feat again, but this time the deal with the DM would include not only whatever your deity required for worship but also the Paladin's Code. Break it and you lose all your divine abilities (since if you lose a prereq you lose any feats higher up in the chain as well).

While I did originally separate restrictions into Major & Minor I didn't end up using the Minor restrictions anywhere. The Oathsworn's Swear an Oath ended up just being a variation of the above.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> It would seem that in both the Core and AU systems giving out 24 pts for 1st level and 12 for each extra level (or 26 and 13 as the average of all classes is actually 12.06363 in Core and 12.054 in AU) and that way you can go completely classless and not even look at the class tables anymore.  Which is what I would do if I switched to pure point buy.




*EXACTLY!* 

I wanted to keep the same CB totals between Core & AU so I could run them together for my campaign this summer. That was also the primary reason I bumped the HD low to a d6 and the SP low to 4/level, so that Core didn't lose out to the AU classes. Keeping AU magic for all classes made that a whole lot easier to balance. 

Anyway, while I did certainly use the Core & AU classes as a framework to figure out the balance of the system, you've picked up on the fact that if you're okay with how it works out you don't need classes anymore at all. They're meaningless. It's the feat paths that help distinguish most characters, though BAB vs Skills vs Magic still play a large part as well. 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Thief-Mage  type using 24 pts:
> HD:d6-0
> BAB:Avg-1
> Defense:Avg-1
> ...




I'm not familiar with Rolemaster, so I can't say how close this would be to the mage hunter you're speaking of. Regardless, this PC hits the ground running with Full magic and max Skills. I'm curious what you plan on doing for 2nd level and beyond as you'd be hard pressed to continue with all of that. Keeping Full Magic at 7 CBs is a huge chunk of the 12 you get to spend.

And are you looking at the updated sheets? I've done skills differently with the new ones, though you may be using what *ouini* suggested. Instead of using the Poor/Average/Good progressions from Core & AU I'm going with a free +1 to any save at every level (including 1st), and then 1 CB to get another +1 thereafter. Max (per save) of +2 at 1st level and no more than +1 at all later levels. If you want +2 to Reflex & Will at 1st level that's a total of +4, but the first +1 is free so that only costs you 3 CBs. That gives you another point to play with somewhere.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> So if I'm not going to run with Defense do I just zero it out at the top of the sheet and it reduces everything by 2 across the board?  Nevermind I Just tried that.  Reduced the per level average to 10.5 and first level to 20.6.  W/o Defense I would probably run the game using 22 and 11 pts.




Yeah, that's another limitation of the sheet. If you don't want Defense you pretty much have to zero it out and rebalance the classes accordingly. Same thing happens if you want to keep d4 HDs and 2 SPs/lvl if you're following Core (though the latter's pretty easy to accomodate by leaving the values alone and just changing the labels for SPs/lvl to 2,4,6,8). As I've said before, I made this for selfish reasons. While I'm happy to share it with anyone who wants it, it's got some of my own idiosyncracies about 3.5 built into it. 

Thanks!

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 5, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> *ouini* and I tried to do that with Familiars when we were trying to go with a point-based/Mana spell system over a year ago. That could certainly work here, but then you have to decide how many points to allocate in that direction. Is 1 CB a fair cost to improve your Familiar level? That should probably be pretty similar to whatever it takes to improve your Animal Companion and/or Special Mount level. And how does that compare to increasing your Bardic Lore level? Is a +1 to Lore checks worth the same cost as improving your Familiar/AC/Special Mount by one level? If not, which would you change?
> 
> And while it sounds like you disagree, I don't think with a classless system like this that it's too much to ask from a player to keep track of how they spent their CBs each level. While it doesn't have to be something they keep on their character sheets for typical gameplay, it should be something that the DM keeps on hand for when they level. I'm already asking someone to keep track of the their fractional BAB, fractional Defense bonus and potentially Half/Full caster level. Writing down what feats you took at 1st level, then 2nd, 3rd, etc. is a pretty easy list to maintain, IMO.



 Good point heh.  I forgot the rest of that pretty much.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> His ability to cast in Light Armor was similar to the Spellsword's ability, so I wanted to do something along those lines but I didn't want it available to anyone because it would become a must-have for all casters. Bardic Casting could just as easily be worded to say "no Spell Failure while in Light Armor as long as your spells have a verbal component".
> 
> While I did originally separate restrictions into Major & Minor I didn't end up using the Minor restrictions anywhere. The Oathsworn's Swear an Oath ended up just being a variation of the above.



 See I don't consider the fact that it's a must have to be a big issue honestly.  SO what if you start seeing a bunch of casters unable to utilize armor.  That leaves them LESS options and this system is about MORE options.  I think we should maybe work out a system of Minors again and keep them priced at 1.  So the Paladin code would be worth 1 etc and Paladin training could be its own feat with these various restrictions you take on.  Some people would maybe make a wizard with a Paladin's style of ethics as it could be interesting.  Not bloody likely, but possible *Grin*  I mean if we're gonna go all the way let's REALLY go all the way.  



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with Rolemaster, so I can't say how close this would be to the mage hunter you're speaking of. Regardless, this PC hits the ground running with Full magic and max Skills. I'm curious what you plan on doing for 2nd level and beyond as you'd be hard pressed to continue with all of that. Keeping Full Magic at 7 CBs is a huge chunk of the 12 you get to spend.
> 
> And are you looking at the updated sheets? I've done skills differently with the new ones, though you may be using what *ouini* suggested. Instead of using the Poor/Average/Good progressions from Core & AU I'm going with a free +1 to any save at every level (including 1st), and then 1 CB to get another +1 thereafter. Max (per save) of +2 at 1st level and no more than +1 at all later levels. If you want +2 to Reflex & Will at 1st level that's a total of +4, but the first +1 is free so that only costs you 3 CBs. That gives you another point to play with somewhere.



 Yeah I'd probly drop that down to half magic honestly.  The Magent is basically a fighter/mage, focused on lists of spells to help him find and combat spell casters.

 Oh and yes these are teh current versions I was looking at, I just forgot about the +1 save...whihc for the Magent I would probly shove into Fort.






			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's another limitation of the sheet. If you don't want Defense you pretty much have to zero it out and rebalance the classes accordingly. Same thing happens if you want to keep d4 HDs and 2 SPs/lvl if you're following Core (though the latter's pretty easy to accomodate by leaving the values alone and just changing the labels for SPs/lvl to 2,4,6,8).



 Oh it's not a problem at all.  I tweaked it a little myself and found it to work out just fine.  

 BTW here's a redo of the Magent:

 Thief-Mage  type using 24 pts:
   HD:d8-1
   BAB:Good-2
   Defense:NA-0
   Fortoor-0
   Ref:Good-2
   Will:Good-2
   SP:10-3
   WP:Three-3
   AP:Two-2
   Magic:Half-4
   Feats:Sneak Attack-5

 Nasty bastard indeed heh

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 5, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> See I don't consider the fact that it's a must have to be a big issue honestly.  SO what if you start seeing a bunch of casters unable to utilize armor.  That leaves them LESS options and this system is about MORE options.




Um, I'm confused by that statement. If you meant "So what if you start seeing a bunch of casters able to utilize armor." then I'll have to look at the feat you're proposing to make a judgement. I think the Bard's "all Light armors are okay" is too much as a single feat for all arcane casters, but something less than that I don't think is necessarily unbalancing.

In fact, *ouini* played a dwarven Fighter/Wizard in one game we were in and I believe he took a feat like Armored Casting that reduced his ASF by 10%. I don't have a problem with that because 10% only allows you to wear Leather armor or use a light shield. But not being able to wear armor because it interferes with spellcasting is a balancing factor for classes like the Sorcerer, Wizard & Magister. I don't think a single feat should totally negate that disadvantage.

Now, I do agree that if they want to take Armored Casting several times (like the Spellsword essentially does) that they deserve the benefits of doing so. As you say, they're spending their CBs to buy the magic and these Armored Casting feats, so they're forgoing getting other nifty feats & abilities. That's a big opportunity cost in a free-form system like this, IMO.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I think we should maybe work out a system of Minors again and keep them priced at 1.  So the Paladin code would be worth 1 etc and Paladin training could be its own feat with these various restrictions you take on.  Some people would maybe make a wizard with a Paladin's style of ethics as it could be interesting.  Not bloody likely, but possible *Grin*  I mean if we're gonna go all the way let's REALLY go all the way.




Okay, back up a minute. 

When you say "the Paladin Code would be worth 1", what exactly are you saying? Since we're talking about restrictions I'm assuming you mean they get a single point *back* to spend on other things.

Now let's look at that again. By tying my PC to the Paladin's Code I get a whopping 1 CB to spend elsewhere. Umm, YMMV but that's hardly ever a deal I'd consider fair as a player.

And if you mean 1 CB back per level (that's at least a more even deal, IMO) what happens when & if someone falls from paladinhood? Do you stop the game right then and there and say "You know those free points you've been getting for sticking to the Paladin's Code? Well now that you've ignored it you have to remove those extra points from your PC, but you may get them back if/when you atone. You're 14th level so that's 14 points so we'll just take away...let me see your sheet...."

If I'm totally off in the wrong direction on this, *SSquirrel*, please elaborate on your idea and correct me, but the latter option I don't see working too well during gameplay. The thing that so strongly appealed to me about the Divine Training & Nature Training is that the Core rules already have a system in place to take advantage of turning your back on your beliefs. If you no longer meet the prerequisites for a feat, you no longer have it, and therefore can't access any higher feats up the chain either.

If you take up the Paladin's Code (through Divine Training) you gain access to all sorts of nifty divine abilities. In Core this is limited to the Paladin, but in the Book of the Righteous (the religion book I'm going to be using in my summer campaign) this would need to be modified to account for any of the various Holy Warriors. Whatever you're getting needs to be explicitly worked out with the DM. Regardless, since many/most of your feats are built on that Divine Training cornerstone, losing it (by falling from Paladinhood) means you can't access those abilities (you still have them, you just can't access them, same as in the Core rules like when you can't use Cleave if your Strength falls below the 13 you need for Power Attack). Simple! With this method there are no points to reallocate.

Now, I have no problem at all allowing a Wizard to take on the Paladin's Code, but I have to ask you, what does that Wizard expect in return for doing so? If it's divine abilities along the lines of what a Paladin gets than I'll ask him to take 3 ranks of Knowledge(Religion) and the Divine Training feat. If it's something else, well, I'll just have to consider the request and see what prereqs and what type of Training feat I think is appropriate to balance out the abilities.

As *ouini* said a few posts ago, this is just a framework drawn wholly from the Core & AU classes. I'll definitely be open and consider requests for feats & abilities similar to what I've already defined, and I'll obviously have to do so for all the Prestige Class abilities out there. Anyone using this system for their campaign will likewise be faced with similar decisions to make.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> BTW here's a redo of the Magent:
> Thief-Mage  type using 24 pts:
> HD:d8-1
> BAB:Good-2
> ...




Realize that you're cheating a bit here. If you're dropping Defense out of the system then you don't really get 24 points to distribute, you get the 22 you figured out before, and only 11 for each level thereafter. Also realize that you've got two Armor Proficiencies, both of which will cause difficulty with your Half Magic because of Spell Failure without some kind of Armored Casting feat. Still, this is exactly the type of character build I would expect for someone looking to build a Hunter Mage or Assassin type. Nice!   

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 5, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Um, I'm confused by that statement. If you meant "So what if you start seeing a bunch of casters able to utilize armor." then I'll have to look at the feat you're proposing to make a judgement. I think the Bard's "all Light armors are okay" is too much as a single feat for all arcane casters, but something less than that I don't think is necessarily unbalancing.



 I was saying that we should actually have a restriction feat that gives you a few point by disallowing armor or some such.  You say taht spellcasters would automatically start taking it to have extra points, but I think a lot of the wizards, in this system, would want to keep their options a bit more open to having armor if they wanted it.  So maybe having a restriction feat that denies them the use of armor completely as well as some sort of feat to show that some folks are good at maneuvering in their armor for 10% less spell failure could be cool.  I'm just trying to put even more variations into the system to allow for even more choices.




			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> When you say "the Paladin Code would be worth 1", what exactly are you saying? Since we're talking about restrictions I'm assuming you mean they get a single point *back* to spend on other things.



 I was trying to show that Divine Training should be a series of codified prereqs leading up to it.  A Paladin type and a Cleric type both take Divine Training but get different rewards for doing so.  Qua?  Make a series of restrictions that breaks down each of the issues.  So Divine Training would become Cleric Training, Ranger Training, Druid Training and Paladin Training and Paladin Training would have 1 restriction prereq of Code of Ethics, another for etc etc.  These restrictions would total the cost of the Paladin Training feat.  This would also allow others to pick up the restrictions if they wanted to tailor their character in a different fashion but not to go down the exact same route.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> And if you mean 1 CB back per level (that's at least a more even deal, IMO) what happens when & if someone falls from paladinhood? Do you stop the game right then and there and say "You know those free points you've been getting for sticking to the Paladin's Code? Well now that you've ignored it you have to remove those extra points from your PC, but you may get them back if/when you atone. You're 14th level so that's 14 points so we'll just take away...let me see your sheet....".



 Nope just 1 CB *grin*  The Paladin has that stuff front loaded in the PHB and you don't take it each level so I see no reason to give them an extra point each level just b/c of the restriction.  The extra point will count more at 1st level when you're trying to develop the initial character.




			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> If you no longer meet the prerequisites for a feat, you no longer have it, and therefore can't access any higher feats up the chain either.
> 
> If you take up the Paladin's Code (through Divine Training) you gain access to all sorts of nifty divine abilities. In Core this is limited to the Paladin, but in the Book of the Righteous (the religion book I'm going to be using in my summer campaign) this would need to be modified to account for any of the various Holy Warriors. Whatever you're getting needs to be explicitly worked out with the DM. Regardless, since many/most of your feats are built on that Divine Training cornerstone, losing it (by falling from Paladinhood) means you can't access those abilities (you still have them, you just can't access them, same as in the Core rules like when you can't use Cleave if your Strength falls below the 13 you need for Power Attack). Simple! With this method there are no points to reallocate.



 True and this would still be accurate.  I don't want to see points reallocated. 



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Now, I have no problem at all allowing a Wizard to take on the Paladin's Code, but I have to ask you, what does that Wizard expect in return for doing so? If it's divine abilities along the lines of what a Paladin gets than I'll ask him to take 3 ranks of Knowledge(Religion) and the Divine Training feat. If it's something else, well, I'll just have to consider the request and see what prereqs and what type of Training feat I think is appropriate to balance out the abilities.



 The wizard would expect 1 extra CB as he wants to have a wizard with a very specific codde of ethics.  That's all.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Realize that you're cheating a bit here. If you're dropping Defense out of the system then you don't really get 24 points to distribute, you get the 22 you figured out before, and only 11 for each level thereafter. Also realize that you've got two Armor Proficiencies, both of which will cause difficulty with your Half Magic because of Spell Failure without some kind of Armored Casting feat. Still, this is exactly the type of character build I would expect for someone looking to build a Hunter Mage or Assassin type.



 Ok so drop 1 point from armor and 1 more from BAB or HD.  heh.  Still a nasty character.

Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 6, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I was saying that we should actually have a restriction feat that gives you a few point by disallowing armor or some such.  <snip> I'm just trying to put even more variations into the system to allow for even more choices.




Ah! I _think_ we're on the same page now. You're effectively just coming up with a different default for the magic system.

By that I mean, I look at Core and have come to believe that Arcane magic is the baseline. Since any PC can multiclass into an Arcane spellusing class, it's available to everyone and it comes with the inherent penalty of Arcane Spell Failure from Armor & Shields. OTOH, anyone accessing Divine magic (and the ability to ignore ASF) is doing so through an intermediate agency (usually a deity) that requires worship, respect and/or behaviors in return.

With that POV it seems "better" to me to leave ASF in and have feats like Armored Casting that remove some of it, or restrictions like Divine Training that abolish it entirely. That's certainly up for debate as I can easily see how you might prefer to have no ASF be the default but offer a restriction that imposes ASF to get back some points to spend elsewhere.

The reason that approach doesn't appeal to me much is I'm not a big fan of flaw systems. Their relatively easy to abuse and with a freeform system like this it's that much easier. While it doesn't break the system it would be easy to spend 4 CBs on Half magic at 1st level, then take the ASF restriction you offer for -5 CBs and effectively gain a point overall. Furthermore, you could easily build a character like a Monk/Martial Artist/Oathsworn that doesn't use Armor or Shields much at all and now you've managed to gain 5 extra CBs and a Half level of magic advantage over anyone else. At least in Core when you multiclass from Monk to Sorcerer you lose out on your BAB, Saves, HD, etc. Here those opportunity costs may not be near as significant.

I'm probably going to stick with these guidelines for magic:

Anyone who takes Magic casts spells with Verbal & Somatic components (plus any other Spell-specific Material/Focus/XP components) and suffers from Spell Failure
Any of these things can be effectively overcome with the proper feats (such as Modify Spell, Athame, Bardic Casting, Armored Casting, Divine Training or Nature Training)

I think doing it this way prevents abuse, but I'd be happy to get some feedback pointing out how I'm wrong if I've missed something. 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I was trying to show that Divine Training should be a series of codified prereqs leading up to it.  <snip>  These restrictions would total the cost of the Paladin Training feat.  This would also allow others to pick up the restrictions if they wanted to tailor their character in a different fashion but not to go down the exact same route.




If you flesh this idea out I'd love to see it, but at this point it's a level of granularity that I'm not sure is worth the work. A Paladin takes up the Code to worship, honor and respect his deity, alignment and/or cause. In return he gets a bunch of divine abilities (including no ASF with his magic). A Wizard can take up that Code, but it doesn't make too much sense to me that he'd then be able to use that single CB he got back to bump his SPs up for a single level, or push up his Fort save, improve his BAB a step, or whatever. The former makes a lot of roleplaying sense to me, that latter I'm just not seeing.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 7, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> If you flesh this idea out I'd love to see it, but at this point it's a level of granularity that I'm not sure is worth the work. A Paladin takes up the Code to worship, honor and respect his deity, alignment and/or cause. In return he gets a bunch of divine abilities (including no ASF with his magic). A Wizard can take up that Code, but it doesn't make too much sense to me that he'd then be able to use that single CB he got back to bump his SPs up for a single level, or push up his Fort save, improve his BAB a step, or whatever. The former makes a lot of roleplaying sense to me, that latter I'm just not seeing.



OK here goes.  The Paladin takes a code of conduct.  This code of conduct has several parts.  

1)Alignment restriction:Lawful good
1a)Lose all abilities if deviate from said alignment
2)Respect authority, blah blah blah
3)Devotion to righteousness, a god, a belief in general to gain power

So if Paladin training costs 5 points, I would probably say that they would be rated at 2, 2 and 1CB respectively.  Restrictions of 5 points would offset the Paldin Training cost of 5.  The same can be done to Druids and Rangers probably.  Yes it DOES allow for someone to twink their character a bit, but a good DM will make thr character responsible for the things they choose.

In my previous example of the wizard who decided he wanted the chivalrous code for his character, taht would give him 2 CB as he is taking on #2.  He could also choose, for 1 point, to tie his magic into his belief in whatever.  This second option goes back to the Palladium RPG system mechanically for me as you could have a superhero who had to eat a Twinkie before he could use his special power.  They referred to it as the Popeye Syndrome.

I think Lawful Good is the only alignment that would be worth 2CB, all other restrictions (Druid's Neutral, etc) would be worth 1.  It's hard to be THAT goody gody in a D&D group after all heh.

This was what I was trying to get at without actually typing the changes out *grin*  On the other aspects I skipped over like restrictions for magic and such, I just thought the options could be there b/c while yes some people would only use it for twinking, it could come into good roleplaying ideas.  Maybe someone would see that restriction and pick it up for say..their Fighter.  Having this restriction negates teh value of your armor proficiencies.  You know HOW to wear it, but you refuse to.

Hagen


----------



## ouini (May 7, 2004)

As far as figuring out a system for Divine characters and their abilities / cost savings, I think buying magic, 1/2 magic, or feats with disadvantages is just fine. That is, if you save any points in buying an ability (say, paying 3 instead of 4 for a feat), or if you gain any advantage without paying for it (say, no ASF when you buy the ability to use magic), then the character has to follow whatever code was agreed upon when buying the ability. Then, either:
- LOSS OF POWER: If the PC breaks the code, he can't use the ability any more, period, until he has somehow atoned, or...
- LOSS OF OPTIONS: The PC is simply incapable of breaking the code.

Alignment restriction, codes of honor, manditory devotionals, a party line which must be proslytized or at least followed -- all these are good things to use as divine restrictions on powers, and any one, few, or all of them may be tied to any or all divine powers.


RE: cost of magic using classes
Well, my copy of Arcana Unearthed finally arrived. I'm still going through it, but I should be able to put together costs for magic use soon. I'm not thrilled with the races, but a lot of the other stuff is useful and well done, especially in the magic arena.

PS: DrSpunj, did you know there's a shop in North Liberty? They don't carry RPG stuff yet, but (it turns out) you can order anything.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 7, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> As far as figuring out a system for Divine characters and their abilities / cost savings, I think buying magic, 1/2 magic, or feats with disadvantages is just fine. <snip> Alignment restriction, codes of honor, manditory devotionals, a party line which must be proslytized or at least followed -- all these are good things to use as divine restrictions on powers, and any one, few, or all of them may be tied to any or all divine powers.




Yep. I think that's why I'm going to stick with a few very broad "you must work this out with the DM for specifics" feats, along the lines of Divine Training probably, just because the options are so diverse. A lot of common abilities can be codified relatively easily into feats, while others, IMO, are best left as something to work out between the player & DM.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> PS: DrSpunj, did you know there's a shop in North Liberty? They don't carry RPG stuff yet, but (it turns out) you can order anything.




Yep, assuming you're talking about the MidAmerica Hobbies store just north of Hills Bank. I ordered a couple books through him when they first opened (Draconomicon & Complete Warrior, I think) but their distributor couldn't access (at the time) any of Monte Cook's stuff so I had to go online for some things I was after. I have to admit that I haven't been back because usually it's easier and cheaper to order on-line, but I do feel a bit guilty about not supporting a local shop like that, even if they don't stock RPGs and I have to know what I'm after before I go in there.

Did you buy AU from them? If so then they must now be able to get Monte Cook's stuff. Cool. I'll have to talk to them again.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 7, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Yep. I think that's why I'm going to stick with a few very broad "you must work this out with the DM for specifics" feats, along the lines of Divine Training probably, just because the options are so diverse. A lot of common abilities can be codified relatively easily into feats, while others, IMO, are best left as something to work out between the player & DM.



 See I' trying to make this as complete as it can possibly be and make the PHB as useless as we can *grin* All of the ways your abilities work are listed in here already, it wouldn't be too hard to adda  few lines in the feat description section to make the PHB useless for character generation.  Which is a suitable goal for something like this IMO.  Make this spreadsheet a 1 stop shopping situation.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Yep, assuming you're talking about the MidAmerica Hobbies store just north of Hills Bank. I ordered a couple books through him when they first opened (Draconomicon & Complete Warrior, I think) but their distributor couldn't access (at the time) any of Monte Cook's stuff so I had to go online for some things I was after. I have to admit that I haven't been back because usually it's easier and cheaper to order on-line, but I do feel a bit guilty about not supporting a local shop like that, even if they don't stock RPGs and I have to know what I'm after before I go in there.
> 
> Did you buy AU from them? If so then they must now be able to get Monte Cook's stuff. Cool. I'll have to talk to them again.



 Hmm haven't been out there as my friends no longer live in NL.  Hobby Corner is about the only place I go looking for gaming products and since they have such a good selection I always have plenty to look at heh.

 Hagen


----------



## ouini (May 10, 2004)

Okay, so . . .

I saw a lot of neat ideas in AU, but I didn't see a whole lot in AU which dealt with 1/2 vs. whole casters. There are a lot of directions one could go with 1/2 vs. whole.

Using the low point-cost a la carte scheme (described earlier with 15 points at 1st level, 9 points each level thereafter), here's a rough draft of one way to do it, with a simple or a complex spell system.
.
.
.
SIMPLE - ASSIGN COSTS to SPELLCASTING, BUT LEAVE CHOICES PRETTY MUCH LIKE IN CORE

Choose a traditional caster type: Arcane (Mage, Sorc, Bard) or divine (Cleric, Druid).

At 1st level, being a Bard costs 4 points, being a Cleric or Druid costs 9 points, and being a Mage or Sorceror costs 12.

At 2nd level and beyond, gaining or starting a Bard spellcaster level still costs 4 points. Gaining further Cleric or Druid level costs 6, and gaining further Mage or Sorc levels costs 8. But becoming a Cleric or Druid spellcaster costs 12, and becoming a Mage or Sorceror costs 16. This means you'd have to save up points to become a spellcaster.
.
.
.
COMPLEX - ALLOW PCs to CHOOSE 1/2 or WHOLE CASTER EACH LEVEL, in ANY CLASS, and USE A MANA SYSTEM

Choose a spell list type: Arcane (Mage, Sorc, Bard) costs 4 points per 1/2 caster level. Divine (Cleric, Druid) costs 3 points per 1/2 caster level.

Anyone can pick up a level of 1/2 caster. At any level, it's 4 points for arcane, and 3 points for divine. At first level, this buys you your *caster* level in mana (1 point). At 2nd level and beyond, it buys you 1/2 your *caster* level in mana. This lets you memorize (or pray for) up to your mana in spell levels in the spell list you chose, with cantrips/orisons counting as a 1/2 spell level. You can never memorize more of a higher level spell than you have of a lower level spell.

Becoming a full caster, at any level, is tougher. At 1st level, the potential to be a full caster costs 4 points (arcane) or 3 points (divine). At 2nd level or beyond, it costs 8/6 to become an arcane/divine full caster. Once you buy the ability to be a full caster, you can buy mana twice per level instead of once. I.E. at first level, you can purchase arcane 1/2 caster (twice) for 8 points, or divine 1/2 caster (twice) for 6 points.

Nothing else changes. At first level, a full caster can buys his *caster* level in mana (1 point) twice (total of 2 points). At 2nd level and beyond, he can buy 1/2 his caster level in mana twice (total of his caster level in mana). Still can't memorize more of a higher level spell than he has of a lower level spell.

The trick, then, is that you have access to spell levels not based on feats, but based on how much mana you have. Anyone with 1 point of mana can cast cantrips/orisons. But you have to have 2 points of mana to cast 1st level spells. 6 points to cast 2nd level spells. 12 points to cast 3rd, 24 for 4th, 42 for 5th, 60 for 6th, etc. This way, 1/2 casters progress slower, simply because they have less mana.

I probably bungled the explanation, but that's the gist. Bonus spells might still be awarded based on a high casting stat. I still haven't figured out how spells/day would work with inherent casters like sorcerors, but that's a minor matter.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 10, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> I saw a lot of neat ideas in AU, but I didn't see a whole lot in AU which dealt with 1/2 vs. whole casters. There are a lot of directions one could go with 1/2 vs. whole.




Then here's where we're going to diverge pretty drastically. 

I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. Period. I think it's cool, pretty intuitive, and offers far greater playability and versatility than the Core system without the balance issues that come up with a totally freeform Mana-based or Psionic Power Point system.

I'll certainly help convert spells (& powers) from other sources into an AU-compatible format, but since my system makes greater use of feats they'll almost always only be available with the Exotic Spell or Unique Spell feats. I'm not interested in keeping all the disjointedness that is the Core Class Magic System. Obviously, YMMV. 

In a straight conversion (without balance considerations), Druids & Clerics should get Greenbond-like magic (that is, Full Magic with only Simple spells); Sorcerers & Wizards would get Magister-like magic (Full Magic with Complex spells); Bards, Paladins & Rangers would get Mage Blade-like magic (Half Magic with only Simple spells). Realize that Paladins & Rangers get a _huge_ bump to their magical abilities with this conversion. That can obviously be toned back to down to near Core levels by taking far fewer levels of Half Magic.

Just to be clear, I'm using the term *Half Magic* to describe use of the _Spell Slots Per Day_ & _Spells Readied At One Time_ tables shared by Mage Blades, Runethanes & Witches. By *Full Magic* I'm referring to those same tables in the Greenbond & Magister sections.

Since taking 20 levels of Half Magic allows you to use 7th level spells, and taking 10 levels of Full Magic only allows the use of 5th level spells, the former should cost a bit more than the latter.

I was then trying to figure out how to add (or stack) the two different types of caster levels (Half & Full) like BAB from various classes stacks. Which set of tables should be used?

It's easy enough to say that you use the tables according to whether you have more Half or Full magic levels, and at first that's what I did. The problem I discovered was a 20th level caster can have 15 levels of Half magic & 5 levels of Full Magic which would mean he should use the Half magic tables...with a Half caster level of 25 (at 20th level, oops!). That doesn't work too well. 

By comparing the two sets of tables directly I realized that it prevents abuse & goofiness if you only allow _pure_ Half casters to use the Half Magic tables. Anyone who buys even a single level of Full magic must use the Full Magic tables by converting their Half Magic caster level to a Full Magic equivalent and adding it to their Full Magic levels for their total Caster Level.

For example, a 20th level PC might have taken 10 Half & 10 Full Magic levels. That means they have a Full Magic caster level of 15. Note that they spent 5 more CBs than if they simply took 15 levels of Full magic, but they got that Half Magic level one level earlier than if they'd waited 2 levels for another Full Magic level.

I think to make that worthwhile I'm going to allow someone to use the next higher level of Readied Spells At One Time. Since their Spell Slots Per Day doesn't increase that means they can only use the highest level of spells readied (assuming they gain access to a new spell level with this Half Magic level) by weaving two of their highest level spell slots together. In the right circumstances this could be worthwhile, but I think most times people would just rather wait and save their CBs to buy a level of Full Magic every other level instead of a Half Magic every level.

This does mean that it's better to buy all Half or all Full, rather than mix & match the two, but in a free-form system like this I don't see that as a bad thing. Again, YMMV. 

I do have a document that I just remembered that broke down caster levels into a fractional system like the BAB stuff from my PbP game. I'll have to dig that out (or re-download it) and see if that might be a better solution to mixing Half & Full magic levels. Hmm....

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (May 10, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. Period. I think it's cool, pretty intuitive, and offers far greater playability and versatility ...



That's fine, and I may, too. I admit I don't fully understand it yet, and have never seen any AU ideas in play. I just didn't see, having skimmed the book, how AU gave a way to use half and full magic. I'm going to have to read further, to understand the terms you used in your post...



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Druids & Clerics should get Greenbond-like magic (that is, Full Magic with only Simple spells); Sorcerers & Wizards would get Magister-like magic (Full Magic with Complex spells); Bards, Paladins & Rangers would get Mage Blade-like magic (Half Magic with only Simple spells) ... I'm using the term Half Magic to describe use of the Spell Slots Per Day & Spells Readied At One Time tables shared by Mage Blades, Runethanes & Witches. By Full Magic I'm referring to those same tables in the Greenbond & Magister sections.



I'll look up what this will entail. If it is simple enough to explain to 1st-time users, who definitely don't own, aren't likely to buy, and haven't read AU, then a feat-based system sounds great.

Either way, it's a kind of ad hoc system. The advantage of the feat-based system is consistency with the way everything else is bought. The advantage of the mana system is that you can stack 1/2 and full levels with no problem, no tables needed. (And the advantage of a skill-based system, like the Talislanta hybrid we toyed with, would be even more consistency!) But I think your approach will be fine, if it turns out to be as easy or easier than the mana kludge I suggested.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 10, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. Period. I think it's cool, pretty intuitive, and offers far greater playability and versatility than the Core system without the balance issues that come up with a totally freeform Mana-based or Psionic Power Point system.



 See I have no problems with a freeform mana system, and if you wanted a purely easy one just give 1 mana for every 0 level spell (but they cost no mana to cast) and then 1 mana/spell/spell level.  SO if you have 4-4-3-2-1 for 0-4th level spells, you would have 4+4+6+4+1=19 mana points.  The tables are only left to determine mana points.  Once you have said points cast whatever spells you want.  0 level spells can be cast all freakin day long and teh only restriction I would place is that a healing spell can only be used 3 times on the same individual so you don't just free heal everyone.




			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> In a straight conversion (without balance considerations), Druids & Clerics should get Greenbond-like magic (that is, Full Magic with only Simple spells); Sorcerers & Wizards would get Magister-like magic (Full Magic with Complex spells); Bards, Paladins & Rangers would get Mage Blade-like magic (Half Magic with only Simple spells). Realize that Paladins & Rangers get a _huge_ bump to their magical abilities with this conversion. That can obviously be toned back to down to near Core levels by taking far fewer levels of Half Magic.



 Of course, I would also probably create a non-caster Ranger (haven't browsed the UA variant yet) as well cuz I just don't feel a Ranger should be a spell caster, but that's just me *grin*



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I was then trying to figure out how to add (or stack) the two different types of caster levels (Half & Full) like BAB from various classes stacks. Which set of tables should be used?
> 
> It's easy enough to say that you use the tables according to whether you have more Half or Full magic levels, and at first that's what I did. The problem I discovered was a 20th level caster can have 15 levels of Half magic & 5 levels of Full Magic which would mean he should use the Half magic tables...with a Half caster level of 25 (at 20th level, oops!). That doesn't work too well.



 Wrong.  Caster level is caster level is caster level.  If someone takes 15 half and 6 full magic levels they're caster level 20.  Their magic isn't nearly as impressive as it would be otherwise, but oh well.  I assume with this system if you take 10 half levels and then grab a full you look at the level 11 full table for what spells you earn?  This is what would make sense to me.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> By comparing the two sets of tables directly I realized that it prevents abuse & goofiness if you only allow _pure_ Half casters to use the Half Magic tables. Anyone who buys even a single level of Full magic must use the Full Magic tables by converting their Half Magic caster level to a Full Magic equivalent and adding it to their Full Magic levels for their total Caster Level.



 Screw that.  Conversion would be a bad idea and would force a drastic rework of the character.  Use my above idea.  It's simple and solves the whole issue.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I think to make that worthwhile I'm going to allow someone to use the next higher level of Readied Spells At One Time. Since their Spell Slots Per Day doesn't increase that means they can only use the highest level of spells readied (assuming they gain access to a new spell level with this Half Magic level) by weaving two of their highest level spell slots together. In the right circumstances this could be worthwhile, but I think most times people would just rather wait and save their CBs to buy a level of Full Magic every other level instead of a Half Magic every level.



 I don't see any need for this really.  Look at what their totals are if they have the tables mixed and just go with it.  Not a big issue and there's enough spells available to you as is.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> This does mean that it's better to buy all Half or all Full, rather than mix & match the two, but in a free-form system like this I don't see that as a bad thing. Again, YMMV.



 Obviously mine does as I do see it as a bad thing.  It should be neither better nor worse to do so, they should both be perfectly valid choices.  If someone spends a few more points one level to get some full magic and thus manages a higher level of spell than they would have otherwise have...fabulous.  They spent their points fair and square.  If you're going freeform man you need to GO FREEFORM.  They want it and it's there let them do it.  Just make sure that you approve all character decisions, but that goes for any game.

 I do have a document that I just remembered that broke down caster levels into a fractional system like the BAB stuff from my PbP game. I'll have to dig that out (or re-download it) and see if that might be a better solution to mixing Half & Full magic levels. Hmm....[/QUOTE] 
 Ya know fractions and such are one of the things people really hate about Champions.  Do we REALLY want more than 1 set of fractional increases?  I don't think so.

 Hagen


----------



## ouini (May 10, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> ... just give 1 mana for every 0 level spell (but they cost no mana to cast) and then 1 mana/spell/spell level. ...Once you have said points cast whatever spells you want.



You lost me. Do non-zero level spells cost mana to cast, then? Are there 1/2 and full level spellcasters? Do classes go away?



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> ...I just don't feel a Ranger should be a spell caster



Here we agree. At least, I think they should have the *option* of not casting.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Caster level is caster level is caster level. If someone takes 15 half and [5] full magic levels they're caster level 20.



I didn't catch this when DrSpunj first posted. SSquirrel, I agree with you that caster level is caster level. But the huge trouble DrSpunj is trying to address is that it becomes easy to screw the whole system by taking one level of full caster, and then take the cheap half-caster levels from then on, using the more advantageous "full caster" table. So at 11th level, you've paid for 1 full level and 10 half levels, compared to someone who has taken 11 expensive full levels, but you use the same table? Nah. Either some conversion or a mana system is necessary.

Then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding one or both of you.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ya know fractions and such are one of the things people really hate about Champions. Do we REALLY want more than 1 set of fractional increases? I don't think so.



Amen. But I think if the GM manages to keep any fraction other than "1/2" out of the player's sight, he's doing pretty darned well.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 10, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> See I have no problems with a freeform mana system...




*SSquirrel*, you're certainly free to take the spreadsheets and move into whatever direction you want, but as I said to *ouini*, I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. He & I put a lot of effort into a Mana-based Talislanta-like freeform magic system that had a lot of nifty (IMO) things going for it. Imagine my (pleasant) surprise when a lot of what we came up with made its way into the AU magic system. Ta da! I'm sold! 

You've brought up many times how you'd push this into a totally freeform tool. More power to you, but I'm happy with what I've got right now and am more interested in refining things and addressing problems I may have missed. The caster level and how to stack Half & Full Magic definitely fall into that category.



> Of course, I would also probably create a non-caster Ranger (haven't browsed the UA variant yet) as well cuz I just don't feel a Ranger should be a spell caster, but that's just me *grin*




Right! Along the line's of WoT's Woodsman or something similar. Either way, it's easy to do with the sheets "as is". 



> Wrong.  Caster level is caster level is caster level.  If someone takes 15 half and 6 full magic levels they're caster level 20.  Their magic isn't nearly as impressive as it would be otherwise, but oh well.  I assume with this system if you take 10 half levels and then grab a full you look at the level 11 full table for what spells you earn?  This is what would make sense to me.




First off, it'd be a caster level of 21. Aside from that...you can't be serious, dude!  

With 10 levels of Half Magic using the Mage Blade tables, you'd have Spell Slots per Day of 4/3/3/2/0 and Spells Readied of 5/5/4/3/0. By taking Full Magic at 11th level you think they should all of sudden jump to using the Magister's tables for Spell Slots of 6/5/4/4/3/2/1 and Spells Readied of 9/8/6/5/4/3/2? That's a HUGE jump in power!     

And considering it only cost you 3 more CBs (7 for Full, 4 for Half), that'd be the biggest damn bargain in the system! Going from a maximum of 4th level spells (3rd if you don't have a bonus spell that high) to a maximum of 6th level spells with the purchase of a single level of Full Magic is _WAY_ too much.

Sorry, not in my game. Buying a level of Full Magic should give you just about twice the benefit of buying a level of Half Magic whenever you do it, since it's just about twice the cost. No more, no less.

Still, I realize that Caster Level gets a bit confusing there, and my proposal leaves a lot to be desired. In that direction I'm wondering about using this system  here, which allows a more uniform stacking method to determine Spell Slots & Spells Readied. I'd obviously only use the Magister table (to represent Full Magic) and the Mage Blade table (to represent Half Magic), though I'd rather come up with a new table entirely so that there's only one table to reference. I'm not sure that's possible, though.



> Ya know fractions and such are one of the things people really hate about Champions.  Do we REALLY want more than 1 set of fractional increases?  I don't think so.




Since the BAB & Defense fractions only come up at leveling, I'm not too worried about them, and the stacking system outlined in that link gets away from fractions by using multipliers (x2 for Half Magic instead of 2/3 and x3 for Full Magic instead of 1). Take a look at it if you get a chance. It's a bit overwhelming at first glance, but very simple once you read through and understand it.

I believe it does what I'm looking for, namely allowing the stacking of Half & Full Magic levels in a meaningful way that reflects their cost differences. A 20th level PC with 10 Half & 10 Full Magic levels has a BMP of (10*2 + 10*3 =) 50, which is slightly better than a 20th level PC with 15 levels of Full Magic (a BMP of only 45). Since the former costs a few more points (though that's spread out over more levels, so the impact is less), I like that they receive quite a few extra low level spells. By the same token, I like that someone who's paid for more levels of Full Magic (and therefore didn't have those points to put towards other things over a narrower range of levels) benefits by having higher level spells (and more of them).

Your Caster Level in this system would just be sum of your Half & Full Magic levels, as you requested above. Here, though, there aren't any unreasonable & abusive jumps in spellcasting power because of the modified tables. 

One last thing, I finally noticed that the Greenbond tables aren't exactly like the Magister tables. The differences are negligible enough, IMO, that I'm going to use the Magister tables exclusively for Full Magic and drop the Greenbond tables to simplify things a bit.

Thanks!

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 11, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> *SSquirrel*, you're certainly free to take the spreadsheets and move into whatever direction you want, but as I said to *ouini*, I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. He & I put a lot of effort into a Mana-based Talislanta-like freeform magic system that had a lot of nifty (IMO) things going for it. Imagine my (pleasant) surprise when a lot of what we came up with made its way into the AU magic system. Ta da! I'm sold!



You misunderstand me.  I dig the AU system and will leave it alone, I was just saying that mana based isn't a terrible thing and provided a quick and simple solution for any who wanted one.  At some point I may do more on it but I have limited downtime from my job right now...and probably less very soon as I will be working as much OT as they'l let me...ugh.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> You've brought up many times how you'd push this into a totally freeform tool. More power to you, but I'm happy with what I've got right now and am more interested in refining things and addressing problems I may have missed. The caster level and how to stack Half & Full Magic definitely fall into that category.



As I'm going to point out below you misunderstood what I meant on stacking the half and full magic, so really what I posted earlier does clear it up a bit.  Wait for it.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Right! Along the line's of WoT's Woodsman or something similar. Either way, it's easy to do with the sheets "as is".



Oh I know tehre's space to put my own stuff in and I will...just need to decide what variant of Ranger I want.  A Ranger with "real" Half Magic might be far more interesting than the standard 4th level max one, but I still debate if its "better" than just a woodsy fighter which I always have sorta pictured the Ranger.  Either way, what a Ranegr should or shouldn't be is for another thread heh.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> First off, it'd be a caster level of 21. Aside from that...you can't be serious, dude!



Actually that was just a typo I meant to say 5 heh.




			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> With 10 levels of Half Magic using the Mage Blade tables, you'd have Spell Slots per Day of 4/3/3/2/0 and Spells Readied of 5/5/4/3/0. By taking Full Magic at 11th level you think they should all of sudden jump to using the Magister's tables for Spell Slots of 6/5/4/4/3/2/1 and Spells Readied of 9/8/6/5/4/3/2? That's a HUGE jump in power!
> 
> And considering it only cost you 3 more CBs (7 for Full, 4 for Half), that'd be the biggest damn bargain in the system! Going from a maximum of 4th level spells (3rd if you don't have a bonus spell that high) to a maximum of 6th level spells with the purchase of a single level of Full Magic is _WAY_ too much.
> 
> Sorry, not in my game. Buying a level of Full Magic should give you just about twice the benefit of buying a level of Half Magic whenever you do it, since it's just about twice the cost. No more, no less.



Ok.  Step back a minute and reread what I said.  10 levels of Mage Blade gives 4/3/3/2/0 and 5/5/4/3/0 as you said.  At level 11 if you take a level of Magister that would add 0/0/0/0/1/0/1 and 0/1/0/0/0/0/2.  I will admit I said this earlier without actually glancing at the table and seeing that it gives you access to _2_ spell levels higher than you had before (but as you gained no new 5th level spells at 11th, you need to have an Int of 20+ to have a bonus spell of said level), but the point was that for your first level of Full Magic you wouldn't add based on level 1 magister...you would add based on level 11 as that is your current caster level.  So his new total casting would be 4/3/3/2/1/0/1 and 5/6/4/3/0/0/2.  

It may end up all screwy my way, but my point was just to be that caster level is caster level period.  A 3.5 Paladin is caster level-3 (I think) based on when he starts his magic career.  So his total levels that he has magic ability.  Should a 10th level half caster only be able to cast a 5d6 Fireball?  Nope, it should be a 10d6 just like a 10th level full caster.  Full caster has the benefit of being able to cast more of them however.  Like I said, I didn't glance at the tables before posting and comparing the tables the math does work well to split to determine what level from the magister table you would add to the stack.  But does your method also mean that when it comes to casting spells that the caster would only be 5th level in the fireball example or is he 10th level?  B/c I don't think they should be 5th level.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Still, I realize that Caster Level gets a bit confusing there, and my proposal leaves a lot to be desired. In that direction I'm wondering about using this system here, which allows a more uniform stacking method to determine Spell Slots & Spells Readied. I'd obviously only use the Magister table (to represent Full Magic) and the Mage Blade table (to represent Half Magic), though I'd rather come up with a new table entirely so that there's only one table to reference. I'm not sure that's possible, though.





Since the BAB & Defense fractions only come up at leveling, I'm not too worried about them, and the stacking system outlined in that link gets away from fractions by using multipliers (x2 for Half Magic instead of 2/3 and x3 for Full Magic instead of 1). Take a look at it if you get a chance. It's a bit overwhelming at first glance, but very simple once you read through and understand it.

I believe it does what I'm looking for, namely allowing the stacking of Half & Full Magic levels in a meaningful way that reflects their cost differences. A 20th level PC with 10 Half & 10 Full Magic levels has a BMP of (10*2 + 10*3 =) 50, which is slightly better than a 20th level PC with 15 levels of Full Magic (a BMP of only 45). Since the former costs a few more points (though that's spread out over more levels, so the impact is less), I like that they receive quite a few extra low level spells. By the same token, I like that someone who's paid for more levels of Full Magic (and therefore didn't have those points to put towards other things over a narrower range of levels) benefits by having higher level spells (and more of them).

Your Caster Level in this system would just be sum of your Half & Full Magic levels, as you requested above. Here, though, there aren't any unreasonable & abusive jumps in spellcasting power because of the modified tables.[/QUOTE] 


			
				ouini said:
			
		

> You lost me. Do non-zero level spells cost mana to cast, then? Are there 1/2 and full level spellcasters? Do classes go away?



With my mana idea 0 level spells are the only free spells.  They just provide 1 to your mana pool so the table is al still used and ucz I think it's nice to give a small bump there.  Spells fo level 1-9 cast their spel level to cast.  SO a 3rd level spell costs 3 mana.  If you have 19 mana you can cast 6 3rd level, 1 1st level and all the 0 level magic you want.  0 level magic has always felt to me to be like the small things you would see Gandalf do frequently like turning Bilbo's smokerings into things or Raistlin doing very simple effects in the DL novels.  I don't think these should cost you anything in a mana system.  The damaging spels are pure crap and most folks who would consider casting them have a crappy BAB anyway.  The healing I already havea restriction set for so that's no issue.

Half and full casters are still there as you need to look at the specific table to know how much mana they have.  There would likely be a per level bonus of your Int bonus or Int bonusx2 as well.  Referring to teh charts.  a 10th level half caster would have a base mana of 19 as there are no 4th level spells yet.  Bonus spells due to intelligence would add to teh figure as well so an 18 Int for this character would also add 11 mana for the 1/1/1/1/1 bonus spells and 4 more for the actual Int bonus.  Total of 34 mana for a character who has a total ability of 5/4/4/3/1 seems pretty reasonable to me.

A full caster of similar level and Intelligence has 6/5/4/3/3/2 or 7/6/5/4/4/2 after Intelligence.  Total mana pool would be 65 after Int bonus.  Once you have these mana totals, ignore the tables as you can cast whatever the mana allows.  The Everquest RPG has a good mana system as well, but it's also MUCH more damage based heh.  Good rules for mana regen as well.

Hagen


----------



## ouini (May 11, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ...a lot of what we came up with made its way into the AU magic system. Ta da! I'm sold!



I looked it over some more last night. I actually do like the system. It solves a lot of, well, not *problems* per se, but messiness. It definitely inspired me to drop Wizards/Sorcs altogether, and run with the "prepare" & "slots" idea in AU. (But, is there any way in AU for 1st and 2nd level casters to heal directly, or must they transfer wounds, instead?)

My *problems* with using a modified AU system with my players, then, are that:
- The system can't be explained on a single side of a sheet of paper. The players would have to buy and read AU, or I'd have to photocopy the spell lists and get the players to the point of being comfortable with the new spells. That's unlikely to happen, and so is really too bad.
- Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)

Of course, I'm glad you found a system that you like. I'm even a little envious of your group's attitude towards new games. It'd be cool to play with a group willing to put a bit more effort into reading and playing. Through nobody's fault, I think we may well have to part ways on the magic system. At least for now.
.
.
.


			
				Slappy said:
			
		

> ...but the point was that for your first level of Full Magic you wouldn't add based on level 1 magister...you would add based on level 11 as that is your current caster level. So his new total casting would be 4/3/3/2/1/0/1 and 5/6/4/3/0/0/2.



First, thanks (SSquirrel) for explaining the free-cantrip system. I now get that your cantrips listed on an advancement chart add mana to your pool, but take no mana to cast.

Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy. I do agree in principle, though, that a mana system can be much easier to use, and can clean up much of the ugliness of gain-a-level, do-some-math-to-know-which-charts-to-consult.  

As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 11, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> I looked it over some more last night. I actually do like the system. It solves a lot of, well, not *problems* per se, but messiness. It definitely inspired me to drop Wizards/Sorcs altogether, and run with the "prepare" & "slots" idea in AU. (But, is there any way in AU for 1st and 2nd level casters to heal directly, or must they transfer wounds, instead?)




I don't think so, that's "Greenbond" territory, which Monte made efforts to keep distinct from what any old magic user could do (for instance, check out the Blessed & Corrupt magic feats; the former gives you access to all negative energy spells while the former does not because Monte didn't want to step on the Greenbond's toes; I'm not worried about that here so I'm giving positive energy spells back to the Blessed feat).

Regardless, remember that in our Talislanta-like Mana system we had come up with the exact same thing: It's easier to convert real damage into subdual damage than it is to heal real damage straight away. I'd have to go back to our last version of that system to check, but I'd bet that 1st & 2nd level casters in our system would have been in the same situation.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> My *problems* with using a modified AU system with my players, then, are that:
> - The system can't be explained on a single side of a sheet of paper. The players would have to buy and read AU, or I'd have to photocopy the spell lists and get the players to the point of being comfortable with the new spells. That's unlikely to happen, and so is really too bad.




I think I _can_ explain most of it to anyone familiar with the Core rules on a single sheet of paper. I'd start with something like this:

Every spell caster shares a big spell list like a Cleric, has Spell Slots every day like a Sorcerer, and chooses which spells to ready like a Wizard.

Starting from there it's not too difficult to explain the differences between Simple, Complex & Exotic spells, and the spell templates are a natural step from that. Weaving isn't a difficult concept, and Diminished & Heightened spells just make so much sense when you look at some Core spells as examples.

I think since I'm only going to be using two sets of tables (Half & Full, which I may rename to something like Basic Magic & Advanced Magic) rather than almost a half dozen class-specific tables, that it's not all that bad.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> - Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)




You're right, that would all be too much to for most anyone to absorb, which is why I plan on drawing up my own 2-3 page document describing the system and including the only 3 tables anyone will ever need. Then no one has to look at the AU book or that Alternate Mechanic document and possibly get confused by what they're supposed to have.

And yes, the Mage Blade progression at 20th level is somewhere between a 12th to 13th level Magister, so Half isn't a fair label, but the point costs we both independently generated (4 & 7) work out to be about as close as you can get. 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Of course, I'm glad you found a system that you like. I'm even a little envious of your group's attitude towards new games. It'd be cool to play with a group willing to put a bit more effort into reading and playing. Through nobody's fault, I think we may well have to part ways on the magic system. At least for now.




Well, I've spoken with most of the people in my group about the possibility of using this system for PC generation, and everyone to date has been receptive to the idea. I'll also allow anyone to continue to use the classes as written in Core & AU, but most classes will have changes (some substantial) for balance reasons, that it'll likely be eaiser just to come up with something from scratch.

And BTW, *ouini*, I was going to ask you if you wanted to play in the campaign. At this point I'm looking at 1 weeknight per month and likely not starting until August. You already have the AU book for spells! 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy.




Yep, and I apologize for misunderstanding what you were proposing, but I don't like the wonkiness that can lead to learning & casting a 7th level spell before you know or can cast any 5th or 6th level spells. Ideally buying a level of Half/Basic magic would get you about half as much as buying a level of Full/Advanced magic. Unfortunately the AU magic system doesn't allow that much granularity, so something else needs to be done.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.




I'm probably going to see if I can whittle down that Alternate Mechanic BMP system to something manageable. Since I'm only using two types of Magic, Basic & Advanced), I only need 3 tables. Figuring out your BMP is a bit of math, but anyone playing this game should be able to multiply Basic x2 and Advanced x3 and add them to get their BMP!  

And using this mechanic you *do* just add your Basic & Advanced magic levels together to get your Caster Level, so a Basic5/Adv7 would have a Caster Level of 12. The only time those 3 tables come out is at leveling time, which I believe my players & I can live with.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 11, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> - Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)



 I couldn't get the document to download on my computer.  Can someone email that to me?  Spunj?



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> First, thanks (SSquirrel) for explaining the free-cantrip system. I now get that your cantrips listed on an advancement chart add mana to your pool, but take no mana to cast.



 No problem.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy. I do agree in principle, though, that a mana system can be much easier to use, and can clean up much of the ugliness of gain-a-level, do-some-math-to-know-which-charts-to-consult.
> 
> As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.



 See this shows how frequently I even look at Paladin (I kinda hate them heh).  Considering Paladins are already considered 1/2 caster level in core rules not level-3 like I was thinking (wasn't it 2E that did it that way?) AND the fact that half Mage Blade lines up nicely with the Magister table, Spunj's way is better.  I may still utilize the mana system I mention (which was a seperate idea and very simple as a 9th level spell is worth 9 points, a 3rd worth 3 etc), but remember you still do look at the tables.  Or you can kill the tables from the books by looking at them  yourself and making a new table that goes like this:

     Half Caster            Full Caster
 1        2                        4
 2        1                        2
 3        1                        2
 4        1                        3
 5        2                        4
 etc

 Which is how the tables breaks down with my easy mana system.  Naturally you also get your Int bonus (or Int bonusx2 I can't decide which I like better) and you also get points at 1st level for your bonus spells.  You could rule that they only earn the points for the levels they can actually cast or you can give them all the points at once thus allowing a bit more flexibility for a low level mage.

 The EQ RPG has a different mana system.  Controlling stat (Int/Wis/Cha) x2xcaster level.  So 5th level with a +3 stat bonus gets 3x2x5=30 mana.  More simply...Mana pool=(ability bonusx2)xcaster level.

 Multiclassing is a simple bit of figuring for each class and adding together.  They have 3 types of magic (arcane, divine and songs) which are ket seperate and we'd only have 1 pool so that is nice and simple.  Mana is regained based on a Meditation skill for Ability bonus+Meditation skill/hour of rest, every 2 hours of light activity and every 4 hrs for strenuous.

 Again, I think my mana system is easier b/c in their system each individual spell has different mana costs.  Mine is straightforward and based on spell level.

 Naturally, use it if you wish or skip if mana pools aren't what you want.  Mana pools are really outside of this spreadsheet anyway honestly.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 11, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I couldn't get the document to download on my computer.  Can someone email that to me?  Spunj?




Just sent it to the email on your website (I think it's the same one I have at home!).



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> See this shows how frequently I even look at Paladin (I kinda hate them heh).  Considering Paladins are already considered 1/2 caster level in core rules not level-3 like I was thinking (wasn't it 2E that did it that way?) AND the fact that half Mage Blade lines up nicely with the Magister table, Spunj's way is better.




I'm not impressed with the mechanics of the Paladin or Ranger, either. I think the Champion is substantially better designed, and the Ranger can vary widely (if the alt.variants are any indication) depending on whether you're after a partial caster or the straight woodsy type.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (May 12, 2004)

Alright, because of *ouini* & *SSquirrel*'s comments I spent a little time tonight getting friendly with the Excel Index function. The result (after about 1.5 hours) is the spreadsheet I've attached below.

Enter the PC's name, their number of Basic & Advanced Magic levels, and their relevant Ability Score. It then dumps out your total Spell Slots Per Day & Spells Readied At One Time through the Base Magic Power tables I linked to above. It also does an amazing computation (called "addition" by some) and outputs your Caster Level.

If you print in Landscape the whole thing prints out on a single sheet.

Now, this exactly matches the Mage Blade & Magister outputs from AU except for the fact that I bumped the 0-level Bonus Spells due to your Ability Scores by one step, so you'll always end up with one extra 0-level Spell Slot and Spell Readied. Why? Because, like *SSquirrel*, I believe Cantrips are cheap and like to see them used. I've always pictured high level casters using things like Mage Hand to bring the wine decanter over to them and being able to do stuff like that all day long (with Cantrips) paints a good picture for me.

If you don't feel the same just Unprotect the Sheet (there's no password), and copy that entire column down EDIT: two steps, then delete the '1's in the 10 and 11 rows so that the column matches that from AU. No biggie.

Note that the Ability Table only goes up to 45, like it does in the PHB & AU. Anyone wanting something higher than that will have to expand the Ranges in the Index functions (which is a bit of a repetitive pain; I've warned you!).

Under this system it's probably important to note/realize that if you have the potential to cast magic from two different sources that use different ability scores (like Divine Training using Wisdom and Bardic Music using Charisma), your Bonus Spells and Spell DCs should _always_ be calculated using the higher of the two abilities. That's a minor benefit for a mixed caster as Ability damage that lowers their highest ability (say Wisdom) below that of their other casting attribute (Charisma) would mean that Bonus Spells and Spell DCs would now be based off of the new high score (Charisma). I figure if they've studied two or more various forms of magic and broadened their magical abilities/knowledge accordingly, they deserve such a minor perk.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (May 13, 2004)

Well, I think the AU magic system is good enough that I'll give incorporating it a go. It'll probably involve some photocopying of spells to distribute to players.

So here's a rough of how the low cost a la carte system might look at 1st level, magic and all, on two sheets.

http://www.sharemation.com/ouini/draft.rtf


----------



## DrSpunj (May 13, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> So here's a rough of how the low cost a la carte system might look at 1st level, magic and all, on two sheets.




It definitely needs some rewording in places for clarification, but an it's a very good first draft for what you've been describing.

I'm not clear, even after seeing what you've written in this thread, how I'd go about creating a PC beyond 1st level (I realize it's a 1st level sheet, but at the bottom you give space to map out the next 4 levels and there's none of your past explanation on how much a combat feat is at 2nd vs 3rd, etc.), or with Magic at all (though I'm not trying too hard since I'm skipping the Mana system for my own campaign).

Mind creating an example over the first 4 levels? Say, the Bard? That Jack-of-all-Trades class would likely access nearly every part of the ruleset you've outlined.

Oh, and as it's worded I think you're being too tough on Exotic Weapons. You've taken the Weapon Group variant from UA but combined it with the Exotic Weapon Prof feat from Core. If that was deliberate, I'll just avoid using more than one Exotic Weapon if I ever find myself in your game, but it seems a bit silly to me that if you learn how to use all types of normal flails & chains with a single feat you have to now spend two more feats to become proficient with both the Dire Flail and the Spiked Chain. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (May 13, 2004)

I reworked my Total Spells spreadsheet to be completely AU compatible for the PbP game I'm in. I renamed it Total AU Spells just to keep it separate from the one I plan on using in this thread. I thought I'd post the link here here in case anyone was interested in it.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (May 13, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> It definitely needs some rewording in places for clarification...



Yeah, but it's really hard to succinctly describe the "memorize a bunch of spells, then cast from them" mechanic in AU. I've been thinking about it, and will wait to describe it until I have some good verbage. Thanks for looking at it.

I tried to use your refinement for a simpler number of martial weapon groups (which I agree, makes better sense). As for exotic weapons, is there a system we've discussed which grants proficiency in more than one exotic weapon at a time? How does that work? 

So I tagged on a 2nd+ level explanation sheet, and tried recreating the Bard to compare to core on the last page. It's pretty close. After 5 levels, he's in a dead-heat as far as spells go (a touch ahead), has gained all his feats except Countersong (some feats a level late).

http://www.sharemation.com/ouini/draft1n2.rtf

It seems sharemation doesn't work ... at least not this morning. Here's an alternate site:
http://www.leepfrog.com/~kwelsch/wanderers/draft1n2.rtf


----------



## DrSpunj (May 14, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> I tried to use your refinement for a simpler number of martial weapon groups (which I agree, makes better sense). As for exotic weapons, is there a system we've discussed which grants proficiency in more than one exotic weapon at a time? How does that work?




Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Without going back and looking at exactly what I had in that post, the Unearthed Arcana variant I was basing those groups off of only has two Exotic Weapon Feats. They are simply _Exotic Weapons_ and _Exotic Double Weapons_. They essentially add exotic weapon proficiencies to any other Weapon Group that you already know, essentially extended which weapons are included in that group.

For instance, if you have both the Flails & Chains weapon group and the Axes weapon group, and then picked up the Exotic Weapon group (you only take it once) it would give you proficiency in Dwarven Waraxe (1-handed use) for Axes and add these weapons to your Flail & Chain group: chain-and-dagger, scourge, spiked chain, three-section staff, whip & whip-dagger.

Exotic Double Weapons works similarly, but if the ends of the double weapon are different you may need two Weapon Groups to become proficient with the weapon. For instance, the Dwarven Urgrosh has an axe head and a spear head. To be proficient in its use you'd need to take 3 Weapon Groups: Axes, Polearms/Spears/Lances, and Exotic Double Weapons. If you don't have all three you aren't proficient with the Dwarven Urgrosh (unless you're a Dwarf, in which case I believe you could skip the Exotic Double Weapon group because of racial familiarity in 3.5). Just to be complete, if you did take those three groups you'd also pick up proficiency with the Orc Double Axe (though it only requires Axes & Exotic Double Weapons, of course).

I'll take a look at your 2nd page. Thanks for working on it.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (May 14, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it's really hard to succinctly describe the "memorize a bunch of spells, then cast from them" mechanic in AU. I've been thinking about it, and will wait to describe it until I have some good verbage. Thanks for looking at it.



Well if this is for a group of people already familiar with D&D (ie no newbies) you can simply say that after readying your spells (like a wizard) you then keep those same spells until you spend an hour to swap any out.  No rememorization every day is needed.  Once your spells of choice are readied, you function rather like a sorceror.

Hagen


----------



## ouini (May 14, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ...the Unearthed Arcana variant I was basing those groups off of only has two Exotic Weapon Feats.



That sounds keen. I think I'll run with it.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> ...you can simply say that after readying your spells (like a wizard) you then keep those same spells until you spend an hour to swap any out. No rememorization every day is needed. Once your spells of choice are readied, you function rather like a sorceror.



They're familiar, not newbies. But the devil is in the details. I understood exactly what you were trying to say, but if I tell them to memorize like a Wizard, they'll memorize three burning hands spells and a sleep spell. If I tell them to keep spells until they swap, they may assume I mean "until I swap *or cast* them". Little things like that.

There should be a very simple and succinct, uncomplicated, two or three bulleted sentences which describe it concisely and understandably. It's just a matter of sitting down and figuring it out.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 15, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> I understood exactly what you were trying to say, but if I tell them to memorize like a Wizard, they'll memorize three burning hands spells and a sleep spell. If I tell them to keep spells until they swap, they may assume I mean "until I swap *or cast* them". Little things like that.



Hmm...Spells readied are the number of DIFFERENT spells you can know at once.  When cast they are not forgotten, as the concept of forgetting something you know as solidly as a caster does his spells is ridiculous.  However, at this level, you only have enough storage space for the number of spells each day shown on the chart.  Pick the ones you are interested in and want t be able to cast.  If you need to change one later you can, provided you have an hour you can study to swap it out.

Not quite as succinct, but maybe I'm heading in teh right direction.  Tweak all this together and bludgeon the damned thing.  Heck, I'm just in West Branch....I could CALL when you were gaming and explain it to them heh.

Hagen


----------



## ouini (May 17, 2004)

Thanks, Slappy. I used some of your wordage in the rewrite.
http://www.leepfrog.com/~kwelsch/wanderers/draft1n2.rtf

And thanks, DrSpunj, for the feedback and the spell list you provided off-line. It looks like it will be a piece of cake to give players who don't own AU their own "spell books"


----------



## SSquirrel (May 17, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Thanks, Slappy. I used some of your wordage in the rewrite.
> http://www.leepfrog.com/~kwelsch/wanderers/draft1n2.rtf
> 
> And thanks, DrSpunj, for the feedback and the spell list you provided off-line. It looks like it will be a piece of cake to give players who don't own AU their own "spell books"



 Looks good to me.  Wording seems much better on explaining how spells are readied etc, some of the wordingeven seemed familiar. *wink*

 I still have to actually read the rest of that file Spunj had to send me thet explains that alternate style of AU magic.  I got to read his intro paragraphs one day and then had to leave and have been busy since *grin*  That will probably help make a couple of things from your document make more sense to me.  Nothing major, just stuff related to it.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (May 20, 2004)

Because I've been working on wrapping
Up my current campaign, I haven't been able to devote
Much time to this lately. When I get the chance I
Plan on trying to build some of the Core & AU Classes with *ouini*'s system
!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 8, 2004)

It's bee na nearly a month since this has been discussed.  Anymore work gone on?  Did ya ever make any characters using Ouini's stuff Spunj?

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 8, 2004)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm finishing up my fellowship training this month, start my first real career job on July 1st, and am currently in Philadelphia at a Sleep Medicine Society meeting.

I haven't messed with *ouini*'s stuff much at all. Still trying to wrap my head around the Mana system you two have cooked up. Honestly, since I'm sticking with the AU magic system, I haven't had a whole lot of ambition to figure out whether your Mana system is balanced or not. It's still on my list, but keeps getting beat out by things with a higher priority.

I have pitched the Classless Generation System at several of my potential players for the summer campaign, though, and they are mostly pretty excited about it. I say mostly because one individual hasn't gotten back to me and wasn't impressed with AU when he flipped through it at the store. I'm not sure if he's checked out the spreadsheets or not, but I'm waiting to see what questions he has.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 14, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I haven't messed with *ouini*'s stuff much at all. Still trying to wrap my head around the Mana system you two have cooked up. Honestly, since I'm sticking with the AU magic system, I haven't had a whole lot of ambition to figure out whether your Mana system is balanced or not. It's still on my list, but keeps getting beat out by things with a higher priority.



 See I don't see how it could NOT be balanced.  The mana system I proposed is the exact total of your spells from the book and 0 spelsl don't cost ya anything.  *shrug*  Of course, using the AU system instead of standard means no Magic Missle which would be the biggest potential abuser heh.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 18, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> See I don't see how it could NOT be balanced.  The mana system I proposed is the exact total of your spells from the book and 0 spells don't cost ya anything.




Right, but I have a problem with your underlying assumption; namely that _the Core system is balanced in the first place_! That's most of the reason I'm switching to the AU magic system, because it removes a great number of variables that I'm anxious to get rid of.

It's very difficult to argue (for or against, IMO) that Clerics deserve better HD, BAB, Weapon & Armor Profs, Divine Armored Casting, etc. because their Divine spells suck so much compared to Wizard/Sorcerer spells. Once you start throwing in how Divine casters need to pray at nearly the same time every day while Arcane casters must get 8 good hours of rest to memorize spells, Divine casters have access to entire spell lists while Wizards & Sorcerers get 2 free each level, and other major differences...well, it's just too much for me.

It certainly gives some distinction between the classes, but my whole system is about leveling the playing field and scrapping those same distinctions. You've come up with an excellent mana conversion of the Core magic system, I just believe that the underlying Core magic system is flawed.

Regardless, I'm glad it works for you and the system *ouini*'s working on. There's certainly room for a number of different ways to do things. After all, I've only seen, read or heard about a very small fraction of DMs who run _everything_ "by the book". To me this is just your version of a personal House Rule. <shrug>

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 21, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Amen. But I think if the GM manages to keep any fraction other than "1/2" out of the player's sight, he's doing pretty darned well.




I've taken this to heart this weekend and reworked much of my original sheet. I've also redone the layout a bit making it *much* easier to change values across all 20 levels for any given class (you can now use the "Fill Right" command!) and added some Subtotal and Balance calculations to my sheet to help keep me on track with viable arrangements. For now I'm just focusing on the Core classes but things have worked out well enough that I'm going to go ahead and do the AU classes next.

Essentially, I removed all the fractions. All of them. I did this using a method similar to that which we developed for Saves. For BAB you get +1 free at even levels, just like the Core Poor BAB progression. At odd levels you can get +1 for 4 CPs. If you want a 3/4 progression like a Cleric or Rogue you'll want to buy five +1 upgrades at levels 3, 7, 11, 15 & 19. All those wanting a Full progression will, of course, have to pay up at every odd level. Your BAB can't increase by more than +1 at any given level.

Same thing with the Defense bonus. Everyone now gets +1 Defense at every 3rd level (3, 6, 9, etc.) and can upgrade at other levels by +1 for 2 CPs. Your Defense bonus maxes out at your BAB or Reflex save, whichever is _higher_. Even though it's essentially freeform (you _could_ max Defense at +20!) I went with 4 levels of Defense:

+6 for Sorcerers & Wizards
+10 for Clerics, Fighters & Paladins
+13 for Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Rangers & Rogues
+17 for Monks (since Defense has absorbed his AC Bonus ability)
Keep in mind that this Defense bonus does not stack with Armor bonuses to AC. You use whichever is most beneficial at the time, however, you subtract your Armor Check Penalty from this Defense bonus.

Finally, I split Feats into 3 distinct categories, each with its own cost.

The most expensive are still Base feats at 5 CPs. These represent most Combat feats and/or those at the start of a feat chain. Examples include Sneak Attack, Rage, Fast Movement, etc.
Next up are Expansion feats at 4 CPs. These feats are further up a feat chain that you've already started with the prerequisite Base feat. Examples here include increased Sneak Attack damage; increased number of Rages/day along with Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, etc.; Wild Shape - Size, Type & Elemental forms; etc.
Finally, the cheapest category remains General feats at 3 CPs. This is strictly for non-combat feats and abilites. Examples include Track, Trackless Step, some Bardic songs, a Paladin's Remove Disease ability, etc.

*EDIT*: I also reconfigured all the classes down to 11 CPs per level after 1st. I realized that those 20 extra points were basically just giving nearly every class 4 Bonus Feats to play with and that I wasn't comfortable with the power level that high. This way there are fewer changes overall and it's quite a bit closer to Core's classes. I still need 24 pts at 1st level, so that didn't change.

*EDIT 2*: I grouped all the files together for easy downloading in Post #155. Thanks!

Please share any comments you might have.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## doghead (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey Dr Spunj.

I've downloaded the speadsheet but can't open it (old Mac user). Is it possible to understand the workings from the thread alone?


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 22, 2004)

doghead said:
			
		

> I've downloaded the speadsheet but can't open it (old Mac user). Is it possible to understand the workings from the thread alone?




Hey, *doghead*!

I'm using a Mac (G3 B&W), too, and compressed it with Aladdin's DropZip 6.5, but I created the sheet using Mac Office (Excel) X (I'm only at 10.1.5). If you're using anything earlier than that I'm not sure what to do. I "Saved As" the file into an older type of workbook, so try downloading the one attached to this message and see how it goes.

As far as understanding the basics, I just reread through this entire thread over the last few days. I think if you take the time to do that (if you haven't already) a lot of it will be clearer, and I'd be happy to try and fill you in on some specifics and answer any questions you might have.

If you're still having problems with the older file type let me know how old you need it. If it's the zip that's giving you trouble I'd be happy to email you a .sit file to try, but the boards won't let me attach those.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## doghead (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey DrSpunj

Stuffit works like a charm. Its the file I can't open. I'm on 0S 9, and the spreadsheet application I have won't recognise the excel file. I tried changing the file type, but its still won't open it even if it recognises it.

Oh well. Don't sweat it. I think that only a major hard/software upgrade is going to make it doable at this point. Thanks for trying.

I keep working through the thread as I have time. Hopefully I will be able to pull together a rough and reading outline. Thats all I am looking for really - its only for a homebrew idea I'm tossing around. I'm not that fussed about balance issues.

the head of the dog.


----------



## ouini (Jun 23, 2004)

Looking at it now. Of _*course*_ I like the shift to an a la carte aspect for BAB and saves, since that's what I do and I'm a shameless egoist. No really, good job, avoiding fractions seems the way to go.

The Intro and Notes sections fully explain the document (very 'FAQ'), except for the spell-level calculator being missing (is the original creator going to copyright?). That bit makes me nervous for the same reason fractions did (player unease), but to be fair, I'm sure my mana system is as big or a bigger put-off to those used to the spells-by-table method.

Great explanation of feats at the end. With a spreadsheet, can you put no-prereq feats alphabetically in the first column, and feats based off of those in the second column, etc, like in the PHB? That always seemed to be a handy layout, to me. But then I know nothing of spreadsheets.

I'll have to play around a bit with numbers to see if I like the class balance.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 23, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Looking at it now. Of _*course*_ I like the shift to an a la carte aspect for BAB and saves, since that's what I do and I'm a shameless egoist. No really, good job, avoiding fractions seems the way to go.




Egoist!  

Where we still differ is my underlying "Commoner" method. That is, if you spend no CPs in my system you end with a Commoner in every way, shape & form. I like that as a baseline. CPs are for heroes; not just anybody!



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> The Intro and Notes sections fully explain the document (very 'FAQ'), except for the spell-level calculator being missing (is the original creator going to copyright?). That bit makes me nervous for the same reason fractions did (player unease), but to be fair, I'm sure my mana system is as big or a bigger put-off to those used to the spells-by-table method.




It put me off but only because I like Tables. The formulas aren't difficult but they don't really change much either, so putting everything into Table form seems "right" to me, somehow. I didn't include the spell-calculator because that's spread over 6 sheets in it's own file currently (and I didn't want to overwhelm anyone by handing them an Excel workbook with 10 separate sheets!). I've already linked to it on the previous page of this thread and I'll be able to provide my own players with it. I did finally get an email back from the guy who came up with the underlying BMP and spell tables. His email answered a couple questions I had and included some helpful material (including the more aggressive tables that I won't be using but still wanted to look over) but he didn't mention this thread at all. Said he'd had several other people contact him about the material so there doesn't seem to be any kind of copyright to worry about. My original email to him included the URL to this thread but I have no way of knowing if he's stopped by (or even posted) here.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Great explanation of feats at the end. With a spreadsheet, can you put no-prereq feats alphabetically in the first column, and feats based off of those in the second column, etc, like in the PHB? That always seemed to be a handy layout, to me. But then I know nothing of spreadsheets.




I'm going to do as a handout for my players because I really find those tables useful as well. I just don't want to go to that much work until I'm pretty much done with the Prereqs and things. I spent some time recently looking over the d20 Modern Feat & Talent trees, and have Wulf's Grim Tales on order (should be arriving today or tomorrow!) because his book revamps those. If I like them better I'll probably rework my feat prereqs similarly. If/when I finish such a document of the feats I'll be sure to post it here so you can take a look.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I'll have to play around a bit with numbers to see if I like the class balance.




Please do! I felt a whole lot better by increasing the cost of Expansion feats to 4 CPs AND dropping the number of CPs per level to 11 (after 24 at 1st). Doing both of those removed a great number of Bonus Feats that pretty much every class had laying around. While I'm still adding a number of them for certain classes overall things are quite a bit closer to Core.

I'm probably going to keep Weapon & Armor Proficiency group feats, Skill feats and Item Creation feats as General Feats. That means Proficiency groups only cost 1 CP at 1st level and go up to 3 CPs at all later levels. That may seem pretty expensive but in the grand scheme of things it's still substantially better than Core (where a whole feat gets you one single Martial or Exotic weapon).

The other thing I'm still going back and forth on are the Core "Extra" feats. Extra Rage gets you 2 additional Rages per day. Extra Wildshaping does the same thing, as does Extra Smiting. Extra Bardic Songs (or whatever it's called) and Extra Turning actually net you *4* extra uses per day. I'm obviously not going to include these feats IMC but I'm wondering if I my version of the Extra feats should give you at least 2 additional uses vs just 1 additional like I currently have it. That's a difference of an entire Expansion feat slot, or 4 CPs.

I'm pretty sure the Barbarian, who gets 6 Rages/day by 20th level, is not at all so underpowered that he should only pay essentially 3 Expansion feats (if each gave +2/day) to get all of those Rages each day, essentially giving him 12 extra CPs over 20 levels to spend however he sees fit. However, with the Core feats giving you at least 2 extra uses per day, charging 4 CPs for an Expansion feat for just a single additional use per day seems a bit excessive. <shrug> Not sure.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 26, 2004)

Actually I do pretty much think that the core is reasonably balanced. I also think that AU is balanced even MORE accurately and since that is the main version used by this system it should be no worry if someone (not you I know you don't like mana systems) wanted to have one. *shrug* Maybe one of these days I'll actually write it all out in strictly numerical format and leave out the table so you don't have to reference anything else. 



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I did finally get an email back from the guy who came up with the underlying BMP and spell tables. His email answered a couple questions I had and included some helpful material (including the more aggressive tables that I won't be using but still wanted to look over) but he didn't mention this thread at all.



 Any chance you could forward me that info as well? Would be interesting to see the other things that go along with that system.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I'm probably going to keep Weapon & Armor Proficiency group feats, Skill feats and Item Creation feats as General Feats. That means Proficiency groups only cost 1 CP at 1st level and go up to 3 CPs at all later levels. That may seem pretty expensive but in the grand scheme of things it's still substantially better than Core (where a whole feat gets you one single Martial or Exotic weapon).



 Hmm....I'm not entirely sure I personally would do the 1 at 1st level and 3 every level thereafter. I mean yeah it would show that its easier to start with more weapons than it is to learn them down the road, but I almost think it would make more sense to just have WP slots cost 2 each. That's just my desire to never have changing costs. I've been real busy lately and just now got around to downloading the new version of your sheet so I'll look at it later.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> The other thing I'm still going back and forth on are the Core "Extra" feats. Extra Rage gets you 2 additional Rages per day. Extra Wildshaping does the same thing, as does Extra Smiting. Extra Bardic Songs (or whatever it's called) and Extra Turning actually net you *4* extra uses per day. I'm obviously not going to include these feats IMC but I'm wondering if I my version of the Extra feats should give you at least 2 additional uses vs just 1 additional like I currently have it. That's a difference of an entire Expansion feat slot, or 4 CPs.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the Barbarian, who gets 6 Rages/day by 20th level, is not at all so underpowered that he should only pay essentially 3 Expansion feats (if each gave +2/day) to get all of those Rages each day, essentially giving him 12 extra CPs over 20 levels to spend however he sees fit. However, with the Core feats giving you at least 2 extra uses per day, charging 4 CPs for an Expansion feat for just a single additional use per day seems a bit excessive. <shrug> Not sure.



 I really don't think that its an excessive bit as done in the Core rules. I mean if someone wastes all of their feat slots in regular 3E on Extra Rage they have someone who can Rage like mad but has few other tricks really. 
 If you're going to make them singles make them cost only 2. I would go ahead and keep it like the Core rules have it with 2 and 4 for the various feats.

  Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 28, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Any chance you could forward me that info as well? Would be interesting to see the other things that go along with that system.




I'll try and remember; I only have access to it at home, and I only tend to check this thread while I'm at work!   



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Hmm....I'm not entirely sure I personally would do the 1 at 1st level and 3 every level thereafter. I mean yeah it would show that its easier to start with more weapons than it is to learn them down the road, but I almost think it would make more sense to just have WP slots cost 2 each. That's just my desire to never have changing costs.




The problem I have doing it that way is then you can "beat the system". Most other things you can buy at 1st level give you _more_ than they do at later levels.

HD - maxed at 1st level 
BAB - Have to buy at 1st level if you want a Full BAB
Defense - can likely be purchased a level or two later if you're buying it up at all, though you can buy it up to +2 at 1st level, thereafter can only increase by +1 max
Saves - can only buy up to +2 at 1st level, thereafter can only increase by +1 max for each save
Skill Points - x4 at 1st level
Feats & Magic - if you don't buy them, you don't have them!

If Proficiency groups for Weapons & Armor cost a flat rate at all levels then there's very little reason why anyone would buy them with their 1st level CPs. They could instead buy up any number of things and get by at 1st level with a Club. Having more of anything in that list is arguably a far better deal than being able to use a Light Mace, let alone a Short Sword or Battle Axe.

If they are cheaper up front (and 1 CP vs 3 CPs is significant when you're talking about only having 11 CPs to spend at each level past 1st) then there is real incentive to put a few points there. Maybe not as many as you would like, but _I_ at least appreciate having the warriors of the world be somewhat different in that they aren't *all* proficient with every single blasted martial weapon in the world. I _like_ the fact that one warrior may know how to use axes, clubs & spears but disdains (and isn't proficient with) swords. <shrug> YMMV.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I've been real busy lately and just now got around to downloading the new version of your sheet so I'll look at it later.




Cool. Look forward to your thoughts. 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I really don't think that its an excessive bit as done in the Core rules. I mean if someone wastes all of their feat slots in regular 3E on Extra Rage they have someone who can Rage like mad but has few other tricks really.
> If you're going to make them singles make them cost only 2. I would go ahead and keep it like the Core rules have it with 2 and 4 for the various feats.




I don't have a problem with it either balance-wise, but if my system only gives you +1 Rage per day as an Expansion feat, I can't really allow the "Extra Rage" feat (even at the Base feat cost) that gives you +2 uses per day at the same time. No one would ever take the former. Still, I'll likely just keep it the way it is because of how well things worked out and just chalk it up to the cost of drastically more versatility with this system.

Thanks.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 29, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> The problem I have doing it that way is then you can "beat the system". Most other things you can buy at 1st level give you _more_ than they do at later levels.
> 
> 
> HD - maxed at 1st level
> ...




 Oh trust me I like seeing some variety in the warriors as well.  Actually having it cost 1 at 1st level and 3 later will discourage differences.  Allow me to explain.  People interested in gaming the system will ALWAYS do so and in a piecemeal style point buy system, it is the law of the land.  If they can spend just a few points on the "best" weapons (Longbow or heavy crossbow for ranged and 2 hand sword for melee) they'll stop there and never spend more.  If they cost 1 then that's 2 points spent.  If they cost 2 that's 4 points.  If _I_ was going to game the system like that and had a different cost at different levels, I would definitely blow them at 1st level and never gain more weapon profs.  


 I guess like we've seen several times already, our thoughts just won't mesh on everything.  I think that while some things like skills just sort of HAVE to have a front loaded benefit, I don't think EVERYTHING needs one.  Ranger was improved in 3.5 b/c front loading was removed and it was fleshed out better.  I'd actually be curious to see a "gamed" vs a "non-gamed" fighter type trying for the same basic skillset.  Let's say you're shooting for a good swashbuckler type guy and plan for things like 2 handed fighting etc.  How much of a difference will it make for this guy to have 1 or 2 pt cost at 1st level and 3 or 2 at levels after that?  I'm expecting the gamed guy to start off slightly weaker b/c he buys all his WPs (or most) at 1st level and thus saves more points towards future stuff he wants.  The 2pt flat cost will probably start with fewer weapon choices and possibly slightly stronger to begin with, but ends up behind the other guy cuz he saved points by getting all his WPs at first level.  


 The flat cost actually encourages character growth along the way in their weapon development, whereas a scaled cost does not.



 Of course, that's just my thoughts on it all.  Feel free to disagree *grin*


 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 3, 2004)

So I was finally looking at the new version of the spreadsheet and wondered a couple of things:

 1)If the guy who made that formula for converting spell levels is cool with it (and I think you said he is) why not go ahead and wrap that in as an extra page?

 2)Why is the Cleric not getting the Turn Undead ability until 5th level?

 3)I really like the fact that you have atable explaining the choices at the top of the character pages.  Makes much more sense instead of trying to guess what each level of purchasing really means.

 4)For those interested, here is a mana system:

 Bonus mana points are given based on the Attribute table, with 0 level spells providing 1 extra mana point each.  0 level spells can be cast freely at no cost, however, healing magic of 0 level can only be utilized on the same person 3 times per day.

 You receive one point for each spell level you are able to cast.  So an 18 Intelligence would give 1 bonus spell of 0-4th level.  A 3rd level caster would only gain the benefit of the 0-2nd level spells (total of 4 extra points) while the 7th level caster would receive the full 11.  

 (Note:I'll decide on a mana regeneration rate later.  Want to look at a few different systems to decide.  Easy version is do the math to see what percentage of your points has regenerated yet and drop all fractions and say that many have recovered.)

 (Note:These tables will show additional points each level, rather than the ongoing total, also the spells readied at one time table is still used with this system)

 Half Caster:

 1  2 
 2  1
 3  1
 4  1
 5  2
 6  2
 7  1
 8  4
 9  3
 10 2
 11 5
 12 4
 13 3
 14 7
 15 5
 16 4
 17 9
 18 6
 19 5
 20 11

 Full Caster:

  1  4
  2  2
  3  2
  4  3
  5  4
  6  5
  7  5
  8  8
  9  7 
  10 10
  11 9
  12 13
  13 12
  14 16
  15 15
  16 19
  17 18
  18 22
  19 11
  20 22

 I'm debating that casters get their spell attribute bonus per level as well (or maybe half of it for half casters) but I'm not sure if that woul be unbalancing.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Jul 4, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> 1)If the guy who made that formula for converting spell levels is cool with it (and I think you said he is) why not go ahead and wrap that in as an extra page?




If it was an extra page/sheet I'd do it happily. And I could probably include a sheet with all the tables and text explaining what to do with them, but the separate spreadsheet I came up with and attached to this thread a couple pages back is spread over ~6 sheets of its own. I'm not a real Excel guru by any means. I know you can Hide some columns and sheets and stuff but I'm not that savvy. I'd rather make each file very straightforward and give my players multiple files than hand over one big file and confuse them with which sheets they have to pay attention to. YMMV, but it's easy enough to copy everything from the Spell spreadsheet into the Balance spreadsheet if you want to. Should work fine.

Oh, except that...I need to fix that spreadsheet when I find some time.  It doesn't do any checking with your bonus spells to make sure you can actually _cast_ spells of that level before adding in your bonus spells from your casting ability. This is most readily apparent when you have just a single level of Basic or Advanced Magic and enter an Ability score of 18. According to the numbers that are calculated you can cast a single spell of 2nd, 3rd & 4th levels!   I'll work on it when I find some time and then post the updated sheet(s). I just need to make sure there aren't any levels in there where a bonus spell _would_ actually allow you to cast the next higher level of spells like Core does with the Paladin & Ranger advancement. I don't think so but I haven't checked either.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> 2)Why is the Cleric not getting the Turn Undead ability until 5th level?




The easy answer is: because he doesn't have the points available until 5th level!

The harder answer is, of course, more difficult. You can argue that the system of values I came up with should have been balanced to allow the Cleric to get all his Divine Casting abilities, 2 Domains and Turn Undead all at 1st level. You can say that, I'll just disagree with you. 

The Cleric is at either at the top of the class heap power-wise, or perhaps comes in just behind the Druid. I've seen the vast majority of people here at EN World agree with that statement in a multitude of threads more than not by a large margin. Either way, when attempting to bring all the classes more in line with each other using a system like this the Cleric was going to lose some things.

Now, you can choose to rebalance the Cleric differently, of course, but I chose to drop the Fort save down to Average and trim away a few of his Proficiency groups. (Realize he also gets a single Martial Weapon Group--a bonus, but if you'd rather pick up Medium Armor Proficiency or Shield Proficiency be my guest!)

Either way, because of the way the points worked out I was forced to wait until 5th level to give him his third class ability. He's supposed to get 2 Domains and Turn Undead at 1st level according to Core. Since Domains give you nifty abilities along with extra Spell Slots & Readied Spells each day I figured that was a no-brainer when compared to an ability that is _only_ useful when the DM decides it is, and even then it may not be a good option to actually try. In a campaign with lots of low-level undead then it's easy enough to take Turn Undead at 1st level and wait on another Domain until later. If having 2 Domains and Turn Undead is very important to you at 1st level then figure out what other things you're going to give up. Your HD? A few Saves? Only Basic Magic? It may be easier/better to pick the 3rd ability up at 2nd level when you've already underspent by 3 points; then you only have to find 2 more, but you've only bought a d8 and Advanced Magic so it's still not straightforward.

I admit that it gets tough, but the Druid & the Cleric get trimmed under this system because they are up there. The only way to give them all three abilities at 1st level along with pretty much everything else Core gives them is to use the Cleric as the new "standard" and adjust all the other classes accordingly. That's not a power upgrade I feel is necessary or willing to play with personally. <shrug>



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> 3)I really like the fact that you have a table explaining the choices at the top of the character pages.  Makes much more sense instead of trying to guess what each level of purchasing really means.




Good, I'm glad that's helpful. I wondered about putting it on one of the intro pages then basing all the calculations off that and pulling them into the class sheets. I didn't do it because I liked being able to use the horizontal split slider bar to keep the value table in view at the top while messing around down below.

I know it would be far slicker if there were Cell Menus where you could only select between the 3 or 4 options for each Cell, but I don't know how to do that and haven't picked up the Excel for Dummies yet to figure it out. If anyone wanted to teach me how I'd be very interested... 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> 4)For those interested, here is a mana system:




Good to see you still working on this, both for *ouini*'s sake if he's going to go with it and because I like to see a variety of potential options for people to pick from (since I know not everything is going to do things as I want to).

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Jul 5, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Oh, except that...I need to fix that spreadsheet when I find some time.  <snip> I just need to make sure there aren't any levels in there where a bonus spell _would_ actually allow you to cast the next higher level of spells like Core does with the Paladin & Ranger advancement. I don't think so but I haven't checked either.




And sure enough, I was wrong. The Mage Blade progression that I'm basing Basic Magic on does indeed give access to higher level spells with a high casting ability score, starting right off at level 1! 

But, the good news is the fix only took about 3 whole minutes of work. Please let me know if you find any errors. I've attached the new versions here. [EDIT: See Post #155 below!]

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Jul 6, 2004)

SSquirrel: I probably wasn't the only person to notice a while ago that, overall, the mana advancement table for a regular (full) caster that you posted above comes out almost exactly to:
- at first level, you get 2-4 points of mana,
- after first, whenever you gain a level, add your new level to your mana pool.
- ...and half casters get about half that.

I'm using this technique, instead of tables which are derived from core tables (which were in turn quite possibly extrapolated from a "gain your level in mana" rule of thumb), because there's no question or hassle each level.
* half caster? Gain half your level in mana.
* full caster? Gain your level in mana.

This is the simplicity for which I think it will be all right to trade in the traditional table-based (or newly generated and carefully balanced new tables-based) system, for a mana-based system.


DrSpunj: After playing with the Excel files for a while, I can say I agree that at least for the non-spellcasting classes, the system looks and feels quite balanced. For the spellcasters, I think it should be balanced, but I have to admit I still don't understand how to use the 1/2 or full caster tables to derive your spells each level. That is, I get that you can just cheat and use the cool "Total Spells" tool that tells you, but I don't grok its derivation. I did once, when I first read that guy's article/proposal, but have since lost the thread.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jul 6, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> DrSpunj: After playing with the Excel files for a while, I can say I agree that at least for the non-spellcasting classes, the system looks and feels quite balanced. For the spellcasters, I think it should be balanced, but I have to admit I still don't understand how to use the 1/2 or full caster tables to derive your spells each level. That is, I get that you can just cheat and use the cool "Total Spells" tool that tells you, but I don't grok its derivation. I did once, when I first read that guy's article/proposal, but have since lost the thread.




Here's the original link where I got it:
http://home.pacbell.net/jdchambe/ArcanaUnearthedAlternateSpellProgression.doc

His derivations are really pretty simple. If you compare the Magister and Mage Blade tables (what I'm using for Advanced/Full & Basic/Half magic, respectively) you'll notice that at 20th level the latter gives you roughly as much magic as the former does at around 12-13 levels. So saying half-magic is really a misnomer, since it's closer to 3/5 magic. Regardless, this guy simply tried to find a way to mix & merge levels of both and come up with a reasonably close approximation. To do that he's come up with a nifty mechanic that really approximates a Base Magic level to be equal to 2/3 of an Advanced Magic level.

You start out by looking at the Basic Magic/Mage Blade tables and find the row designated by however many levels of that type you have. That tells you how many base spells you have from your Basic Magic levels. You do the same with the Advanced/Magister tables for those levels.

His final part involves figuring out how many additional spells you get by mixing classes/types of magic. He does that with the Base Magic Power (BMP) mechanic. By multiplying any levels of Advanced Magic by 3, and multiplying any levels of Basic Magic by 2, and adding them together you come up with the BMP for that PC. You then find the proper row corresponding to your BMP level (it ranges from 2-60 representing 1 level of Basic Magic all the way up to 20 levels of Advanced Magic) and add those spells to your previous total.

Voila! You've now got 3 rows of spells representing your Basic Magic (Mage Blade) spells, your Advanced Magic (Magister) spells, and those from combining the two with the BMP mechanic. Add each column together to find out how many total 0-level, 1st-level, etc. spells you have.

He's reverse-engineered them so that if you stick with all Basic Magic or all Advanced Magic the combination of using that particular table plus the appropriate BMP gives you the proper number of spells as listed in Monte's AU in the tables.

So it works well if you don't mind the 2/3 fudge factor for the BMP mechanic. By that I mean a level of Basic Magic is really only worth a little more than 3/5 (0.6+) as I said above, but not as much as the 2/3 (.667) he's using here, so Basic Magic is a bit overvalued with his system. Still, that meshes very well with the prices as I have them since Basic Magic costs 4 CPs per level and Advanced Magic costs 7 CPs per level, so you're only paying for it as if it were worth 4/7 (which is .57).

All in all I'm very happy with how it's all come together! 

My last big hurdle is trying to simplify the ability prereqs. I really kind of like what d20 Modern did, and especially most of *Wulf*'s adjustments with his Grim Tales book. There they call class abilities _Talents_ because you can only pick them up at odd levels and they had to differentiate them from Feats which you get at every even level.

Now, I don't feel compelled to keep that distinction but I think I may borrow the underlying mechanic it represents, namely that stackable abilities you can only get every other level. Sneak Attack, for instance, is already limited this way, as is Rage. I think it's a pretty straightforward to make that a general rule and I can't see that Wildshape or any number of other abilities would be broken as long as you couldn't take it the first time too early.

The other thing d20 Modern did that looks nifty is create 6 "classes", each one based upon one of the six ability scores. They are Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated and Charismatic. Each of them allows access to specific Talent Trees. For instance, you can pick up Rage and Damage Reduction by taking some levels of Tough. Again, I'm not interested in keeping the classes here, but it's pretty straightforward to convert all the Class-Specific Talent Trees into Ability score prerequisites rather than the labels they use in d20 Modern. By that I mean, to pick up Rage you'd need a Con score of at least 13. To choose the Charismatic Hero's Charm ability you'd need a Charisma of at least 13. *Thanee* is suggesting doing just that in her thread here.

I'm not sure if I'd go with an ability score prereq of 15 for Advanced Talents or not, since they already come with the caveat that you must be at least 3rd level to take Advanced Talents in the first place, and that is enough to effectively keep them out of 1st level PC hands on its own.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Jul 7, 2004)

Here's my first pass at converting the prereqs to something along the lines of *Thanee*'s suggestions.

There are only 2 things to remember when looking down the lefthand column:

1) Any feat name followed by a *+* you can take multiple times, it's effects stack. However, you can take it no more often than every other level and it may have further restrictions and increasing prereqs that keep you from taking it even that often. Sneak Attack is an example of the former. Favored Enemy is an example of the latter.

2) Any feat name _italicized_ is an Advanced Feat. You must be at least 5th level to take any of these feats, plus meet all the other prerequisites listed. Special Mount & Improved Uncanny Dodge are examples of this.

Now, I did _italicize_ a few feats in the second (prerequisites) column. I did that to draw attention to prereqs from another feat tree. For instance, Inspire Courage leads to Inspire Greatness and then to Inspire Heroics, however you must have Inspire Competence before you can get Inspire Greatness; Inspire Competence is therefore _italicized_.

Finally, I greyed out a number of things that I won't be using in my campaign. These are very few and usually have to do with alignment (like Detect Evil, or Ki Strike (lawful)) or are effectively being replaced with access to better spellcasting (Lay on Hands & Remove Disease). If you don't about that then just Select All and change Text Color to Automatic to get rid of it.

There are a few spots where I'm debating a prereq one way or another, but overall I'm pretty pleased with how things have "cleaned up". I _think_ it's simpler once you understand the two points I explained above, but you'll have to let me know if you agree.

EDIT: I just realized I forgot to adjust Damage Reduction. It should be an Advanced feat with it's only prereq being Con 13. I've probably missed some others. Please let me know if you see anything amiss.

EDIT2: I've updated the Feats Cheat Sheet after correcting a few minor things.

EDIT3: A few more minor changes and I've posted all the files together in Post #155.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 8, 2004)

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92952&page=1&pp=20

 Someone (Sigil on here) has released a product that seems to do pretty much what we've been discussing.  Maybe we should check it out *grin*

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Jul 8, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Someone (Sigil on here) has released a product that seems to do pretty much what we've been discussing.  Maybe we should check it out




I bought it the day it came out. I'd been keeping an eye out for it. He does some pretty cool stuff but he created his system on the primary assumption that Core was balanced, then came up with numbers that fit that scenario. Since my underlying assumption was that things were not balanced, I'm mining it for what I can but it certainly isn't something I'm going to use.

He also gets away from CPs by having PCs buy their abilities wholly with XP. That way you essentially upgrade on the fly instead of using level breaks. They use a very similar system in Mutants & Masterminds which I enjoyed very much so one thing I've already swiped is something similar:

Since each level after 1st gets you 11 CPs I'm going to award the players 1 CP for each 1/10 of XP they need to get to the next level, then 2 CPs when they actually cross the level boundary. You also don't get any of the "free stuff" until you cross the level boundary. This way you're getting some CPs after nearly every session and have to figure out if you're going to spend them on things that only cost a few CPs, or save them up for a Feat or Magic. Having done that in an M&M game I can tell you it's easy to agonize (in a _fun_ way IMO) over what to do with your points. Spend them? Or Save them? 

He also went with variable costs for all the abilities, he almost had to to get things to sum up with all the classes being equal right from the start. I have to look over his prereqs to see what he's done, but haven't taken the time yet.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Jul 8, 2004)

I like the layout of the featcheatsheat. Ifsokay with you, DrSpunj, I may just use the layout and feats you took the time to organize, and tweak the reqs and prereqs.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jul 8, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> Ifsokay with you, DrSpunj, I may just use the layout and feats you took the time to organize, and tweak the reqs and prereqs.




Please go ahead, on the condition that you attach your version here when it's in a workable form. I'm interested to see how our versions differ.

I know we've talked before about the ads & disads of Ability Prereqs and I don't believe you were all that thrilled with them, but when you can't tie things directly to class a PC's ability scores define them even more. While I don't want to keep all near-class concepts of Strong, Fast, Tough, etc. I think/hope moving the prereqs in that direction simplifies things overall.

There are, of course, still exceptions, but now they are few enough in number that they are _actually_ exceptions to the guidelines I laid out at the top of that sheet.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Aug 2, 2004)

Just wondering if *ouini* has finished his Feat Sheet. Please post if so.

On this end I'm running a one-shot _Gladiatorial Fights!_ tomorrow night for the group I usually play in (the DM is absent this week) and a few of the players are using my Classless Generator to come up with their PCs.

I've already received one from *Videssian* on these boards and with 12 levels he took the Dodge feat 6 times and the Tough Hide feat 6 times. He also nearly maxed his Defense score at +11. He then took the Armor Compatibility feat I borrowed from Wheel of Time and bought a +1 Definitive Harness from AU (Armor bonus +13, max Dex +3) and a +4 Devanian Long Shield (for a +8 Shield bonus). That gives him a normal AC of 52! (Touch AC of 27 and a Flat-footed AC of 41) 

On top of that he took a number of the situational AC feats like Mobility, Defensive Move, etc. I'm looking forward to seeing how effective the character ends up being in combat. He only took d8s for HD, so he can't take a lot of damage, doesn't have too much offensive melee ability (though nothing too shabby either with a Full BAB of +12), and his only good save is Reflex so he's definitely got some weak areas. Still, I can't imagine he's going to get hit too often (though his Touch AC is about fifty-fifty for most of what I'm throwing at them). 

I'll post here and let you know how the session goes. Another player wanted to build a Monk/Rogue mix, but I haven't seen him yet.

EDIT: BTW, I just updated my Feats Cheat Sheet up above. It now incorporates all the feats I thought worth adding from AU and Grim Tales, and continues to organize them like the PHB feat table. I still need to add the  AU Core Class abilities in there, and then spend some time rebalancing the AU spreadsheets, but I don't expect that to take all that long since I've previously done most of the work already.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Aug 10, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> I'll post here and let you know how the session goes.




I just wanted to post the results of the combat. Mr. "You can't hit me!" wasn't overly effective...in any party role. His 20' base speed meant he was one of the last to engage the enemy in both battles, and hit low hit points meant that the area effect attacks and/or indirect damage he took from other things really hurt.

This was a group of four PCs, all 12th level. This was an "even fight" against first a single enemy and then against a party of four creatures. Four 12th level PCs have a CR of 16, so I threw them up against CR 15 & 16 encounters, both pulled from the Fiend Folio.

The first was a Hullathoin. Huge, intelligent, Undead monstrosity--big grappler, poison, lots of melee attacks for good damage. It's ace in the hole? Bloodfiend Locust Swarm! As a Standard Action it could shake off a swarm of these Energy Draining beasties and send them after someone. Now, the book doesn't put any limit on this, either number per day or how many at a time, but this swarm is a CR 8 all by itself so I ran it with a self-imposed limit of no more than 1 swarm out there at a time.

Once the Hullathoin realized it couldn't hit *Videssian*'s PC with any melee attacks it shivered off a swarm and sent it after him, then went back to pummeling the other PCs. 3d6 plus Energy Drain automatically every round quickly took its toll on him.   He couldn't outrun the swarm with his low base speed and his 3 companions were focusing all their efforts on the Hullathoin. After he'd lost 8 levels to the bugs they finally dropped the Hullathoin and won the battle.

The second combat was against a group of 4 Maugs (Large Constructs), each with grafts and class levels. They were up against Blaster (Magister), Basher (Fighter with roller graft), Spitter (Archer with stone spitter graft) and Patch (pacifistic greenbond-type who had a lot of mind-controlling effects).

With his poor Fortitude & Will saves he took quite a bit of magical damage and was affected by several of Patch's mind-affecting enchantments. He even failed a couple of Reflex rolls (got trapped inside a Lesser Resilient Sphere on the 2nd or 3rd round of combat! Luckily their Magister was able to dispel that a round or two later) so Evasion couldn't help him out (and he hadn't taken Improved Evasion). Once Basher realized he couldn't hit him he started just rolling over him doing some fair damage each time he failed the Reflex roll (which was far more likely statiscally than getting the 20 Basher needed to hit him with a normal melee attack). An early Stone Spikes spell slowed him down even more and did additional damage. He ended up sucking down a number of Cure potions throughout the battle, and even then I think he was the first of the party to fall.

Now, I chose both of those opposing combatants a full two days before any of the players had submitted their PCs to me for approval, and there are a number of potential opponents where his build would have stopped them cold. I was just glad to see that his min/maxing the Classless Generator system I've been working on didn't really break anything. Was he nearly impossible to hit? Absolutely. Did it matter? Not really. 

Any thoughts, questions or comments on this experience? Or the most recent updated Feats Cheat Sheet? If so, please post!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Aug 20, 2004)

*Here's the latest files!*

Here's all five files in their most current incarnations. To make them easier to download I've also included a bundled folder of all five files called "DrSpunj's Classless System".

Not too many tweaks that I can think. I ended up pricing Defense a bit cheaper at 1st level so there was actually a reason to take it at first level, otherwise it was too easy to overlook and pick up later. Right now you can spend 2 CPs for +2 Defense at first level, while at all later levels that same 2 CPs only gets you +1 Defense. Probably not enough to sway most people but that at least makes it a little more worthwhile for some. You're still better off picking up a couple more proficiency groups, honestly.

Our first session trying this out in a campaign is this coming Wednesday evening. All my players have been briefed on the system, and a couple even got to try it out with that one-shot a couple weeks ago I've described above. The toughest part for everyone I've met with has been trying to figure out what character concept they really want to try and develop! With everything literally wide open they're feeling a bit overwhelmed with the number of options they have to choose from.

I've decided I'm going to allow a little CP-fudging these first couple levels to make sure people don't feel like they made a bad choice because they didn't understand how things really worked.

If anyone has any questions, comments or concerns about the files and the system, please post!

EDIT: Just a few tweaks to the Feats file and some formatting errors cleaned up in the other files. I've packaged all four files into a single download for simplicity. The Total AU Spells.xls I've kept separate since it isn't what I'm using for the System (still very handy though for AU games if you're allowing multiclassed spellcasters).

EDIT2: I've attached the newest Classless System files to Post #164.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## volcivar (Sep 6, 2004)

I just downloaded the spreadsheet and noticed an error.  You mention that in Arcana Unearthed no class has less than 4 skill points perl level.  This is not true.  The following have 2 skill points per level:  Champion, Greenbond, Mageblade, Magister, Warmain.  I did not see any errata that changes this.  Sorry if this has already been brought up.  I didn't have the time to look through all the posts.


----------



## DrSpunj (Sep 7, 2004)

volcivar said:
			
		

> The following have 2 skill points per level:  Champion, Greenbond, Mageblade, Magister, Warmain.  I did not see any errata that changes this.  Sorry if this has already been brought up.




Nope, it hasn't been brought up until now, and you're absolutely right. IIRC some of the Totem Warriors also only receive 2 SPs/lvl, but I haven't looked for some time now. Regardless, that statement _should_ have been purged out of the spreadsheet long ago as I realized it was incorrect at some point, and...it must have slipped my mind.    

I'll change it and upload the newest versions of the files I have later today! No major changes anywhere. I have about 7 players using it to put together their PCs for my campaign and so far most everyone's really doing well with it. One player bowed out of the game stating it was too confusing, but after looking at his complaints a bit more objectively I've come to realize his frustrations lie mostly with the AU Magic system. There were definitely some things that needed clarification during character generation, but everyone else picked up on the system as a whole very quickly. We'll see how things work out for our first session on the 22nd of this month!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Sep 7, 2004)

*volcivar*,I hope you were referring to an earlier post in this thread with your comment. I just checked over the Spreadsheet itself and could not find the passage I was remembering being there originally. I must have corrected it at some point along the way. If you _are_ seeing it in the Spreadsheet could you please tell me which Sheet and which cell? I read through both the Intro & Notes sheets without finding it where I expected to.

Also, I've updated the file bundle in Post #155. As I said before, nothing major, but the CP Worksheet is a bit more user-friendly now since all my players were filling it out in Word rather than by hand.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## volcivar (Sep 8, 2004)

Just downloaded your latest and the section I was referring to has been corrected.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 17, 2004)

Necro posting!!!  How's the game coming along using the system Spunj?  Hope its going well.  I just pointed people to this thread from a thread about someone being fed up with d20 and wanting something different.

 Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Oct 20, 2004)

Hey! Long time no post, eh?

We have our second playing session tonight (Wednesday). Character creation went very smoothly though there were a couple issues that required some minor tweaking. (I should upload the latest set of Classless Documents.)

I did have an intro session before our first playing session where we spent about 2/3 of the time going over the system and answering people's questions to get them on the right track. The last 1/3 I used to introduce them to the campaign world and get the story ball rolling.

We have 7 players at the table (everyone, including me, in the 30s or older, most with families, so I don't expect to get everyone every session) and have a very nice class/ability variety. Here's the breakdown:


Arbach (Human), Forest Warden (think "Nature Monk"); part warrior, part "face" man
Ghendrin (Dwarf), Warrior Mage; Warmace Athame, Basic Magic 1
Harry (Dwarf), Totem Warrior (Wolverine); with Claws
Olorin (Human), Runethane/Thief; Runes x3, Basic Magic 1, Trap Disabler
Svall (Human), Warrior Monk; d12, Full BAB, Improved Grapple
Thorn (Elf), Hook-master; Guisarme-like Reach Weapon that does 1 step less damage but gives a +2 to Trip attempts, Improved Trip, will likely branch into Druidic casting and some related abilities
Valder (Human), Priest of Tinel; Advanced Magic 1, Psion, Modify Spell

I've also decided to go with a dynamic leveling system along the lines of Mutants & Masterminds. Instead of using XP I'm just converting that to an appropriate number of Character Points (CPs) that they receive each session. As soon as they get a good night's rest they get to spend those CPs on the fly.

To explain a bit, it takes 1,000 XP to reach 2nd level in Core D&D. You get 11 CPs at each level after 1st in my system. Merging those two, for every 100 XP the character's earn they get 1 CP they can spend as soon as they get a good night's rest. When they reach the level break for 2nd level at 1,000 XP they get 2 CPs (consider 1 a bonus if you want). That adds up to the 11 CPs they deserve for reaching 2nd level, but instead of getting them all at once at the level break they instead get them piecemeal as they earn them.

For the first session they earned just over 300 XP, so they each have 3 CPs they'll get to spend/apply whenever they rest successfully at the next session later today. They've had the last four weeks to decide where to use them. Some plan on buying their 2nd level HD early for more hit points, others have used them on their 2nd level Skill Points. *Videssian* had enough saved from 1st level that he's already able to purchase Advanced Magic a second time so is a 2nd level caster already while another player has enough to buy a 2nd level feat.

Doing things this way seems to be a lot more fun for them, since they get to buy something new every session. Of course, they may have to save them for some of the more expensive abilities like feats & magic. Regardless, I've had to make some adjustments with their challenges since they are a bit more capable than a typical 1st level party. Right now the party average is 1.3, and after tonight I'm expecting it to be 1.7 or 1.8 (depending on how far they get).

I'll try and upload the most recent Classless documents I've got. *ouini* and I have also wrestled with his version of the system a bit over the last week over email, so some progress there as well.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Oct 22, 2004)

*It goes well*

The system is working very well. In a nutshell, I'd say this system is actually more fun, but is not for novice gamers, and still reqiures input from the GM, whereas players can work with a class system (core) more independently, but are "stuck" on rails.

DrSpunj's system needs a little tweaking, but it's really impressive how well it has worked out already. And I'd imagine, if he's careful, it will only get better.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 23, 2004)

For more system modding fun, check this link:

DanMCS's Weapons as Special Effects

  Very fun way of doing weapons.  I wanna combine this, Spunj's class system and Ken Hood's Revised Grim N Gritty combat rules all together. Then add in the simplified mana system I've mentioned in this thread before and you have a well modded system that I think would be fun to play.

  Hagen


----------



## DrSpunj (Oct 24, 2004)

Thanks for the kind words, *ouini*! Honestly I'm very happy with how things have turned out. I was very nervous about scaring away more than one of the players in the group but everyone (alright, _nearly_ everyone ) seems really taken with it. I'm anxious to get to some higher levels and see what kind of a power level we're dealing with vs some of the other low to mid level games I've seen, but growing up slowly is really the way to go since none of us really know what to expect.

And you're right, I'll have to keep my eyes open for necessary tweaks along the way. Thankfully I have you, *Videssian*, and even Thorn's player to provide input to help keep me going in the right direction.

*SSquirrel*, I've downloaded *DanMcS*' Weapons as Special Effects document. It is really neat, but not something I'm going to even try and incorporate this time around. I'll be watching that thread, though, because it is something I might consider in the future.

The Grim N Gritty rules, however, are not something I much care for. They're a great set of rules, I'm just not into them. I prefer a Heroic Fantasy game with lots of danger but not a lot of death. The biggest penalty I like from character death is that your "out" for awhile, but I like my players to become really attached to their PCs, and enjoy playing them. Then when I put them in danger they really get nervous! My players would be getting new PCs nearly every session with the GnG rules and I don't any of us would be having all that much fun.

For all those interested, here's the newest files for the Classless System. I left the Total AU spells file back in Post #155 for anyone that wants that.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Oct 28, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> And you're right, I'll have to keep my eyes open for necessary tweaks along the way.



The system and campaign are fun. But actually, when I said "if you're careful it will only get better," I was as much referring to avoiding over-tuning and complicating it as I was referring to watching for necessary changes.

Everybody has a character for my campaign now, btw, and made their characters without hassle. Who knows when we'll be able to play, but if DrSpunj's game is any indication, it should go pretty smoothly.

I use AU spells, but the biggest difference between DrSpunj's and my point-system is that he uses a #-of-spells-readied chart, and I use the "gain your new level in mana" mana system.

Two quick questions:

1 - Has anyone found any other/new spell templates for AU? I worked with a player to invent a kind of natural-totem template, but couldn't find anything like a nature template online.

2 - DrSpunj, how are you handling which spell components are necessary? I'm going with "you need verbal, somatic, and material components as a spellcaster unless you have a feat to remove one. But one of those is a soft requirement" (i.e. you can choose your material components to be a single focus like a holy symbol *OR* you can choose your verbal components to be whisperable so long as you can still speak etc.)


----------



## DrSpunj (Oct 30, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> The system and campaign are fun. But actually, when I said "if you're careful it will only get better," I was as much referring to avoiding over-tuning and complicating it as I was referring to watching for necessary changes.




Fair enough; point taken. Still, I think the tough part is going to be when to actually change the system itself vs just leaving it up to the DM. Recognizing the difference is going to take some work. We struggled with that a bit when coming up with your character/feats, *ouini*.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> Everybody has a character for my campaign now, btw, and made their characters without hassle. Who knows when we'll be able to play, but if DrSpunj's game is any indication, it should go pretty smoothly.




Cool! So is it just the standard 3 players (since you said you were going to run this when the typical DM is away)? And what type of PCs did they come up with?

Also, I just realized I haven't seen much from you on your Feats Cheat Sheet. What did you end up using for them to choose feats from?



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I use AU spells, but the biggest difference between DrSpunj's and my point-system is that he uses a #-of-spells-readied chart, and I use the "gain your new level in mana" mana system.




Right, different but still very slick. I'm anxious to see how it works for you in play.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> 1 - Has anyone found any other/new spell templates for AU? I worked with a player to invent a kind of natural-totem template, but couldn't find anything like a nature template online.




I haven't had too much luck with the Search engine on Monte's forums. I started a Force Mage thread in the AU Rules forum there a couple weeks ago and multiple people said there was a previous thread but I couldn't find it. Accounts are free so maybe it's worth getting one (assuming you haven't already done so) and search for something pretty basic like "template".



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> 2 - DrSpunj, how are you handling which spell components are necessary? I'm going with "you need verbal, somatic, and material components as a spellcaster unless you have a feat to remove one. But one of those is a soft requirement" (i.e. you can choose your material components to be a single focus like a holy symbol *OR* you can choose your verbal components to be whisperable so long as you can still speak etc.)




That goes back to the whole discussion after that one-shot with *Videssian* playing a divine caster and assuming he could Dimension Door out of the Dragon Turtle's mouth/grapple. After discussing it a bit with the group I decided which components you had to deal with (Verbal, Somatic, Material, Focus, etc.) were entirely dependent on your magical training. It's now included in the Feat Cheat Sheet document. There may still be some balancing needed there but we'll see.

Your ideas on the subject are nifty. Can you adjust or switch which is the soft component on the fly? Or is set/chosen when you first buy magic?

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Nov 1, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ouini said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I think it's fair to say that, inside the Nevanna/Oheka groups, I'm the least likely to stick to a class or cookie-cutter feat-tree. Rule of thumb, the more you deviate from classes, the more exceptions and GM-aid you're going to need.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> What did you end up using for them to choose feats from?



I went through and simplified it for 1st level folks, taking out lots of feat chains they weren't familiar with, but letting them know that their character's concept was more important than what was pre-written on a list of feats. The 1st level sheet is now out at http://www.sharemation.com/ouini/rules-Feats'.doc



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ouini said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's chosen when you first buy magic. You choose one "soft" component out of three (material, verbal, somatic), unless you choose a feat to lower that number.


----------



## DrSpunj (Nov 2, 2004)

I'll check out the sheet when I have some time. And I agree that you are the most likely to stray from what's physically written down. 

And you didn't respond to this part:


			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Cool! So is it just the standard 3 players (since you said you were going to run this when the typical DM is away)? And what type of PCs did they come up with?



I'm very much curious what each person came up with. I was going to type their gestalt names here but I honestly can't remember them anymore. 

Any help?

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Nov 2, 2004)

*Specific characters.*

It's just the standard three players.

The woman who played Mishka created a human 'heavy'. A brutish thug for hire who lives in the capitol city of the Vale. She knows and is respected by locals in the poor quarter, and has a variety of friends with a range of talents (from painted ladies to fellow heavies to halfling farmers). This also includes a low-level constabulary who asks her to go with him on missions sometimes, which gives her a broader knowledge of the Vale's non-human inhabitants, villages, and the elven patrol.

The guy who played Grennen is this time playing a forest-dwelling human shaman. He's a full spellcaster who can cast complex spells. But his style is not of the traditional D&D wizard. He's very into cosmology and working with the spirits of objects and animals. He works with herbs for materials, and in fact took a modified "Scribe Scrolls" called "Compose Spell-Bag" for which his components he can scrounge from the land (for free), but they don't last indefinitely, and whether their duration has expired or not is determined at the time he tries to release the spell. He's also familiar with the gnomes who inhabit the deeper woods, the halflings in the farmlands, other rural folks and personalities, the elven patrol, and some of the natural threats of the Vale.

"Fafaf" is playing a junior member of an elven patrol. She's frail, is an archer and a tactician (made a new feat to reflect that), and is very familiar with the layout of the known valley. She's not a spellcaster, but she took a pseudo-mystical skill called "Wind Friend", which doesn't do much now, but she plans on it letting her do things like carry whispers further, nurture flames better, and eventually possibly affect arrow flight.

The three characters don't know each other now, but all three have people they know in common. There is a new forum on Gestalt called The Vale>, which you have access to. This Thursday may possibly be the first time we play, and of course I'm looking forward to it.

I do have something that's marginally unsatisfactory in my system. I'll just ask, for spell-readying in your system, do cantrips you ready count as zero-level spells, even though you can choose at the last moment to cast them as, essentially, 1st-level spells?


----------



## DrSpunj (Nov 2, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> It's just the standard three players.



Sounds cool & fun! Good luck with it.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I do have something that's marginally unsatisfactory in my system. I'll just ask, for spell-readying in your system, do cantrips you ready count as zero-level spells, even though you can choose at the last moment to cast them as, essentially, 1st-level spells?



I'm not quite sure I understand your question. I *think* you're asking if heightening a spell on the fly bumps it's _readied_ level by 1, and the answer to that question is no. The only thing that matters to the "slot" is how much power the spell had. With your system I'm not sure if that would be modified significantly or not. Monte's designed a _very_ versatile system, and a 1st level Advanced/Full caster may end up casting all 0-level spells one day (by unweaving his 1st level slots and casting either 0-level spells or diminished 1st-level spells) and then all 1st-level spells the next (by weaving together his 0-level slots and casting 1st-level spells and heightened 0-level spells).

The slot is the important thing, and that's determined at the time of casting. I don't see how Readying has any bearing at all, but again, I may (probably) have misunderstood your question.

I obviously haven't logged in in a while. I'll try to do so over the next couple days.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Nov 7, 2004)

*Went well*

Played last Thursday with the new system.

The group had already created their characters, but one of them had brought their character sheet, and had "cleaned up" all the little notes and stuff. The notes and stuff had included which armor and weapon proficiencies she had, and whether she had spent character creation points to up her BAB. So obviously, I had failed to well explain the system to her.

Along the same lines, the one thing the folks hadn't done was purchase stuff. The player playing the tank didn't get that she hadn't bought armor yet, but rather the proficiency to wear armor. I may have to clean up my explanations, but to be fair, it's tough to explain new concepts and have them sink in when there's a four-month old baby they're simultaneously taking care of.

The magic system was a hit with the spellcaster, who very much enjoyed the flexibility it gave. At first he was nervous about only being able to ready 3 cantrips and 2 first levels spells, but when it sank in that the cantrips could also be cast as 1st levels, and the 1st levels could also be cast as cantrips, he was genuinely excited about the system. The magic system worked smoothly, and he spent his down-time reviewing spell descriptions.

Good first night.


----------



## DrSpunj (Nov 10, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> The group had already created their characters, but one of them had brought their character sheet, and had "cleaned up" all the little notes and stuff. The notes and stuff had included which armor and weapon proficiencies she had, and whether she had spent character creation points to up her BAB. So obviously, I had failed to well explain the system to her.



This sounds like Fafaf to me, as I expect Meeshka would have received some help from Grennen. 



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> I may have to clean up my explanations, but to be fair, it's tough to explain new concepts and have them sink in when there's a four-month old baby they're simultaneously taking care of.



Oh, sure. Blame it on the newborn! 

Seriously, it sounds like those are pretty minor problems overall. I'm glad it went relatively smoothly. Still, I know these three to all be pretty familiar with a variety of RPG systems; honestly I'm not sure whether that is more likely to work for them or against them.



			
				ouini said:
			
		

> The magic system was a hit with the spellcaster, who very much enjoyed the flexibility it gave...was genuinely excited about the system.
> 
> Good first night.



Cool! 

DrSpunj


----------



## Zoatebix (Nov 10, 2004)

I just got here.  This is pretty wow.  Your breakdown reminds me a lot of Upper_Krust's design parameters for his "Challengin Challenge Ratings and Encountering Encounter Levels" system,  which was published in Grim Tales as I'm sure you know.  I haven't read the whole thread but I've done a search - has U_K been over here to admire your work?  Do you mind if I direct him here over in the IH thread?

Anyways, I think your spreadsheet and all the other work you've done is fantastic - it's very close to the exact tool I'm looking for.  I did a lot of class design using U_K's parameters over the Summer - it'd be interesting to see how well the two systems reconcile with each other, and how your classes interact with a U_K's point-based CR system for creatures.

I'll have more concrete things to say once I play with your stuff more.  
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
-George


----------



## DrSpunj (Nov 11, 2004)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I just got here. This is pretty wow. Your breakdown reminds me a lot of Upper_Krust's design parameters for his "Challengin Challenge Ratings and Encountering Encounter Levels" system, which was published in Grim Tales as I'm sure you know. I haven't read the whole thread but I've done a search - has U_K been over here to admire your work? Do you mind if I direct him here over in the IH thread?



Not at all. The more the merrier! I haven't really been advertising this all that much. There's a link in my sig and sometimes closely related threads pop up here in the House Rules where I'll post a remark about what I/we've been working on here. I honestly don't know if U_K has seen the thread or not, but I don't believe I've seen a post from him.

I have to admit while I have Grim Tales and really like the design parameters he's come up with for CR/EL, I haven't taken the time to really sit down and become familiar enough with it to use his system. It's on my list of things to do, but hasn't hit the top yet. 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Anyways, I think your spreadsheet and all the other work you've done is fantastic - it's very close to the exact tool I'm looking for. I did a lot of class design using U_K's parameters over the Summer - it'd be interesting to see how well the two systems reconcile with each other, and how your classes interact with a U_K's point-based CR system for creatures.



Cool! I'd be anxious to see what you've come up with so far if you care to post what you have. Maybe I'll have to bump U_K's stuff up on my TTD list a bit.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I'll have more concrete things to say once I play with your stuff more. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!



I'm looking forward to your thoughts!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Dec 9, 2004)

Four sessions of DrSpunj's game with this system, and really it's going pretty well. Everyone seems to appreciate the incremental improvement in their character every session.


----------



## devilish (Dec 9, 2004)

Quick question --  I noticed that there are near-Core classes ... and
I wondered how tough it would be to compare against True-Core classes.
For instance, the fighter class, as near-Core, still has some AU changes that
make it different than True-core.

Heart of my question is if I give my Core fighters an extra feat per level, how
will that fare against the other classes {without making the other players
take near-Core classes  - like upgrading the wizards HD to d6, for instance.)


great stuff btw.

Thanks,
-D


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 10, 2004)

I'm very excited at the many possibilities this system provides, both for 'classless' gaming and as a tool for GMs to evaluate prestige classes and 3rd-party / non-core classes before deciding whether or not to include them in a campaign. Beautiful work!

I'd appreciate hearing more commentary about it - four sessions in: are there any specific things which you guys are disliking or finding off. DM'ing it, do you find it hard to find an appropriate challenge for a party that's halfway between, say, 2nd and 3rd level? Have any of the players aimed for 'exploits' you hadn't considered, and have had to arbitrate against?

I'm seriously contemplating using the CB system as described in my upcoming campaign, and my only concern is commiting to it without seeing it 'in action', so I'd love any after-action reports you or your players could give.


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 14, 2004)

Hey! Sorry I haven't responded until now, I haven't been checking this thread as often as I once was since interest in the material seemed to wane there for a bit. We're having a great time at the table using it and I've been a bit busier since WoW came out. 



			
				devilish said:
			
		

> Quick question -- I noticed that there are near-Core classes ... and
> I wondered how tough it would be to compare against True-Core classes.
> For instance, the fighter class, as near-Core, still has some AU changes that
> make it different than True-core.



It's not really that difficult to see what the effect would be, but it will take a little math/work on your part. *Note*: I decided to make a sheet and attach the file to do what I'm describing below. You should be able to download it below. I'll assume you're working with that sheet for everything below.

It's really too much work to add a d4 as a Hit Die choice, or to add 2 Skill Points as an option for skills, but it's easy enough to realize that both of those are just worth -1 CP per character level (each) when compared to the a d6 and 4 SPs. Since the Average looks at all 20 levels at once, all you're really doing is dropping the Average Points for a class by -1 for either a d4 or 2 SPs, or -2 for both.

First off, Core doesn't have Defense, so the easiest way to keep that from affecting the results is to go to the top of the sheet where the Values are, and change cell G9 from a '2' to a '0'. This will recalculate all the class level totals and averages to be without Defense entirely.

Now, looking at the Near-Core Fighter, the only thing differing him from True-Core is his 4 SPs/level (since Core only gives him 2). With 4 SPs/lvl his Average Points (once you zero out Defense as I described above) according to cell B245 is 7.3. If we were to drop his SPs/lvl down to 2 we effectively just add -1 to that average giving him a True-Core Average of 6.3.

If you want to enter that into the cell directly change B245 to '=SUM(E245:X245)/20-1'

You can make the same effective change to the Cleric & Paladin's Averages (-1 to both for only 2 SPs/lvl) and to the Wizard/Sorcerer Average (-1 for d4 and an additional -1 for 2 SPs/lvl).

If you do that you get the following class averages:
Barbarian 9.4
Bard 9.6
Cleric 9.6
Druid 14.3
Fighter 6.3
Monk 9
Paladin 10.5
Ranger 11.6
Rogue 7.5
Sorcerer/Wizard 9.0

With an Overall Average of 9.7. I figure anything +/- 1 from that is acceptable, so the Fighter still ends up at the bottom of the pile.



			
				devilish said:
			
		

> Heart of my question is if I give my Core fighters an extra feat per level, how
> will that fare against the other classes {without making the other players
> take near-Core classes - like upgrading the wizards HD to d6, for instance.)



Well, by copying the True Core sheet and then taking a few moments to give the Fighter a bonus feat at every level the sheet recalculates his Average Points to a total of 8.5. Much closer to the Overall Average of 9.7. Still definitely isn't overpowered when compared to the likes of the Druid  or Ranger. 

The Fighter's Average actually should be bumped up a bit (as well as all the other Martial classes) because according to my sheet he only has access to 3 Weapon Proficiency Groups and 3 Armor Proficiency Groups. Each of those groups is worth 1 CP and by the time you give him an additional 8-10 right at 1st level it pushes his average up a bit as compared to all the non-Martial classes (but by doing the same to the Barbarian, Paladin & Ranger you push all of them up equally, keeping the same relative distance between all 4 of those classes, so the Fighter still doesn't beat any of them out, or even come equal.)



			
				devilish said:
			
		

> great stuff btw.



Glad you're getting some use out of it. 

Realize it's much harder to truly compare the Sorcerer/Wizard using True Core material as you have to somehow account for Core Magic (same with all the other spellcasting classes). I literally sidestepped all that by using the AU Magic system, but if you work under the assumption that the Core Magic system and the AU Magic system are roughly comparable, then most of the other values can be used to tweak things and compare.

*Amaroq*, work calls but I'll get to your post next!

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 14, 2004)

Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'm very excited at the many possibilities this system provides, both for 'classless' gaming and as a tool for GMs to evaluate prestige classes and 3rd-party / non-core classes before deciding whether or not to include them in a campaign. Beautiful work!



Thanks! It's been quite a bit of work off & on, but it's fun to sit and really try and take things apart to put them together again and see how the fit and compare with each other. I, too, have used it to see how a particular Core build stacks up and to evaluate other Core Classes and Prestige Classes for the more standard 3.5 game I play in. It's worked out surprisingly well in most cases.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'd appreciate hearing more commentary about it - four sessions in: are there any specific things which you guys are disliking or finding off. DM'ing it, do you find it hard to find an appropriate challenge for a party that's halfway between, say, 2nd and 3rd level? Have any of the players aimed for 'exploits' you hadn't considered, and have had to arbitrate against?



Absolutely, but remembering specifics is a bit tough, it's mostly little things that we've just addressed quickly and moved on. Happily nothing has brought the game to screeching halt and we had to hash out what we were going to do.

One thing that comes to mind is the Weapon Proficiency Groups. Through some discussion we came to realize that paying 3 CPs after 1st level to pick up a WPG is very costly. I like that effect, it's what I was working towards since I like to reward things you start with at level 1 (where WPGs only cost 1 CP ) but a couple WPGs stood out as not being worth paying for unless you wanted the Exotic weapons in those groups; namely, Crossbows and Thrown Weapons.

Repeating Xbows as Martial Weapons are admittedly a fudge on my part when I specifically put things together because they seem less exotic to me than a Great Xbow and a Hand Xbow, but it seemed too costly to charge someone for the Simple WPG, then MWPG: Xbows, then the Exotic WPG just to fire a Hand Xbow.

The MWPG: Thrown category only contained the Orcish Shotput, so it's not really worth taking unless you're going for Exotic Thrown weapons like the Chakram, Bola, Net, Shuriken, etc. Making someone pay for the Orcish Shotput along the way seemed like a penalty, and I don't like forcing people into choices like that. Remember, _Options, not Restrictions!_ 

So just recently we all agreed that we were moving the Repeating Xbows & Orcish Shotput up into the Exotic Xbow lists and dumping the MWPG Xbow & Thrown Weapons groups entirely. Now you just have to take Simple Weapons to first become proficient with basic things like darts, javelins and Lt. & Heavy Xbows, then by taking the Exotic WPG you get all the fancy/nifty things. This way no Martial WPGs are required at all, which is actually closer to Core where you can use a single feat to pick up any Exotic Weapon you want to wield.

I hadn't initially addressed which ability was relevant for which types of casters, and what types of spell components they had (Verbal, Somatic, Material, Focus, etc.) so that was another thing we had to address. I stayed very close to the Core & AU classes as written, but the Restriction you put on Divine-like Casters for not having to deal with Armor Spell Failure really needs to be something important, IMO. I don't mean a penalty necessarily, but something that the player really has to stay conscious of for his PC.

*Videssian* is currently playing a Priest of Tinel (God of Magic & Secrets from Book of the Righteous) so he took Divine Training and therefore he doesn't have to worry about Somatic components for his spells & therefore no ASF. He's basically otherwise building the PC as a Magister/Wizard though, so he really does play better than (and is more powerful) than an AU Magister (who has to have his staff) or a Core Wizard (who doesn't cast spontaneously and has a spellbook), both of whom *DO* have Somatic spell components and have to worry about ASF. Now, because of his Divine Training all of his PC's magical ability is granted from his deity Tinel, so if I don't make sure (as the DM) he sticks to Tinel's teachings, belief, ethos, etc., then I've just given him a nice power boost over all the other players. To help remind him and me of that Restriction I've typed up what is required/expected of his PC's behavior based upon the teachings & worship of his deity.

I'm going to work on something similar with another player who's PC is going to be picking up Nature Training for Nature Magic next level. He's going for a Druid without the Animal Companion and Wildshaping features, more martial, essentially what I'm picturing as a Nature-based Paladin but with more spellcasting capability. While we're starting with the Druidic Oath/Guidelines laid out in the PHB I've asked him to come up with what's most important for his PC, what he wants to accomplish with Nature's Power & Magic. I hope to use that to develop a similar set of guidelines for his Nature Restriction as I did for *Videssian's* PC above.

Finally, *ouini*, never one to take something at face value , has come up with a Nature-based Monk type that doesn't rely so much on speed (both in the sense of FoB and base mvmt speed) and nimbleness as it does being able to "plant" himself, withstand lots of punishment, and hit solidly with just a few well-placed blows, emulating many aspects of Treants, Ents, etc. Working with him was more an exercise on how to incorporate what is essentially a Prestige Class (even though he's starting it at 1st level) into the existing Feat-based framework. We started with him explaining his concept to me, and from there I had to decide which abilities he'd have to use feats already in the system to get for his PC, and which others we'd have to come up with new feats entirely (as well as where to put them, with appropriate prereqs). What I was trying to avoid was a true duplication of effects. Some of the things he was after were really in the system already, though some had prereqs that weren't easy to mesh with his concept. I *think* we've figured out where best to use the system and where to add to it. I think we're both happy with the results, but I'll let him answer any more specifically as he sees fit. 

How's all that for starters? 

I'm sure there are other issues. I'll probably think of some more once I have to chance to ponder things, and I'll bet my players can list a few others or job my memory. I'll keep checking back and see what's been posted.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'm seriously contemplating using the CB system as described in my upcoming campaign, and my only concern is commiting to it without seeing it 'in action', so I'd love any after-action reports you or your players could give.



I've asked my players to come by and post. We'll see how many comments (and of what type) we get ). I've been asking them as we go, and we've had some ongoing discussions on a few things on our messageboard, but I always welcome more input.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 14, 2004)

> How's all that for starters?



Detailed! I appreciate it! I'm looking forward to hearing more from your players, as well.



> It's been quite a bit of work off & on, but it's fun to sit and really try and take things apart to put them together again and see how the fit and compare with each other.



Doubtless! I developed a deep respect for the amount of thought you've put into it by going down the path "Well, those weight-for-abilities can't all be right - let's play with some of them..." which value modification of course never resulted in anything near the balance that you'd achieved.

I'd love to stumble over somebody having done similar work for spell powers; I imagine a 'build a spell' construction kit which gives a 'level' cost for the many game components of a spell (casting time, duration, damage, range, area, etc); I could imagine a ninth-level spell doing fairly low amounts of damage (2d6, maybe?) but spread over a tremendous area: "And then the mighty wizard called upon the powers of the sky, and lightning flayed the earth for miles around, and all of the great (but 1st level) army assembled to assault his lair was laid low, save the six captains, who steadfastly advanced...."



> some ongoing discussions on a few things on our messageboard



Do you mind posting a link - I'd like to lurk through some of those discussions, if you don't mind; if you're leery of posting it for fear of traffic or loss of signal-to-noise ratio, no worries.

I was quite happy to see your TrueCore.zip, since I'm not using AU; that makes your body of work feel more relevant. I'd been trying to duplicate it myself (including d4 and 2 skill points) but as you pointed out its a ton of work! (Actual CP's wasn't bad, since I could drop the '10' option, so the calculations were still all correct.

I'd also been thinking through the weighting for the 'specials', because I'm not sure, for example, that 'Weapon Focus' and 'Weapon Specialization' balance out the same as other 'Combat' feats and class abilities. For example, Focus gives +1 to hit in (nearly) every combat, while a Ranger's +1 from 'Favored Enemy' is only appropriate in some situations. Likewise, 'per day' combat abilities, such as a Paladin's Smite or a Barbarian's Rage don't have the immense re-usability value that the fighter's feats do. So I was thinking about expanding that section beyond none/general/combat to something more like none/once/general/semi/combat/free; the assumption that the fighter is a full feat-every-two-levels underbalanced sounded a bit strong to me.

I did change 'average points' to not include first-level points, thus getting a different score for average per level, which I found a little more instructive.

Anyways, all that's neither here nor there if I go over to a straight point-buy system.

I'm thinking of running a 'let's play with the system and make sure we can all buy into it' session, which I'm imagining works like "Let's use the system to build first-level characters, knock out one combat; increase those characters to fourth-level, knock out a second combat; increase to six-and-a-halfth or so, and run through a third combat; try maybe one more if anybody's on the fence." Gives the players a chance to learn the system and make mistakes without being committed to them for the campaign, and gives me a chance to see what it looks like without being committed to a new system.

Do you use the point costs straight off the DrSpunj's Balance sheet for charging characters as they build?


----------



## azmodean (Dec 14, 2004)

Here's just some random thoughts I have had on the subject of reverse-engineering a point system for the classes.
1.  When attempting to balance the classes, I found that the fighter bonus feats seemed to be valued at twice the cost of specific feats granted at a level.  Mind you, this was in 3.0, before they gave several of the other classes pairs of options for their bonus feats.
2.  I finally was able to make the spells balance with everything else when I assigned a cost per spell slot.  The level of the spell did not seem to matter, except that spells acquired at a given character level would be higher spell level than those acquired at a lower character level.
3.  The divine vs arcane spells gave me fits untill I discovered that divine spell slots semmed to be valued at approximately 3/4 the cost of arcane spell slots.
4.  Sorcerous vs wizardly casting seemed to be valued the same, I guess the assumption is that the number of spells known balanced the flexibility of chosing spells.

This was all based on 3.0 core rules, I'd have to start over to do it with 3.5, and I'm not particularly interested in UA or most of the non-core systems.

Hope this helps someone out.


----------



## Archus (Dec 17, 2004)

*Nice Class Creation System*

On a quick review I like this.  I'm going to try merging it with Elements of Magic Revised instead of using the Arcana Unearthed magic system.  Looks like Half magic would be +1/2 and Full Magic would be +1.  Most of the partial casters in EoMR do a progression like the Average BAB progression (but 1/2 levels count) and the Full spellcasters like the Good BAB progression.  So they would take Half/Then Full to get their progression.

I might even make a stab at making prestige and racial classes with this.

I'll tinker a bit over my vacation.


----------



## ouini (Dec 17, 2004)

*Replies*



			
				devilish said:
			
		

> Heart of my question is if I give my Core fighters an extra feat per level, how will that fare against the other classes...



I didn't always, but after looking at it for all this time I do now believe DrSpunj is correct when he says one feat per level for fighters is quite fair and balanced. *Really* fair and balanced, not FOX fair and balanced 



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> ...are there any specific things which you guys are disliking or finding off. DM'ing it, do you find it hard to find an appropriate challenge for a party that's halfway between, say, 2nd and 3rd level? Have any of the players aimed for 'exploits' you hadn't considered, and have had to arbitrate against?



Like I said, I've played in four sessions with DrSpunj, but I've also run two sessions using my own very similar system (based mostly off DrSpunj's). To specifically answer your questions:
- If I had to point right now to the thing I least like about DrSpunj's system, I'd say the existence of "gateway feats". These are feats which don't give the character any in-play benefit, but rather act only as a prerequisite to allow the character to buy other, more advanced feats. I understand their purpose: They're supposed to discourage players from buying a wide array of unrelated feats, and encourage them to buy feats in a single feat-tree for which they've already "paid their dues". But paying points for no tangible in-game benefit still bugs me. And truly, DrSpunj has taken a good look at these instances and eliminated them where he could, so kudos to him.
- I've DM'd only two sessions using the point-based system so far, and my company hasn't spent points to improve their characters, yet. They're not rule-monkeys like most of us on the board are, so though they're eager to advance, they are hesitant about dealing with these new and strange (to them) rules.
- Although no player has tried to exploit DrSpunj's rules (noticably anyway), there are some holes that *could* very well be exploited at this point. One major one is one my character and one other "enjoys", which is that the "Martial Artist" feat is essentially three feats in one. If you play an unarmored character, "Martial Artist" gives you Improved Unarmed Strike, Zen Defense, and the Flurry of Blows feats. I disassembled this feat (and a couple other "combo" feats) into its component parts for my campaign, and it seems to be working fine so far.

I made sure to invite the other players in DrSupnj's game to speak up in this thread, though none have, yet (I don't think any are regular Enworlders). If you'd really like to see the CB system in action, I can make sure to post .mp3s of the pre- and post- gaming "administrivia" that takes place where people ask DrSpunj questions and spend their Character Points. But so far, DrSpunj's and my system(s) (which have been in the making for well over a year) is doing well.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> DrSpunj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I second that. DrSpunj has done by far the brunt of the leg-work on this system, and it's because he was determined to make a fairer system that it now exists and is being beta-tested.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> ...I imagine a 'build a spell' construction kit which gives a 'level' cost for the many game components of a spell (casting time, duration, damage, range, area, etc)



Well what do you know. DrSpunj and I actually did complete about 90% of such a system, based loosely on the Talislanta system, a couple years ago. It was keen, and we emphasized simplicity, but I think such a drastic shift from core would be *very* daunting to those used to the regular AD&D spell system.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of running a 'let's play with the system and make sure we can all buy into it' session...



If you do, please let us know how it turns out.




			
				azmodean said:
			
		

> ...fighter bonus feats seemed to be valued at twice the cost of specific feats



Yep. I found that to be true as well, and in my system (a mild variant of DrSpunj's) fighter feats cost 4, while others cost 2.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> ...divine spell slots semmed to be valued at approximately 3/4 the cost of arcane spell slots...



With the AU magic system, there are no more arcane/divine spells, which is nice. There are instead simple, complex (which essentially cost more), and exotic (cost even more) spells. But all your points are well-taken and seem accurate.




			
				Archus said:
			
		

> ...I'm going to try merging it with Elements of Magic Revised instead of using the Arcana Unearthed magic system. Looks like Half magic would be +1/2 and Full Magic would be +1...I might even make a stab at making prestige and racial classes with this.



That sounds interesting. This just demonstrates that the spreadsheets DrSpunj worked up are really useful tools, even for those who are sticking with a class-based system instead of taking the plunge into classless gaming. But as demonstrated in our system(s), we do like the idea of spellcasters choosing/getting essentially +1/2 or +1 spellcaster level each level.


----------



## Amaroq (Dec 17, 2004)

Thanks for the observations, ouini.

The 'gestalt' I took from your post is that it sounds like one of the 'balancing acts' involved is the cost of feats and powers. Your complaint about "gateway" feats costing too much, coupled with "Martial Artist" being worth too much for the price, and the question of the price of fighter feats w.r.t. other feats; it really sounds like a fertile ground to explore is a 'point cost per feat' - I think its pretty clear from this discussion (and from the min-max discussions elsewhere) that all feats are not created equal; perhaps each could have a different price? Not that I want to be the one to go through the whole published world assigning point-values to each feat! 

At the moment I'm leaning towards running something with a DM-moderated (of course) version of DrSpunj's system, plus EoM(r) for my campaign. 

Thanks again, first for taking the time to work this up, second for publishing it for us all, and third for taking the time to answer questions and give your observations about how it plays!


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 18, 2004)

Amaroq said:
			
		

> Detailed! I appreciate it! I'm looking forward to hearing more from your players, as well.




One posted in our group forum that he'd try this weekend. Another I know should now be finished with finals but hopefully will be able to post soon. Another is on vacation through this weekend. Just a busy time for everyone, I guess. I know I'M glad the week is over. 



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'd love to stumble over somebody having done similar work for spell powers; I imagine a 'build a spell' construction kit which gives a 'level' cost for the many game components of a spell (casting time, duration, damage, range, area, etc)...




As *ouini* said, we did work on something like this working off of the Talislanta system. With that said, I have to agree with your later comments that Elements of Magic is probably a much easier fit. I *did* buy the original version and thought it was pretty _slick_, but I never got around to buying the revised version largely because of Monte's AU system. Every magic system is going to have its quirks, but I'm currently content taking AU out for a spin right now. I'm fairly certain those playing casters in my group (those with Basic or  Advanced Magic, or both!) are also enjoying it based upon their comments to date.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> Do you mind posting a link - I'd like to lurk through some of those discussions, if you don't mind; if you're leery of posting it for fear of traffic or loss of signal-to-noise ratio, no worries.




Sorry, but its a private group that we use more for the campaign story, to set up our next session, and somewhat to keep things moving a bit in between sessions since we only meet about once every 4 weeks. There are only a few of us that are real "rules heads", and mostly it comes down to *ouini* and I countering each other's points with an odd comment from *Videssian* periodically. The others either don't care about such trivial points or are intimidated by our dialogue! 



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I was quite happy to see your TrueCore.zip, since I'm not using AU; that makes your body of work feel more relevant. I'd been trying to duplicate it myself (including d4 and 2 skill points) but as you pointed out its a ton of work! (Actual CP's wasn't bad, since I could drop the '10' option, so the calculations were still all correct.




I'm glad I could help. At the very beginning of this thread I tried to be up front about the fact that I was designing this originally for my new campaign, so I didn't come at it from the viewpoint of "let's start with just Core" since I already had certain things in mind I was changing (namely lowest HD is d6 and lowest SPs is 4/lvl). In hindsight, given what it's become and how potentially useful I think it _could_ be for many of the things you and others have already mentioned, I wish I had taken the time to make a larger number of value columns at the top for a wider variety of options. If I ever redo it I certainly will, but by then I hope I know how to put in "cell menus" in Excel so you can just use pulldowns rather than making sure you've typed the text into a cell exactly as is it up above in the value boxes so the lookup functions work properly. Unfortunately I'm no Excel wizard.  If you know how to do that I'd LOVE to have a sample spreadsheet with a simple little cell menu and a little explanation to go with it teaching me how to do it. 



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'd also been thinking through the weighting for the 'specials', because I'm not sure, for example, that 'Weapon Focus' and 'Weapon Specialization' balance out the same as other 'Combat' feats and class abilities. For example, Focus gives +1 to hit in (nearly) every combat, while a Ranger's +1 from 'Favored Enemy' is only appropriate in some situations. Likewise, 'per day' combat abilities, such as a Paladin's Smite or a Barbarian's Rage don't have the immense re-usability value that the fighter's feats do. So I was thinking about expanding that section beyond none/general/combat to something more like none/once/general/semi/combat/free; the assumption that the fighter is a full feat-every-two-levels underbalanced sounded a bit strong to me.




Well, I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent, but you can get a pretty good feel for some of that just by looking at everything else...IF you like the values you're working with. By that I mean if we use my original values, then it's pretty easy to compare the 1st level of Fighter & Ranger and see how those feats (assuming Fighter gets Weapon Focus with his Bonus Feat) compare.

A Fighter gets a d10 (2 CPs), +1 BAB (4 CPs), 2 SPs/lvl (0 CPs), +2 Fort (+1 Free, +1 for 1 CP) and a Bonus Feat. Both Fighters and Rangers get all Martial Weapons so we don't have to worry about that, but Fighters also get proficiency with Medium and Heavy Armors over Rangers, so that's another 2 CPs. So that's a total of 9 CPs plus a Bonus Feat for the Fighter.

A Ranger gets a d8 (1 CP), +1 BAB (4 CPs), 6 SPs/lvl (2 CPs), +2 Fort & +2 Refl (+1 Free, +3 for 3 CPs), Favored Enemy, Track & Wild Empathy. So that's 10 CPs plus Favored Enemy, Track & Wild Empathy for the Ranger.

So feel good that the Core Designers felt a Bonus Feat that you get to choose from the Fighter Bonus Feat list is equal to 1 CP plus Favored Enemy, Track & Wild Empathy. In that respect you could certainly conclude that something like Weapon Focus (or most any other feat on the Fighter's list) should be valued higher than many of the other class abilities. I think, however, most of the value difference inherent in the Bonus Feat is more related to the fact that you get to _choose_ which feat you want rather than the power of the relative feats.

And there are certainly an infinite number of ways to divide the feats up, so go with whatever makes sense to you and those players in your group. *ouini*'s using something similar but distinctly different and it seems to be working well for him (btw, *ouini*, how the hell did you makes Monks & Martial Arts work, anyway?). And don't go reinventing the wheel unless you really feel like it; if you haven't seen it yet check out what Sean K. Reynold's did here. He went through and "rated" all of the Core feats on a 10 point value scale. I personally think you don't need that much granularity, and I didn't agree with many of his values, but he's essentially doing what we've been doing here in another way.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I did change 'average points' to not include first-level points, thus getting a different score for average per level, which I found a little more instructive.




Ooo! That's good! I've added that to my list of improvements if I ever go back and redo/revise the whole spreadsheet.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of running a 'let's play with the system and make sure we can all buy into it' session...Gives the players a chance to learn the system and make mistakes without being committed to them for the campaign, and gives me a chance to see what it looks like without being committed to a new system.




Please post any feedback you or your players have if you think it will help us address any problems with the system.



			
				Amaroq said:
			
		

> Do you use the point costs straight off the DrSpunj's Balance sheet for charging characters as they build?




I honestly don't remember if I included this in the big zipped System download or not, but I created this CP Worksheet so that each player could print it out and use it to design their PCs. I'm currently requiring them to update an "official" copy and upload it to our Yahoo group so that I know what abilities they're purchasing. With the dynamic leveling they're getting a few CPs each session so I pretty much had to require them to keep me somehow updated on what their PCs are truly capable of doing as there is ALWAYS something new for each PC. There was just no way for me to stay on top of it all without asking for their help. 

I've attached the CP Worksheet here.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 18, 2004)

Archus said:
			
		

> On a quick review I like this.  I'm going to try merging it with Elements of Magic Revised instead of using the Arcana Unearthed magic system. I'll tinker a bit over my vacation.




Glad it's worth some of your time, and please share your thoughts if you get a chance to really tinker with it.

Now that *Amaroq* and you have both mentioned EoMr I probably should purchase and take a look at the revised version and see what they've done with it. I certainly wouldn't do anything with it for my current campaign as we're just really starting to feel comfortable with AU magic, but there are a lot of similarities between building your PC's abilities with this system and building the specifics of your spell with the EoM system. Hmmm.... 

And *azmodean*, I do appreciate your comments. We came to many of the same conclusions when *ouini* and I were working on our Talislanta-like magic system a couple years back, and during our time working on this system more recently.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Archus (Dec 18, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Glad it's worth some of your time, and please share your thoughts if you get a chance to really tinker with it.



Here is the beginning of my tinkering:
http://www.arcanearcade.com/wiki/index.php/D20ClassConstruction/D20ClassConstruction

All in an effort to avoid studying for a graduate level finance exam tomorrow 

I was trying to rework things so you got 10 or 20 points per level so you could divide up the xp given per level cleanly.  I still need to tinker with base race creation and racial level ability costs but so far I'm liking what I see.

I decided to boil the BAB, Magic Level, etc progressions down to just a number that you total and round appropriately.  Hopefully it makes sense, I really should study or sleep.

EoMR is great and fits with this system perfectly.  I liked AU magic as well until I read EoMR.  AU is nice, but a spell creation system is better IMHO.

--Archus


----------



## Zoatebix (Dec 18, 2004)

Let me throw out another recommendation for EoM(r).  I do love the magic from AU, but the spell-point/spell creation system Ryan Nock put together is exactly what I need for my home-brew sci-fantasy crazy game.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 19, 2004)

Hi there!  I just discovered this system, and already I'm planning to inflict it upon my players next time we start a campaign.  For now, I have two questions:

1. I notice that the druid ability, A Thousand Faces, is listed as an expansion feat in the Cheat Sheet, but is listed as a general feat in the spreadsheet, which seems to throw off the numbers for building the DrSpunj druid.  Which should I read in error, or am I missing something?

2. In the CP Worksheet, the free bonus feats at every 3rd level are the ones that every character normally gets, and aren't part of the builder system, right?  I don't see any reference to them anywhere else, so I assume that's the case.


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 19, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Hi there!  I just discovered this system, and already I'm planning to inflict it upon my players next time we start a campaign.




Glad to have you aboard, Doctor. 

Please come back with any feedback you (and your players) have that might help us improve things!



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 1. I notice that the druid ability, A Thousand Faces, is listed as an expansion feat in the Cheat Sheet, but is listed as a general feat in the spreadsheet, which seems to throw off the numbers for building the DrSpunj druid.  Which should I read in error, or am I missing something?




Nope, you're not missing a thing; totally my error. Thanks for pointing it out. I remember having trouble with how to classify _A Thousand Faces_ when I was putting just the spreadsheet together, and labeled it a General feat at the time because it has no real direct combat benefits (unless you change size or something). True, since it references the spell _Alter Self_ you can use it to give yourself a new movement capability, but at level 13 I feel this is far more a convenience than anything else. YMMV.

Regardless, once I realized I could consoildate that ability into the Wild Shape - Type feat (along with Plants, Vermin, etc.) it became an Expansion feat and should therefore cost 4 CPs. By changing that at level 13, you do end up at -1 CP at Level 15. The only way I could see to fix that relatively easily was to do the following:

At Level 12 change the "Free" for +1 Fort save to "None", and change the "One" for +1 Will save to "Free". This keeps the Balance thereafter at >= 0 but leaves you with 1 less Fort save, so buy that back at Level 16 by changing "None" for Fort save to "One".

Now, this does fix the CPs correctly, but throws off the Save calculations at the far left. The formula in Cell D191 should be changed from "+6" at the end to "+5" (since there's now one less Free Fort save to account for), while the formula in Cell D195 should be changed from "+8" at the end to "+9" (since there's now one more Free Will save to account for).

Hope that makes sense. I'll include errors like this in my next update which hopefully I'll be able to do over the holidays here at some point (though it won't be a major revision by any means).

And also realize that the Drspunj's Core is simply my own worksheet I used to come up with the values I think work well while trying to stick as close to Core as I wanted to be. It's NOT meant to be the only way to build a Core-like Druid using the system, but it is certainly an example of one way. If you or your player would rather rearrange things here and there, taking some abilities early and pushing others off until later, well, that's the whole point! 



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 2. In the CP Worksheet, the free bonus feats at every 3rd level are the ones that every character normally gets, and aren't part of the builder system, right?  I don't see any reference to them anywhere else, so I assume that's the case.




Absolutely. I didn't change anything about the free feats at 1st, 3rd, 6th, etc. nor did I change anything about Ability Score increases at every 4th level. I honestly *did* think about including both of those things at one time or another, but it made things a bit too flexible for me. By that I mean at 6th level you already get a free +1 BAB (worth effectively 4 CPs) and a free +1 Defense (worth effectively 2 CPs), so you have a lot of CPs at that level to save or spend on other things. If I gave you another 5 CPs to reflect the Bonus Feat that every character is supposed to get at 6th level, well, it just seemed a bit too much.

Now, I also looked at adding up all of those extra feats and spreading things out, which looked a bit better. You get 7 Bonus Feats total (1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th & 18th) which would be 35 CPs extra. You could round that up to 40 CPs and hand them out 2 CPs extra per level, or leave the total at 35 and give out 2 at most levels, but only 1 extra every 4 levels (when you got your Ability Bonus, which evens things out a bit kind of nicely, IMO). Or whatever.

I didn't end up doing anything like that because I was changing a lot as it was already and, to be quite frank, this is meant to be a Feat driven system to me and I liked keeping them as extra feats. 

Again, YMMV. 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 19, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Glad to have you aboard, Doctor.
> 
> Please come back with any feedback you (and your players) have that might help us improve things!




Sure thing, but it's not likely to be too soon.  We're up to our neck in campaigns right now.



> And also realize that the Drspunj's Core is simply my own worksheet I used to come up with the values I think work well while trying to stick as close to Core as I wanted to be. It's NOT meant to be the only way to build a Core-like Druid using the system, but it is certainly an example of one way. If you or your player would rather rearrange things here and there, taking some abilities early and pushing others off until later, well, that's the whole point!




Oh, absolutely.  It's just that I noticed that inconsistency right away, which made me think that either there was an error, or I hadn't seen some note that would have explained it.  I figured that if I'm going to tinker with these classes, I should make sure I know that I understand how the system works.

Anyway, I'll let you know if I manage to get some playtesting in.  Thanks for all the hard work!

(edit)

I haven't been through this whole thread yet, so pardon me if this has already been asked: what about class skills?  I don't notice any mention of a limited skill list, but only the number of skill points a character gets.  Am I to assume that all builds are akashic-like in their ability to put ranks into skills?  Or is there some mechanic for the purchasing of a certain number of "class skills" outside of which ranks cost double.


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 21, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Sure thing, but it's not likely to be too soon. We're up to our neck in campaigns right now.
> 
> Anyway, I'll let you know if I manage to get some playtesting in. Thanks for all the hard work!



Understood. So many games, so little time. 

And I'm honestly just glad some other people have found some use for what I did primarily for my own campaign and problems with the underlying Core system. That's cool! 



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I haven't been through this whole thread yet, so pardon me if this has already been asked: what about class skills? I don't notice any mention of a limited skill list, but only the number of skill points a character gets. Am I to assume that all builds are akashic-like in their ability to put ranks into skills? Or is there some mechanic for the purchasing of a certain number of "class skills" outside of which ranks cost double.



Right. Quite simply, since there literally are no classes with this system, there are no class skills. That's been a pretty standard House Rule for me in a slightly different way ever since Core 3.0 came out; namely that cross-class skills don't cost double, though they still have lower maximum compared to class skills. If you haven't noticed, I don't like to force or pigeon-hole players/PCs. 

That hasn't caused any problems in my games and it seemed very logical that if I was breaking the classes down so you could build the concept you were after more freely, there's nothing so special about Skills that I needed to limit your potential choices beyond "you only have so many skill points so spend them wisely, and if you want more, buy more!"

We're also using Monte's Sneak, I've rolled Open Locks into Disable Device (but kept the Dex check with it instead of Int) and there might be a couple other changes there. But again, those are all House Rules and don't directly impact the Classless System here, so I haven't really made an issue of them.

When I've seen Skill cost threads here before someone always pipes up with "then everyone would take Tumble!". Honestly, that hasn't been a problem for me. While many will take a rank or two (or 5 ), it's mostly so that if they get jumped while sleeping without their Medium or Heavy armor they have a bit better protection and/or option for the battle while fighting "nekkid". It's certainly not been a focus of the PCs any more than I've seen in any straight Core game.

Also realize that I have another House Rule that impacts here: Medium Armor is x3 Run but doesn't reduce your Base Speed (only Heavy Armor does that). I did that because the Armor bonus from Medium Armor isn't _that_ much better than Light Armor. Looking at the PHB you get +4 from a Chain Shirt and only +5 from a Breastplate. Would anyone take +1 AC for a drop of 5' or 10' of Base Speed? Apparently enough of the Core testers did, but I've not seen it more than once or twice in any of the Core games I've been a part of. With this change I now have quite a few warrior-types picking up Medium Armors for the better AC, but this precludes them from using Tumble which can only be done in Light or No armor.

It all works quite well. Obviously, YMMV. 

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Dec 22, 2004)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> ...(btw, ouini, how the hell did you makes Monks & Martial Arts work, anyway?)...



My list of feats available to 1st level PCs is out at http://www.leepfrog.com/~kwelsch/vale/1st_feats.doc . I just used the idea that when you pay for a feat, you're paying for exactly one feat. So I split your Martial Artist feat into:
Improved Unarmed Strike
Flurry of Blows (which you choose to use unarmed or with one class of light weapon) and
Zen Defense
I split your Martial Arts+ feat into:
Martial Arts+ (which increases your unarmed damage by one class)
Fleet of Foot and Advanced Fleet of Foot+
Flurry of Blows+



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Dr. Awkward said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also have no set class skills, but I do it this way:
At first level, all skills are at cost ("class skill")
After first level, ranks 1 thru 4 in any skill cost double ("cross-class"), and ranks 5+ are at cost ("class skill").



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> We're also using Monte's Sneak ... Medium Armor is x3 ... It all works quite well. Obviously, YMMV.



Yeah, your game is working well. I do those, too -- I think they're appropriate.


----------



## DrSpunj (Dec 29, 2004)

ouini said:
			
		

> My list of feats available to 1st level PCs is out at http://www.leepfrog.com/~kwelsch/vale/1st_feats.doc . I just used the idea that when you pay for a feat, you're paying for exactly one feat. So I split your Martial Artist feat into:
> 
> Improved Unarmed Strike
> Flurry of Blows (which you choose to use unarmed or with one class of light weapon) and
> ...



Right, that I understand (and thanks for the download, your layout is quite a bit better than mine!  ). I guess what I was really asking is this:

The last time you and sat down and tried to do that the Core Monk ended up woefully short of CPs to get everything coming to him. Coupled with the fact that neither of us thought the Monk was overpowered (quite the opposite, actually) and we both ended up with no good way to represent the Monk's abilities using CPs while keeping the other (more straightforward classes) in line.

I haven't sat down with your system to try it out, but if you have the first few levels of a Monk laid out using your system I'd love to see how it all comes together.

Thanks.

DrSpunj


----------



## ouini (Jan 4, 2005)

Well, there still isn't a one-to-one progression with Monks.

I realized/rationalized our a-la carte pricing system staying consistent with all classes but Monks this way:

The one thing the Monk class does differently from other core/simple classes -- besides buying up all saving throws every level -- is lock the player into lots of specialist feats and feat paths at each and every level. That is, in the core Monk, the reason it's expensive to buy in our system is that you get tons of unwanted, inflexible 'crap' feats.

You get some of this in the Barbarian and Rogue, but the only classes which come close to the Monk's level of "spend your points here, in this way, for this benefit" are the spellcasting classes, which effectively spend most points on spellcasting ability. But spells are amazingly versatile (especially in AU, the system we use), whereas Monk feats and feat paths are extremely narrow in either usefulness, flexibility, or both (Like the three Ki feats (magic, law, adamantine), unencumbered/move feats (fast, faster, faster yet...), or the purity/diamond feat chain).

So the strongest point of our system (versatility) fits a class like fighter (which chooses one of lots of feats every level) really well -- almost too well, as fighters still come out points behind. But it's completely wrong to emulate a class which chooses very specific feats, whether you want them or not, at very specific levels, whether you want them *then* or not.

The upshot is: You get lots of extras you probably don't want by being a core Monk. In our system you'd have to spend points -- more points than you're able to spend -- to get those things. But fortunately, only one person in a billion would want those exact feats at those exact levels. They'd much more likely want to choose whatever feats they *want* to have, even if it means getting fewer overall feats.

So far, my only proof is that the person in the party who took Monk-like fighting feats was completely uninterested in all the other baggage. I'll let you know how it's going after I've had 999,999,999 more players make characters.


----------



## Sravoff (Sep 5, 2005)

I started working on a feat based class system when somone told me of yours. I finally found it in your sig! Thanks! But..uh...what do you use to open xls files? I haven't yet been able to read it!   

Thanks!

-Sravoff


----------



## DrSpunj (Sep 6, 2005)

Sravoff said:
			
		

> I started working on a feat based class system when somone told me of yours. I finally found it in your sig! Thanks! But..uh...what do you use to open xls files? I haven't yet been able to read it!




Thank goodness for subscribed threads! 

We're still using this IMC but since discussion died off I have to admit I haven't been updating the files regularly or checking the thread.

.xls files are Microsoft Excel files. I know Excel '97 can open them since I've done it at work. Hopefully that won't be difficult for you to track down.

I have to admit the system has evolved a bit more. The basics are the same, but with the arrival of Iron Heroes we're in the midst of adapting some that into the system as well. Ideally I'll be able to figure out some way to work with the Feat Mastery system Mearls came up with, but at this point we're just moving ahead after ditching Core's Wealth Guidelines and most of the simple statistic booster items like Armor +3, Sword +2, Gloves/Belt/Whatever of Ability +4, etc.

That's allowed us to (following IH's example) increase the free Defense to +1 every odd level, increase all three saves by +1 for free every odd level, use the better free feat ratio of 1st then all Even levels, and we're adopting Skill Groups as well. I put those in the system at 2 CPs at any level (none free at 1st). We're just looking at retooling the party's PCs just as they've reached 4.0 level.

We've also had to mess with Defense a little bit. Similar to what IH does, Defense is akin to Active Defense, meaning you lose it when you're flat-footed. This allows us to neatly stack Defense with Armor & Shield bonuses (which, of course, you keep when flat-footed). To make a bigger distinction between Light Armor and Medium Armor, we've dropped Chain Shirts entirely (like IH does) so there isn't such a no-brainer choice. We're also using the speed rules from IH as well; Medium is 3/4 speed, Heavy is 1/2 speed, both are x3 Run.

This means that you can choose to wear Light Armor and/or use a Shield with a minimal CP proficiency cost (only 1 CP for each) and effectively "save" yourself some CPs by not having to spend them on Defense. Since Light Armor doesn't drop your speed and Masterwork versions have minimal, if any, ACPs this is a straightforward choice for many PCs. OTOH, getting better AC by going to Medium & Heavy armors brings with it some fairly substantial CP savings, but also speed reduction and worse ACPs. Since we're incorporating IH's Skill Challenges & Stunts a big ACP could be more troublesome than in a standard Core game.

I'm still looking at introducing Feat Masteries into the Classless System, but likely won't do it with this campaign unless it's nearly seamless to do so (and my players don't kill me for making any more changes!  )

Hope that helps. If anyone's interested I can post the new Revised CP Worksheet and I'll also try and take time to upload the most recent versions of the Classless System.

Thanks!

DrSpunj


----------



## Sravoff (Sep 7, 2005)

Thanks! Yeah, the updated would be nice. Thanks alot for putting so much time into this!

-Sravoff


----------



## DrSpunj (Sep 7, 2005)

Sravoff said:
			
		

> Thanks! Yeah, the updated would be nice. Thanks alot for putting so much time into this!




As you requested! I've grouped the most current files I have into it's own folder again. I've also attached the Revised CP Worksheet we're just now starting to use after incorporating the Iron Heroes changes I discussed above.

I did glance at the Classless System Excel file before zipping it and realized how much we've tweaked since January. Little things, but overall each was important. For instance, we ended up dropping the Thrown Martial Weapon Proficiency Group since there wasn't much in it except a few Exotics (and not worth the CPs except in the most extreme case!), so now if you take the Exotic Weapons WPG it adds these Exotic Thrown Weapons to the Simple WPG, effectively saving you 1 or 3 CPs on the now eliminated Martial WPG.

Regardless, I'm very happy with Iron Heroes and am looking forward to seeing how it affects our gameplay. The conversions look pretty straightforward with everyone saving a few CPs with the increased free Defense & Saves but putting them nearly right back into Skill Groups, so not much change otherwise. With the increased free feats their 3rd level feat moves back to 2nd and they all get to choose a free feat (or effectively have 4-5 CPs extra to spend) now at 4th level.

This doesn't overpower them considering the storyline hasn't given them a whole lot of treasure and they were just on the brink of needing to buy a bunch of +1 armor/shields/weapons/etc. This way _they_ effectively get to decide how to power up each level without me fabricating appropriate treasure or dropping a magic shoppe in every little hamlet.

As for experience, originally I was taking the XP needed to reach the next level and dividing it by 10. Each time they earned 1/10 of what they needed they got 1 CP, and when they reached the level break they got a bonus CP to get to 11 CPs for the level. While that was fine, I realized it was a lot of math for not too much gain, so pretty quickly I just started handing out a few CPs depending on what they accomplished that session. Most sessions were 2 or 3 while a real big combat ended up being 4 CPs. It's worked really well. Everyone gets to dynamically "spend" their CPs after getting a good night's (uninterrupted) rest.

One other thing we agreed upon pretty quickly was that you only get the freebies at the level break, so if you're 1 CP shy of 4th level (effectively level 3.9) and aren't buying up your Hit Points over the base d4+2 then you don't get those HP until you hit level 4.0. OTOH, if you spend some CPs to get an "upgrade" (like d4+4 or +6 or +8) then you get the HP right away.

This worked fine for most everything except the free +1 BAB that everyone gets at even levels. Some PCs wanted their +1 BAB early so they met the prereqs to get a particular feat before the level break, so we agreed on the following: you can buy your +1 BAB early for the same 4 CPs it costs at odd levels, and when you hit the level break and get it for free those 4 CPs are essentially refunded to you so you can spend them on something else. This has worked well since someone that wanted to buy it early could but at the same time couldn't use those CPs for anything else until they hit the level break and everyone got their freebies.

Hope that all makes sense and is at least somewhat useful.    

Thanks!

DrSpunj


----------



## Sravoff (Sep 7, 2005)

Do you plan on getting a PDF version done at all? I need to get an excel reader still so....Thanks for the updated version!

-Sravoff


----------



## Zoatebix (Sep 8, 2005)

Weeeeee!  I'm definately downloading your new stuff now.  

Have you checked out Green Ronin's True 20, DrSpunj?


----------



## DrSpunj (Sep 9, 2005)

Sravoff said:
			
		

> Do you plan on getting a PDF version done at all? I need to get an excel reader still so....Thanks for the updated version!




No problem on the updates. As far as a PDF version goes, that's a bit more difficult. I can easily print them as PDFs rather than Word or Excel files, that's not a big deal at all. The problem is the system is really based on being able to tinker with the cost of things, and for that you really _need_ the spreadsheet.

The system we're using is balanced according to the CP Worksheet, and I feel comfortable saying it's working well for us. True, we're making adjustments as we need to when they come up, but they're small & minor, nothing that has really affected the underpinnings of the original system. Now, *you* might very well look at how I've valued things (like what a +1 save is worth vs an extra couple hit points, or a +1 BAB) and decide I'm a kook.  And with the spreadsheet you could then revalue each item and see whether you can get the classes to spread out across the point spectrum in a way that better matches your own views of their relative power.

OTOH, if you just want to view the pages of the spreadsheet (rather than tinker and manipulate them) I could try printing/outputting the various spreadsheet sheets and see how they look. I don't have the full version of Reader, so I can't easily put them in a single, combined PDF, but I could certainly output each sheet as a PDF and upload them so you could look things over.

Let me know.

(And can I just say that thread subscription is a wonderful thing!)

DrSpunj


----------



## DrSpunj (Sep 9, 2005)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Weeeeee!  I'm definately downloading your new stuff now.
> 
> Have you checked out Green Ronin's True 20, DrSpunj?




No, should I? I've seen the name thrown around but haven't really chased down what they've done with the system. I really like a lot of the Green Ronin material, so I'll try and find the time to check it out.

On the flipside, have you checked out Monte & Mearls' Iron Heroes, Z?


----------



## Sravoff (Sep 13, 2005)

Yeah that would be nice. I am not sure when I could get the spread sheet reader so a pdf, even if it is tailored, would be very nice.

Thanks!

-Sravoff


----------



## Zoatebix (Sep 15, 2005)

DrSpunj said:
			
		

> No, should I? I've seen the name thrown around but haven't really chased down what they've done with the system. I really like a lot of the Green Ronin material, so I'll try and find the time to check it out.
> 
> On the flipside, have you checked out Monte & Mearls' Iron Heroes, Z?



True20 probably isn't immediately applicable to your work, but it is so very much worth checking out.  True 20 (with a little bit of the FUDGE based game FATE --which you should most certainly also check out-- thrown in) is going to be the core of my Sci-Fantasy campaign, but I'm still toying with adopting some of your work and going classless.  Still, the three 'roles' of True 20 are almost as good as classless...

I didn't have Iron Heroes on pre-order but I did get it on the first or second day it after it hit stores.  I'm still reading through it, but I definately like what I see.  At first glance, it seems harder to loot for ideas than Arcana Evolved.  Running and playing in both an IH and an AE game are high on my list of priorities --but no running them until I finish my own ruleset and get my campaign out of its 2-year hiatus.


----------



## Zoatebix (Sep 15, 2005)

Oh yeah - FATE is an OGL game as well (though other than using Wizard's license, it has nothing to do with the d20 system).  Here're a link with easy access to the Fate SRD: http://www.faterpg.com/dl/


----------



## SSquirrel (May 26, 2006)

Any chance of adding the Ritual Warrior from Arcana Evolved to the spreadsheet?  Also adds Combat Rituals.  How has the campaign been going?

*Necro Poster SUpreme*


----------



## DrSpunj (May 30, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Any chance of adding the Ritual Warrior from Arcana Evolved to the spreadsheet?  Also adds Combat Rituals.




I've just done a quick & dirty version of the Ritual Warrior as a straight conversion from AE. See below for the file. It is on par with the Magister right at 12.0 Avg CPs/Lvl. I haven't seen one in play, but as soon as AE came out I did add the following feats to the Feat Cheat Sheet:

Ability Focus (Base, 5 CPs)
This special ceremony helps one realize some of their inner potential by increasing one ability score by +1. This increase is identical to--but in addition to--the  ability score increase that all characters gain every four levels.

Ritual Combat (Base, 5 CPs)
Prereqs: Wisdom 11+
You can use three 1st-rank combat rites per day. If you can access combat rites already, these three combat rites add to the existing number of 1st-rank rites the character can use in a day. Special: A character may take this feat more than once, gaining three more
 combat rites per day. If taken more than once you may be able to access higher-rank rites (limited by Wisdom score as in AE), however you must always have more uses of the previous rank before gaining any or additional uses of a higher rank, and all three rites gained at a time apply to the same rank.

That last one is more complex than I'd like, but I was trying to stick with a single feat that would allow an approximation of the Combat Rites scalability in AE according to the class's table. With this feat you have to purchase Ritual Combat twice, gaining 6 1st level rites, before you could gain any 2nd level rites by taking it a third time. To get 3rd level rites you'd have to have taken the feat at least 5 times (3 for 1st level so 9 rites/day, and 2 for 2nd level so 6 rites/day).

Since you can only take the feat once each level it means you can't get 2nd level rites until minimum 3rd level which is a level later than AE, but then you get 3 of them right away, which is 1 more than AE gives you at 3rd level. IIRC it's a reasonably fair approximation of AE's Ritual Warrior assuming you take Ritual Combat every level.



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> How has the campaign been going?




Very well I think! The group just hit level 7 last week. We're still playing every 4 weeks, or there abouts, and I've been arbitrarily handing out 3-4 CPs each session, so they gain a level each quarter of the year. I think it's a pace everyone is happy with. Most are able to "purchase" something (or more than one) each session, and even for the expensive stuff like Advanced Magic it's no more than 1 additional session.

Everyone likes the IH Skill Groups and , though I'm not seeing a lot of Combat or Skill Stunts yet in play.

We've made some serious adjustments to Saves & Defense in the last few months. We've revamped saves to be +1 to all three saves free every odd level, and it costs 1 CP to raise a single save by +1 on even levels (max +1 to any save, so 3 CPs max).

For Defense we've converted entirely to Iron Heroes so Armor becomes Damage Reduction. Defense then is the best way to avoid being hit (along with Dex, and with two Martial Artists out of 5 PCs, Wisdom isn't too far behind). We're in the midst of discussing how to tone down Defense a bit, which we had been trying at +1 for free every odd level, and +1 max on even levels for 2 CPs. Problem was everyone was maxing it and I, as the DM, was having a lot of problems hitting everyone! I didn't like having to min-max every opponent the PCs had, so we're trying to figure out how to best make things work here. IH does a great job on its own, but when you mix Dwarves in (with their "avoid armor speed reduction" ability) it becomes a little trickier.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 12, 2006)

2 months and at least a coupa campaign sessions later I hope.  How goes the further rules tweaking?

*shamelessly necroing*

Ptolusmus was August 5th, 2006


----------



## Gwarh (Aug 15, 2006)

I'm quite interested as well to see if your Spreadsheet has seen anything new implimented. Or that is to say you and your  group have made changes and additions and they are yet to be added to the current/downloadable Excel workbooks you've linked here.

I've found your work to be a huuuuuuuuge help in my own work on creating balanced Classes, for a d20 Fantasy Campaign in the style of HackMaster and Castles & Crusades.

Anything new or in particular thoughts on your work as you look back on it would be much appreciated.


----------



## DrSpunj (Aug 17, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> 2 months and at least a coupa campaign sessions later I hope.  How goes the further rules tweaking?






			
				Gwarh said:
			
		

> I'm quite interested as well to see if your Spreadsheet has seen anything new implimented. Or that is to say you and your group have made changes and additions and they are yet to be added to the current/downloadable Excel workbooks you've linked here.




Thankfully not much to the underlying system now that we've tinkered with Defense.   

We're still pounding out a few options for the players, but that's always going to be a work in progress. One martial artist has been looking at Hong's IH Dodge & Mobility trees. He & our Dwarven Warmace using battlecaster are both now able to Infuse Weapon as well, and now that they've just reached 8th level and each have a couple iterative attacks, we created an Improved Infuse Weapon so they could get potentially get a full attack action with the infused damage before the charge dissipates.

Our Wolverine Totem Warrior is loving 8th level as both he (in wolverine shape) and his animal companion are now Large creatures! I just updated their stats this afternoon following the MM guidelines and using some info from the AE spell Lion's Form to try and get everything to come together in a balanced way. Still not sure I've succeeded but it's now available for the group to critique.

The Wind Witch and battlecaster are enjoying the new spells available in AE's Spell Treasury also. Our Forest Warden Martial Artist, now that I think about it, was kind of quiet with his 8th level stuff; I need to go check his CP Worksheet! 



			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ptolusmus was August 5th, 2006




I'm just starting into the Religion chapter. I'm going to mine so much out of Ptolus...forever! Lots of great stuff in there, and flipping back and forth with the sidebar info & page numbers is awesome, except I want to keep reading the new section I jump to!



			
				Gwarh said:
			
		

> I've found your work to be a huuuuuuuuge help in my own work on creating balanced Classes, for a d20 Fantasy Campaign in the style of HackMaster and Castles & Crusades.




Great! I'm glad it has been of some use. If your stuff is in any kind of form that you're willing to share, please post it here or start your own thread and drop the link in a post here. I always like looking to see how others have done something differently. Even if I don't agree with the differences I think the change in perspective is important.



			
				Gwarh said:
			
		

> Anything new or in particular thoughts on your work as you look back on it would be much appreciated.




I really think the best advice I can give is try to stick with what everyone starts with. By that I mean, my players have been (and still are) working with me with all the tweaks and rules changes, both minor and major. I've got a House Rules document typed up and  available on our group's website and have a printed copy at the table each session in a 3-ring binder. We have so many rules changes from Core (and AE, and IH) since this is a complete hybrid that all of us forget just exactly which rules set we're using in certain situations at least once each session (frequently 2-3 times!). Honestly that's not substantially different than the other games I've been in where Core's rules weren't very clear, but there at least you could look it up pretty quickly. IMG we have to determine which book(s) are the most relevant, and often check the House Rules as well.

With that in mind I'm really done making any sweeping changes to the system to date, cuz I don't want to lose players over any additional major changes. Defense at 2 CPs really was too cheap, and everyone IMG realized it, so it was an okay change for us all to make. Look at Defense (if you're going to use it), how it stacks with AC (or doesn't if you too are using Armor = DR), and all the repercussions very carefully.

I think, though, for this campaign we'll stick with the system as a whole from here on out. It's working well these last few sessions without any major hiccups.

Except for the Grappling rules.  They're better in IH, IMO, but still a bit cumbersome. After doing some reading on the IH boards we did adopt Hong's modification to drop the size modifier from grapple checks completely. Larger than medium-size creatures already have significantly higher strength and generally much higher HD (which gets them better BAB) so the added size modifier was overkill in our opinion. The group just battled a large, 12 HD Shadowbourne-templated Emerald Serpent on Monday, in a cave, with it shadow-jumping around to attack various members of the party by biting with poison and using improved grab thereafter to get easy constriction damage. As soon the day's light spell came around it'd shadow jump again to a different part of the cave. Rinse and repeat. Very frustrating for them, in a good way.   

Anyway, point being, it had a grapple check of +23 which was enough to nearly always win the grapple check, but twice I did roll low and the PCs rolled high enough to win beat it. I think with the +4 size bonus for being Large they would've lost both times, so I'm glad we pulled it out of the equation.

I just paid $2.37 for Morrus' Simplified Grapple rules so we may make some changes there (but again, all of us are frustrated there, and that's a change to the basic rules, nothing to do with the classless system).

Anyway, I've included the newest files in this post. I also didn't see that I'd ever posted the pdfs of the excel sheets like I said I would, so I've uploaded those as well. Enjoy!


----------



## Zoatebix (Aug 17, 2006)

I love Morrus's Grapple rules, and the document itself keeps getting more and more polished.  I hope you like them!


----------



## sigma999 (Sep 19, 2006)

*i like the whole shebang*

(bump)

And on a similar note, check out this project I've finally comitted to internet after 5 years of reading d20 material...

the WOTC discussion : http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10115522

the Wiki source: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/D20_twilight

It wasn't inspired by Dr. Spunj's work. It's convergent evolution; shockingly similar results from different beginnings. I'm happy that there are more d20 classless projects than first assumed!


----------

