Value of a Level

[Tyndmyr]

This is something I debated with my friends a while back...and actually came up with a somewhat workable and balanced system I can't now recall the details of.

The crux of it is this. Upon level up, you have a given number of points, which you use to purchase saves, BaB, hit die, skill points, spellcasting progression, etc. Obviously, you couldn't exceed usual limits such as having more BaB than levels.

What do you think the best way to divide up the values of these things would be on a point basis? As a baseline, assume a single skillpoint is worth 1 point.

[bosssmiley]

Isn't this what Mutants and Mastermind moved halfway towards doing?

Paying for the ability to perform at a basic level in the game sucks. Better to just assume a baseline level that keeps all level-similar characters on the RNG (within dice range of each other). Then you allow players to use their character building points allowance to buy genre-appropriate special abilities over and above the basic, needed-to-survive competencies expected of adventurers.

You know: assume the basics, and only ask people to pay for stuff they really care about having.

Being able to fight, or to sneak, or schmooze, or do zany acrobatics, or know stuff about stuff, or withstand damage, is not a a character role in itself: these are all things that heroes are expected to be able to do at some level. Heroes can specialise in one of these, but exceptional ability in one does not (and should not) assume incompetence in all others.

This non-exclusivity lets you have brick (+Str and Con, +Fort, +endurance powers), caster (+Int and Wis, +Will, +swirly mystic powers), swashbuckler (+Dex and Cha, +Ref saves, +defying gravity powers), martial artist (+Dex and Wis, +Ref, +fightan magic), etc. archetypes with a minimum of character creation onanism.

Counting skill points is not my idea of fun, thanks v. much. :smallmad:

It also:

allows any character to try anything
(no extending 'role exclusivity' to the absurd realms of "Fighty McSmashum no speak/think/do acrobatics so good, as other people in party cover those bases. Fighty only can smash. This make Fighty a sad meatwall."),
minimizes potential for thematically idiotic min/max abuse
("I am Professor Charles Xavier, the most powerful psychic in the world. My legs are useless, but not in any way that meaningfully affects the action. This is purely a fluff disability.")

The Gaming Den talked a bit about this as "New Edition", a GURPS/Hero system-style universal mechanic that used a (tweaked and de-b0rked) d20 system as a baseline.

You want actual numbers wrapped around this? Good luck. That'll requires a bit of game theory, some actual maths, and structured, systematic (not "yay! boo!") playtesting. As WOTC game designer Barbie and Paizo playtest Stacey tells us, "those are haaaaaard."

[Gnaritas]

I am gonna have to ignore the comment that 1 skillpoint equals 1 point to avoid fractionals. If you want you can divide all by 3.

This is what i would say from the top of my head:

Skillpoint = 3 pts
Save increase (one) = 4 pts
Feat = 12 pts
BAB = 10 pts
1 HP = 2 pts
(or assuming a 1d4 = 0 pts, then a 1d6 would cost 2 pts, a 1d8 costs 4 pts)
Ability score increase = 10 pts

Given this, a Fighter with INT = 10
BAB = 10 pts
Feat about half the levels, but extra a lvl 1 = 7 pts
1d10 HD = 6 pts
just over 1 save per level on average = 5 pts
2 skills = 6 pts

totals 34 pts

But since characters get a feat once every 3 levels and an attribute score every four i can imagine you are putting this in the same score system, so you could up that with 7 pts totalling 41 pts.

But if power equals points a wizard should have more points, but since you are giving all characters equal points, a players should not be able to afford a wizard....i guess...

If a wizard however should be worth as much as a fighter, then spellcasting progression would become 34 - 6 (skills) - 5 (saves) - 3 (feats, scribe scroll, familiar) - 5 (BAB) = 15 pts.
One problem already arises....a wizard can easily drop it's BAB to 0 at level 20 and spend 100 points on other stuff.

And if you really want complete balance you should re-evaluate every single feat, since one feat is not as worthy as the other.

[Tyndmyr]

I am gonna have to ignore the comment that 1 skillpoint equals 1 point to avoid fractionals. If you want you can divide all by 3.

That's cool, I mostly just wanted people working off some vaguely similar basis, so it's easier to compare.

I don't remember the original details, but I'd guess something like this:

Skillpoint = 1 pts
Save increase(one) = 2 pts
Any Feat = 4 pts
Feat from bonus list = 3 pts
BAB = 3 pts
1 HP = 1 pts -Im assuming everyone gets a d4, since you have to have some hp.
Ability score increase = 4 pts -Note, this is only for classes that specifically boost ability scores.
Fullcaster level = 6 pts
Halfcaster level = 3 pts

First level is a bit wonky, so trying to avoid that mostly.

So, wizard = 6(fullcaster level) + 2(skills) + 1.5(BaB) + .75(average val of bonus feats) + 2.5(average val of saves) = 12.75

Fighter = 2(skills) + 3(BaB) + 1.5(average val of bonus feats) + 3(hp) + 2.5(average val of saves) = 12.

The goal is mostly for it to not be more imbalanced than core, anyhow. Valuing class features like familiars is likely a bit tougher.

[Gnaritas]

The main problem is how easy it is to abuse.

A wizard 20 with no BAB can save enough points to spend on 7.5 feats.

Or take no save increases for 50 points total, and then use those to get some martial maneuver progression (to get Concentration to saves among others). I am guessing 50 points equals about 8 martial progression levels.

[Tyndmyr]

The main problem is how easy it is to abuse.

A wizard 20 with no BAB can save enough points to spend on 7.5 feats.

Or take no save increases for 50 points total, and then use those to get some martial maneuver progression (to get Concentration to saves among others). I am guessing 50 points equals about 8 martial progression levels.

Well, can't really buy half a feat, but dropping BaB entirely results in a few issues, such as touch/ranged touch attacks being suddenly useless. Sure, you could specialize in other stuff, but that rules out a wide list of some of the most powerful spells(orbs, for example).

Full casting may have to be slightly higher...not sure yet. Basically, dual progression casting, if possible at all, should be highly expensive. Personally, I think no save progression at all would be highly dangerous.

Also, since points are given out in level sized chunks, you typically would spend all your points for a level at once, and not have any saving mechanism...which would likely be a major factor in anything being broken.

[Lin Bayaseda]

I would suggest that, to avoid abuse, any character gets automatically the bare minimum of any class:

+1 BAB every 2 levels
+1 to all saves every 3 levels
+1d4+CON bonus hit points
+2+INT bonus skill points

Anything beyond that can be purchased with points. Also, set some limits:
- No character may have BAB greater than their level.
- No character may have more Arcane spells per day than a Wizard of equal level with maxed out INT score
- No character may have more Divine spells per day than a Cleric of equal level with maxed out WIS score
- No character may have more hit points that a Barbarian of equal level with maxed out CON score

This avoids ways to abuse the system, such as "Level 20 Wizard with no BAB and too many feats and spells" problem, and also the "Level 20 fighter with no skill points and too much BAB and HP" problem.

[valadil]

I tried pointifying D&D like this a few years ago. Never got anywhere with it, but one idea that I found interesting was to use different point costs for different classes. Fighters can buy BAB and HP for cheap, but skills and spells are costly. Rogues get skills cheap. Etc. It seemed like an interesting twist on point based systems that still preserved D&D's classiness.

What kept me from developing it further is that I never figured out a good way to do multiclassing.

[Tyndmyr]

I would suggest that, to avoid abuse, any character gets automatically the bare minimum of any class:

+1 BAB every 2 levels
+1 to all saves every 3 levels
+1d4+CON bonus hit points
+2+INT bonus skill points

Anything beyond that can be purchased with points. Also, set some limits:
- No character may have BAB greater than their level.
- No character may have more Arcane spells per day than a Wizard of equal level with maxed out INT score
- No character may have more Divine spells per day than a Cleric of equal level with maxed out WIS score
- No character may have more hit points that a Barbarian of equal level with maxed out CON score

Well, most of those shouldn't come up...spells per day aren't purchasable individually, because I couldn't think of a non-abusive way to do that. The minimal system does sound good, though, with just purchasing the extras.

Technically, though, survivor gets no bab.


This avoids ways to abuse the system, such as "Level 20 Wizard with no BAB and too many feats and spells" problem, and also the "Level 20 fighter with no skill points and too much BAB and HP" problem.

Im not sure that a fighter trading his skill points for extra hp would really be an issue. At level 20 that'd be...40 bonus hp in return for all his skill points. Given how skill starved fighters are, I don't think that's an overpowered trade.

[Mongoose87]

The Wizard isn't the one that might ditch his BaB. The Cleric's the one with Divine Power.

[Tyndmyr]

Thats probably the case. Every reasonable system of pointing the characters out tends to evaluate cleric and druid as being worth more points than other base classes.

Cleric under the one I quickly threw together: 6(fullcaster level) + 2(skills) + 2(hp) + 2.25(BaB) + 3(average val of saves) = 15.25

So, yeah, a base cleric is estimated as more powerful than most classes.

Thus, it's probably best to start from a blank slate than to start with existing classes, and pick and choose features to add. In theory, you'd start everyone with the same point value.

[Proven_Paradox]

There's a point where altering a system gets so far out that it's no longer the same system. Is there a reason this HAS to be based on DnD 3.5? I think you'd find that adjusting systems that are already point based to suit your needs would be a better idea. I've been told GURPS is a good system for that kind of thing.

[Tyndmyr]

It's basically an easy way for players to draw up customized classes with some semblance of balance. This is, at most, a variant on D&D akin to gestalt.

GURPS is, imo, an abomination, and should be killed with fire.

[Proven_Paradox]

In that case, maybe taking a look at the Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) to guide this process would be helpful.

[Gnaritas]

Thats probably the case. Every reasonable system of pointing the characters out tends to evaluate cleric and druid as being worth more points than other base classes.

Cleric under the one I quickly threw together: 6(fullcaster level) + 2(skills) + 2(hp) + 2.25(BaB) + 3(average val of saves) = 15.25

So, yeah, a base cleric is estimated as more powerful than most classes.

Thus, it's probably best to start from a blank slate than to start with existing classes, and pick and choose features to add. In theory, you'd start everyone with the same point value.

I believe full caster levels to be more powerfull than you give them points.
Also i believe the Wizard's casting ability is more powerful than that of the Clerics and Druids. You value them equally.

In the end it is probably easier to let the players homebrew any character they want and let the DM evaluate the characters so the power level is about equal. That is what i do as a DM, though my players are not keen on homebrewing, so they mostly use the normal classes anyway.
That way you do not spend hours setting up a rule set to create a character and the players dont need to spend hours figuring out how to break the rule set you made...

[Tyndmyr]

I believe full caster levels to be more powerfull than you give them points.
Also i believe the Wizard's casting ability is more powerful than that of the Clerics and Druids. You value them equally.

Thats possible. Also, some would argue that sorc casting is inferior to wizards(though imo, if you take away differences like the free metamagic feats, sorc gets much closer to wizard).

Theres a limit in granularity though, unless you want the rules to be quite lengthy. And frankly, cleric casting isn't weaker than wizard. Automatically knowing all spells on your list is awesome.


In the end it is probably easier to let the players homebrew any character they want and let the DM evaluate the characters so the power level is about equal. That is what i do as a DM, though my players are not keen on homebrewing, so they mostly use the normal classes anyway.
That way you do not spend hours setting up a rule set to create a character and the players dont need to spend hours figuring out how to break the rule set you made...

Leaving it to rule 0 is ALWAYS easier. That doesn't make it better.

[Defiant]

This gives me an idea for a campaign hook and artifact.

An artifact that gives you "extra experience" throughout your fight, and must be maintained by precious diamonds, that when you level up, you get a few bonus of these "points" to spend on BAB, skills, or saves, etc.