[PEACH] Hack 'n' Patch, a point-buy class construction system

[mikebuffan]

Google Doc for Hack 'n' Patch
Google Doc for the Class Reconstruction of Core Classes


The first link is how everything works for the system, descriptions, etc. You will still need a copy of the Player's Handbook, so that I don't get sued for redistribution of materials!

The second link listed above is my efforts to make everything as balanced as possible. It's a faithful reconstruction of the Core classes using the Hack 'n' Patch class construction system. Depending on the feedback (hopefully there will be some, and helpful at that) my next efforts will be psionics, and then followed by the non-core classes. Should this prove a smashing success () I eventually plan to expand Hack 'n' Patch to include a point buy race construction system!
Enjoy, and please respond, even if it's to say that I'm totally bananas!

[Fineous Orlon]

Just starting, looks interesting. Is 0 [zero] points an option for a d4 hit points?

[Fineous Orlon]

2nd question:

The cleric and fighter both appear unchanged in your second document. They and both have 20 out of 20 class building points...?

In my experience, and I am not alone in thinking this, the cleric is much stronger. If they both have 20 points, shouldn't they be... different from core? Meaning, if the fighter's class abilities are worth 20 points, wouldn't the cleric's abilities be worth, oh, 35 to 40 or so?

As it stands, are you reconstructing core via a points system only, or headed somewhere else?

[Rickshaw]

at first glance, this is awesome.

at second, this could be even cooler than that.

I would definitely second the Idea that spellcasting and such should cost more points, as per the general consensus according to the tier system.

[Psiker]

This is a very interesting system, its unfortunate that 3.5 is plagued with spellcasters being gods (effectively) making the spellcasting an incredibly worthwhile expenditure of points.

The Bonus Feats Section, i may have missed something but there appears to be no cost, so anyone can grab an animal companion free of charge if they please (please say i missed something)

i decided to try it out anyway, and i came up with this abomination (i believe i followed your rules correctly):

Base:
HD:d10
Alignment: Chaotic Good
3/4 BaB
Skills: 12 skills (Balance, Concentration, Spot, Perform(), Autohypnosis, Spellcraft, Use Magic device, Knowledge(Nature, Local, Religion, Arcana, Dungeoneering) )
Skills Per level: 4 + Int. mod (x4 at first level)
Proficiency: All simple weapons, Spiked Chain, Longbow, Falchion, Scimitar and Light Armor


Progressions:
2 Bardic Music
12 Spellcasting(Basic/Intermediate/Master)
1 Full Spell List Access
3 Spontaneous Casting(as Sorc)
1 Increased Spells Per Day(Master)

Bonus Feats:
Animal Companion

Conditionals:
-2 Bound Alignment:Chaotic Good
-1 Illiterate
-1 No Zero Level Spells
-1 Alignment Spell Restrictions

Fairly sure that works out to 20/20

But what you get is a spontaneous caster that can cast any spell off his list(i assume spontaneous was allowed to pick it), has an animal companion as the druid and can buff with the bard music (dragon fire shenanigans)

His Skills being cherry picked allow for some knowledge devotion use along with easy stabilization via autohypnosis

If it pleases him, he can even head in relatively tow to tow in melee with a d10 HD and 3/4 BaB.

While his Saves are miserable (cant have everything i guess) his spellcasting will likely aid him in that weakness.

Its likely not the strongest thing you can make using your point buys, but its above average compared to alot of classes.

I think the wording on the conditionals could be a little clearer as well, as i have no idea how many points i get for the reduced skill one.

Just my 2 cps

EDIT: An additional condition for magic could be to make spellcasting work off two stats (like the Spirit Shaman/Favored Soul)

[Welknair]

Uhh... Shouldn't this go in Homebrew Design?

[maysarahs]

2nd question:

The cleric and fighter both appear unchanged in your second document. They and both have 20 out of 20 class building points...?

In my experience, and I am not alone in thinking this, the cleric is much stronger. If they both have 20 points, shouldn't they be... different from core? Meaning, if the fighter's class abilities are worth 20 points, wouldn't the cleric's abilities be worth, oh, 35 to 40 or so?

As it stands, are you reconstructing core via a points system only, or headed somewhere else?

I believe that this system reflects the original 3.5 class design system. I have no evidence of this, but I find the trends are very much the same (Monk ends up being OVER the 20 point limit despite being the weakest core class, Sorcerer and Wizard are tied for build points even though sorcerer has no class features (other than spells))

All in all this is a VERY cool system, but I think that currently it is more a recreation of "how to build 3.5 classes in a freeform system" than a "balanced set of tools to put together a custom class"

To OP: Check out the system Legend over at ruleofcool.com. They balanced all of the classes using a series of progressions that define each class. Multiclassing is handled by switching out a progression with another. I'd draw inspiration from their track system (each track is supposed to have the same value of every other track (I think)).

I really like this system and will play around with it more when there are higher numbers (in the hours section) on the clock

[mikebuffan]

Fineous Orlon: Just starting, looks interesting. Is 0 [zero] points an option for a d4 hit points?

Yes, anything that the commoner starts off with is technically worth 0 points.

Fineous Orlon: 2nd question:

The cleric and fighter both appear unchanged in your second document. They and both have 20 out of 20 class building points...?

In my experience, and I am not alone in thinking this, the cleric is much stronger. If they both have 20 points, shouldn't they be... different from core? Meaning, if the fighter's class abilities are worth 20 points, wouldn't the cleric's abilities be worth, oh, 35 to 40 or so?

As it stands, are you reconstructing core via a points system only, or headed somewhere else?

The assumption that I had to make was that the designers at WoTC thought that the core classes were essentially balanced. Thus, I designed this system to have each class be "worth" 20 points. I cut up each of the core classes (Hack, get it?!) abilities and assigned them a relative point value and went from there. And yes, while the Cleric has many more abilities and flashy features than the fighter, I'm not getting into the "Which class is cooler" debate here, heh. The second document, the spreadsheet, was there to show how I reconstructed the core classes using the Hack 'n' Patch system. This isn't supposed to be a system in which to ONLY tweak the core classes, but as a springboard for ideas of how to make interesting new classes from the pieces of the core classes.

Rickshaw: I would definitely second the Idea that spellcasting and such should cost more points, as per the general consensus according to the tier system.

I agree with you, that spellcasting is much more of a versatile class ability than say, having an animal companion, but as stated above, the assumption I had to make was that every core class could be effectively reassembled using the Hack 'n' Patch system.

Psiker: The Bonus Feats Section, i may have missed something but there appears to be no cost, so anyone can grab an animal companion free of charge if they please (please say i missed something)

No, you didn't miss anything. A lot of the feats that were listed are class abilities that didn't fit anywhere, or that I felt could be taken outside of a normal progression. Like an animal companion. The Druid and the Ranger shouldn't be the only ones on the planet (or wherever) to be able to bond with an animal. So, say a Fighter-type decides he wants a wolf as a sidekick, and takes the animal companion feat instead of Cleave.

Psiker: I decided to try it out anyway, and i came up with this abomination (i believe i followed your rules correctly):

Spoiler

Show

Base:
HD:d10
Alignment: Chaotic Good
3/4 BaB
Skills: 12 skills (Balance, Concentration, Spot, Perform(), Autohypnosis, Spellcraft, Use Magic device, Knowledge(Nature, Local, Religion, Arcana, Dungeoneering) )
Skills Per level: 4 + Int. mod (x4 at first level)
Proficiency: All simple weapons, Spiked Chain, Longbow, Falchion, Scimitar and Light Armor


Progressions:
2 Bardic Music
12 Spellcasting(Basic/Intermediate/Master)
1 Full Spell List Access
3 Spontaneous Casting(as Sorc)
1 Increased Spells Per Day(Master)

Bonus Feats:
Animal Companion

Conditionals:
-2 Bound Alignment:Chaotic Good
-1 Illiterate
-1 No Zero Level Spells
-1 Alignment Spell Restrictions

But what you get is a spontaneous caster that can cast any spell off his list(i assume spontaneous was allowed to pick it), has an animal companion as the druid and can buff with the bard music (dragon fire shenanigans)

His Skills being cherry picked allow for some knowledge devotion use along with easy stabilization via autohypnosis

If it pleases him, he can even head in relatively tow to tow in melee with a d10 HD and 3/4 BaB.

While his Saves are miserable (cant have everything i guess) his spellcasting will likely aid him in that weakness.

Its likely not the strongest thing you can make using your point buys, but its above average compared to alot of classes.

At a quick look-over, that all seems to work out. And yes, using the Hack 'n' Patch system will get you significantly increased class powers. The idea was to toss out multiclassing or making a gestalt character and build one that suits your exact playing style. If you want a character that can hang out on the front lines and toss out the occasional maxed out fireball, then by all means, do so!
With multiclassing, you sacrifice one class to take abillities of another, and you can't do that, according to RAW with the monk or paladin.
With gestalt characters, you have the abilities of 2 full classes and the HD of only one to back it up. Depending on the abilities of the DM, and the class combinations of the players, you could totally walk over CR's of 3-4 levels higher in some cases (and we did on several occasions) and then get your butts handed to you on a CR equal to your level, because the monster had SR, or something like that.
With building a class with any kind of abilities you want, and using 20 points, it should be easy for the DM to figure out a suitable challenge for the group, and the group should feel adequately challenged by a CR of their level.

Psiker: I think the wording on the conditionals could be a little clearer as well, as i have no idea how many points i get for the reduced skill one.

Ah, yes, I will work on that. Basically, if you pay for a higher number of skills, but don't use them all, you get more points back for having not used all of the available skills. Seemed redundant, but necessary for balance issues.

Psiker: An additional condition for magic could be to make spellcasting work off two stats (like the Spirit Shaman/Favored Soul)

We had looked over a lot of the non-core classes, and settled on trying to adapt this system using only core class progressions and abilities. For now. I have started working on non-core class abilities and progressions as well as psionics, which will be in the next "edition."

Welknar: Uhh... Shouldn't this go in Homebrew Design?

Um, good point. It probably should have. Oops!

maysarahs: I believe that this system reflects the original 3.5 class design system. I have no evidence of this, but I find the trends are very much the same (Monk ends up being OVER the 20 point limit despite being the weakest core class, Sorcerer and Wizard are tied for build points even though sorcerer has no class features (other than spells))

All in all this is a VERY cool system, but I think that currently it is more a recreation of "how to build 3.5 classes in a freeform system" than a "balanced set of tools to put together a custom class"

Essentially, yes, you are correct. This isn't a system with any sort of original parts. I took the core classes, and cut them to pieces, then gave a system or guidelines in which to put the pieces back together in a drastically different design. Again, I was operating under the assumption that all of the core classes were meant to be balanced (again, I don't want to start the "Which class is the coolest" argument) and assigned relative point values to each progression, ability, etc. Thus, while it may not seem fair or balanced that you could essentially have a character that could cast spells like a Sorcerer AND be able to survive on the front lines of a battle, it is possible to do so using this system.


I appreciate everyone (so far!) who has taken the time to look over my work and provide feedback. Keep it coming! I will submit changes and updates as needed, and as they are completed. Thanks again!

[mikebuffan]

Shameless :bump:

[eggs]

If the Monk and Druid cost the same number of points to create, I really don't know what use the system could be.

It's not creating a balanced ruleset for multiclassing or concept-crossing - it just adds another layer of numeric values to obfuscate a DM's assessment of balance in class feature substitutions.

[mikebuffan]

If the Monk and Druid cost the same number of points to create, I really don't know what use the system could be.

It's not creating a balanced ruleset for multiclassing or concept-crossing - it just adds another layer of numeric values to obfuscate a DM's assessment of balance in class feature substitutions.

While I respect your opinion in this matter, I must disagree. Surprise, right?
The point of this system is to provide a subjective point value to class abilities as an alternative to multiclassing or gestalt. Ideally, which is why I'm asking for validation here, a class patched together using this system should be, more or less, on equal footing (and power scale) to any of the core classes. Ultimately, this should assist the DM's assessment of balance for each class created, and plan accordingly.
For our group, gestalt was a grand idea, but in practice, required many additional hours of planning and testing by the DM to make sure that a challenge was appropriately balanced. Multiclassing, while more balanced than gestalt, held far less appeal to the players of the group because you had to sacrifice (usually) the base class features in order to advance the secondary class features.
So, I took it upon myself to come up with a solution that would please everyone in our group (and hopefully many others of you out there) with ease of use, and the ability to choose which class features any given character was going to use. I found, several years ago, UberGenerics created by Crave and his friends, and was impressed with the idea, but sadly, it was abandoned, and as life goes, I forgot about the whole thing. Then, again more recently, we got another game going, and the exact same issues occurred as before, and again, I looked up any progress on the UberGenerics, and found additional work, and near completion, by glenn frog knight. Sadly, he also abandoned the project as un-winnable. So, I adapted their design, spent many hours tweaking and honing the idea and the numbers in order to make it a nice shiny whole.
That is my rant.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Full Spell List Access

One Point

You gain the ability to prepare and cast any spell on your spell list provided you are able to cast spells of that level (as the Cleric).

Unlimited Spells Known

Three points

You may add any number of additional spells to your spell list (in game) as you encounter or research them (as per Wizard).

Why is the latter more expensive than the former?

[mikebuffan]

Why is the latter more expensive than the former?

The reason being that the latter (Unlimited spells known) is more expensive than the former (Full spell list access) is this:
The Unlimited spells known ability grants you the ability to acquire new spells to put on your spell list the same way that a Wizard does. Effectively, you have access to every spell (eventually) and your spell list has the possibility of becoming HUGE.
The Full spell list access, on the other hand, is the way that Divine casters use their spell list, Like the Cleric, for example, When you gain a new level (or spell casting ability) you immediately "know" all of the spells on your spell list. This is, I thought, less powerful than being able to acquire every spell on the face of your planet, heh.
Make sense?

[Fable Wright]

The reason being that the latter (Unlimited spells known) is more expensive than the former (Full spell list access) is this:
The Unlimited spells known ability grants you the ability to acquire new spells to put on your spell list the same way that a Wizard does. Effectively, you have access to every spell (eventually) and your spell list has the possibility of becoming HUGE.
The Full spell list access, on the other hand, is the way that Divine casters use their spell list, Like the Cleric, for example, When you gain a new level (or spell casting ability) you immediately "know" all of the spells on your spell list. This is, I thought, less powerful than being able to acquire every spell on the face of your planet, heh.
Make sense?

You should probably make that clearer, then... Wizards can only add spells from the Wizard spell list to their spellbooks. Archivists, on the other hand, can add all Divine spells to their spellbooks, and Spell to Power Erudite can add all the spells (and powers) to their equivalent of a spellbook!

[Amoren]

You appear to have missed Uncanny Dodge and Street Urchin (whatever that is). Uncanny Dodge is more notable, but Street Urchin only appears because its mentioned in the Master Thief package.

By the way, I really like the interplay between Master Thief and the skill pools for rogue types. Although I think you should probably offer a reduced progression for sneak attack at different point costs (one for 1/4/7/10/13/16/19, and perhaps another for 1/5/10/15/20). Not sure if that'd balance out at all, although the former is more common than the latter.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The reason being that the latter (Unlimited spells known) is more expensive than the former (Full spell list access) is this:
The Unlimited spells known ability grants you the ability to acquire new spells to put on your spell list the same way that a Wizard does. Effectively, you have access to every spell (eventually) and your spell list has the possibility of becoming HUGE.
The Full spell list access, on the other hand, is the way that Divine casters use their spell list, Like the Cleric, for example, When you gain a new level (or spell casting ability) you immediately "know" all of the spells on your spell list. This is, I thought, less powerful than being able to acquire every spell on the face of your planet, heh.
Make sense?

Ooooh, my bad. I just read "as per Wizard" and thought it worked exactly as the wizard does (where you still have a spell list you're restricted to in addition to having to maintain a spellbook).


Anyway I'm gonna echo the opinion of the other posters here: I understand the intention behind making all of the original classes full 20-point builds, but this would be a lot more useful as a variant ruleset if options better reflected their actual worth to a character.

[Larkas]

I understand the intent of the OP, but to be honest, it is not so useful in making new balanced classes because the base, original classes are not balanced between themselves at all. That said, I don't want to spoil his efforts, it is a really noble intent.

I would also like to point out that a system to (theoretically) create balanced classes and balance existing classes already exists, and is laid out in BESM d20. Here is the introduction to that system, present in the core rulebook, page 32:

THE PROBLEM

Although some d20 System advocates may disagree, we do not believe that the standard fantasy classes are balanced well. In particular, the spellcasting classes are more powerful and versatile than the others. That's not to say that a Fighter or Rogue can't take down a Wizard of the same Level in specific circumstances. Indeed, in their respective areas of expertise, the classes have their own unique advantages. When examining the entire range of character activity, though, spellcasters clearly have the upper hand.

THE SOLUTION

We needed to assign every talent, effect, and power listed in the class Level progressions a Character Point value before we could balance the classes. By comparing the class abilities with Attributes that exhibit similar effects, we could better understand the relative power levels of each class. Over 20 Levels, the more powerful classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.) were on par with the new BESM d20 classes. For the other classes, additional Character Points were built into their progression to increase their breadth and depth and achieve balance.

I'm pretty sure that's available as a SRD somewhere, but as I can't find it, I won't transcribe more than that. Anyways, let's not shoot down this new system just because we don't agree with its base assumptions. The intent is very noble, and might make for an interesting checklist for homebrewed base classes, if nothing else.