I say hello to this awesome community, and go straight to the point.
I'm thinking about a way to give a value to stats, abilities, skills, basically evertyting possible.
There are already plenty of "point-buy class" threads, but while my idea could be helpful to give some balance to homebrew classes (and by the way I'm trying to make some, I'll post about them sooner or later), I'm trying to start from a different point of view.
My foundation will be feats. Why? Because there are a lot, doing many different things other abilities can somehow be related to, and they basically all have the same cost. In general, I'll try to assume that even choices given by Paizo will be balanced (though we all know they are not, at least not always), so I'll start by saying that every feat is worth is worth 60 points (I chose this number because of divisibility matters).
Consequently, a trait is worth 30 points.
Let's come to the first question. How much are skill points and HP worth? They are worth the same because of favoured class bonus.
One HP per level is worth 60 because it's similar to the Toughness feat (besides the fact that Toughness is better at levels 1 and 2), but how much should be a flat max HP bonus be valued? How many HP would be enough to spend a feat for?
It varies with level, so let's say at level 1 (to give a price to the starting full hit die). I think I could spend a feat for 5 or 6 HP. What do you think?
I had already read that (and other similar systems too), and found it nice but... not what I'm trying to do.
I find that these systems, generally, try to assign costs in a way that makes existing classes more or less balanced. I'm not interested in this: if I conclude that the Fighter has 40 feats worth of abilities and the Wizard has 70, that's fine. I won't be creating classes with point-buy, I want to see if the system I have in mind can make sense. Then, if it can help me compare some abilities to others, good; if not, well it was fun.
So, I'd ask you guys to please help me by discussing the points I'll make, without trying to change my approach.
How many HP should a feat give to make it worth taking at level 1, in your opinion?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have the same opinion about this as I do for homebrew point-buy class system. It's a lot of work for very little value. You cannot accurately place a numeric value on every option and ability in the entire game. Game design doesn't work that way. Classes are not balanced around point values, anyway. They're balanced around opportunity costs. Even if you somehow manage to place a value on everything, it won't be useful for homebrewing classes -- which is the entire point of the system in the first place.
A better approach would be creating "templates" or "frameworks" based on existing classes. This would eliminate one of the common problems I see in homebrew classes where people do weird things like having a non-spellcasting combat class with a 3/4 BAB or a full BAB class that can cast 6th level spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'd ask you guys to please help me by discussing the points I'll make, without trying to change my approach.
That's not how Internet discussions, work, I'm afraid.
The consensus of the opinions seems to be that this is a rather underwhelming idea (an opinion I share, by the way) and I see no reason to try to make this a less-bad bad idea instead of replacing it ab initio with a good one.
Ok let me see if I get this right.
Feats are worth 60 points.
HP are also worth 60 points because Toughness gives you an HP a level.
Because you have the option of an extra HP or skill point as favored class option, that makes skill points also worth 60 points.
So a skill point is worth as much as a feat and worth twice as much as a trait?
What kinda common core tomfoolery are you trying to sell me here?
No, one HP per level is worth a feat (there's a feat for that).
One skill point per level would be worth the same.
What I'm trying to give value to, now, is a flat +1 HP (at level 1).
Well you get ten feats as a base for leveling up, one at each odd level. If feats are worth 60 a pop, then the 20 SP or HP for favored class bonus would be worth 30, right? That would make a single HP worth 1.5 points.
Though I can say that is only if everything has to balance out, and it doesn't take into account options that grant extra feats such as playing a fighter or a human.
I think Cyrad probably has it right. You're not going to accurately be able to apply point values. Tabletop gaming is more art then science in my opinion.
This is a colassal undertaking for nothing. Best to play the game as designed or run GURPS.
Not a bad idea if you want to run a more GURPS-like game, but you may find that not all feats, traits, skills, etc. are created equal so your system may break down some if you try to make all of these features equal each other. For example, if a feat is worth 60 points, and Toughness gives 1 hp per level, and is 1 hp is equal to 1 skill point then Skill Focus should give 1 skill point per level, but it doesn't. Personally, I believe that many traits are worth less than half a feat. Perception also tends to be a much more useful skill than Knowledge Nobility.
All I am trying to say is that not everything was built to have interchangeable values, so you may have to implement many small tweaks to make these features interchangeable. If you are willing to do that, then great; I would love to see a good point buy Pathfinder system, but it will be a lot of work to do.
I think that what I wrote misleads readers about what I'm up to.
I'm not going to make a point-buy system: I'm trying to give values to as much as possible to see if things can be reasonably compared to each other. I know I'm going to have to approximate a lot, and that I'll probably come to some incongruences sooner or later, but this thing has been pinging in my mind for a while now so I'll go on as long as it's fun.
Since not everything can be inferred with logic, I'm asking for help about some decisions I have to take, like: if there was a feat that gave a flat amount of HP, how many would it have to give to make it a (more or less) balanced option at level one?
I'm saying 5 or 6 because Toughness gives 3, and they grow later; and I think more than 6 would be just too much value added to a starting character.
@relativemass: I think that if Paizo had released a feat that gave skill points, it would give one per level. Skill Focus does a different thing because it increases one skill past its theoretical maximum: if it gave three skill points instead, you would have to spread them because you can't have more ranks than your level.
I think that what I wrote misleads readers about what I'm up to.
I'm not going to make a point-buy system: I'm trying to give values to as much as possible to see if things can be reasonably compared to each other.
You made that perfectly clear. My response is still the same. It's a lot of work for little to no payoff because abilities and statistics are not balanced by a point system. They're balanced by opportunity costs.
If you want to do it for fun, that's fine, but you're probably not going to finish. And going through all that work for a project that won't be finished and won't accomplish anything doesn't sound like a good time to me.
Even if you do manage to assign values to things that work well in one situation, they're not going to work in another. Giving a barbarian Spell Focus isn't going to help him as much as Power Attack. A level of fighter is much more use to a rogue than it is to a sorcerer. The aasimar paladin wants extra skill points more than the human bard does. Weapon Proficiency (light pick) is no use to anyone. And so on.
So unless you have an amazingly complicated nonlinear calculation, your comparison simply isn't going to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you do manage to assign values to things that work well in one situation, they're not going to work in another. Giving a barbarian Spell Focus isn't going to help him as much as Power Attack. A level of fighter is much more use to a rogue than it is to a sorcerer. The aasimar paladin wants extra skill points more than the human bard does. Weapon Proficiency (light pick) is no use to anyone. And so on.
So unless you have an amazingly complicated nonlinear calculation, your comparison simply isn't going to work.
The normal answer to that is to price the option according to the character that needs it most.
Not a problem, really.
The normal answer to that is to price the option according to the character that needs it most.
Not a problem, really.
It may not be a problem in theory, but it's going to be horrible in practice because the option space explodes so fast, even just using core. Taking the whole game, we have something like 40 classes, a couple of dozen prestige classes, hundreds of archetypes, thousands of feats, thousands of spells and thousands of magic items. This is big numbers, even for a supercomputer.
And then you get onto the question of what level you're talking about. Martials are OK or even good at low levels, but casters outclass them higher up. And some builds don't come online until mid-high levels (or may become obsolete then) so the value of even an optimal feat you took at 1ow level will change.
One might try the most simple case first, such as a 1st level core fighter against a 1st level core cleric. See how tractable that is, then move on.
EDIT: also dozens of races, multiple options for class features, effects of party structure and campaign, player competence, skills. And 3PP.
It may not be a problem in theory, but it's going to be horrible in practice because the option space explodes so fast, even just using core. Taking the whole game, we have something like 40 classes, a couple of dozen prestige classes, hundreds of archetypes, thousands of feats, thousands of spells and thousands of magic items. This is big numbers, even for a supercomputer.The normal answer to that is to price the option according to the character that needs it most.
Not a problem, really.
I'm not seeing how that has to do with your question or Orfamay's response.
I started doing exactly what you describe, down to rating abilities as Feat-Equivalent, but not dissecting feats into points.
Since d6 HD (and 1/2 BAB) is the basis, I assigned it 0 feats cost.
Since d8 HD (and 3/4 BAB) is 1 average hp and +1 BAB at 5 different levels above d6, I assigned it a 6 feat cost.
Since d10 HD (and full BAB) is 1 average hp and +1 BAB at 5 different levels above d8, I assigned it a 12 feat cost.
Since d12 HD (and full BAB) is 1 average hp above d10, I assigned it a 13 feat cost.
I priced out a few other abilities (and I can do a write-up if anyone is interested/curious), but I ran into a couple of problems.
1. Full BAB isn't worth as much to a full caster as it is to a non-caster.
2. Level offsets were hard to quantify. This was exacerbated by me not agreeing with how Pathfinder makes you suffer through painful levels waiting for your class to "get good."
3. A collection of high value abilities *felt* more valuable than a high level ability plus many lower level abilities.
I figured that it would be best to design the system around different costs and a different framework for d6, d8, and d10.
When there are literally millions of combinations (class(es)/race/archetypes/multiclass/stats) that provide a 'character', how does it makes sense to figure out which one 'needs it most'...for every feat and ability?I'm not seeing how that has to do with your question or Orfamay's response.It may not be a problem in theory, but it's going to be horrible in practice because the option space explodes so fast, even just using core. Taking the whole game, we have something like 40 classes, a couple of dozen prestige classes, hundreds of archetypes, thousands of feats, thousands of spells and thousands of magic items. This is big numbers, even for a supercomputer.The normal answer to that is to price the option according to the character that needs it most.
Not a problem, really.
Because when designing a character option, you almost always have in mind what kinds of characters would want it. Plus, options usually occupy a close-knit design space that make it easy to compare them. As a result, it's not as difficult as one might think to balance the value of an option despite the variety of character possibilities.
Keep in mind I'm not really defending the point system proposed by the OP. I'm just re-emphasizing Orfamay's point that it's a good idea to value an option based on its optimal conditions. I've seen homebrewers create absolutely ridiculously overpowered class abilities by justifying that it's only useful in a specific circumstance.
I started doing exactly what you describe, down to rating abilities as Feat-Equivalent, but not dissecting feats into points.
Since d6 HD (and 1/2 BAB) is the basis, I assigned it 0 feats cost.
Since d8 HD (and 3/4 BAB) is 1 average hp and +1 BAB at 5 different levels above d6, I assigned it a 6 feat cost.
I think I disagree with your math. You're basing this on 1 hp/level being Toughness, plus 5 levels of Weapon Focus (+1 attack), right?
The problem is, as you point out,
1. Full BAB isn't worth as much to a full caster as it is to a non-caster.
I would much rather play a wizard with six additional feats than a rogue, or even a magus.
Goodness, I'd rather play a wizard with six additional feats over a cleric. Because I wouldn't spend those feats on Weapon Focus.
When there are literally millions of combinations (class(es)/race/archetypes/multiclass/stats) that provide a 'character', how does it makes sense to figure out which one 'needs it most'...for every feat and ability?
The design space is mostly linear, so it's fairly easy to evaluate each dimension of variation separately.
As a simple example of the principle, imagine that (for whatever reason), I need a hundred thousand dollars in US coins, but I want them to weigh [in total] as little as possible. So for every coin I have the following options:
* Cent - 2.500 g
* Nickel - 5.000 g
* Dime - 2.268 g
* Quarter - 5.670 g
* Half Dollar - 11.340 g
* Golden Dollar Coin - 8.1 g
You can work out all of the options if you like. However, I can tell you at a glance that I simply want 100,000 golden dollars, weighing 810000g or 810 kg. (Interestingly, if you take the golden dollars off the table, the dimes, quarters, and half-dollars are all nearly equivalent. I don't need to compare all options to know that, either).
I would much rather play a wizard with six additional feats than a rogue, or even a magus.
Goodness, I'd rather play a wizard with six additional feats over a cleric. Because I wouldn't spend those feats on Weapon Focus.
You confused me at first when you wrote this until I realized you mean, "A Wizard with 6 extra feats is better than a Cleric with d10 HD and full BAB" and "A Wizard with 6 extra feats is better than a Wizard with d8 HD and 3/4 BAB" and so on.
Keep in mind, of course, that those 6 bonus feats for the Wizard would be stretched over 20 levels and in addition to the ones he already gets at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 (and also Scribe Scroll at 1). Recalculating this, the Wizard would get Scribe Scroll at first level and a bonus feat at every even level. Compare that with d8 (3/4), and Scribe Scroll + bonus feats at levels divisible by 5.
Still, I agree with you. A Wizard has more use for bonus feats than for d8 (3/4) HD.
I don't think that's remotely true.When there are literally millions of combinations (class(es)/race/archetypes/multiclass/stats) that provide a 'character', how does it makes sense to figure out which one 'needs it most'...for every feat and ability?The design space is mostly linear, so it's fairly easy to evaluate each dimension of variation separately.
<Shrug> You're wrong, but "think" as you see fit.
Ozy, you're overcomplicating things. As I said before, feats are designed with the best use case in mind. They don't need to be playtested with every race and class combination.