Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 125
  1. #21
    Site Moderator Ariadne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    near Frankfurt/ Germany
    Posts
    801
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Krow
    Let's look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier for strength alone.
    As Keovar and Peter already pointed out, a 20 in an ability only gives +5, not +8.


    In 3rd Edition you must have good abilities, if you want to have any chance to fight anything apart from goblins, humans or halflings without using magic.

    Most don't even role their abilities, but I hate this point buy system. May be, that a 16 to 18 is rare to very rare with this system and it is balanced, but it steals the kick creating the character. Further it is common to create “Baldurs Gate-Characters”, what means, a fighter has Str and Con 18 (unmodified by race), but Wis, Cha and Int 7.

    That's why I could live with a rolled 8, if I must, but to "puzzle" it (if you like to have acceptable abilities), is awful.

    Err, how do you mention the Bloodline (ability) creation without rolling? I'm not sure, that anybody can be glad with it...
    May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!

  2. #22
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Peter, in that very lengthy post of yours, you make lots of references to the fact that you think 3e isn't a good game, that it has "inherited numerous flaws," etc etc - yet, I don't see much backup for it at all.

    Remember, when debating the systems, your _house rules_ are _irrelevant_ - such as your reference to your allowing giants to carry more than the tables indicated in previous editions. If you're saying that 1e or 2e is somehow better than 3e, then applying a house rule to show why, your argument doesn't stick very well together. What you're really doing isn't comparing 3 to 1/2e, but comparing it to your own homebrew, which you will inevitably like better, since you made it yourself.

    3e uses the same mechanics pretty consistently - thus, it _is_ more internally coherent throughout, even though there are definitely relics and sacred cows from previous editions. A system where you roll 1d6/1d10 for initiative, 1d20 (low) for proficiencies, 1d% (low) for thief skills, and 1d20 (high) for saves and attack rolls does not seem very consistent or elegant, now, does it?

    So, (ahem) where does the human range start on each chart? And where
    does it (the normal human range) end? ---- see the point yet? ---
    and; Q. did you actually read my earlier post? apples and oranges etc.
    What point? The normal human range is still 3-18. I don't really quite see what point you're referring to, or trying to make. "apples and oranges etc." Fine, a typical obscurement device for dodging the actual issue - does the 3e system for ability scores work better and easier than 2e/1e (barring any of your favored house rules)?

    Some elaboration on your grievances would be better than all this hyperbole.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  3. #23
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 01:24 AM 11/10/2002 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

    > In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair
    > than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).
    >
    >`Balanced` .. oh, don`t even start with that -- the one thing
    >that 3e is most definitely worse than all previous D&D systems at is
    >`balanced`. Again, though - why? - why do you need balance? - it`s not a
    >competition.

    I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous editions, though
    the distinction is probably rather vague. If nothing else 3e has some
    systems of charts for the value of equipment, sets of "standard" stat
    blocks and defines class abilities and feats where previous editions had
    nothing like that to use as a basis for comparison. A careful examination
    of those factors shows how 3e isn`t balanced, but there is at least some
    basis for analysis. To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
    had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
    abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
    rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
    game based on that. Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
    product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
    imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
    "sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
    abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.

    As for why one would want balance there are two major reasons. First, many
    people want a set of balanced characters so each member of the party
    represents an equitable portion of the group. That way no one player has a
    more significant role during play based on his PC`s stats. Second, having
    a system of balanced characters allows the DM to rate numerically the
    relative power of the party, which he can use to design adventures. 3e
    came up with such a system in their CR/ECL/EL system. While there are
    certainly flaws in that system it`s much more consistent than anything that
    existed in previous editions.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  4. #24
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    In 3rd Edition you must have good abilities, if you want to have any chance to fight anything apart from goblins, humans or halflings without using magic.
    Actually, that's not true. If anything, characters should be able to get by with lower scores in 3e than previous editions. In 1e and 2e, abilities didn't really matter until they hit 15 or so, which was statistically rare, with the ability generation method used. In 3e, bonuses come in at significantly lower scores, especially considering that the standard now is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired, not straight 3d6. What this means is simply that characters doesn't need supremely high ability scores to get some bonuses. I hope people eventually come to terms with this; one of the legacies of 1e and 2e seems to be the 18/18/17/16/16/10 complex. In 3e, though, certain classes benefit more from higher scores - i.e. monks and paladins become more powerful as classes with a more generous ability score distribution method, whereas fighters and rogues, that depend on fewer ability scores, tend to not gain as much.

    3e is generally balanced around an average ability score of 12 or so; if you use higher average scores than that, it can be cause for some EL adjustments; i.e. fighting certain monsters becomes a heckuva lot easier if your scores are 16 across the board.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous editions, though
    the distinction is probably rather vague. If nothing else 3e has some
    systems of charts for the value of equipment, sets of "standard" stat
    blocks and defines class abilities and feats where previous editions had
    nothing like that to use as a basis for comparison. A careful examination
    of those factors shows how 3e isn`t balanced, but there is at least some
    basis for analysis. To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
    had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
    abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
    rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
    game based on that. Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
    product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
    imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
    "sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
    abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.
    Overall, again, I'd like to see more specific grievances. Looking at the last part of your statement, and knowing your thinking from previous posts, I'd say it seems that at least the rogue class skill part represents more of a playing style issue than a balance issue with the game itself. Classes are definitely at different power levels depending on the campaign style; if you play a game where skills play a significant role, then rogues and bards will be more powerful. If you play a game where ability scores are high, rangers, paladins, and monks will be stronger. If you play a game where the level of magic items distributed is low, wizards, sorcerers, and other spellcasters will be more powerful. There's a pretty large list of considerations like this, very dependent on campaign style, and 3e by itself can't possibly be balanced for all of them. However, I do think that 3e has better potential for being adapted to different styles of play than previous editions did, exactly for reasons of the analytical tools you mention.

    CR and EL is also lightyears ahead of previous editions in terms of balancing encounters; one interesting point there is that previously, you had a sort of levelling-off effect at around 9th level, at which point most parties could theorethically face almost any challenge; the AC was capped, meaning that a fighter at that level would be able to almost always hit anything; monster hit points were low, meaning a single high-level spell could fell dragons; wizards were really the only class that continued to advance significantly in power in previous editions. Now, with hit points continuing to advance, and AC not being capped, high-level fighters are much more significant. Better balance between characters, at all levels.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  6. #26
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
    Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 1:07 PM

    > In 1e and 2e, abilities didn`t really matter until they hit 15 or so,
    > which was statistically rare. [...] What this means is simply that
    > characters doesn`t need supremely high ability scores to get some
    > bonuses.

    In addition, feats can be used to mimic higher ability scores to some
    extent. Dodge nicely reflects a +2 Dex bonus in some situations, Lightning
    Reflexes the same in others. Every four levels, you get a bonus to ability
    score, so a charter who starts out with a 15 in a key ability can get that
    to 18 by 12th level.

    Between getting bonuses starting at 12, having feats mimic higher ability
    scores, and being able to get higher ability scores with experience, high
    ability scores is no where near the kind of all or nothing advantage it was
    back in the 1st and 2nd ed.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  7. #27
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 08:19 PM 11/9/2002 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

    >
    I`d contend that 3e really is more balanced than previous
    > editions, though
    >the distinction is probably rather vague. If nothing else 3e has some
    >systems of charts for the value of equipment, sets of "standard" stat
    >blocks and defines class abilities and feats where previous editions had
    >nothing like that to use as a basis for comparison. A careful examination
    >of those factors shows how 3e isn`t balanced, but there is at least some
    >basis for analysis. To do a similar comparison in a previous edition one
    >had to come up with the charts, standards and definitions for class
    >abilities first (a la S&P--but with some sort of legitimate point values
    >rather than the ones used in that text) then examine the inequities of the
    >game based on that. Most of those inequities, incidentally, are the
    >product of pre-D20 thinking in developing 3e. If you take a look at the
    >imbalanced aspects of 3e they usually come from the portrayal of a 2e or 1e
    >"sacred cow" into 3e. The magic system, ranger`s 1st level class
    >abilities, the rogue`s skill points are probably the most glaring examples.
    >
    >
    >Overall, again, I`d like to see more specific grievances. Looking at the
    >last part of your statement, and knowing your thinking from previous
    >posts, I`d say it seems that at least the rogue class skill part
    >represents more of a playing style issue than a balance issue with the
    >game itself. Classes are definitely at different power levels depending on
    >the campaign style; if you play a game where skills play a significant
    >role, then rogues and bards will be more powerful.

    Sure, but in designing a system of game rules we have to assume that play
    style is a neutral factor and design game mechanics with an attempt at
    making overall features of the system as generalized as is practicable. My
    house rules, for example, include an entirely reworked skill system that is
    much more balanced than the 3e skill system. (It`s a much more logical,
    intelligently articulated, and versatile system too. I know that sounds
    like quite a boast, but I`ve put a lot of effort into it--and to be blunt
    the 3e skill system is really a first try at such a system of skills for
    D&D and it has many faults. It`s a quantum improvement from NWPs, and
    provided and excellent base point for my house rules, but it has a lot of
    problems.) However, even after having rewritten the skill system I
    wouldn`t say I run a particularly skill-centered game. Skill checks are
    probably less common than initiative checks when I DM. Well, maybe not
    quite.... My point, though, is that a balanced system is still possible
    (and is a good goal) despite play style.

    As for the specific imbalancing factor of the rogue`s skill points; let`s
    look at it this way. There are three main features of character class each
    of which is comprised of several subfeatures; combat abilities (as
    reflected by BAB progression, HD, saving throw progressions and access to
    armor/weapons), special abilities (including optional feats and
    spellcasting) and last but not least skills (a combination of skill
    points/level and access to particular skills as class skills.) So let`s
    compare the class with the greatest access to fighting abilities (fighters)
    with that of the class with the least (wizards.) The following table isn`t
    going to show up well on the birthright.net message boards, and I`m not
    going to go to the trouble of rewriting it in HTML, but if someone feels
    ambitious that`d be cool....

    Ftr to Wiz
    Fighter Wizard ratio
    BAB 1-20 1-10 50%
    HD d10 d4 40%
    Saves 1 fast 1 fast 100%
    Armor 10 0 0%
    Weapons All Smple 50-70%
    OVERALL 48-52%

    The ratios for BAB and HD are pretty much simple math. Ability score
    modifiers, of course, can improve or penalize such progressions, but we`re
    talking about class features here so we shouldn`t include such
    variables. Saving throws is a bit debatable since one could argue the fast
    Fortitude save progression is more useful in relationship to a fast Will
    save progression or vice versa, but I think that pretty well balances them
    out. (IMO Reflex saves are the most useful in general gaming terms, but
    let`s not worry about that for now.) Access to armor is similarly
    debatable since there are conditions on armor that modify dexterity bonuses
    and the wizard _can_ wear armor--just with serious penalties to his
    abilities and class abilities. Even with such factors taken into
    consideration, however, the ratio of access to armor for fighters and
    wizards is still 100/0. Access to weapons is basically decided by
    determining the "average" damage of the weapons that the particular class
    is most likely to employ. Fighters generally wield weapons that do a
    maximum, unmodified damage of 8-12 and have better critical threat/damage
    ranges, so I assign a value of 8 to that [6 for the "average" damage of d8
    and d12 or 2d6 weapons (it`s really between 5.5 and 6 but I`ll round up for
    these purposes) and +2 for their greater critical threat/damage.] Wizards
    have access to weapons that do 6-8 damage (a heavy crossbow does d10
    damage, of course, and has a critical of 19-20 but it`s rate of fire
    reduces its value somewhat, so I`m excluding it from this evaluation) and
    with the exception of crossbows and daggers have the normal x2 critical
    damage rating. That gives them an overall weapon rating of 4.5 (Daggers,
    of course, have an increased critical threat range, but their d4 damage
    isn`t really enough to influence this rating IMO.) That comes out to
    56.25% but there are more than a few assumptions made to come up with that
    assessment, hence 50-70% in the assessment above. You could tweak these
    numbers here and there, and I encourage anyone with the inclination to do
    so and post them for discussion purposes, but I`m pretty sure most tweaking
    will wind up give results pretty near to the assessment above. Overall
    that makes the class with the best access to combat related character class
    factors about twice that of the class with the least access to the same
    factors.

    The above assessment also assumes that all the relative subfeatures of
    character classes are equal to one another. Just like in the particular
    class features one could debate the relative value of the fastest BAB
    progression with that of access to armor or weapons, HD vs. saving throws,
    etc. In practice, however, I think we`d still wind up with a variation of
    about 2:1. It could easily wind up being more like 5:2 or so depending on
    how much value you want to place on a particular subfeature. Again,
    however, those are debatable conclusions and another person could easily
    make the opposite assessment, so I`m going to go ahead and work with all
    the above factors being roughly equal to one another.

    OK, so having described that particular aspect of the character class
    system, let`s take a look at the skill system feature by comparing the
    character class with the greatest access to the skill system (rogues) with
    that of the class with the least access (sorcerers.)

    Rog to Sor
    Rogue Sorcerer ratio
    Skill Pts 8 2 25%
    Class skills 31 7 22.5%
    OVERALL 23.75%

    The ratio of skill points is, again, pretty straight forward
    math. Intelligence is a factor, but since we`re looking at class features
    by themselves we shouldn`t include that modifier. As for class skills
    that`s straight math, but it`s debatable how useful certain skills are in
    comparison to others. The rogue`s access to Read Lips (in fact his
    exclusive access to that skill in 3e) is certainly not as significant as
    the sorcerer`s access to Spellcraft or Concentration. One could also
    debate the relationship between a class skill`s relative value and its key
    ability in that class skills with key abilities that aren`t particularly
    significant for the class in question are of less value. Sorcerers are
    particularly short changed in this regard having no class skills based on
    their most significant ability score; charisma. As before I`m going to go
    ahead and assume that the particulars here roughly equal out. Untrained
    skills are not included as a factor even though all character classes get
    access to them at effectively rank 0. In my experience such access to the
    skill system isn`t particularly significant during play. YMMV. I`ve not
    accounted for skills excluded to the classes because there are 2 or 3 for
    either class and excluding a skill or two isn`t really that significant an
    influence on the skill system IMO. (There should be no such thing as
    excluded skills, but that`s another issue.)

    So overall, the rogue`s access to the skill system represents something
    like 4 times that of the sorcerer. Twice as drastic a difference as that
    of the most effective fighting class in comparison to the least effective
    fighting class.

    When it comes to other specific issues... well, the continuation of the
    1e/2e magic system into 3e is just whacked. Spellcasting ability
    represents essentially a variable 1/day special ability, and the speed with
    which spells power up (most notably from 2nd to 3rd level spells) is highly
    imbalanced. If you assign some sort of realistic point value to those
    spell effects, plus take into consideration that they can be changed based
    on a wide range of spells then they become very significant indeed. I`ll
    not reproduce the table I came up for assessing those values since it`s
    rather a long one....

    When it comes to the ranger`s class abilities that`s a rather well-covered
    area, so I don`t think we should bore anyone with it. Let`s just say that
    the systems I`ve seen for assessing class features show that the ranger`s 3
    class abilities at 1st level make that character class highly
    imbalanced--even the point systems that appear to have been designed
    intentionally to balance the character classes against one another.

    Another interesting imbalanced class feature is the ability of paladin`s to
    attract a warhorse. If one uses the expanded lists of such mounts in DotF
    then you can get some very imbalanced results. The relative power of
    various feats is also something that I think should be
    revised--particularly in regards to the aforementioned paladin. As a
    player in one campaign I created such a character who--by taking the
    leadership feat and a sorcerer level--had a dire wolf as a mount, a 6th
    level cohort and a falcon familiar with more hp than the party`s rogue. I
    controlled more than half the characters in the marching order. Of course,
    the DM could have stepped in and not allowed the dire wolf mount or the
    Leadership feat pretty easily--and I wouldn`t have blamed him a bit--but
    that`s still an example of a pretty imbalanced situation that is within the
    current 3e system without any particular effort at min/maxing those rules.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
    Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:30 PM

    > IMO Reflex saves are the most useful in general gaming terms

    That`s interesting. In BR, I certainly use Willpower the most, may three
    times as often as the others. This may have something to do with the fact
    that I can`t rember the last time I used a trap, and a great deal of action
    takes place at court. Most of the spells thrown back and forth are of the
    mind control variety.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  9. #29
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The ratios for BAB and HD are pretty much simple math.
    Not a bad analysis, but it seems to be missing one crucial point in terms of assigning ratios; if we take the way you look at BAB - wizards at +10 and fighters at +20 - that is not a 100% difference - it is, in fact, a much greater difference. Consider that a lot of monsters are balanced with a fighter BAB in mind - if they weren't, fighters would generally hit everything too easily.

    Let's say the fighter can hit a creature on a 6 or higher with his initial attack. That means a fighter has a 75% chance to hit. The wizard has a 25% chance to hit with his first attack; the fighter will hit three times as often. With the second attack, the fighter will hit in 50% of all cases, or ten times as often as the wizard, at 5%. The fighter also has a third and fourth attack, at 25% and 5%. Overall, the fighter will land at least four times as many blows as the wizard; this is simply considering BAB, not all other types of bonuses that accrue over the levels.

    My point is simply that you need to consider the ratios within the range of the chance to hit on a d20, not as simple values divorced from the actual playing of the game. The point of this is that the gap between a fighter's BAB and a wizard's is more than comparable to the gap between a rogue's skill points and a sorcerer's; the wizard's combat skill is likely to be all but useless at any time the fighter is challenged to make a hit, which can happen often, particularly with "boss monsters."

    It may also be of some interest for you to point out that classes were designed partially around a "die size" philosophy - fighters use d10, barbarians use d12, clerics use d8, etc. The generally most advantageous fighter-type to play is the sword/shield/heavy armor type - using an exotic weapon proficiency to use a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe; a barbarian is generally best suited to using big weapons, like greataxes - the extra strength bonus comes out best in that case.

    Intelligence is a factor, but since we`re looking at class features
    by themselves we shouldn`t include that modifier.
    Actually, you should. Wizards use intelligence as their prime ability, and thus will likely have a skill point or three up on other classes with 2 basic skill points. For the rogue, Int is probably the #2 most important ability after Dex. This is really a great example of the fact that you can't complete an analysis without also examining the whole situation; wizards are head and shoulder above other 2+Int classes for that simple reason; bards will likely have the best social skills in any party, due to their high charisma combined with skill points.

    [Oh yes, and one of my own house rules is actually to give sorcerers bluff, diplomacy and intimidate as class skills. No system is perfect, but I wouldn't really mix my own little modifications into a debate about the system itself.]

    Another interesting imbalanced class feature is the ability of paladin`s to
    attract a warhorse. If one uses the expanded lists of such mounts in DotF
    then you can get some very imbalanced results. The relative power of
    various feats is also something that I think should be
    revised--particularly in regards to the aforementioned paladin. As a
    player in one campaign I created such a character who--by taking the
    leadership feat and a sorcerer level--had a dire wolf as a mount, a 6th
    level cohort and a falcon familiar with more hp than the party`s rogue. I
    controlled more than half the characters in the marching order. Of course,
    the DM could have stepped in and not allowed the dire wolf mount or the
    Leadership feat pretty easily--and I wouldn`t have blamed him a bit--but
    that`s still an example of a pretty imbalanced situation that is within the
    current 3e system without any particular effort at min/maxing those rules.
    Oh, what you're saying here is basically not that the warhorse ability is imbalanced by itself - but that it was made imbalanced by using a variant rule from an accessory, namely the dire wolf. This, frankly, is the greatest source of imbalances in 3e - the problem is similar to one that was endemic in 2e, but less so now - namely that each product does not necessarily consider all the possible constellations that are possible by using all other products. I.e. by combining feats, spells, and prestige classes from many different sources, the end result will most definitely break the game balance. This isn't as bad a problem in 3e as it was before, though, due to the greater transparency of the rules modules; the previous way gave far less overall transparency to this.

    The character example you're using is somewhat similar to one I designed myself - a conjurer with the leadership feat; basically a "beastmaster" character. I don't really think that the character type you're mentioning is imbalanced by itself, though. By taking a multiclass level to add the familiar to the cohort/warmount mix, you're significantly nerfing your combat abilities - an effective -1 to hit and -3 hp may not sound like that much, but it really is; see my earlier point about d20 probabilities. Controlling half the characters in the marching order isn't so bad, really - though it depends on just how strong those characters are, compared to the regular party members. I.e. was the cohort given NPC equipment, and no more? If so, a PC of the same level should be quite a bit more powerful. And in 3e, a single powerful character is probably more generally useful than many less powerful ones; i.e. if each of your pets operated at 60-75% of the efficiency of any given party member, I'd considered that fairly balanced, actually, since you'd taken some sacrifices (a level and a feat) to acquire it all, thus somewhat reducing the actual efficiency of your own character (say 90%).

    Personally, though, I'd make the "variant special mount" rule require a feat, similar to "improved familiar," unless the mount was strictly fairly mechanically balanced with the standard mounts permissible to paladins (within a 10-20% margin). That, again, is in the realm of house rules, and not debating the rules as they are, but the rule in question is a variant anyway.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 01:19 AM 11/10/2002 +0100, Mark_Aurel wrote:

    >
    Intelligence is a factor, but since we`re looking at class features
    >by themselves we shouldn`t include that modifier.
    >
    >Actually, you should. Wizards use intelligence as their prime ability, and
    >thus will likely have a skill point or three up on other classes with 2
    >basic skill points. For the rogue, Int is probably the #2 most important
    >ability after Dex. This is really a great example of the fact that you
    >can`t complete an analysis without also examining the whole situation;
    >wizards are head and shoulder above other 2+Int classes for that simple
    >reason; bards will likely have the best social skills in any party, due to
    >their high charisma combined with skill points.

    Ability scores are always variables, though. Sure, character classes
    emphasize particular scores, but if you include such modifiers into a
    system of class abilities it winds up obscuring the values of those
    abilities rather than accurately reflecting the relative power of
    them. What makes more sense in my experience is to come up with values for
    various ability score points spent on "standard arrays" of ability scores
    and then assess the ECL effects based on that. At 5th level, for instance,
    a character with a 12 constitution score has, essentially, +1 HD more than
    another character with d8 or d10 hit dice. A 12 strength equates to +1
    BAB, 12 intelligence to +1 skill point, etc. If one assesses the values of
    ability scores separately from class features then one can assign a similar
    value to them without interfering with the assessment of the class features.

    I`ve several tables that show such values in Excel spreadsheets. If anyone
    would care to see them email me directly at geeman@softhome.net and I`ll
    send them along.

    >[Oh yes, and one of my own house rules is actually to give sorcerers
    >bluff, diplomacy and intimidate as class skills. No system is perfect, but
    >I wouldn`t really mix my own little modifications into a debate about the
    >system itself.]

    I couldn`t agree with you more on this one. Those should definitely be
    class abilities for sorcerers. It`s a nice quick fix. Boosting the
    minimum number of skill points for each class up from 2 to 4 is also
    sensible in many cases. I also have spreadsheets illustrating this issue....

    >Oh, what you`re saying here is basically not that the warhorse ability is
    >imbalanced by itself - but that it was made imbalanced by using a variant
    >rule from an accessory, namely the dire wolf.

    It`s imbalanced all by itself in comparison to other class abilities. The
    imbalance is more obvious given the optional rules from the accessory, but
    just the class ability by itself is significantly better than most other
    class abilities.

    >Personally, though, I`d make the "variant special mount" rule require a
    >feat, similar to "improved familiar," unless the mount was strictly
    >fairly mechanically balanced with the standard mounts permissible to
    >paladins (within a 10-20% margin).

    That`s sensible in the context of the rest of the 3e
    feats/system. Personally, I`m leaning towards a more universal system of
    followers based on a reputation/leadership score. A paladin would have an
    advantage in this area since it`s part of one of his more important ability
    scores. Characters could then "spend" those points to create cohorts,
    mounts, familiars, etc. as an overall class feature rather than making it
    part of the special ability/feat aspect of character class. This would
    have a lot more BR significance too since it would relate pretty strongly
    to the role of the domain/LTs, etc.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.