Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

The homebrew forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Username17 »

From the pages of Final Fantasy d20. People should do this for all game design:

Characters should not become better or worse by taking the same abilities in a different order. Furthermore, nothing a character gets should ever go back and invalidate a choice made earlier. The reasoning on this should be obvious. Simply, organic characters generally have more flavor and backstory than characters made whole at some arbitrary level - and they should not be inferior for it.

But on a practical standpoint, what does that really mean? It means that when you get to seventh level you should be at least as powerful as a character who is brought into the game at seventh level. Any ability you get at seventh level which you could have gotten at second level should be exactly the same now that you are 7th level. No ability should grow larger because you've had it longer, and no ability should be larger because you got it in the first place at a higher level. Furthermore, no ability should ever be available instead of getting a level. And perhaps most importantly of all - no high level ability should be strictly superior to a low level ability that you could have gotten earlier unless it requires that ability.

So, keeping that in mind, here are some examples of good and bad design:

Bad Design: Choose your Int Modifier in skills to gain a bonus in when you take this ability.
Good Design: Gain a bonus in one skill. Gain a bonus in all skills.

A character's Int Modifier will generally rise as their level increases. Thus, in the bad design system a character who put off gaining this ability would benefit more from it - and thus the inorganic character would be superior.

Bad Design:6th level ability: Reduce Miss Chance from Concealment by 20 percent. 17th level ability: Ignore all Miss chance from Concealment.
Good Design: The 17th level ability requires the 6th level ability.

The character didn't have to pick up a Miss Chance Reduction at 6th level, she could have gotten Improved Trip or something instead. Thus, a character who wanted to be accurate in the dark made whole at 17th level is simply going to have an extra ability at no cost vs. the Organic character. Unless, of course, the higher level ability requires the lower level one.

Bad Design: Gain 1 skill point every time you level from now on.
Good Design: Gain 1 skill point per level you have. Gain an additional skill point every time you level from now on.

Characters can gain that ability at many different levels - if there is a marked difference in total skill points - that's bad.

Bad Design: Gain your character level in bonus gold (or whatever) when you get this ability.
Good Design: Gain your character level in bonus gold (or whatever) when you get this ability, gain bonus gold every time you level from now on.

A character's character level will be larger the longer they put off getting that ability. Obviously, therefore, a character who took that ability at the latest possible point before the present would be at a considerable advantage.

Bad Design: You may perform some great act (summon bears, shoot lightning 3 times in your life (or each time you use it is less likely to work, or whatever).
Good Design: You may perform some great act once per week.

A character who is organically grown will, of course, have to use that ability from time to time. A character who is brought in fresh will not have - which means that they will be at full power. In general, no class feature should ever be ablaitive.

-Username17
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Maj »

Frank wrote:Bad Design: Choose your Int Modifier in skills to gain a bonus in when you take this ability.
Good Design: Gain a bonus in one skill. Gain a bonus in all skills.

A character's Int Modifier will generally rise as their level increases. Thus, in the bad design system a character who put off gaining this ability would benefit more from it - and thus the inorganic character would be superior.


What would the design be if you allowed for things like an increasing Int by saying whenever your Intelligence modifier increases, you may choose another number of skills equal to the increase? I know my wording's bad... but I think you get the idea.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Username17 »

The problem with that is fluctuating values. When a modifier goes down, you hopefully would have to drop one of those chosen skills. When the modifier returns to its original value, you'd get to choose a new one.

Any time you have to choose a set number of things based on a potentially fluctuating value, you get odd circumstances where people can poison themselves to trigger a new choice - which means that people can do stupid crap in order to broaden their options.

That's not really a problem with characters being better or worse because of conformations - as presumably a character changing their choices to Disable Device, Spot, and Sense Motive is in fact balanced in the immediate sense with someone who simply chose Disable Device, Spot, and Sense Motive in the first place.

But it is a problem none the less. If a character can feeblemind and then get their curse removed to switch into non-combat mode with skills like Appraise, Craft, and Diplomacy - and then swing back into combat mode the same way when it's time to go adventuring - what you've really done is create a beurocratic nightmare and allowed people to just pick their Int Modifier in skills per day.

-Username17
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Maj »

FrankTrollman wrote:From the pages of Final Fantasy d20. People should do this for all game design:

Characters should not become better or worse by taking the same abilities in a different order. Furthermore, nothing a character gets should ever go back and invalidate a choice made earlier.


You and I don't have the same definition for "invalidate" as I've read below...

When I read "invalidate," I'm reminded of Spell Focus. And I know I've brought this up at least twice before, but I still don't understand the justification...

Why is it craptacular to take an empty level of prestige class, or to not accept the "trade-off" of getting a lousy benefit now for a better benefit later, but it is perfectly acceptable to negate an ability received earlier with a more powerful version of that ability?

In the case of Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, it comes down to simple wording... Instead of saying that you gain a +2, and then a +4 that replaces the +2, why can't you just receive an additional +2? Or take the first feat twice?

So much of D&D is absed on this concept, and I don't know why it's OK. It sucks for a Duelist (3.0) to have to take Mobility for a prerequisite in the class because the class gets Tumble as a skill - which negates Mobility, but it's perfectly acceptable for a person to have to have Evasion before getting Improved Evasion...

What's the difference?

Frank wrote:The reasoning on this should be obvious. Simply, organic characters generally have more flavor and backstory than characters made whole at some arbitrary level - and they should not be inferior for it.


On the other hand, a character who begins traveling a new path late in life shouldn't be as good as some ancient master at casting a basic spell or performing a fighting technique.

Frank wrote:Furthermore, no ability should ever be available instead of getting a level.


I don't understand this point.

Frank wrote: Bad Design: Gain 1 skill point every time you level from now on.
Good Design: Gain 1 skill point per level you have. Gain an additional skill point every time you level from now on.

Characters can gain that ability at many different levels - if there is a marked difference in total skill points - that's bad.


Can the game actually be prevented from having issues like this? Is it possible to completely avoid a character taking rogue at first level for the skill points or taking barabarian at first level for the HP? Do you think skill points should retro?

My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
User avatar
Essence
Knight-Baron
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Essence »

Frank --

You are a god of insight and inspiration, and I worship you. That said:


Frank wrote:Furthermore, no ability should ever be available instead of getting a level.


Why not? ( Other than "They tried this with ECL and it failed miserably? :wink: )


Frank wrote:And perhaps most importantly of all - no high level ability should be strictly superior to a low level ability that you could have gotten earlier unless it requires that ability.


Does this mean that sorcerers shouldn't be able to take Charm Monster unless they have already taken Charm Person?

Or that an Epic character shouldn't be able to take Epic Skill Focus: Craft (game mechanics) without having already taken Skill Focus: Craft (game mechanics)?

Why (not)?



Essence
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Username17 »

Maj wrote:Why is it craptacular to take an empty level of prestige class, or to not accept the "trade-off" of getting a lousy benefit now for a better benefit later, but it is perfectly acceptable to negate an ability received earlier with a more powerful version of that ability?

For the same reason it is OK for Paladin level two to replace the +1 BAB with a +2 BAB - but it is not OK for Polymorph to take the entire Strength Score that you've been cultivating fo 10 levels and relegate it to the circular file.

The ability to replace the +1 BAB with a +2 BAB is simply adding one to your BAB. It's exactly the same either way. The only problem would occur if it was somehow possible to get the +2 BAB without ever having a +1 BAB - essentially causing the second level ability to be either a +1 to your BAB or a +2 to your BAB depending upon how clever you were with your levelling.

An ability may or may not be game balanced against other abilities - but it sure as hell had better be balanced against itself. No ability should be giving you a larger absolute bonus for having avoided gaining similar abilities in the past.

Maj wrote:In the case of Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, it comes down to simple wording... Instead of saying that you gain a +2, and then a +4 that replaces the +2, why can't you just receive an additional +2? Or take the first feat twice?

No reason whatsoever. There's no difference between those statements, and thus the ability is balanced with respect to itself.
Maj wrote:It sucks for a Duelist (3.0) to have to take Mobility for a prerequisite in the class because the class gets Tumble as a skill - which negates Mobility, but it's perfectly acceptable for a person to have to have Evasion before getting Improved Evasion...

What's the difference?

The difference is that you can't have Improved Evasion without having Evasion (actually, you can, but you aren't supposed to be able to). Tumble and Mobility are independent variables that do the same thing. The fact that Tumble Skill makes those AoO never happen is simply larger - and non-cumulative with - the bonus AC from Mobility.

So since you already have Tumble, taking Mobility is just flushing a feat down the drain. That's why it sucks. If Mobility made your tumbling better, or Tumble added to your Mobility-modified AC, or you needed to have Mobility before you could get Tumble - then it would be balanced against itself. As is, however, you have the choice of having Tumble, Mobility, or Tumble and Mobility. Once you have Tumble, adding Mobility to the mix adds nothing at all, and thus the set-up is not balanced against itself (Mobility + Tumble is no better than Tumble alone, but costs more).
Maj wrote:Can the game actually be prevented from having issues like this? Is it possible to completely avoid a character taking rogue at first level for the skill points or taking barabarian at first level for the HP? Do you think skill points should retro?

Yes.
Yes - the first level bonuses need to be absolute and not class dependent.
Yes.
Maj wrote:I don't understand this point.

Ess wrote:Why not?


OK, character level is the only measure of character power we have. If people get the ability to gain anything at all instead of going from level 7 to level 8, then we have a character who is seventh level and is explicitly more powerful than a seventh level character.

Thus, we will end up rewarding this Level 7+ character as if she was a 7th level character and she simply isn't. It doesn't really matter how well that ability stacks up to what you would have gained from taking a level - in the long run it will always pay off in your favor.

Of course, we could modify people's ECL for these abilities - at which point what we are actually doing is providing fancy character classes that don't give hit dice or skill maximums. For that to even hope to be balanced, the abilities would have to exceed the baseline of a class level significantly. And that's a bad idea.

We don't let Wizards trade their skill points for even more spellcasting. Not because they don't want to do that - but because we are insisting on a certain minimum level of character diversity for character survivability and campaign depth. If everyone could trade everything to just be even better at their schtick they probably would - and character diversity would suffer needlessly for it.

Essence wrote:Does this mean that sorcerers shouldn't be able to take Charm Monster unless they have already taken Charm Person?

Yes it does. Of course, the spell should be called "Charm Self" and only work on the same type of creature that you personally are - but that's a whole different question.

Furthermore, the Sorcerer as conceived in D&D is unsalvageable. Wizards get plenty of spell slots at mid levels so trading diversity in available spells that you need for even more spell slots that you don't need is definitionally a fool's bargain. That's a separate question too.

This is about balancing abilities against themselves - not balancing abilities against other abilities.
Essence wrote:Or that an Epic character shouldn't be able to take Epic Skill Focus: Craft (game mechanics) without having already taken Skill Focus: Craft (game mechanics)?


Epic Feats are a very different kettle of fish. The short answer, of course, is Yes.

But the long answer is that Epic Feats by their very nature fail this test. When you take a feat at Epic Level, you have the "choice" of taking an Epic Feat - or taking a regular feat which is supposed to be inferior in all ways. By definition, that means that you are now in a position where the opportunity cost of those "normal" feats has spiked into unrecognizability at levels 21+.

And thus, if you happen to be in a situation where you really need Skill Focus before you can spend that feat you are getting on that groovy Epic Feat you want - you get tooled. And that shouldn't happen.

Even allowing Epic Feats to be spent on normal feats is making ability costs vastly different at different levels for the same ability - which is really bad game design. So if you were wedded to the concept of Epic Feats, you'd want to set it up so that people still got normal feats, but then also had a separate tally of Epic Feats.

-Username17
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Quick question for Frank:

I was wondering why it isn't okay for a class to continue to improve abilities instead of offer new ones, as I seem to recall that in the past, you have railed against that.

For example, a paladin's smite evil and lay on hands improves, as does it's bonded mount. (I would add spellcasting too, but I'm not so dense to realize that I am the only person who thinks it a signifigant ability. :uptosomething: )
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Design Intent: Gaining Abilities.

Post by Username17 »

It's not that they can't - it's that they usually shouldn't.

For one thing, it's boring. But from the game balance end, an ability improving in a static fashion is a smaller and smaller relative bonus the more you get it.

Your example of the Paladin's Smite Evil is spot on, but I'll throw in Cure Disease because it's even more noticable. When you get Smite Evil, you get a one-time large to-hit bonus, and a comparatively small damage bonus. Every level of Paladin you get gives you an additional 1 point of damage once per day if your smite hits - but you get no to-hit bonus on that attack. Worse, you are fighting enemies with more hit points - and thus the Smite itself isn't actually inflicting more damage relative to the hit points of the enemies. So the damage bonus is going level proportional, and the to-hit bonus does not change - which means its relative power goes down as you rise in level. Not as fast as an ability that was static - but then you aren't gaining additional static abilities to compensate, are you?

Even more obvious though, is Remove Disease. Every three levels after sixth you get to Remove one Disease every week. Unfortunately, while the "day" has been exhaustively defined in terms of when you do and do not get your spells back - the "week" has not, making this ability extremely ambiguous. However, assuming that we take this ability to what it "seems to mean" (always dangerous, but we'll go with it) then at 6th level you have an ability that is worth exactly one 3rd level Clerical spell slot if and only if you encounter a Disease sometime within a week - otherwise its value is zero. The second Remove Disease is also worth a 3rd level Clerical Spell Slot, but it only works if you encounter two or more Diseases within the same week. The third has no value unless you find three or more Diseases and so on. So the "power" of that ability doesn't change - but it becomes less and less likely to work every time you get it again. There's a substantial diminishing return there. Especially when you compare it with the Cleric you are emulating - who by the time you get your second disease removal can actually bring back the dead.

Now let's consider the Paladin's mighty steed. At 5th level he gets a Warhorse (CR 2) with 2 extra hit dice, Empathiuc Link, Improved Evasion, +4 AC, the ability to leech the Paladin's save bonus. It's what? CR 3? That's 2 CR less than the Paladin is. Now, at 8th level, the Paladin gets.. 2 more hit dice, +2 AC, +1 Strength Modifier, +1 Int, and +10 land speed. That's good. That's like 1 or 2 CR. But the Paladin gained 3 levels. His "ability" for getting to that point is that his mount does not keep up with him. How is that an ability at all?

That's why. Adding to an existing ability in some kind of linear fashion is almost always smaller than getting the ability in the first place - which means that if that's all oyu are offering, the class is probably sucking more and more the farther you go.

-Username17
Post Reply