:::::::Feats do tend to be synergistic. But then again, so do class features. And items. And spells. It's a defining trait of third edition that you can take little abilities and put them together to create big benefits. But we wouldn't look a base class which is monk-level as a standalone class, then declare it wizard-level because an innocuous ability it gets at level 1 synergizes in some broken way with the abilities of some random PrC. We would call that ''combo'' broken, and take the class at face value. By the Pun-Pun Principle of "kobolds are not inherently overpowered," we should look at each feat individually. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC) ::::::::''...and you can determine the relative strength of that sort of bonus and determine when, if ever, it would be appropriate to receive in a game of X balance. - Tarkisflux.'' ...Your totally right. I myself judge the strength of a class feature or feat based on what minimum level it can be received and then compare it to a wizard's class features for perspective. This is how I determine 'Base Class Balance' for my campaigns. If did the same thing, but compared it to a Monk's, Fighter's, and Rogue's features for perspective. Then I could likely judge any feat or class feature for perspective in 'X Game's Balance'. Fascinating. ...Unfortunately, this means that many feats are giant variables-in-power based upon the specific campaign setting and it's included materials. Ex: Power Attack is great among Monk Level Games. Power Attack sucks among Wizard Level Games. Doesn't that give my 'Power Attack' feat or 'SorD' feat at least 4 levels of balance. One for each tier of play? --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 04:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Oh wait. He didn't say the word 'balance' he said the word 'appropriate'. I'm an idiot. If I followed all these steps and compared the feat among all the ranges of balance. Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, Monk. I could possibly determine an 'appropriate' placement for it amongst the 20 levels. It would be vague. no doubt. But I could likely do it. Damn, that's alot of guesswork though. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 05:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC) {{ri}} :Sort of. The idea is that if someone made a feat that granted Fly 1/day as an SLA, you could determine whether it was a monk, fighter, rogue, or wizard level feat based on when it could be acquired by people in general. Early on in the game, and it's wizard. Later on and it's rogue or even fighter. One of the contentions of such a setup is that a wizard level option could instead by a fighter level option if you couldn't acquire it for a lot more levels (possibly well into Epic). And I'm not sure that everyone here buys that contention. Some abilities might never belong in certain game styles. But if we could work all that stuff out and wrote up a table (a long table as I'm finding out), you could look up the ability category of whatever you wrote and walk over to whichever balance column had the minimum acquisition level listed that was closest, but still under, your actual acquisition level. And that column would just tell you your balance rating. Classes get a bit more wiggle maybe, but they're just a collection of lookups at that point. Any guesswork happens in setting up the table and the minimum acquisition levels, but that can be crowdsourced once you have an outline for better results and style representation. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] ^{[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]} 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC) :: Just note that you can't go just on that--you also need to see how much a class gets before saying it's balance range, not just when it gets what. For example, barbarian rage and fighter's feats and rogue sneak attack are all fighter-ish level (I'd say the last could potentially be rogue if done right), but if you combine enough of those together they start to encroach on rogue territory, etc. Same goes for other balance points, of course. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 07:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC) :::How much a 'class' gets? How do we do that, especially if we're back to rating the Balance Range of a specific Feat in a vacuum? I mean, any veteran DM knows to look for that pattern when judging the supremacy of a class build. Seeing 8d6 of Sneak Attack Feats on a character sheet always raises an eyebrow. But we can't give a single Sneak Attack Feat a balance rating based on how often it is spammed in a class build. Especially off into Epic Levels. But then again, Single Use feats are always going to be easier to quantify than Stackable Feats or Tree Feats. I think we should overlook the 'spam-ability' of a singular feat if we are going to rate it. ...Synergy is almost impossible to judge given the unlimited number of combinations. Stackable feats are easier because of the set increments. Tree Feats are even easier than that, because Synergy can be quantified and prerequisites are already present to judge level gained. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 09:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC) ::::I think Tarkis is on the right track with this one and it is just a better way of doing what I was trying to do. Benchmarks are a fantastic way of categorizing abilities/classes/spells/whatever. Trying to measure synergy would be pretty much impossible, however. But I don't think worrying about synergy is worth the effort. ::::Here's a way to think about it. If a character is taking all fighter level abilities (spells, feats, powers, classes, etc.), then we know for sure that they will never be getting abilities before fighter level characters should (that is, he shouldn't be much more over the power of the other party members). And if the abilities are a good match for the benchmark, we also don't have to worry about him being much under the power of the other party members, even if he doesn't pick with great synergy because his abilities still have a minimum level of capability. ::::There will always be ways to go past the normal balance level with optimization. Fighter level can go into rogue level with clever choices, rogue level can go into wizard level, and wizard level can become Pun-Pun. I don't think that can be helped. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC) == Alternate Formulation == Thought I should get the ball rolling again back here. The current proposal seems a bit focused on defining the ranges themselves, rather than defining the components of those ranges and letting the ranges fall out of that. And that strikes me as problematic, for reasons I'll get to in a while by way of comparison. The ability table I'm working on would define the components and then let ranges fall out of it, but it just keeps getting bigger and more unwieldy and I don't know that it will wing up being useful at all. So rather than worry about it right now, I wanted to see if something slightly broader would work. The idea is to break down things that we care about measuring, like combat damage or mobility or pets / minions, and then list what values or examples were acceptable for each of those things within a balance range. For example,  '''-Melee Damage-'''*Low: Weapon + gear damage only, with moderate or poor BAB progression.*Moderate: Single weapon + Sneak Attack gained by flanking with Moderate BAB (there's a math way to write this that might be more clear)*High: Two weapons + Sneak Attack gained most of the time, but can still be cancelled*Very High: As high, melee damage is generally not relevant at this level. '''-Mobility-'''*Low: No mobility adjustments, or base speed adjustments without accompanying combat tie-ins.*Moderate: Base speed adjustments with accompanying combat tie-ins, limited tactical flight be level 15*High: Limited tactical flight (or similar movement form) by level 10, limited teleport by level 15*Very High: Limited tactical flight by level 5, limited go anywhere teleport by level 9 And so on for every category we care about. Then on the article balance page, we write about what we expect based on these breakdowns, and link back to the details for people who want them. The writeup could even look like the ones listed here already. The advantage of doing it this way is that we can better measure individual things about a class. If someone writes a class with a High range of mobility abilities and a Moderate range of melee damage, it's easier to point that out and let them make adjustments if it wasn't intentional. It also means that we can better gauge support classes like the Marshall that don't fit into the standard balance descriptions, since we can just ignore the parts that aren't relevant and focus on ability balance of the parts that are. It's somewhat hard to gauge classes like that with the current setup, since it's not really addressed. Thoughts on this sort of setup? - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] ^{[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]} 20:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I like this quite a lot. It's a much easier way to present the standards we set. The big question is how finely we dice up the guidelines into categories. Take damage output for instance. Do we have it simply be "damage output"? Break it into melee and range? Break it into melee, close, and far? Magic melee, magic close, magic far, physical melee, physical close, physical far? I do think that this categorical approach is a good idea, but the categories should be quite broad. I think instead of discussing melee, range, magic, or whatever separately, we should, for instance, look flat-out at the class's ability to directly kill opponents. The reason is that there are just too many different things that a class can do. We cannot put ''everything'' into these categories, as nice as it would be to be able to. Trying to do so will make it fiddly and tedious to examine every category. The very important tasks can be called out in categories, and everything else can be put in a small commingled list of guidelines below them -- so I suppose I'd like to see a combination of your setup and Aarnott's. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 00:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC) ::We could do broad categories like that, and just have a lot of examples under the various categories. So "killing people" would have damage scales at various balance ranges, but would also have SoDs listed at whatever level and whatever conditions they were appropriate in the various balance ranges(including things like "not appropriate"). I would want to keep a distinction between 30'/charge range killing people effects and longer distance effects though, since the latter opens up kiting tactics and are sufficiently different as to be kept separate I think. ::Anyway, I'll go ahead and propose some categories - ::*Killing Things, Close::*Killing Things, Distant::*Buffs (includes healing)::*Debuffs (includes SoSucks)::*Battlefield Control::*Maneuverability (bonus speeds, movement types, etc.)::*Exploration Utility (trapfinding, survival, tracking, divinations, etc.; explicitly separate from movements though)::*Infiltration Utility (stealth, disguise, invis, etc.)::*Social Utility (bluff, diplo, intimidate, charm, etc.)::I'm not really sure what you have in mind for the comingled guidelines below though. Would you roll some of this into there, or stuff that I'm forgetting? - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] ^{[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]} 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC) :::All those categories look good, though I feel like we should try to find ways to condense them more, as that's still a somewhat sizable list of lists. Maybe::::*Killing Things, Close:::*Killing Things, Distant:::*Buffs/Debuffs (the logic being that anything one can do, the other can also generally do, though maybe not by the same name -- e.g., blindness ~= invisibility and +2 AC):::*BC/Maneuverability (the logic here is that maneuverability is not, of itself, a huge benefit -- it will generally be part of defensive/offensive tactics in the same way that BC is):::*Gaining Information (IMO a more apt name for Exploration Utility):::*Obscuring Information (IMO a more apt name for Infiltration Utility):::*Social:::That might still be too many, but I struggle to find any more equivalencies other than between the Killing Things categories. The names also might need some more fiddling with; e.g., I feel as if the name of Buffs/Debuffs could be altered so permanent effects like Divine Grace sound like they fit better. The commingled list would have been miscellaneous things that didn't fit in the categories listed, but with these categories, I honestly can't think of anything that doesn't fit. So nevermind that bit. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC) :::: I suggest combining 'Gaining Information' and 'Obscuring Information into Gaining/Obscuring Information.--[[User:Ideasmith|Ideasmith]] 01:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) :::::I thought about that, but are you sure they really fall into the same category? They're thematically similar, but they accomplish radically different things. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 02:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC) ::::::One thing just occurred to me -- might self-defense/healing be different from party defense/healing (both of which would fall under buffing)? Party defense is a necessary function for overall victory, and as such has pretty broad effects -- it helps the whole of the party achieve their goals. Self defense isn't so -- all it does, so far as the party as a whole is concerned, is ensure that the one character's ''other' functions continue. It's the reason that Wholeness of Body is different from Lay on Hands, but still valuable (in the context of weak-ass classes, anyway). ::::::On a similar note, I'm rethinking combining buffing and debuffing into one category -- maybe it should be two after all. But instead of the dividing line being what the target is, I think the dividing line should be whether it is offensive or defensive in effect. For instance, Stinking Cloud and Magic Vestment both (primarily) decrease the foe's ability to harm -- they are both defensive, despite being radically different in how they achieve it. In the same way, the buff Divine Favor and the debuff Ray of Clumsiness are (primarily) offensive because they increase your ability to harm the foe. So, thoughts? --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 03:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC) :::::::The reason I had originally had it as buffs and debuffs is because buffs can often be cast out of combat time and stacked to the heavens, and you can't do that with debuffs as easily. But any distinctions we make is going to have some weird edge cases, and with that in mind Attack Buffs/Debuffs and Defense Buffs/Debuffs sounds like a reasonable distinction. I'm fine with moving them to those lines if people want. :::::::I'm not worried about splitting party healing from self healing though. The self limited one is somewhat weaker, and can simply fall in a lower balance range for the same values. Self buffs can probably be placed in a similar fashion. I don't really see the logic on combining mobility and battlefield control though. Mobility includes a lot of things that are useful out of combat like overland flight, teleport, and so on. Control includes a few of those things, like Wall of Stone, but a lot more things that might well be considered debuffs instead... which I just considered. So maybe control should fall in with debuff instead? - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] ^{[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]} 04:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC) ::::::::The pre-cast advantage buffs have is very notable. That seems like a quantitative difference though, not a qualitative one -- they still do the same thing, but buffs may be stronger because of it. And yes, I know you've already agreed that offensive/defensive is also a good division; I'm just noting my own reasoning so others can see it. ::::::::As for the other combination I proposed, I would argue that, from a power standpoint, using movement to gain an edge in combat and using movement to travel are two very, very different things, and should be considered in two different categories. I should clarify, I suppose, that I would place ''tactical'' movement in the same category as battlefield control, as they both boil down to controlling what obstructions lie between combatants (distance and other combatants both being included as obstructions). They both have the ultimate goal of either placing, moving, or removing obstructions. I maintain that they are, at heart, different ways to go about the same activity. ::::::::Out-of-combat movement would be a different thing entirely, and considered as a different use of the same ability. Although I'm not sure it would fit into any of the categories either of us proposed. It might fit into a new category -- something encompassing strategy and logistics, rather than tactics; things like overland movement, economic activity, and possibly even the entire Social Utility category. That might not be something we can tabulate, though. I don't know that anyone on the wiki has ever placed those sorts of things in our four-category system. And with how broad, long-term, and unpredictable the consequences of such abilities can be, I'm not so sure that we can come up with a way to stratify them. We might need to either leave those to judgement calls, or make it policy to consider such abilities unquantifiable unless specific effects in combat can be found. So if it were a class ability, Diplomacy could be placed in a balance range because it can lead to instant wins. But Bluff is less concrete, and unquantifiable -- you can't make someone Fanatic with it and reliably end a fight. ::::::::Relevant bits of the last two paragraphs put short: I think out-of-combat movement is a distinctly different use of the ability, and should not be considered within the same category as tactical use. In fact, because it would be so difficult to do so, I don't think it should be considered at all. ::::::::Battlefield control might possibly be put into the same category as debuffing. The argument could even be made for combining BC, tactical movement, buffing, and debuffing into one category, as they all are concerned with changing the circumstances of combat for the purpose of facilitating other combat functions. But that would be too broad, I think. Simply having the categories of BC/Debuff, Buff, and Movement is as viable as any other permutation, but I think in drawing lines within things that overlap like this should be done in such a way as to minimize overlap, and to unify things which are as similar as possible. I believe that BC shares more in common with movement than with debuffing, and that there is likely to be less overlap between BC/Movement and Debuff than there would be between BC/Debuff and Movement. ::::::::As a central example of why I think BC and tactical movement go together naturally, take a look at Baleful Transposition when used to swap an enemy with yourself. It does two things then: it transports you, and it transports the enemy. One of those is movement, and one of those is BC. But they are both, in fact, exactly the same action, undertaken on different people. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 05:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)