Difference between revisions of "User:Techpriest88"
Techpriest88 (talk | contribs) (→Obsession II: Zerg) |
Techpriest88 (talk | contribs) (→Obsession III: Balance Analysis) |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
==Obsession III: Balance Analysis== | ==Obsession III: Balance Analysis== | ||
− | 1st | + | {| class="d20" style="text-align: left;" {{#vardefine: odd|0}} |
− | + | ! Level || Standard Defense || Typical Attack Bonus || From Ability || From Level || From Magic || Roll to Hit | |
− | 3rd | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | 4th | + | | 1st || 13 || +5 || +4 || +0 || +1 || 8 or more |
− | 5th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | 6th | + | | 2st || 14 || +6 || "" || +1 || "" || 8 |
− | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | |
− | 8th | + | | 3rd || 15 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 9 |
− | 9th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | 10th | + | | 4th || 16 || +7 || "" || +2 || "" || 9 |
− | 11th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | 12th | + | | 5th || 17 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 10 |
− | 13th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | + | | 6th || 18 || +9 || "" || +3 || +2 || 9 | |
− | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | |
− | 16th | + | | 7th || 19 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 10 |
− | 17th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | 18th | + | | 8th || 20 || +11 || +5 || +4 || "" || 9 |
− | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | |
− | 20th | + | | 9th || 21 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 10 |
− | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | |
− | + | | 10th || 22 || +12 || "" || +5 || "" || 10 | |
− | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | |
− | 24th | + | | 11th || 23 || +13 || "" || "" || +3 || 10 |
− | 25th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | 26th | + | | 12th || 24 || +14 || "" || +6 || "" || 10 |
− | 27th | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" |
− | + | | 13th || 25 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 11 | |
− | + | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | |
− | 30th | + | | 14th || 26 || +16 || +6 || +7 || "" || 10 |
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 15th || 27 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 11 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 16th || 28 || +18 || "" || +8 || +4 || 10 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 17th || 29 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 11 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 18th || 30 || +19 || "" || +9 || "" || 11 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 19th || 31 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 12 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 20th || 32 || +20 || "" || +10 || "" || 12 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 21th || 33 || +22 || +7 || "" || +5 || 11 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 22th || 34 || +23 || "" || +11 || "" || 11 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 23th || 35 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 12 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 24th || 36 || +24 || "" || +12 || "" || 12 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 25th || 37 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 13 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 26th || 38 || +26 || "" || +13 || +6 || 12 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 27th || 39 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 13 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 28th || 40 || +28 || +8 || +14 || "" || 12 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 29th || 41 || "" || "" || "" || "" || 13 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | 30th || 42 || +29 || "" || +15 || "" || 13 | ||
+ | <!-- repeat as needed --> | ||
+ | |} | ||
− | + | '''Note:''' the Standard Defense indicates the level apropriate AC minus weapon proficiency bonus (typical +2) and non-AC defenses as suggested in the DMG. I'll look into ''actual'' monster statistics as well, to make sure this is practical. | |
− | make | ||
− | |||
− | + | I have included neither class features, nor sundry items' and powers' effects above. I'll try to get to them later on in the article. Feel free to submit anything I've missed as the point of the analysis is definitely accuracy. | |
− | You gain a + | + | |
+ | As you can see, the necessary roll to hit (given the factors included in this analysis) gradually increases from 1st to 30th levels. This hike in difficulty might be simply expected, otherwise, it might need to be forstalled. This gives us two approaches to game balance: gradual curve and linear progression. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| class="d20" style="text-align: left;" {{#vardefine: odd|0}} | ||
+ | ! Source || Bonus per Level || Bonus per Tier || Overall per Tier | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Ability || Complex || +1 <sup>1/2</sup> || style="text-align: center;" rowspan="3"|8 <sup>1/2</sup> | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Level || 1 per 2 || +5 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Magic || 1 per 5 || +2 | ||
+ | <!-- repeat as needed --> | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | One factor that I didn't include above was the Expertise feats, which are Heroic tier. In my personal opinion, no one should go without them. At the same time, if they're taken right away, it makes hitting your target absurdly easy in the early levels, then things start getting harder from there, which is consistent with the gradual curve approach. If the linear progression is preferred, I suggest that Implement/Weapon Expertise be made a Paragon Feat instead and be rewritten as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Implement/Weapon Expertise | ||
+ | You gain a +1 bonus to attacks with the chosen implement or weapon for each 10 levels above 1st. | ||
Special: This feat may be taken multiple times, each time applying to a different implement or weapon. | Special: This feat may be taken multiple times, each time applying to a different implement or weapon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Even with these changes the equation is still slightly non-linear. The irregularity comes from the ability score increases. They make the mistake, if I may be so bold, of clinging half-way to tradition while introducing the new tier system. They should have thrown out the old way and evened it out, if linear progression was their goal (which is an open quesiton). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The solution: grant ability increases every 3rd level into the tier (3rd, 6th, 9th, then 13th, 16th, 19th, etc.) as well as the usual welcoming bonus at 11th and 21st. This way, the (possible) increase to any one ability score will be 4 points per 10 levels (in agregate), for a +2 bonus increase to dependent rolls. The ultimate results are as follows. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| class="d20" style="text-align: left;" {{#vardefine: odd|0}} | ||
+ | ! Source || Bonus per Level || Bonus per Tier || Overall per Tier | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Ability || Complex || +2 || style="text-align: center;" rowspan="4"|10 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Level || 1 per 2 || +5 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Magic || 1 per 5 || +2 | ||
+ | |- class="{{Odd-Even}}" | ||
+ | | Expertise || 1 per 10 || +1 | ||
+ | <!-- repeat as needed --> | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | This coincides prefectly with the recommended defenses per level progression in the DMG, thus ensuring that the game can (theoretically) proceed at a predictable challenge level with little need for modification. |
Revision as of 01:57, 20 May 2010
Hello Community! I'm a bit of an eccentric. As a long-time fan of both D&D and Warhammer40k, you'll probably see a bit of mixing of the genres from this humble tech-priest. I'm particularly drawn to the more artificial aspects of the default Dungeons & Dragons universe: undead, constructs, soul-powered doomsday devices. I can be a bit of a perfectionist and get a little wordy, but hopefully we'll still get along. Let's become good friends! Please post any notes you have for me on my talk page rather than here. Thanks in advance for your interest!
Disclaimer: I intend no criticisms to be in any way condescending or offensive. I will try my best to state opinion as opinion and provide hard facts and evidence where approprite, but please forgive me if I slip now and again. I'll do my best to offer the same courtesy and grant the benefit of the doubt to all who oppose me. O.o
Contents
Obsession I: Necromancer
I'm gonna check if anyone else has drafted a sensible Necromancer class here on Dungeons. If not, I'm thinking of pursuing that myself. The Beastmaster Ranger is a good base to start from, I think, with the Shaman as an additional point of reference. Another idea I might pursue is an new Warlock pact for servants of Orcus. The pact boon might create a wraith-like hazard at the unfortunate victims position that lasts a round, reminiscent of the effects of Orcus' scepter.
Necromancer (4e Class)
Prospective Necromancer Powers
Symbol of Pain * Implement, Shadow Standard Level ? Daily Attack Range 10; Con vs. Fortitude; whenever the target is struck for untyped damage, it takes an additional 5 damage (save ends). This damage is dealt only once per turn (ie. once on the Ranger's turn, even if he hits twice, once on the Fighter's, once on the target's turn, if it takes an opportunity attack). Special: Damage increases to 10 at 11th level and 15 at 21st level.
Animate Undead Companion (4e Ritual)
The remains stand and stare at you with unnatural cunning, prepared to serve and fight at your direction.
Level: 1 | Component Cost: 50gp |
Category: Restoration | Market Price: None |
Time: 4 hours | Key Skill: Arcana (no check) |
Durration: Instantaneous |
This ritual allows you to animate a suitable humanoid corpse as an undead companion. It may only be used by a Necromancer with the Undead Mastry class feature and only if his/her previous companion has been destroyed or dismissed.
The undead companion may be of any of the allowed categories, at the casters option (and as the corpse allows), and counts as a new creature. The following circumstances may apply:
- You must use a medium-sized humanoid corpse as an additional component cost. The remains must be sufficiently intact to produce the desired companion (ie. mostly whole for a zombie, at least skeletal for a skeleton, of negotiable quality for a wraith).
- Your new undead companion suffers the equivalent of a death penalty (see the Raise Dead ritual, PH 311) until you have reached 3 milestones. It takes some time for the animating energies to solidify.
- The component cost increases to 500gp at paragon tier and 5,000gp at epic tier. You learn new techniques to strengthen your undead companion as your grow in power (it still uses the same statistics).
Obsession II: Zerg
Complete:
Hydralisk (4e Monster)
Zergling (4e Monster)
In Progress:
Baneling
Infestor
Zerg Infestation (4e Disease)
Infested (4e Template)
Obsession III: Balance Analysis
Level | Standard Defense | Typical Attack Bonus | From Ability | From Level | From Magic | Roll to Hit |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | 13 | +5 | +4 | +0 | +1 | 8 or more |
2st | 14 | +6 | "" | +1 | "" | 8 |
3rd | 15 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 9 |
4th | 16 | +7 | "" | +2 | "" | 9 |
5th | 17 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 10 |
6th | 18 | +9 | "" | +3 | +2 | 9 |
7th | 19 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 10 |
8th | 20 | +11 | +5 | +4 | "" | 9 |
9th | 21 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 10 |
10th | 22 | +12 | "" | +5 | "" | 10 |
11th | 23 | +13 | "" | "" | +3 | 10 |
12th | 24 | +14 | "" | +6 | "" | 10 |
13th | 25 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 11 |
14th | 26 | +16 | +6 | +7 | "" | 10 |
15th | 27 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 11 |
16th | 28 | +18 | "" | +8 | +4 | 10 |
17th | 29 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 11 |
18th | 30 | +19 | "" | +9 | "" | 11 |
19th | 31 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 12 |
20th | 32 | +20 | "" | +10 | "" | 12 |
21th | 33 | +22 | +7 | "" | +5 | 11 |
22th | 34 | +23 | "" | +11 | "" | 11 |
23th | 35 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 12 |
24th | 36 | +24 | "" | +12 | "" | 12 |
25th | 37 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 13 |
26th | 38 | +26 | "" | +13 | +6 | 12 |
27th | 39 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 13 |
28th | 40 | +28 | +8 | +14 | "" | 12 |
29th | 41 | "" | "" | "" | "" | 13 |
30th | 42 | +29 | "" | +15 | "" | 13 |
Note: the Standard Defense indicates the level apropriate AC minus weapon proficiency bonus (typical +2) and non-AC defenses as suggested in the DMG. I'll look into actual monster statistics as well, to make sure this is practical.
I have included neither class features, nor sundry items' and powers' effects above. I'll try to get to them later on in the article. Feel free to submit anything I've missed as the point of the analysis is definitely accuracy.
As you can see, the necessary roll to hit (given the factors included in this analysis) gradually increases from 1st to 30th levels. This hike in difficulty might be simply expected, otherwise, it might need to be forstalled. This gives us two approaches to game balance: gradual curve and linear progression.
Source | Bonus per Level | Bonus per Tier | Overall per Tier |
---|---|---|---|
Ability | Complex | +1 1/2 | 8 1/2 |
Level | 1 per 2 | +5 | |
Magic | 1 per 5 | +2 |
One factor that I didn't include above was the Expertise feats, which are Heroic tier. In my personal opinion, no one should go without them. At the same time, if they're taken right away, it makes hitting your target absurdly easy in the early levels, then things start getting harder from there, which is consistent with the gradual curve approach. If the linear progression is preferred, I suggest that Implement/Weapon Expertise be made a Paragon Feat instead and be rewritten as follows:
Implement/Weapon Expertise You gain a +1 bonus to attacks with the chosen implement or weapon for each 10 levels above 1st. Special: This feat may be taken multiple times, each time applying to a different implement or weapon.
Even with these changes the equation is still slightly non-linear. The irregularity comes from the ability score increases. They make the mistake, if I may be so bold, of clinging half-way to tradition while introducing the new tier system. They should have thrown out the old way and evened it out, if linear progression was their goal (which is an open quesiton).
The solution: grant ability increases every 3rd level into the tier (3rd, 6th, 9th, then 13th, 16th, 19th, etc.) as well as the usual welcoming bonus at 11th and 21st. This way, the (possible) increase to any one ability score will be 4 points per 10 levels (in agregate), for a +2 bonus increase to dependent rolls. The ultimate results are as follows.
Source | Bonus per Level | Bonus per Tier | Overall per Tier |
---|---|---|---|
Ability | Complex | +2 | 10 |
Level | 1 per 2 | +5 | |
Magic | 1 per 5 | +2 | |
Expertise | 1 per 10 | +1 |
This coincides prefectly with the recommended defenses per level progression in the DMG, thus ensuring that the game can (theoretically) proceed at a predictable challenge level with little need for modification.