{kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement

On Mar 28, 2:37 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Justisaur <justis... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 1:25 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:
> >> Hrm. This suggests they may be too expensive.
>
> > That does seem exceptionally expensive. AD&D 18:00 str was pretty
> > cheap in the ogre str. Ability scores are far more valuable in 3.x
> > than they were in AD&D
>
> > Just for some values from 1e:
>
> > 18:00 (+3 to hit +6 damage)- 15k
> > 19-24 - 2,500

I think I remember doing something to change the value back then like
2500 x the strength for belts...

>
> > Um. O.k. that's not very useful. And It's insane. No one would ever
> > make the gauntlets of ogre power. Well other than the fact ogres are
> > easier to harvest than giants. Sheesh, every time I crack the 1e dmg
> > I find something to go WFT over.
>
> Bear in mind that enhancement bonuses were cheap, too. +5 was, IIRC,
> 5000gp, and limited to swords only.
>
> I'd look it up, but my AD&D stuff is packed in preparation for moving.

PDF... Mine is in the garage, I hardly ever go actually crack it
open. I made a ton of notes in it back in the day, So I do dig it out
once in awhile. It gives me a big whiff of nostalgia when I do
too.

Anyway +5 sword is 18k in 1e.

Of course people didn't just buy or make them then either. They were
found, and generally you didn't have all that much free treasure
usually to buy stuff with if your DM was nice enough to have anything
available to buy.

>
> >> That doesn't strike me as being too disgusting, considering I expect to
> >> dump enhancement bonuses. They are more expensive than RAW would be
> >> (Cha 18 + cockring +6 Cha = Cha 24, for 36k), but I think they put the
> >> emphasis where I'd want it to be. Especially if level-based bumps
> >> happen *after* this. You could still get to Int 29, but without racial
> >> bonuses it might cost 100k + five bumps.
>
> > That looks pretty good. I don't like the formula from an elegance
> > standpoint but the numbers look good.
>
> I agree. Formulae using offset base values like this lack elegance.
>
> OTOH, straight-up square-of-value often grow too fast for my taste. An
> offset can let you use a smaller coefficient and stretch that part of
> the curve. For instance, when I had a magic system that promoted every
> spell by one level (so cantrips were first-level, /magic missile/ was
> second, etc.) it did some very nice things to the cost curve for magic
> items. For one thing, it greatly reduced the size of the step in cost
> between the healing stick and the next one up (this presupposes that
> there are some 'prelevels' -- starting clerics can still have access to
> CLW).
>
> new model (level+1) RAW model
> /oCMinW 1*1*125 = 125gp 1*1*750 = 375gp (halved for orison)
> /oCLW 2*3*125 = 750gp 1*1*750 = 750gp
> /oCModW 3*5*125 = 1,875gp 2*3*750 = 4,500gp
> /oCSW 4*7*125 = 3,500gp 3*5*750 = 11,250gp
> /oCCW 5*9*125 = 5,625gp 4*7*750 = 21,000gp
>
> This keeps the cost of the base item (/oCLW) the same, but I think the
> ratios are more accurate for the benefit gained -- I think I could see a
> player paying 1,875gp for a wand of cure moderate wounds, I *never* see
> one pay 4,500gp for one.
>
> Granted, I might need to trim the treasure sizes down if I start
> reducing costs like this, but I think that's probably a good thing.

Yes. I like this a lot.

> > what if you just took the first one and made it 2k instead of 4k
>
> > Str 12 item: 2k
> > Str 14 item: 4k
> > Str 16 item: 16k
> > Str 18 item: 36k
> > Str 20 item: 50k
> > Str 22 item: 72k
> > Str 24 item: 98k

> Str 12 item: 2k
> Str 14 item: 8k
> Str 16 item: 18k
> Str 18 item: 32k
> Str 20 item: 50k
> Str 22 item: 72k
> Str 24 item: 98k
> Str 26 item: 128k
> Str 28 item: 162

> (you had a couple mistakes in there)

Arg!

Yeah, like that, but don't think I'd want to include the 12 as that's
just too cheap to get around major deficiencies. Perhaps 26+ being
epic with appropriate pricing.

> > That seems fairly reasonable to me, although pretty cheap to overcome
> > a a really bad score. I can see a bunch of people getting 12 Cha or
> > Wis items for 2k, or wizards getting 12 str items to overcome their
> > weak str, or con items. One could just limit it to 18-24
>
> This look more in line with actual benefit, I think. A Str18 item costs
> a bit less than a Str +6 item RAW, but doesn't jump someone with a base
> Str18 to Str24 -- for Str24 you're paying almost 100k
>
> > The next question is what do bull's strength etc. grant? 14? 16? or
> > do they just stay at +4? They are at the 16k equivilent, as that's
> > what a +4 item currently costs. So they'd be 16 on the chart I just
> > made, 14 on your first chart, or 12 on your 2nd chart. That tells me
> > your 2nd chart is too expensive at the low end... And that the chart
> > I just made +2 which is the current lowest would be equal to 14, so
> > that should be the lowest, which works out o.k...
>
> Since I'm probably dropping /bull's strength/ as a spell ('no
> enhancement bonuses', remember?) it's probably not a big deal.

There you go.

>
> That said, if I start with bison to represent a bull, it has Str22 RAW
> as a large creature. Reduce it to a medium creature (-8 to Str, RAW)
> means that they have a base Str of 14 -- +4 racial bonus to Str.
>
> Strange coincidence? Okay, /bull's strength/ would be a +4 bonus to
> Str.
>
> Simplest thing to do then, to keep it consistent with the item and give
> you Str 14. It makes a normal person (Str10) a fair bit stronger, but
> someone who's already as "strong as a bull" wouldn't be affected.

I still think 16 would be about right. it's enough to make someone
who's poor in a score have one good enough to do stuff with without
being overwhelming.

> As for item cost, I still like the behavior (if not the mathematical
> elegance) of the second option, the offset base. If you were to adjust
> it slightly, use 'bonus +2 squared * 1000gp', you'd get
>
> Str 8 item: 1k
> Str 10 item: 4k
> Str 12 item: 9k
> Str 14 item: 16k <-- par with current +4
> Str 16 item: 25k
> Str 18 item: 36k <-- par with current +6
> Str 20 item: 49k
> Str 22 item: 64k <-- par with current +8*
> Str 24 item: 81k
> Str 26 item: 100k <-- par with current +10*

I just don't see 12 providing enough benefit for 9, etc. 16k for 14
is about right, 36k for 18 seems a bit high...


> * except that these would be epic, RAW, and costs get weird in epic
>
> This looks a little more in line with the actual value of the items, I
> think. Right now Str22 is trivial (Str18 +4 -- 16k), but it's worth
> quite a bit.
>
> Something I don't like about having items like this give specific values
> is that it makes the item even more important than the character in some
> ways. It doesn't matter *how* strong you are, RAW a +4 Str item makes
> you stronger. With this, it doesn't matter how strong you are because
> the item replaces your strength with its.
>
> OTOH, I like the idea of a character whose strength *does* come from an
> item -- get it away from him he turns back into the normal (or weaker)
> schmoe he normally is. For that to happen RAW you'd need the cripple to
> have a +8 or +10 item (i.e. epic) to make him... as strong as human
> range normally supports. When the PCs peel that off him, they get a
> *big* jump in power. OTOH, the cripple with a Str18 item *isn't* using
> anything epic, and depending when he gets smacked it might not even be
> really valuable to the PCs.
>
> I'm still waffling on this point.

That's why I think the best solution is point buy points, but it's
also the most complicated. It would be much more difficult to figure
out the points supplied.

If we just start with 3 levels like we have now...

1st (+2 currently)
2nd (+4 currently)
3rd (+6 currently)

Then we have to decide where we want to start with. I'll start with
14 as an average "adventurer" stat.
first we have to decide what points are worth below 8, and over 18.
I'll start with keeping everything below 8 cost 1 point each and
everything over 18 costing 1 additional point per step of modifier
which would appear easiest to begin with.

So 1st level (4k) would provide 4 points.
2nd (16k) level would provide 10 points
3rd (36k) level provides 18 points.

Here's what we'd get:

+2 +10 +18
Start 1st lv 2nd lv 3rd lv
1 5 11 16
2 6 12 17
3 7 13 17
4 8 14 17
5 9 14 17
6 10 15 18
7 11 15 18
8 12 16 18
9 13 16 18
10 14 16 19
11 14 17 19
12 15 17 19
13 15 17 19
14 16 18 20
15 16 18 20
16 17 18 20
17 18 19 21
18 19 20 22
19 20 21 22
20 20 22 23
21 21 22 24
22 22 23 24
23 23 24 25
24 24 25 26
25 25 26 27
26 26 27 28

That doesn't look too bad, but I still don't quite like it.

- Justisaur

Justisaur <justisaur RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:25 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav... RemoveThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> Hrm. This suggests they may be too expensive.
>
> That does seem exceptionally expensive. AD&D 18:00 str was pretty
> cheap in the ogre str. Ability scores are far more valuable in 3.x
> than they were in AD&D
>
> Just for some values from 1e:
>
> 18:00 (+3 to hit +6 damage)- 15k
> 19-24 - 2,500
>
> Um. O.k. that's not very useful. And It's insane. No one would ever
> make the gauntlets of ogre power. Well other than the fact ogres are
> easier to harvest than giants. Sheesh, every time I crack the 1e dmg
> I find something to go WFT over.

Bear in mind that enhancement bonuses were cheap, too. +5 was, IIRC,
5000gp, and limited to swords only.

I'd look it up, but my AD&D stuff is packed in preparation for moving.

>> That doesn't strike me as being too disgusting, considering I expect to
>> dump enhancement bonuses. They are more expensive than RAW would be
>> (Cha 18 + cockring +6 Cha = Cha 24, for 36k), but I think they put the
>> emphasis where I'd want it to be. Especially if level-based bumps
>> happen *after* this. You could still get to Int 29, but without racial
>> bonuses it might cost 100k + five bumps.
>
> That looks pretty good. I don't like the formula from an elegance
> standpoint but the numbers look good.

I agree. Formulae using offset base values like this lack elegance.

OTOH, straight-up square-of-value often grow too fast for my taste. An
offset can let you use a smaller coefficient and stretch that part of
the curve. For instance, when I had a magic system that promoted every
spell by one level (so cantrips were first-level, /magic missile/ was
second, etc.) it did some very nice things to the cost curve for magic
items. For one thing, it greatly reduced the size of the step in cost
between the healing stick and the next one up (this presupposes that
there are some 'prelevels' -- starting clerics can still have access to
CLW).

new model (level+1) RAW model
/oCMinW 1*1*125 = 125gp 1*1*750 = 375gp (halved for orison)
/oCLW 2*3*125 = 750gp 1*1*750 = 750gp
/oCModW 3*5*125 = 1,875gp 2*3*750 = 4,500gp
/oCSW 4*7*125 = 3,500gp 3*5*750 = 11,250gp
/oCCW 5*9*125 = 5,625gp 4*7*750 = 21,000gp

This keeps the cost of the base item (/oCLW) the same, but I think the
ratios are more accurate for the benefit gained -- I think I could see a
player paying 1,875gp for a wand of cure moderate wounds, I *never* see
one pay 4,500gp for one.

Granted, I might need to trim the treasure sizes down if I start
reducing costs like this, but I think that's probably a good thing.

> what if you just took the first one and made it 2k instead of 4k
>
> Str 12 item: 2k
> Str 14 item: 4k
> Str 16 item: 16k
> Str 18 item: 36k
> Str 20 item: 50k
> Str 22 item: 72k
> Str 24 item: 98k

Str 12 item: 2k
Str 14 item: 8k
Str 16 item: 18k
Str 18 item: 32k
Str 20 item: 50k
Str 22 item: 72k
Str 24 item: 98k
Str 26 item: 128k
Str 28 item: 162k

(you had a couple mistakes in there)

> That seems fairly reasonable to me, although pretty cheap to overcome
> a a really bad score. I can see a bunch of people getting 12 Cha or
> Wis items for 2k, or wizards getting 12 str items to overcome their
> weak str, or con items. One could just limit it to 18-24

This look more in line with actual benefit, I think. A Str18 item costs
a bit less than a Str +6 item RAW, but doesn't jump someone with a base
Str18 to Str24 -- for Str24 you're paying almost 100k

> The next question is what do bull's strength etc. grant? 14? 16? or
> do they just stay at +4? They are at the 16k equivilent, as that's
> what a +4 item currently costs. So they'd be 16 on the chart I just
> made, 14 on your first chart, or 12 on your 2nd chart. That tells me
> your 2nd chart is too expensive at the low end... And that the chart
> I just made +2 which is the current lowest would be equal to 14, so
> that should be the lowest, which works out o.k...

Since I'm probably dropping /bull's strength/ as a spell ('no
enhancement bonuses', remember?) it's probably not a big deal.

That said, if I start with bison to represent a bull, it has Str22 RAW
as a large creature. Reduce it to a medium creature (-8 to Str, RAW)
means that they have a base Str of 14 -- +4 racial bonus to Str.

Strange coincidence? Okay, /bull's strength/ would be a +4 bonus to
Str.

Simplest thing to do then, to keep it consistent with the item and give
you Str 14. It makes a normal person (Str10) a fair bit stronger, but
someone who's already as "strong as a bull" wouldn't be affected.

As for item cost, I still like the behavior (if not the mathematical
elegance) of the second option, the offset base. If you were to adjust
it slightly, use 'bonus +2 squared * 1000gp', you'd get

Str 8 item: 1k
Str 10 item: 4k
Str 12 item: 9k
Str 14 item: 16k <-- par with current +4
Str 16 item: 25k
Str 18 item: 36k <-- par with current +6
Str 20 item: 49k
Str 22 item: 64k <-- par with current +8*
Str 24 item: 81k
Str 26 item: 100k <-- par with current +10*

* except that these would be epic, RAW, and costs get weird in epic

This looks a little more in line with the actual value of the items, I
think. Right now Str22 is trivial (Str18 +4 -- 16k), but it's worth
quite a bit.

Something I don't like about having items like this give specific values
is that it makes the item even more important than the character in some
ways. It doesn't matter *how* strong you are, RAW a +4 Str item makes
you stronger. With this, it doesn't matter how strong you are because
the item replaces your strength with its.

OTOH, I like the idea of a character whose strength *does* come from an
item -- get it away from him he turns back into the normal (or weaker)
schmoe he normally is. For that to happen RAW you'd need the cripple to
have a +8 or +10 item (i.e. epic) to make him... as strong as human
range normally supports. When the PCs peel that off him, they get a
*big* jump in power. OTOH, the cripple with a Str18 item *isn't* using
anything epic, and depending when he gets smacked it might not even be
really valuable to the PCs.

I'm still waffling on this point.


Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_