Min/Max Boards

That is why I want to figure out how much of a build is the class, as opposed to optimization of feats and magic items, and just having a high pointbuy.


@ Solo I think what I am attempting to do would make builds that would be inclusive of the highly optimized ones, as long as the melee character can go toe o toe with a monster of equal CR. If your play experience is that they don't then this wouldn't be representative of that

That scoring system is overly complex buddy, you're on your own.
Anyway, if you want to do this kind of benchmark you could try checking optimization by the numbers (google it), to get a better idea of what the typical encounter for a given level might be.
After all, there is not much point in facing a melee monster in melee.

I have problems with the optimization by numbers in that it measures BAB not attack bonus and doesn't say how much damage the average full attack would deal from the monsters. Picking a representative brute type monster seems better.

Would you suggest ways to make the system less complex? I am thinking maybe just using factors that a character has less control over, such as flaws, PB and WBL?

Winning before going to war is an entirely valid war strategy.

That said, the problem you've got is that there's no clear distinction between melee and non-melee.

Is it "winning melee" if a Duskblade channels ray of enfeeblement through his sword to debuff an ogre?

Is it "winning melee" if a Duskblade casts ray of enfeeblement from 30 ft. away and then stabs the debuffed ogre?

What's the difference between an ogre stunned by a Monk's Stunning Fist vs. an ogre stunned by Power Word: Stun?

  If I said I'm measuring the ability to go in and slobernogger it out with the monster, and spending a standard action to cast a spell, while it may be the best option is not what is being attempted here? That if a player says he wants to play a character that beats the crap out of things can be directed towards the right class.

wizard 1 defeats the ogre, right? (Sleep)

I am measuring melee capability, so sleep wouldn't be used. Now a wizard 3 with alterself, and other buffs is game.

Quote

Well, I want to rank the classes themselves not how much you can optimize them, and most classes are going to need feats and equipment to win encounters so them using as little as possible seems ideal for this.

You're not going to produce much usable data.

Care to give more on that?

I want to get a comparision going to how different classes perform at melee.

In order to reduce how much optimization matters the scoring is going to be on if it can defeat a melee monster of cr =cl and unused nonclass resources.
 
So for this system a barbarian 3 with 0pb, a club and no feats or race chosen would have the best rankings if it can defeat an ogre.


I'm going to break the categories into equipment, feats, race, point buy and
alternate

Scoring for equipment is to take the decimal of WBLused and add it to
the score, with over .8 being rated as 1.25, and under a quarter as 0.

Feats - the same with using over 2/3 of your feats being rated as 1.25

Point buy- 15 points 0, 22 points .25, 25 points .5, 28 points .75, 32 points 1.25

Race No race 0 points, standard race .5 strong race .75, anthropomorphic baleen whale or other high powered race 1.25

Alternate grab bag of things .25 for a flaw .6 for 2, .75 for selling soul for feats, .15 for traits, .1 for each skill needed.

I'm thinking that maybe a penalty for out of class 1/day novas. Letting caster buffs that last over 2 hours be up.

I would like to avoid builds based heavily around charging
as I we all should know charging is ridiculous in 3.5

I would also like to avoid heavily optimized crit fishing infinite
attack style of builds, but I am hoping my point system disincentives that

Fighters get the use ranged weapons in their favor.

Actually, looking at the Incarnate and Soulborn, they would either be a very low T3 or T5. They don't meet the narrow domain effectiveness requirements to be classified as T4.

I disagree

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining.

The incarnate can do a lot, just exceptionally well.

Could you be a bit more specific?

Quote from: lans on December 27, 2012, 01:13:36 PM

Why no exotic weapons?

No particular reason, since its mostly to figure out how many tiers the chassis alone can take you. Adding exotic weapons to the starting proficiencies just makes it a better dip class, it wouldn't affect the tier. I guess you could add "Proficient with all exotic weapons and armour" as a fifth-level feature. Wouldn't make a lick of a difference.

All the exotics would be a bit stronger, once various things get added in like suglin, boomerangs, nets, lassos, and a bunch of things that are surprisingly nice if you get them for free. It might be the difference between bottom of the barrel  tier 4 and high tier 5

  Same thing goes for Warblade when he claims it to be a better version of a barbarian, when we all know it is really a better version of fighter (another warning sign: he thinks the Fighter is fine).

Actually the warblade makes a good barbarian with punishing stance, sudden leap, stonebones, and the like.

There is some debate on them
Soulborn is considred tier 5
Incarnate and Totemist are both considered either 3 or 4. I haven't seen a list put them both as 3 or 4, so it might be personal bias towards or against one.