Talk:Economist (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Hilarious[edit]

I'm loving this so far. Surgo 23:32, 8 April 2009 (MDT)

I'd love to get your feedback as I get more of it down. Honestly there were so many directions I could have gone I'm actually thinking about making a prestige class-like variant for spellcasters... -- Jota 00:27, 9 April 2009 (MDT)

Unique Flavor[edit]

This is awesomely deliciously uniquely flavorful. This has FA potential all over it, keep up the good work.Summerscythe 16:40, 9 April 2009 (MDT)

Balance[edit]

I designed the class to conform roughly with the CCS (there's a bit of flexibility, but in general the base statistics will come out to 150 and the remaining abilities measure out to somewhere between 65 and 70. If anyone thinks the class to too powerful or not powerful enough, I'd love to hear why so I can refine it. -- Jota 13:19, 9 April 2009 (MDT)

What is the CCS? Surgo 14:18, 9 April 2009 (MDT)
The CCS is more or less a formula for determining the strength of a newly created class based on the abilities it receives and when it receives them. It is by no means universally accepted (as far as I know) or even universally known (obviously), but I think it has some merit. -- Jota 14:48, 9 April 2009 (MDT)
I don't think it has merit. Any system that rates Turn/Rebuke Undead and a shitty level 20 ability like Perfect Self on both the same system and gives them the same value is past the point of being saved. When the class is finished, I'll rate it the way I always rate classes -- by what they can do against monsters. Surgo 14:53, 9 April 2009 (MDT)
Obviously there are some inconsistencies, but I don't think it is totally without merit. Anyway, I would hope the economist can hold its own against monsters as well as the CCS, if need be. -- Jota 14:59, 9 April 2009 (MDT)

Stagflation[edit]

Aside from the actual concept, is the ability too complex/wordy/time-consuming to be viable? Primarily the second part? -- Jota 13:19, 9 April 2009 (MDT)

Trait Idea[edit]

I know I need to fill out the other fluff stuff and the epic levels (which I already have ideas for, I just want to look at all of my options before committing to anything), but I'd appreciate it if I could get some feedback for something I'm thinking to complement this on the side:

Economic Assumption: Rationality[edit]

When it all clicks, it really clicks; when it doesn't, it's ugly.

Benefit: This character assumes that all participants in a market are motivated by rational thought and therefore adjusts her own actions to accommodate this. Add your opponent's Wisdom modifier to your attack roles.

Drawback: If your opponent's Wisdom modifier is negative you must still apply the result to your attack roles. If the opponent has no Wisdom score, the character attacks as normal.

Special: The character must have at least one economist level.

Roleplaying Ideas: Rationality assumes that a player knows the situation of his opponent: what they want and need. A character with this trait may become prone to over-thinking situations or prone to obsessive information gathering to help offset information asymmetry.

---

My worry is that not many creatures have negative Wisdom modifiers and it is essentially a free +1 in many cases. Any thoughts while I fletch out the class? -- Jota 16:42, 12 April 2009 (MDT)

Template:Copyright Disclaimer[edit]

Why is Template:Copyright Disclaimer on this page? --Green Dragon 17:33, 19 May 2009 (MDT)

I stole a quotation from Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Wasn't sure it merited the disclaimer or not, but went on the safe side. -- Jota 17:56, 19 May 2009 (MDT)

Done[edit]

I tried to make it scale a little bit, since apparently that's what good classes do. I'm a little new at NPCs so I hope my example is alright. Also, is there any way I could get the asterisks in the BAB column to be centered? -- Jota 01:19, 10 June 2009 (MDT)


Rating[edit]

Power - 2/5< I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it has too much power, it's not a one because of the 'opportunity cost' system --Sori 20:36, 19 June 2009 (MDT)

I'm curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. The opportunity cost system, at least to me, seems balanced, but it doesn't seem as though you have a problem with that. Rather than justify each aspect to you, tell me specifically what you have a problem with, I'll try to address you point by point. On second thought, is it stagflation? -- Jota 22:41, 19 June 2009 (MDT)
Given that all the author did was offer a statement without any justifications for said statement, I am nullifying this rating. If anyone thinks there is a conflict of interest (well, obviously, but one that makes this decision incorrect), feel free to argue for that position and I will revert. -- Jota 00:29, 12 July 2009 (MDT)
Yes, I would definitely argue that it is wrong for a user to "nullify" the rating another user has given, especially when it is own that user's own material. This could result in gaming the system so that a user gets their creations ratings inflated unjustly while others do not. Tricky downhill slope. However, it would be much more pleasant if the users providing ratings did go just slightly more in depth, to assist the author in implementing any improvements based on the rating.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:05, 11 September 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it has good grammer and spelling, but it's just alot and there's alot of information in each which is sometimes good, but once you get your point across is good enough. --Sori 20:36, 19 June 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because you really worked hard on this class and it should be something you're pround of. --Sori 20:36, 19 June 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because again just too much and too unfair in many places, this would be great for a single player game but D&D is a party game with other people and characters. --Sori 20:36, 19 June 2009 (MDT)

Party role have nothing to do with flavor. Therefore rating was negated. --Lord Dhazriel 20:40, 19 June 2009 (MDT)
How is it overpowered? Dragon Child 20:41, 19 June 2009 (MDT)

Rainy Day Fund[edit]

It seems like Rainy Day Fund should be a Supernatural abiltiy rather than spelllike. Is there a reason it's listed as Spelllike?

None in particular, and I suppose you're right. It will be changed. -- Jota 19:45, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the versatility of the abilities, being able to buff yourself, steal or stop magic, and gain multiple attacks. --Havvy 16:34, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is really well written. Also, quoting Mises. Even so, some of the abilities could be reworded to make an easier read. --Havvy 16:34, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because the last three abilities are missing their types (ex, su, or sp) --Havvy 16:34, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because you managed to take a non-fighting occupation and turn it into a fighter. Nice feat right there. --Havvy 16:34, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

I appreciate the rating, and that's an understatement, since this class is my pride and joy. I'll just clarify a few things and ask a question or two:
  1. Power Rating: is it slightly too strong or slightly too weak?
  2. Wording: Tell me which abilities and I'll see what I can do. I admit have a tendency to expound unnecessarily; it's not one of my better habits.
  3. Formatting: That was intentional. You'll notice Guns or Butter is the same way. Those things are simply ever-active (or one-time, in the case of GoB) class features and as such did not merit an ability type, although I suppose Fragmentation and Stagflation could be considered extraordinary/supernatural. I'll mull over which is best, but feel free to add your thoughts on the matter and I will take them into consideration. -- Jota 18:00, 16 August 2009 (MDT)
  1. Power Rating: It seems to be slightly too strong, especially when you consider the effects of a combination of stagflation and hyperinflation. While you get two extra attacks in a round, (more probably, just one) the enemy gets one less when you use your full sets of attacks. If you normally have two attacks, and your enemy has three, it goes to four, and your enemy has two. That is very unbalancing when combined with Fragmentation. To fix this, I would make it so that stagflation can be used as an immediate action, but cannot be done in inflation or deflation is used. That, or make . I also have a problem with Ceteris Paribus. Mages lose most of their power when they come upon this. Of course, if it removes the Economist supernatural and spell-like abilities also...
  2. Wording: Looking back on it, the class is actually very readable. Free Rider is very verbose. Similarly to that class feature is the Steal Spell Effect feature of the Spelltheif. It reads as: Beginning at 2nd level, a spellthief can siphon an active spell effect from another creature. A spellthief who hits an opponent with a sneak attack can choose to forgo dealing 1d6 points of sneak attack damage and instead gain the effect of a single spell affecting the target. If the target is willing, a spellthief can steal a spell effect with a touch as a standard action. By the way, wouldn't Free Rider be better named as "Externalities Absorption"? I'm thinking the following might be a good way to reword it: As a free action, when a spell is cast within 50' of the economist, she make make an attempt to absorb the external magic around the spell. The economist makes a check (1d20 + economist level) against the caster level check of the spell, which the caster may purposely fail. If she succeeds, she receives the same benefits of the spell as the intended recipient(s). Only one spell may be absorbed by this at a time. The economist may drop the spell effect as a free action.
  3. Formatting: Technology Boost and Fragmentation are extraordinary abilities, while stagflation, in its current state, and Free Rider are supernatural. Of course, that's what I perceive them as. If they are different, you may change them. --Havvy 10:31, 17 August 2009 (MDT)
  4. Flavor: In the Notables section, why did you note real economists that are from eras not of D&D, and why did you pick one that has ideas completely different from the one you initially quoted (Keynes and Mises respectively)
  1. Hyperinflation = Flurry of Blows. Yes, you can do it armed, but I really didn't see it as that big of a deal. The thing about both Hyperinflation and Stagflation is that both only apply to full-attack actions. So, with Hyperinflation you have to get close and then start your turn next to someone, which doesn't happen a lot unless the other guy is also going to be stabbing you (read on--also melee fighters deal damage significantly more easily than ranged ones). As for Stagflation, for the people that having a lot of attacks matters (fighter types, creatures with multiple natural weapons [i.e. dragons], rogues using TWF), losing one attack probably isn't going to severely effect their damage output, given the way BAB and AC don't really scale together. Those that would be reduced to sucking (mages) really aren't impacted because no mage should ever be using a full-attack action when he could hit you with a save-or-die effect. Ceteris Paribus, yes, and I really have no answer for that except to say yes, it negates all of the economist's gear/abilities as well. In that respect, it's a situational tool. If you were fighting a pure squishy (say an enemy necromancer), it would be great. If you're fighting something that's half bad-ass destroyer, half spellcaster (such as a balor or dragon), it's got benefits and drawbacks. And if you're fighting something like that's just out to eat you (and is likely simply bigger and stronger that you), like a colossal monstrous scorpion, then you're going to need all the help you can get from your own magic, whereas the enemy has none.
  2. Free Rider may be a little verbose, but I feel it actually is just enough to cover all the necessary bases. There's no semantic text at all from my perspective. As far as your question, I would preface my answer by saying this: the fact that you can converse with me on the subject means you probably know just as much, if not more than I do, on the material at hand. That said, I'm not sure I like externality absorption because I don't see an externality to a spell. If spells did have some nominal third-party effect, then your variant would work well, I think. To give an example, Sorceror A casts Bull's Strength on Fighter B. Unless some enemy spy deciphers the buff via Spellcraft or something, I'm not seeing the externality. That spell just happens. Also, I like Free Rider because it's something that more people are likely to understand, juxtaposed with something like Externality Absorption.
  3. I will consider your thoughts when (if) I modify them.
  4. "Eras not of D&D"... by which you mean? Anyway, I simply chose the two most notable that came to my head first and I chose dead guys so as hopefully to not offend anyone living (not that I think any living, famous economist would stumble across this page, but I try to err on the side of caution), although it seems I've failed a tiny bit, or at least created questions. -- Jota 11:52, 17 August 2009 (MDT)
Hmm, I've nothing more to say on Hyperinflation and Stagflation with what you have said; It makes sense when you say it like that. I still think the ability to generate antimagic fields makes the class completely dominate anything that is pure-magic.
Merely a suggestion on the Free Rider; you reject it, as you may.
DnD is of a twisted medieval setting. Adam Smith is from the 1700s and Keynes from the early 1900s. Of course, there really wasn't any economist during that era, so finding notable ones of that era (real or imagined) would be difficult. Only thing you'll find in that era is mercantillists.

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is quite unique and diversified yet makes sense. It avoids number crunching but isn't overly simplified and the class can hold its own among the best of the SRD classes. --74.4.41.39 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because they knew what they were talking about and avoided rambling. They seemed knowledgeable but not overly so. --74.4.41.39 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because This class is organized in a way that is easy to understand and familiar. They laid it out much like a core class and all of the hyperlinks are easy to follow. --74.4.41.39 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this class is completely unique and fun to play. The roleplay opportunities it presents are immense and very fun to explore. --74.4.41.39 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Loved it[edit]

What about the broken window, the diamond-water paradox, the economic calculation problem and the invisible hand? These could be interesting additions, if only for the sake of fun. 74.4.41.39 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only able to incorporate so much, and my economics background is admittedly limited. I did have enough other ideas I thought of doing a freeform class (sort of like what is shown on this page), but I never got around to it. I'm currently working on an alchemist, however, so it will have to wait for a little bit, though you're welcome to give it a try if you feel up to it. -- Jota 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the versatility of this class can lead to either a powerful or weak character, but in most cases, the idea of customizing your character class is very well balanced here. At first glance, this class seems like it can be overpowered very easily, but I am running a campaign with a player building this, and I hope to see it do well. --74.131.132.167 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this article is very well written, and easy to follow. --74.131.132.167 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this article is also very easy to read, and it outlines the class for anyone to use without frustration. --74.131.132.167 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because a 5 is the highest number i could put. I loved the way this class is written, and I wish i could give it 6. The class does a great job incorporating its own abilities and features into any game, while adding unique flavor. --74.131.132.167 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Economists[edit]

Don't economists study the allocation of scarce resources and not necessarily just financial things? And what does the quote of this class (at the start) have to do with it? --Green Dragon 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

hello[edit]

I like the marked liberal leading, especially since I am marked liberal sympathizer as well. Except for the intellectual curious.

How do you think the class fit my setting, a world with no spell casting? I am making a bourgeoisie ( urban dwellers) subrace and bourgeoisie category of classes. i would be interest to adapt the Economist for the setting, as some rare heretical schoolar from a fine family without any spell casting abilities.

Well, I am in the process of making an economics discipline (Tome of Battle). I don't know if that would be more to your liking, but it is intended to be both less magical and more diverse in the array of options available. Beyond that I'd need more information about what you are specifically trying to achieve with your vision for the class. Jota 14:45, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because It just simply gets too much. At later levels its abilities seem to stack more and more progressively. excluding the fact it isnt required for an economist to know anything about economy nor participate in it the class might as well be labeled "exponential growth barbarian". I'm sorry but please dont give this a high rank... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarginpick (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Wording - 3/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarginpick (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarginpick (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarginpick (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!


Rating[edit]

Power - 4.75/5 I give this class a 4.75 out of 5 because the class seems properly balanced, although it seems a bit strong, while also presenting a range of powers that are unique and fulfill a role --141.101.70.104 09:36, 4 March 2012 (MST)

Wording -5/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --141.101.70.104 09:36, 4 March 2012 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --141.101.70.104 09:36, 4 March 2012 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --141.101.70.104 09:36, 4 March 2012 (MST)


Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it looks balanced. It's got cool skills but none of them seem overpowered or underpowered, even lumped together. --R2d2go (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I understand every one of your numerous abilities. That's pretty good. --R2d2go (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because everything was good. --R2d2go (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because you took an economist of all professions and made it into a sort of fighter. --R2d2go (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (MDT)

Not sure where to put this, so I shoved it into wording. Gave it -1 overall because it had So. Many. Abilities. IT would be hard to remember them all. And unlike a spell list, the names are only vaguely attached to the abilities (a downside of a class like this), so you can't pull out a list and look at it. I mean, I suppose you could write a brief description, but I feel that it's an extra, unfortunate hassle that detracts from the class.

Greatest Thing Ever[edit]

As an Econ major, I find this to be the greatest thing ever

Simply Perfect. Tier 2-3.[edit]

Rating[edit]

Balance - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because There are a lot of things it can do, potentially outshining other classes. But it's not as OP as Wizard, so it's in the right range. --24.62.235.69 12:05, 17 February 2014 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because despite some complaints from others, I think the wording is spot-on. Not too wordy, not too vague. --24.62.235.69 12:05, 17 February 2014 (MST)


Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's unique and delicious. It's both hilarious and a perfect fit for many, many D&D games. --24.62.235.69 12:05, 17 February 2014 (MST)

My only complaint is the variable nature of the Antitrust Statute dispel. It should either be 3+(stat modifier) per day like Turn/Rebuke, or scale with level. Dispels are potentially very powerful.

Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors