An ENworld poster asked this question, and I thought asking it here might be more informative:
Clearly the ECL/CR system assumes some sort of mathematical standard, but nobody in the know ever talks about it. (That I know of, at least. Maybe some designer has a related discussion in a blog I've never had the pleasure of reading.) Probably this is because stats per level are so tied up with wealth -- specifically the Big 6 -- and no game designer wants to potentially tick off DMs by even vaguely implying that "you're not giving enough treasure!" or "you're giving too much!" Mostly the first one; stingy DMs tend to be touchy about anything that might make their players feel entitled to treasure. ;)
This ambiguity always irritated me about 3.x, but maybe someone on the PF team can at least attest to their own attack/AC/DCs/save standards in PF. I'm hoping those standards are more than "Whatever numbers the PCs can buy using WBL" or "it depends on the campaign" or "There are no standards!" Because, as I said, monsters have a mathematical standard. (Sketchy as CR can be, it is a standard.) Which implies that PCs have one too.
Anyway, I'm hoping for hard numbers here!
Do you mean something like this? The chart printed in the back of the Bestiary?
Edit: It's the monsters' numbers, not the PC's numbers, but it's not too hard to work with it to get PC benchmarks.
Not really; 3.5 has similar guidelines in the MM, but it doesn't clarify expected PC numbers.
For example, a PF fighter-type can keep pace with average monster AC...assuming he gets regular upgrades to his weapon. But rogues and other medium BAB types can't keep up at all, without several oddball bonuses. (Custom items with +1 sacred, +1 profane, +1 insight, +1 luck, anyone?)
Then there's PC AC, which is all over the place in more ways than one. Unlike monsters, PCs rely on items for most of their AC. To keep pace with even the low end of expected monster ABs, a PC has to have a full suite of AC boosters: magic armor, magic shield, ring of prot, and amulet of nat armor. Most PCs just can't keep up, period. I'm fairly certain that AC isn't intended to be a hit-preventor past the low levels, but just how far behind is it expected to fall? There are DMs who see nothing wrong with a 20th level fighter with an AC in the teens. (Mundane armor.)
My point is, even the CR guidelines don't really shed light on this subject because there are so many ways to interpret the relationship between monster stats and PC stats.
Most of Paizo's adventures are written assuming the stat spread one can get from a 15-20pt buy, I believe. This tends to be the default range. (Note: I don't play the premade adventures, and my campaigns are probably ridiculously overpowered by the standards of most)
Sorry if I was imprecise, but I'm not talking about abilities when I say 'stats.' What I'm referring to are basic combat stats like attack bonus, AC, saves and DCs. (Starting abilities play a part in this, but they matter less and less as levels are gained.)
The Wealth by Level table is there to help guestimate these things.
...and no game designer wants to potentially tick off DMs by even vaguely implying that "you're not giving enough treasure!" or "you're giving too much!" Mostly the first one; stingy DMs tend to be touchy about anything that might make their players feel entitled to treasure. ;)
This ambiguity always irritated me about 3.x, but maybe someone on the PF team can at least attest to their own attack/AC/DCs/save standards in PF.
I understand what your saying. I tend to be overly generous with loot... mostly because I find that to be one of the really fun parts of dungeon crawls... the loot!
So it annoys me when I get the opportunity to play instead of DM... and ome of my players DM a loot scarce game. And then gets touchy or irritated if anyone at the table brings it up.
I played a game where I got to level 7 and still had my starting loot. Not a single piece of gear or one copper. Was horrible.
Because I tend to give out a ton of loot I usually provide money sinks... Broken down keeps they can restore, a church the party started, a business in trouble they take over... Something so I can keep the loot flowing without having the group's WBL become too crazy. Unfortunately its all guess work. I haven't found a standard of any sort. Sometimes I ask the group to total up their wealth in items and I compare it to the chart and see where I am.
|
Generally speaking, when looking at monster abilities in relation to PC abilities, average would, generally speaking probably fall into the range of a 50% chance of success.
The problem is that players tend to build with very specific character concepts in mind, and if that concept doesn't involve having really high spell save DCs or really, REALLY high armor, it's easy to fall behind the curve really quickly.
Heck, it's quite easy for a fighter to start of the game having average AC against a CR 4 monster. Granted, said monster will probably kill the fighter if it hits, but that's another issue altogether. Conversely, it's very, VERY difficult for said AC to remain high unless the fighter specializes in having a high AC, usually to the extreme detriment of damage output.
Essentially, for player AC, add 10 to the monster Attack, and you've got a rough idea of where you need to be on average.
For player attack bonuses, subtract 10 from monster AC, and you've got a rough estimate.
Same goes for Save Throws.
For damage, divide monster HP by 4, and again you have a rough estimate.
For ability DCs, subtract 10 for the average saving throw of a given level, and for saving throws, add 10 for the average PC ability requiring a save.
It's not a perfect spectrum, but it should give you some idea of the average needed to overcome any given CR creature in combat.
I understand what your saying. I tend to be overly generous with loot... mostly because I find that to be one of the really fun parts of dungeon crawls... the loot!
...and no game designer wants to potentially tick off DMs by even vaguely implying that "you're not giving enough treasure!" or "you're giving too much!" Mostly the first one; stingy DMs tend to be touchy about anything that might make their players feel entitled to treasure. ;)
This ambiguity always irritated me about 3.x, but maybe someone on the PF team can at least attest to their own attack/AC/DCs/save standards in PF.
I can totally sympathize.
I once played a low wealth campaign that was great fun, because the DM was very experienced and had a sense of the math. But ya know what have been even more fun? Loot! Cash! Divine boons, something!
Generally speaking, when looking at monster abilities in relation to PC abilities, average would, generally speaking probably fall into the range of a 50% chance of success.
...
It's not a perfect spectrum, but it should give you some idea of the average needed to overcome any given CR creature in combat.
There's a lot of disagreement here. For example, AC is particularly wonky as you say yourself. Without a lot of very specific or custom items, it's pretty much impossible to maintain a 50% success rate against even weak monster attacks. As a result, I'm fairly certain that AC is about preventing hits only for the first few levels. Get into the middle and high levels, and it becomes more about preventing monsters from dumping everything they have into Power Attack and hitting you on a natural 2.
You say 50% is the benchmark, but others are happy with a 5% benchmark.
I've never had too much of a problem with AC at high levels, but this is coming from someone who recently had a very high dex shield fighter build, lol. I did suffer a lot of damage decrease, but I never really got hit with spells, bullets, arrows, and anything that dealt with touch AC.
Games like 3.5 had a much bigger problem with that, even if you got your AC to 60. Giant monsters that had +57 to their attacks was far too much as opposed to a range of 28-37 in pathfinder. I just find pathfinder to be more playable at high levels, as the game doesn't seem to break at the higher levels like 3.5 does.
Really? The last game I ran to 8th level, bad guys could either hit on a 4-5 or not at all. I had a party of 6th level rangers fight the party, and found they could only hit like two of the 6 people there. On the other hand, dire animals hit on like a 4. Maybe this is a feature and not a bug, but it feels a little silly.I've never had too much of a problem with AC at high levels, but this is coming from someone who recently had a very high dex shield fighter build, lol. I did suffer a lot of damage decrease, but I never really got hit with spells, bullets, arrows, and anything that dealt with touch AC.
Games like 3.5 had a much bigger problem with that, even if you got your AC to 60. Giant monsters that had +57 to their attacks was far too much as opposed to a range of 28-37 in pathfinder. I just find pathfinder to be more playable at high levels, as the game doesn't seem to break at the higher levels like 3.5 does.
The last game I was in ran all the way to 20. For about several months we stayed at 20 (no epic rules) Monsters of any type would need about a 13-16 to hit me, save the jabberwock or adamantine golem and even then they needed a 9. I will admit that I optimized the heck out of my dexterity and using feats like missile shield, ray shield, combat expertise combined with active defense. The capstone ability for the shield fighter is to add even more touch armor combined with evasion. I got pretty much tired of being targeted with touch attacks from previous campaigns so I pretty much came to the table with a "this will show them" attitude. People started to refer to my shield fighter as the bullet timer of the group. My damage really lacked, and I pretty much could not kill anything with high armor class combined with health, because I had to use combat expertise all of the time to maintain my armor class. It can get boring after awhile. Though, the most fun in it was that all I had was a shield and sword, no armor, amulet, or bracers of armor.
Edit: The monsters I mean that needed a 13-16 were dragons like wyrms and great wyrms, depending on the color. Monsters like the tarn linnorm and other CR 20s couldn't really hit me.
*Casts Gate and hopes for an Inner Paizonian to take interest.*
Really? The last game I ran to 8th level, bad guys could either hit on a 4-5 or not at all. I had a party of 6th level rangers fight the party, and found they could only hit like two of the 6 people there. On the other hand, dire animals hit on like a 4. Maybe this is a feature and not a bug, but it feels a little silly.I've never had too much of a problem with AC at high levels, but this is coming from someone who recently had a very high dex shield fighter build, lol. I did suffer a lot of damage decrease, but I never really got hit with spells, bullets, arrows, and anything that dealt with touch AC.
Games like 3.5 had a much bigger problem with that, even if you got your AC to 60. Giant monsters that had +57 to their attacks was far too much as opposed to a range of 28-37 in pathfinder. I just find pathfinder to be more playable at high levels, as the game doesn't seem to break at the higher levels like 3.5 does.
It is more than a little silly, though NPCs have the added problem of sucking. They suck because they don't have the kind of gear that PCs have, which ya can't give 'em because all that gear would just become PC loot. And the higher level the NPC, the more they suck in comparison to PCs of similar level. :/
Sweet. I was starting to think I was the only DM to think of doing that!
What the players have also depends on system mastery. I can give two players the same point-buy, and same WBL and get entirely different results. I think the AP's by Paizo show what a PC should be able to deal with on average. I have used with new players and more experienced players, and I don't have to do a lot of adjust which makes me think they are balanced pretty well.
The monster guidelines for creation in the back are pretty much on point if you have average players.
PS:One of the devs said the other devs make really powerful characters, and since they make the game it makes sense that they can get the most out of the system.
There will never be a neat little box you can stick PC's in mathematically.
|
Sweet. I was starting to think I was the only DM to think of doing that!
I highly support an option to just grant stat mods based on level. I've long wished for a definitive breakdown of what bonuses characters should have at what level for just such a purpose. The 3.5 Vow of Poverty was promising, but not quite what I wanted.
There will never be a neat little box you can stick PC's in mathematically.
No, but being clued in on what the devs of a game think of as average helps new and savvy DMs alike make sense of CRs, treasure and other stuff.
It IS worth noting that a PC of X level is treated as that CR.
Minor nitpick: PCs don't have CRs. NPCs do, but as I mentioned a couple posts up, their innate sucktasticity makes them poor benchmarks. At least by RAW.
Sweet. I was starting to think I was the only DM to think of doing that!I highly support an option to just grant stat mods based on level. I've long wished for a definitive breakdown of what bonuses characters should have at what level for just such a purpose. The 3.5 Vow of Poverty was promising, but not quite what I wanted.
I think we should start a club, call it...GFASWL. Pronounced with a silent G and a nordic W -- so it sounds like 'Fasvul.'
It stands for Gamers For Advancing Stats With Level. :)
How would it change anything? Unless the GM is going to force his players to stay with a certain range I don't see why it would matter. All I see it doing is give GM's and other players more excuses to say X is bad-wrong-fun because it is above the power thresh hold.
I think what your looking for was addressed in trail blazer. At the time 4e was released and Paizo was developing Pathfinder another company was developing trail blazer. I'm not sure if I have the PDF still but I'm pretty positive they broke down the average damage, attack bonuses, armor class, etc. And where characters would have to be to hit a certain percentage of the time and so forth.
Where do I send my club dues?
Mail a money order or certified check, with a full set of stainless steel Gamescience precision dice to Game Talk Tower, Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA, "Our Fair City."
(If you got that reference, you know why I won't be holding GFASWL meetings on Saturday mornings. ;)
How would it change anything?
Let's take a situation I've found to be common with young DMs -- myself included. The players make PCs with varying degrees of kick-buttitude. Maybe one of them is brand new to gaming, while another is a PF veteran. Maybe another is expecting a high-op game, while another is expecting low-op. In any case, the DM doesn't know enough to go over character sheets or even talk about this 'optimization' thing with his players.
The adventure begins, and fun is had...at first. But then levels are gained, and things start to get lopsided. The DM doesn't know just how dependent PCs are on treasure -- specifically on AC boosters. So he picks treasure that looks cool, but doesn't give the PCs the stats the game expects them to have. Or maybe he rolls for loot randomly, if PF has that. So as the PCs get into the mid-levels, they die more and more often. The players get frustrated at how glass-jawed their PCs are. (I don't know if PF has resurrection penalties like 3.x does, but that might create even more frustration.)
If the veteran player is playing a caster, he's probably cool as a cucumber, and might even manufacture some of the missing stats that the party doesn't have. Which of course makes the other players feel like sidekicks.
At the same time, the DM is wondering why his story keeps getting interrupted because the PCs have to head back to town to resurrect one of their own. Or if players decide to simply reroll new characters, he gets irritated at having to repeatedly introduce the new PCs and weave them into the plot. The DM makes sure that he's using CRs within two or three of party level. He tallies up the value of the PCs' gear and checks it against the WBL chart, and everything seems to be on the level. Why is DMing getting harder and harder, instead of easier?
I've never experienced the reverse situation, but I'm sure it's problematic also.
To we of the forum hive mind, these problems seem trivial. If the DM and players just posted about their problems here, we could give them advice ad nauseam. But believe me, lacking solid guidelines can be a major hurdle for some groups -- it can crash campaigns, and even turn gamers away from a system.
So what changes, if gamers are given a chart of numbers that the devs assume? It helps us solve issues that may come up in play that might otherwise cause a lot of hassle and grief. In the above example, the DM would know "Oh, there are specific items that the CR system expects the PCs to have, and that's why they're dying so often!" Or he might decide he doesn't like those assumptions, and think "I've got to clue my players in that I expect them to be super-tactical and careful!"
A DM is always free to ignore dev assumptions, but like the old adage says; "You have to know the [guidelines] to break 'em."
I think what your looking for was addressed in trail blazer. At the time 4e was released and Paizo was developing Pathfinder another company was developing trail blazer. I'm not sure if I have the PDF still but I'm pretty positive they broke down the average damage, attack bonuses, armor class, etc. And where characters would have to be to hit a certain percentage of the time and so forth.
If you find it, I'd be interested to hear what overall sort of numbers TB assumes. And if they talk about specific items or feats, even better!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally am not a big fan of the Magic XMas Tree. Its one of the things I like least about D&D.
I love wondrous items. They're evocative, fun, etc.
I hate +x items. - Specifically, I hate that you NEED them to keep up. I hate that if something happens and you lose *ALL* your gear, it's as bad, or worse, than killing your character, unless you somehow get way more than an even share of the loot until you catch back up to the rest of the party.
I'd love to see a complete disentangling of Money and the CR system. Ideally, the CR system should function just fine if I'm using all mundane gear, and any items I have that give me bonuses should go above and beyond that.
It would let me spend more of my money on *Actually* cool stuff, instead of improving my character math.
I believe I saw an interesting subsystem on here designed to do just that, it gave you "Improvement Points" of some sort which you allocated as desired. The point costs and quantity available were based on the WBL and item costs of the benefits, but the whole thing was a subsystem in leveling up instead of relying on your gear.
Darkholme, you're preaching to the choir man. :) I'm telling ya, this GFASWL club is gonna be a thing!
My own house rules simply replicate the bonuses that PCs normally get from items, and applies them directly to the PCs. And NPCs, of course.
|
|
You need to make sure you retain the choices the players would have made in the mechanics you use though, so they can choose which things to boost.
Of the systems I've seen to do this, this system is by far the best one. Perhaps it could be refined further, but it's the lead option by far. Took me like 30 minutes to track down. You can bet I'm adding it to my list now. lol.
The Second best alternative was written by the same guy: Here it is. It doesn't get rid of the need for magic items, but it does get rid of the constant need to trade in and upgrade.
Interesting idea: All magic items scale by level in bonus, and the special effects of weapons come in modular addons.
Alternately, you can go Conan RPG Style, and give NO magic gear buffs, and throw the Paizo CRs & Exp System out the window, and just decide what challenges the PCs will face as the GM, and give set Exp per session or each mission, perhaps modified by what happens in the session (like in WoD/Runequest/Unisystem & most other RPGs).
|
So what changes, if gamers are given a chart of numbers that the devs assume? It helps us solve issues that may come up in play that might otherwise cause a lot of hassle and grief. In the above example, the DM would know "Oh, there are specific items that the CR system expects the PCs to have, and that's why they're dying so often!" Or he might decide he doesn't like those assumptions, and think "I've got to clue my players in that I expect them to be super-tactical and careful!"
So you really think that "precise guidelines" for 21 classes, 50-100 PrC
and a couple hundred archetypes can be written? And can keep updated when new material is produced?The kind of work that will require Paizo to do is something I would greatly prefer was spent for other projects.
I like the idea of equipment that scales with use, which is more in line with most of the literature and keeps magic more interesting. It'd be interesting if crafters could only craft the basic stuff and anything else was acquired over time.
Of course, making such a system balanced and fun is a different story. A lot of what works for literature doesn't do so well for a game.
I remember a dm ran a pre-gen adventure as is, with no adjustments or an interest in altering the adventure to the party's capabilities. We were meant to be able to take it, he didn't want to do any work.
So many dead...
|
|
It is more than a little silly, though NPCs have the added problem of sucking. They suck because they don't have the kind of gear that PCs have, which ya can't give 'em because all that gear would just become PC loot. And the higher level the NPC, the more they suck in comparison to PCs of similar level. :/
This is really overstated. There's an element of truth to it (which is why they're a CR less than appropriately WBL'd characters) but you can easily make a character as or more powerful than the listed expectations for monsters of that level if you build in a remotely optimized manner.
Their HP mostly doesn't scale as much, but AC can be vastly higher and most other stuff is on par.
No really, give me class and CR and I'll even demonstrate.
Probably the biggest problem in having set standards for the PC classes is in how different people play the game. For example: An encounter with CR = APL is a joke to a group of power-gamers. That same encounter will likely party-wipe a group of role-players. Another way to look at it is that the "standard" for a min-maxed two-handed weapon fighter isn't going to be the same for the party "face" (high CHA) and wise leader (high WIS) who happens to have levels in fighter.
Yes, your level one half nymph psion/wizard is impaled by the first javelin thrown by the orc.
...
GAME OVER
I remember a dm ran a pre-gen adventure as is, with no adjustments or an interest in altering the adventure to the party's capabilities. We were meant to be able to take it, he didn't want to do any work.
So many dead...
I remember the last time I ran a pre-gen adventure as is, with no adjustments or an interest in altering the adventure to the party's capabilities. So boringly easy for them.
Heheheh.
Seriously though, the pre-gens can be quite excellent but the encounters almost always need to be tweaked to match the power levels of your particular group. That might mean tweaked into stronger, weaker, or just plain different encounters. I run few pregen encounters without some form of tweaking.
- Gauss
Probably the biggest problem in having set standards for the PC classes is in how different people play the game. For example: An encounter with CR = APL is a joke to a group of power-gamers. That same encounter will likely party-wipe a group of role-players. Another way to look at it is that the "standard" for a min-maxed two-handed weapon fighter isn't going to be the same for the party "face" (high CHA) and wise leader (high WIS) who happens to have levels in fighter.
Seriously though, the pre-gens can be quite excellent but the encounters almost always need to be tweaked to match the power levels of your particular group. That might mean tweaked into stronger, weaker, or just plain different encounters. I run few pregen encounters without some form of tweaking.
This is exactly the kind of issue that stat guidelines would help solve. If your party is consistently above or below the expected numbers, you've got a pretty good idea of how you need to adjust encounters. You don't need to see them in action -- which might result in a TPK or boredom -- and you don't need to have been a DM for ten years, or be a tactical wiz to realize "Hey, I should make some adjustments."
So what changes, if gamers are given a chart of numbers that the devs assume? It helps us solve issues that may come up in play that might otherwise cause a lot of hassle and grief. In the above example, the DM would know "Oh, there are specific items that the CR system expects the PCs to have, and that's why they're dying so often!" Or he might decide he doesn't like those assumptions, and think "I've got to clue my players in that I expect them to be super-tactical and careful!"So you really think that "precise guidelines" for 21 classes, 50-100 PrC
and a couple hundred archetypes can be written? And can keep updated when new material is produced?
Oh, hel no! Is that what it sounds like I'm asking for?
If anyone on the Paizo team is reading, I'm not looking for dozens of pages of numbers! Something like the guidelines in the bestiary would do nicely.
You need to make sure you retain the choices the players would have made in the mechanics you use though, so they can choose which things to boost.
I have mixed feelings about such a system. On the one hand, a lot of players find it fun to have that much control over their numbers -- as if they were going on a shopping spree at the magic mart in a RAW game. On the other hand, it creates the opportunity for players to make really lopsided PCs. And I'm really not crazy about lopsided PCs.
Alternately, you can go Conan RPG Style, and give NO magic gear buffs, and throw the Paizo CRs & Exp System out the window, and just decide what challenges the PCs will face as the GM, and give set Exp per session or each mission, perhaps modified by what happens in the session (like in WoD/Runequest/Unisystem & most other RPGs).
The low-loot DM I mentioned earlier pretty much did this. It was fun because he was a veteran DM and knew what he was about; but without AC boosters, combat became more and more lopsided. Hitting first and hitting hard was the name of the game.
I guess my point is that different amounts of wealth not only changes what CRs a party can overcome, it also changes the fundamental dynamic of combat.
|
|
You need to make sure you retain the choices the players would have made in the mechanics you use though, so they can choose which things to boost.
I have mixed feelings about such a system. On the one hand, a lot of players find it fun to have that much control over their numbers -- as if they were going on a shopping spree at the magic mart in a RAW game. On the other hand, it creates the opportunity for players to make really lopsided PCs. And I'm really not crazy about lopsided PCs.
You could do some mandatory and some selectable. Hmm.
Alternately, you can go Conan RPG Style, and give NO magic gear buffs, and throw the Paizo CRs & Exp System out the window, and just decide what challenges the PCs will face as the GM, and give set Exp per session or each mission, perhaps modified by what happens in the session (like in WoD/Runequest/Unisystem & most other RPGs).
The low-loot DM I mentioned earlier pretty much did this. It was fun because he was a veteran DM and knew what he was about; but without AC boosters, combat became more and more lopsided. Hitting first and hitting hard was the name of the game.
I guess my point is that different amounts of wealth not only changes what CRs a party can overcome, it also changes the fundamental dynamic of combat.
Conan has AC scale with level by character class, and Armor as DR, so its a bit less of an issue there.
But yeah, in standard PF, you eventually stop going up in AC, and if that's the case, you GM needs to make sure the monsters ACs are still hittable.
I will also add you can give the same character sheet to different players, and one group will still trounce an encounter, and another group will fail. If a GM has players above this "standard" power level they might want to blame the numbers when the issue is that the players are either too good, or the GM is not good enough as far as tactics go.
I am against the idea of guidelines for that reason alone. It lead to the situation below.
GM: Wraithstrike you AC is 3 higher than what is normal for your level. Your character is broken and will wreck my game.
Me: SMDH
If the chart say AC of 24 at level 4 for fighter types, how is that going to help if you have a player who goes above or below the standard. All a GM can really do is adjust to the group.
Seriously though, the pre-gens can be quite excellent but the encounters almost always need to be tweaked to match the power levels of your particular group. That might mean tweaked into stronger, weaker, or just plain different encounters. I run few pregen encounters without some form of tweaking.This is exactly the kind of issue that stat guidelines would help solve. If your party is consistently above or below the expected numbers, you've got a pretty good idea of how you need to adjust encounters. You don't need to see them in action -- which might result in a TPK or boredom -- and you don't need to have been a DM for ten years, or be a tactical wiz to realize "Hey, I should make some adjustments."
Actually, stat guidelines are not the only issue. Hand two groups identical pre-gen characters and watch how one group dies and the other group gets bored. It is, in part, alot to do with playing style and skill level at playing the game. Tactics, strategies etc.
- Gauss
The point's not for the GM to say "You're going to break my game" but for the GM to have an accurate assessment of your character's power, so its not as difficult to adjust the encounter to match you.
I understand, but I am sure if something is not "in the box" some GM's will freak out.
Telling the GM what my AC and to-hit bonus is so he compare it to the monster should work just as well, and players don't have to worry trying to say anyone or anything is "officially" overpowered.
Seriously though, the pre-gens can be quite excellent but the encounters almost always need to be tweaked to match the power levels of your particular group. That might mean tweaked into stronger, weaker, or just plain different encounters. I run few pregen encounters without some form of tweaking.This is exactly the kind of issue that stat guidelines would help solve. If your party is consistently above or below the expected numbers, you've got a pretty good idea of how you need to adjust encounters. You don't need to see them in action -- which might result in a TPK or boredom -- and you don't need to have been a DM for ten years, or be a tactical wiz to realize "Hey, I should make some adjustments."Actually, stat guidelines are not the only issue. Hand two groups identical pre-gen characters and watch how one group dies and the other group gets bored. It is, in part, alot to do with playing style and skill level at playing the game. Tactics, strategies etc.
- Gauss
That is what I said :)
I will also add you can give the same character sheet to different players, and one group will still trounce an encounter, and another group will fail. If a GM has players above this "standard" power level they might want to blame the numbers when the issue is that the players are either too good, or the GM is not good enough as far as tactics go.
Hi 5's Gauss.
Wraithstrike, I should really read all of the thread before posting a response to an earlier post. Then I wouldnt duplicate your work. :P
- Gauss
P.S. To add to what Wraithstrike and I are saying: I used to be a co-DM at local tournaments (about 10 tables on average). Tournaments are an ideal testing ground for this as they are handed the same pre-gens and yet, you get TPKs at one table and another table beats it handily.
|
|
So what changes, if gamers are given a chart of numbers that the devs assume? It helps us solve issues that may come up in play that might otherwise cause a lot of hassle and grief. In the above example, the DM would know "Oh, there are specific items that the CR system expects the PCs to have, and that's why they're dying so often!" Or he might decide he doesn't like those assumptions, and think "I've got to clue my players in that I expect them to be super-tactical and careful!"So you really think that "precise guidelines" for 21 classes, 50-100 PrC
and a couple hundred archetypes can be written? And can keep updated when new material is produced?Oh, hel no! Is that what it sounds like I'm asking for?
If anyone on the Paizo team is reading, I'm not looking for dozens of pages of numbers! Something like the guidelines in the bestiary would do nicely.
The problem is that it wouldn't do nicely, as pointed out by several posters.
Let's make an example: "A typical high BAB character of level 1 will have a modified attack bonus of +3 and one attack" and "A typical high BAB character of level 1 will deal damage in the 3-10 range".
meele bruiser with geatsword: attack +7 damage 2d6+7
two weapon fighter with 2 shortswords: attack +2(x2) damage (total) 2d6+3
sword and shield: attack +6 damage 1d8+4
finesse fighter: attack +6 damage 1d6+1
archer: attack +5 damage 1d8+2 (if he get a strength rated bow)
So simply throwing in a few fighter builds we get a range of
attack bonus : from +2 to +7
number of attacks 1 or 2
damage from 1d6+1 to 2d6+7
Going up by level the variability will increase, not decrease, as the effects of different builds, feats and archetypes will completely change the character.
What is the effect of Crane wing for the "suggested AC" values?
What is the effect of a reach tripping build on your suggested damage output and your defensive values?
If I am a archer I need the same AC of a meele bruiser?
I build my character around the idea of doing a lot of attacks and criticals but no so much damage on each strike. Then I compare it to the "intended damage" for my level .... almost certainly my apparent damage output is under the intended level if I don't factor in the criticals.
And so on at libitum. And that is only looking high BAB classes.
Variance between critters is lower and still the CR need to be corrected after you have applied the guidelines.
Even the simple way in which the GM use your adversaries can completely change what are the power levels you need to overcome obstacles.
His critters always fight to the last hit point, never retreating or attempting to surrender?
They try to deceive you instead of going for a straight fight?
Use a lot of spells?
Then there is the problem of what your group do. You use party buffing spells or effects? personal buffing? nothing?
Each of those choice change your party power by a great degree.
I was amazed some month ago by a guy claiming that a "invisible flying spellcaster is unbeatable". Then he did go on saying that its group of 12 meele fighters and a cleric was incapable to fight a flying mage ..... I have to question how no one was apparently carrying a bow and they were incapable to disperse enough to force the mage to use his spells to attack 1 target at a time. With so many characters even firing blindly they should have been capable of scoring some hit on the mage and exhaust his spells before he was capable to beat them all.
I am willing to bet that the damage output and attack capabilities of each one of those guy was well above the intended norm for their levels, but they were so narrowly build that they were incapable to touch something that was different from their intended target.
So getting the balance of power isn't a question of "intended damage output", "intended AC" and so on, but much more a question on ow you use what you have.
Heh, in a game where I know magical items are going to be rare, I'll just go Armor master with stalwart feats.
What about, instead of a guideline for approximate PC abilities for a GM to work with, what if there were a follow-up to the Bestiary that had a page or half-page on how a given monster could be used, modified, equipped, or placed, and how it reacts to certain qualities in the GM's actual players?
"This monster is CR 9. It is hard to kill because of its DR, high hit points and spell-like abilities, but is even more effective in a watery terrain. Parties that aren't used to the rules involving underwater fighting will have a hard time, as will non-magical melee warriors or ranged characters who cannot shoot into water. Access to effects that dispel magical defenses can make this monster less of a challenge, as will confined spaces or effects that make the monster unable to draw the party into water with it. Guards do not help this monster as much as they do others unless they help keep its magical defensive spells from failing. A partner that does damage helps this monster a great deal, though it does not make a good guard for its partner because of...
As a GM, be wary of:
Disenchant (or other things that break magical defenses)
Adding defensive minions
Line of sight on weapons or spells (Water interferes with this)
Attackers that can ignore DR and Illusions frequently
For party safety, be wary of:
Environmental damage (this monster can take a long time to reach or kill)
Two-weapon fighting, or other sources of extra attacks at reduced damage
Suffocation
Things to worry less about:
High bonuses to-hit
Rules to brush up on:
Difficult Terrain
Illusion Effects
Concealment
Underwater Combat
...
"
The various Guides that fans have written will tell you what a class is capable of and how to build one with good bonuses, but focusing on what a player's numbers should be can lead to people losing sight of half of the equation a GM can control.
If we can give a more detailed description of how the GM can use a given monster in terms of qualities they can see in their own party instead of making up some sort of "party benchmark" to compare to, I think they could get a lot more immediate use and aid out of it. Maybe even acquire long-term skill faster for having these things pointed out.
Basically, we can empower GMs to make better use of their monsters, rather than create in them expectations of players. The latter seems to lead to disappointment for everyone.
Well it's been two business days, and there's been no In The Know replies, so it looks like mum's the word. Which is a shame, because games with guidelines in this area are richer for it. Oh well.
Actually, stat guidelines are not the only issue. Hand two groups identical pre-gen characters and watch how one group dies and the other group gets bored. It is, in part, alot to do with playing style and skill level at playing the game. Tactics, strategies etc.Seriously though, the pre-gens can be quite excellent but the encounters almost always need to be tweaked to match the power levels of your particular group. That might mean tweaked into stronger, weaker, or just plain different encounters. I run few pregen encounters without some form of tweaking.This is exactly the kind of issue that stat guidelines would help solve. If your party is consistently above or below the expected numbers, you've got a pretty good idea of how you need to adjust encounters. You don't need to see them in action -- which might result in a TPK or boredom -- and you don't need to have been a DM for ten years, or be a tactical wiz to realize "Hey, I should make some adjustments."
Correct. However, solid guidelines are still useful. The more variables a DM can identify and adjust, the less chance of a TPK or boredom.
If the chart say AC of 24 at level 4 for fighter types, how is that going to help if you have a player who goes above or below the standard. All a GM can really do is adjust to the group.
That's what I've been saying. Knowledge is flexibility.
Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion but I think you may be overreacting. The DMG is full of guidelines -- how to build communities, how much cash a community has, how much cash a PC of X level should have, how much stuff an NPC of X level should have, how to build encounters, random encounter tables, how to create new spells, classes, PrCs, and on and on. Challenge rating itself is such a guideline, and there are DMs who take it too seriously, and freak out if things get 'out of bounds.' There are also DMs who rail against it, because 'it shackles DMs to a set of metagame guidelines that entitle players to always-winnable fights.' But so what? Jerks are gonna be jerks, whatever the excuse. Bottom line, guidelines do more good than harm.
Take baking a cake from a recipe, for example. Say you go out and buy cake mix, and the instructions on the box say to mix with eggs, water and then bake in the oven. So you do those things, but the cake comes out as a gooey mess, or a chunk of burnt crust. Are you telling me that you don't want to know the specific way that Aunt Jemima makes her cakes, in order to help you make yours? Of course not! You want to know how many eggs, how much water, how hot her oven is and how long she left the cake in. You're still free to make your own adjustments, if you want a moister or a lighter cake, or whatever. But having the details gives you a baseline, and that baseline tells you which adjustments to make.
The problem is that it wouldn't do nicely, as pointed out by several posters.So what changes, if gamers are given a chart of numbers that the devs assume? It helps us solve issues that may come up in play that might otherwise cause a lot of hassle and grief. In the above example, the DM would know "Oh, there are specific items that the CR system expects the PCs to have, and that's why they're dying so often!" Or he might decide he doesn't like those assumptions, and think "I've got to clue my players in that I expect them to be super-tactical and careful!"So you really think that "precise guidelines" for 21 classes, 50-100 PrC
and a couple hundred archetypes can be written? And can keep updated when new material is produced?Oh, hel no! Is that what it sounds like I'm asking for?
If anyone on the Paizo team is reading, I'm not looking for dozens of pages of numbers! Something like the guidelines in the bestiary would do nicely.
Says you. The point isn't to keep PCs within the guidelines, says me. The point is to have a set of baseline numbers, so DMs have some inkling of whether their players are in for a smooth cruise or a rough ride, and how to make adjustments if he so chooses.