CR 4 Expectations are 40 HP, 17 AC, Good Save 7, bad save 3. Mage armor will be on 4 hours a day, or are you casting it multiple times?
These are monster expectations rather than PC expectations, are they not? They seem to be from the table in the section of the PRD that is labeled "monster creation." It seems like using them is at least somewhat of a stretch. Probably not a huge stretch, but NPCs have always operated a bit differently than monsters.
I'm about to go through my weekly game's in progress adventure and log how often each character has needed healing/status curing/emergency intervention against certain death so far in the adventure. Our party (level 14/15, tier 2 mythic) is a lot higher level than the current discussion, but that's the level I play at; similar data from other campaigns would be welcome as well as it will help iron out differences arising from playing style. It may provide a decent base from which to examine "squishiness" on a practical rather than a theorycrafting level though, since that party has two arcane 9-level casters and 2 melee guys.
I could also go through my pbp on these boards I guess for similar statistics (level 4 currently) but that has been a bit chaotic with players dropping in and out, and also, we currently have no fighters or rogues or monks (my weekly game has a straight fighter and a fighter/barbarian), so the data would be significantly less reliable.
|
Also, hello, the fact that the builds vary between people is the entire point of why you post the build.If they vary they don't prove a thing about static numbers. You could build a really good ubercharger in 3.5, didn't mean every fighter with a dip into barbar was a DPR machine. Your demanding static things, where their aren't.
I think talking about things and fixes is actually more progressive than trying to find Ciretose's stamp of approval. Talking about things like Developers being okay with MAD, or the way Full Attacking and feat chains are handled. Most of all, talking about fixes, which we left behind a few pages ago I think.
We can't talk about fixes until we establish something as broken.
You are assuming things are broken (as well as making assumptions about what the Devs are assuming) but you aren't presenting much evidence to back up your assumptions.
Which is what I'm asking to be shown, because I'm not willing to assume you are more correct than the Devs without evidence.
|
|
CR 4 Expectations are 40 HP, 17 AC, Good Save 7, bad save 3. Mage armor will be on 4 hours a day, or are you casting it multiple times?These are monster expectations rather than PC expectations, are they not? They seem to be from the table in the section of the PRD that is labeled "monster creation." It seems like using them is at least somewhat of a stretch. Probably not a huge stretch, but NPCs have always operated a bit differently than monsters.
A full PC is considered to be of equal CR to the level. An NPC is a level lower.
If this is the expectation of encountering a PC of that level, it would make sense to use it as a benchmark.
Now some classes will be above and below based on offensive and defensive advantages, but this is a baseline we can actually use that seems much more useful than...well...nothing.
Also, any data is better than no data.
|
|
The problem is that all builds prove is how good you are at builds. Every build only proves that that particular build either succeeds or fails to meet that individual challenge. To meet the rigorous you demand you'd need to produce multiple builds that all approach the issue using different resources-feats race etc-so nobody including the developers meet your shrodinger rigor. So stop screaming build and shrodinger it actually isn't even proving what you want it too. So pick another catchphrase and move on.
Which is why this is a discussion, not a competition. I'm not playing E-peen, I'm looking for people to demonstrate the legendary broken builds I've heard so much about to see if they exist.
Meanwhile, I'm looking for the expectations of "viable" that the various classes can't meet.
A person doesn't get to say "The Devs are making faulty assumptions" based purely on assumptions they are making about the game that they either won't or can't back up.
CR 4 Expectations are 40 HP, 17 AC, Good Save 7, bad save 3. Mage armor will be on 4 hours a day, or are you casting it multiple times?These are monster expectations rather than PC expectations, are they not? They seem to be from the table in the section of the PRD that is labeled "monster creation." It seems like using them is at least somewhat of a stretch. Probably not a huge stretch, but NPCs have always operated a bit differently than monsters.
A full PC is considered to be of equal CR to the level. An NPC is a level lower.
If this is the expectation of encountering a PC of that level, it would make sense to use it as a benchmark.
PCs may be of the same nominal CR, but the table is still actually for monsters, not for PCs, and they are pretty different beasts.
Now some classes will be above and below based on offensive and defensive advantages, but this is a baseline we can actually use that seems much more useful than...well...nothing.
Also, any data is better than no data.
I agree here, but a comparison to a constructed baseline for monsters is still not a very good data point when it comes down to it. Better than nothing, perhaps, but not *good* especially since even monsters themselves often vary widely from the numbers in the table.
Which is the reason I am suggesting comparing actual gameplay experiences on how often people have needed healing/rescue to determine squishiness. Game reports have their weaknesses (anecdotal, playstyle biases) much like theorycrafting and isolated build comparisons have their weaknesses, but if you are aware of them and take steps to compensate, for example by gathering data from a sample size greater than a single game, then I think they can prove valuable.
Or in other words, it's not a choice between table and no data, I'm suggesting a course that I think would, if followed, produce better data.
Also, hello, the fact that the builds vary between people is the entire point of why you post the build.If they vary they don't prove a thing about static numbers. You could build a really good ubercharger in 3.5, didn't mean every fighter with a dip into barbar was a DPR machine. Your demanding static things, where their aren't.
I think talking about things and fixes is actually more progressive than trying to find Ciretose's stamp of approval. Talking about things like Developers being okay with MAD, or the way Full Attacking and feat chains are handled. Most of all, talking about fixes, which we left behind a few pages ago I think.
We can't talk about fixes until we establish something as broken.
You are assuming things are broken (as well as making assumptions about what the Devs are assuming) but you aren't presenting much evidence to back up your assumptions.
Which is what I'm asking to be shown, because I'm not willing to assume you are more correct than the Devs without evidence.
That's all personal though. Ciretose can't, that doesn't mean no one else can. Why should people spend the time to show you a wall is hard if everyone else is willing to take it for granite?
|
|
People tend to cherry pick personal experiences. If you are pulling from actual campaigns which we can look at and verify, like PbP, sure.
If we are pulling personal anecdotes...not so much.
I also think it is important we come up with some baseline of expectation, and it seems like the chart is what the Devs use to decide power of what will be faced...which seems as good a starting point as any. But I am more than open to suggestions that include testable numbers.
|
|
That's all personal though. Ciretose can't, that doesn't mean no one else can. Why should people spend the time to show you a wall is hard if everyone else is willing to take it for granite?
You mean people other than, you know, the developers of the game.
And heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Obviously. Why test that, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Obviously. Why test that, right?
I hope that's trolling, that doesn't have to do with walls being dense or proving to one person something with long winded explanations and math. In fact, in a vacuum, weight means nothing for falling speed. A brick wall falls at the same speed as a feather. Though I'm not big on traveling to the moon to prove that to you personally.
The important part was proving something many people accept through long winded explanations and lectures, that are then refuted for small(many times unrelated) facts. Can I prove you lose damage when you lose iteratives? Sure, you just lost 3/4 attacks at level 16. Do I want to present a full build? Not really, I just showed you why you lost it.
Can I prove mad hurts you? Sure, you have to spread yourself out, sometimes too thin! Its also not intuitive all the time. Just proved it. Build it? What? Do I look like an expert on monks or dreamscarred's tactician? If you have more to dump and less to raise of course you can focus more on what matters. Can I show you a wizard with good intelligence, con as a second, okay dexterity and not tanked wisdom? I think I did, but then somehow its about his strength and charisma... And suddenly its about how squishy they are at level one?
I don't think anything I say is going to make you happy, or twisted in some way. I can repeatedly say builds don't accomplish much, and repeat what others have said, and it won't be good enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Builds are good to prove that something can be done. They aren't very effective to prove something can not be done.
I'm sorry, ciretose, but at this point, you give me the impression that you are so eager to shout "Schrodinger" that you don't even care if the term makes sense. You seem to be more worried about blindly defending every rule and design choice than actually debating them.
No matter how obvious a class feature, you'll say we need a build to prove it. We need a build to prove that Rangers have more skill points. We need a build to prove that Paladins have better saves. We need a build to prove that a Druid can turn into animals...
No matter what spell we mention, you say it's a Schrondigger Wizard, because apparently, any Wizard with any spell prepared is Schrondigger, even if we cite multiple spells that could be used to solve a problem. It's always Schroddinger.
We don't need builds to prove every single point someone makes. Most of the time it's pretty obvious from simply reading the rules!
It's not "Schrondigger" when someone mention how a Wizard could bypass a given situation. "Schrondigger" would be saying a Wizard has every spell he needs at all times, and no one said anything like that in this thread.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Schroedinger" means, "You tell me there's a cat in the box, and it may be alive, or it may be dead, and you can't tell until you see actually see the cat." That's theoretical quantum physics.
On a more folksy level, "You tell me there's a pig in the poke, I can see that it's alive and squriming, but I can't see inside the bag. You want me to buy it sight unseen." I pay for a pig, but when I open the poke, the cat is let out of the bag. Basically a medieval con game that coined a multitude of phrases, including "a pig in a poke", and "let the cat out of the bag". BTW, "poke" is Middle Engish slang for bag or sack.
Ciretose is from Missouri, and he asking you to "Show me", "Where's the beef?", "No arm waving allowed.", "No tikee, no washee.", and similar such things.
I totally agree with Ciretose on this one. Show us a busted character, and tell us why you think it is broken, how you would fix it, and how much better it would be if it were "fixed".
You might need to supply a Before and After comparison.
Phase 1: Busted character,
Phase 2: Fixed character,
Phase 3: Show how much better the character is (Proof of argument).
We seem to be going straight to Phase 3 without the preliminaries, and even underwear gnomes with INT 7 know better than that.
So why don't you open the box and let us see if the cat is alive or dead, or even in the box at all.
For instance:
This is a MAD wizard, Level 5
This is a SANE wizard, Level 5
Comparison
I would also encourage Ciretose to do the same thing in reverse. After all, the dimensions of the box, or the color of the cat might make a difference in whether the cat lives, dies or fades away. I have it on good authority that the last result has an increased probability if you start with a ginger cat.
But keep in mind that the process may not be reversible. It may be subject to the 2nd law of game dynamics: Perversity tends towards the maximum.
I totally agree with you that wizards and fighters have little need for the MAD approach. But, I still want to see numbers to prove it.
On the other hand, try to build something more complex, like a Ranger or a Battle Cleric, and you will most likely have to go MAD or go home.
Still trying to figure out how all this ties in with faulty assumptions by the developers.
Still trying to figure out how all this ties in with faulty assumptions by the developers
I keep asking that myself.
Personally, my arguments are more on the side of "We can just use simple logic" like I stated earlier. A wizard isn't very MAD because he only needs intellect to function. Everything else is just nice, he's not expected on the front lines and spells are nifty for bringing any losses up. Meanwhile, a Monk would like good str/dex/con/wis. His class features and martial needs actually scale off of those. No need to make a full build. I also think no matter what I say, it won't actually create an effect. Of course none of that tells me how we ended up with "Wizards are MAD!" as a topic...
"Schroedinger" means, "You tell me there's a cat in the box, and it may be alive, or it may be dead, and you can't tell until you see actually see the cat." That's theoretical quantum physics.
I know this... Although I do realize I mispell "Schroedinger" more often than not... It's not exactly a name I see everywhere...
Still trying to figure out how all this ties in with faulty assumptions by the developers.
I'm still not sure how we got to Wizards in the first place... -.-'
|
|
I actually looked it up, and it is spelled both ways on different places on the Internet. I believe the original German spelling has an umlat over the o and no e.
At this point, I am assuming that the entire wizard argument is mis-direction on the part of Pinky's Brain to get us to get to post number 666, at which point the Brain takes over the world!
Opps! This was 664, only 2 more to go!
I'm still not sure how we got to Wizards in the first place... -.-'
Well you see, we were talking about how you have to take an AoO to do completely mundane things like grappling or unarmed strikes. Somehow putting on spike gloves makes you better at this I guess. Anyways, someone said grappling is okay when you use it on people with pitiful AoOs, like a wizard. Lots of dissent, someone pointed out balors are casters too, same person who said its okay against wizards said "well how'd we get to Balor" or something like that actually. Anyways, somehow this leads to "Wizards aren't that squishy" which is true! If they have no prep, but wizards who prepare spells are Schrodinger's wizards because you don't know what spells they have. Anyways, wizards can afford to put points into con and other things and I said "we should talk about other faulty things, like MAD!", and this somehow lead to "Wizards are as MAD as monks!". So now we're talking about how wizards are MAD. Which I don't think is a faulty assumption by developers, or at least not the same as problems with full attack and feat chains.
Of course, the OP was about full attack, and the thread title is faulty assumptions by developers. Of course, if we post anything of value, we might be told we're doing it wrong without piles of numbers and builds and goalpost.
Edit: 665. I knew brain would do it one day.
Sooo, going back to maneuvers for a second. Instead of saying maneuvers are broken as they stand and so on, why don't we ask why it would be broken if the first feat in the combat maneuver feat chain was assumed to be intrinsic in all characters?
How would this change break the game and make martial classes completely overpowered? I'm really interested to know, because I have a hard time swallowing the current mechanic as it stands. Any fighter should be capable of tripping someone in combat without eating a bastard sword for the attempt. Any trained combatant is going to know how to fight in basic ways, that's what being a trained combatant means.
Rather than giving the first feat for free, you should combine the Imp. and Greater feats into one feat w/ Improved's requirements, like in 3E. And maybe replace Int 13 and Expertise that half of them require with something a martial PC would actually want.
Rather than giving the first feat for free, you should combine the Imp. and Greater feats into one feat w/ Improved's requirements, like in 3E. And maybe replace Int 13 and Expertise that half of them require with something a martial PC would actually want.
I really think that you should be able to accomplish something as mundane as tripping someone without feat investment. Being great at tripping is another story altogether, but every trip attempt being followed by falling on your enemies sword seems a little... challenged.
I would certainly call that fighter a failure anyhow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a list of PCs in our party and the number of turns* spent by another on in combat healing them (of hit points or status effects) so far this adventure, pulled from the IRC logs of our campaign (happy to send them to you Ciretose if you would like to look them over). The party has mostly been level 14/tier 1 mythic, and recently has mostly leveled to 15/tier 2 mythic (bard and sorcerer are not quite 15th level yet). Topping up out of combat is not counted; only emergency, in combat heals.
*that is, at least standard actions to heal oneself or another in combat.
Heinrick 3 (fighter/barbarian two hander)
Einar 4 (fighter sword and board)
Katrina 0 (conjurer wizard)
Rath 0 (shadow bloodline sorcerer)
Maribesana 0 (casting focused cleric)
Alyssa 1 (bard mostly focused on casting and buffing with some secondary melee action)
There is one major custom thing that influences this list: the fighter/barbarian has a custom magic prosthetic arm (the end result of a draw from a Deck of Many Things) that gives him fast healing 1 and allows him to cast a swift action cure moderate wounds on himself quite frequently, which significantly reduces his need for healing from the party. In practice it is much like a paladin's lay on hands. Despite that he's still far squishier than our arcanists it seems.
Here is a list of the number of times a PC has needed rescue from certain death in a non healing based fashion (an example: spending a hero point to act out of turn and throw up a wall of force between a final deadly attack and its target, teleporting a friend out of otherwise-deadly danger).
Heinrick 3 (fighter/barbarian two hander)
Einar 1 (fighter sword and board)
Katrina 0 (conjurer wizard)
Rath 0 (shadow bloodline sorcerer)
Maribesana 0 (casting focused cleric)
Alyssa 2 (bard mostly focused on casting and buffing with some secondary melee action)
A combined score of practical squishiness (FWIW I included AC and hit points in this final tally) is, then:
Heinrick 6 (fighter/barbarian two hander, 291 hp, AC 27 with rage)
Einar 5 (fighter sword and board, 242 hp, AC 40)
Alyssa 3 (bard mostly focused on casting and buffing with some secondary melee action, 196 hp, AC 38)
Katrina 0 (conjurer wizard, AC 27, hp 178)
Rath 0 (shadow bloodline sorcerer, AC 30, hp 155)
Maribesana 0 (casting focused cleric, 193 hp, AC 28)
This would seem to support the argument that role (with casting being a squishiness decreasing role and melee a squishiness multiplying role) may be a much more dominant determinant of practical squishiness than HP and AC, and/or that spells are, in practice, a significantly more powerful defensive option than HP and AC (or probably, a combination of both) at this level. Information from other campaigns is welcome to compare against; given the topic of the thread I would suggest information from higher level games is most relevant.
It would also seem to support the secondary argument: looking only at theoretical builds and numbers like hp and AC, without tempering that information with actual gameplay, can be prone to producing highly misleading results. From a simple look at HP and AC the two party members who were actually the squishiest would have appeared to be the least squishy.
|
|
And heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Obviously. Why test that, right?I hope that's trolling, that doesn't have to do with walls being dense or proving to one person something with long winded explanations and math. In fact, in a vacuum, weight means nothing for falling speed. A brick wall falls at the same speed as a feather. Though I'm not big on traveling to the moon to prove that to you personally.
The point is that you have produced a ton of things you assume to be true, in a thread about assumptions the developers are making being faulty, and you seem somehow offended I'm asking you to back up your assumptions.
Which it me is the same as someone going "Silly Galileo, obviously heavy things fall faster..." in a "Faulty Assumptions Scientists make" thread.
|
|
Here is a list of PCs in our party and the number of turns* spent by another on in combat healing them (of hit points or status effects) so far this adventure, pulled from the IRC logs of our campaign (happy to send them to you Ciretose if you would like to look them over).
I don't question the data being accurate (and I welcome the data), but the fact some classes needed more healing really only tells us that the attacks went toward some classes more than others.
Correct?
So the GM attacked the Martial Classes more often than the caster classes, or the martial classes put themselves in harms way more often.
So GM fiat or player decisions. Probably more the later, although at higher levels less so, as attacking the caster is as easy (and generally less dangerous) than attacking the martial. The martials had better AC, more hit points, and possibly better saves.
If you close on the caster, next round the caster is casting on the defensive (if alive). If you close on the fighter, next round he is full attacking you.
So why so many attacks on the Fighter?
Here is a list of PCs in our party and the number of turns* spent by another on in combat healing them (of hit points or status effects) so far this adventure, pulled from the IRC logs of our campaign (happy to send them to you Ciretose if you would like to look them over).
I don't question the data being accurate (and I welcome the data), but the fact some classes needed more healing really only tells us that the attacks went toward some classes more than others.
Correct?
So the GM attacked the Martial Classes more often than the caster classes, or the martial classes put themselves in harms way more often.
So GM fiat or player decisions. Probably more the later...
That the attacks went (fairly consistently) towards some classes more than others was part of the takeaway point, yeah (defensive spells, particularly Mirror Image and Resist Energy, did also frequently provide a large edge when the casters unintentionally exposed themselves to harm, or when an enemy made special efforts to avoid the meleers while attacking the casters, or when facing non attack roll based threats), except I don't think it's really much of either GM fiat or player decision that a melee focused character will get attacked more often. It's part of the role that the class, or build, gives to the character in that case.
And if the character's role pushes him towards intentionally exposing himself to much more frequent melee harm, then he ends up, in actual play, a squishier character than a character with even the exact same defensive stats whose role does not require such - does he not? Or than a character with lesser AC and hp but a role that puts those stats less often at risk?
A hopefully clearer way of posing that which I wrote above: "role (with casting being a squishiness decreasing role and melee a squishiness multiplying role) may be a much more dominant determinant of practical squishiness than HP and AC."
|
|
I would like to look at the logs. I suspect that in situations where the party was able to prep (pre-buff) things go very differently than in situations where they don't. Resist energy, for example, is a specific type, so you need to know in advance or you are wasting a round in combat casting it. And mirror image is minutes per level.
If the role of the martials is to keep things off the caster, that keeps the caster from harm that would otherwise be coming directly at them, disrupting casting and...well...killing them.
I find in the APs (and in games I play) pre-buffing beyond hours per day spells is only an occasional luxury.
But I'll take a look at the logs and we can discuss it here or in another thread. I'm just happy someone is producing data.
|
|
Builds are good to prove that something can be done. They aren't very effective to prove something can not be done.
This is exactly what a build shows. If you say something can't be done, and someone in the thread finds a way to do it in a complete build that is still useful, you are then wrong. It can be done, as demonstrated.
If a thread full of people trying to do something can't do it, a good case can be made for your position.
The problem as I see it is a lack of defining expectations, and a surplus of assumptions.
Of course you can never _prove_ a negative. You cannot prove that lemons are never ever sweet rather than sour, but if you have a hundred people each eating loads and loads of lemons and no-one gets a sweet lemon, that's a pretty strong indication that lemons are rarely if ever sweet.
|
|
Builds are good to prove that something can be done. They aren't very effective to prove something can not be done.
This is exactly what a build shows. If you say something can't be done, and someone in the thread finds a way to do it in a complete build that is still useful, you are then wrong. It can be done, as demonstrated.
If a thread full of people trying to do something can't do it, a good case can be made for your position.
The problem as I see it is a lack of defining expectations, and a surplus of assumptions.
No it proves that it can be done one way. It proves that one person managed to pull something off(Generally through race, UMD, or being generally a lot weaker at key class assumptions) One particular build manages to accomplish something and the entire class has passed the test. That's the faulty assumption of your thesis. So you're guilty of the same thing that you constantly accuse others of doing. You're allowing your assumption that if one particular build(fighter,rogue, monk, or wizard)manages to accomplish something then the entire concept of the question is wrong. You talk a lot about testing and math, but unfortunately your own tests fail scientific rigor.
If the stated problem is you can't do "X" and the internet produced a build that can do "X", you aren't correct.
If the stated problem is you can't do "X" while still being able to do "Y", and the internet produces a build that can do "X" while still doing "Y", you aren't correct.
If you fail to define what "X" or "Y" are, in any way other than "They can't!" you fail at even starting a discussion, because you are assuming without testing.
Which is, hello, what the OP is accusing the Devs of doing. Despite the fact the Devs actually did elaborate playtesting.
The Devs, IMHO, were fine with some classes being able to be more powerful at times, so long as that was balanced with fragility.
All win and all fail is completely kosher.
That is what I've seen in my games. I've set goalposts for people to show me otherwise. I've made a hypotheisis and opened it for testing.
I absolutely welcome others to do the same, but if they would rather just keep telling us all about how they "feel" and what they "want" I will continue asking them to actually define terms.
Because they are actually doing what they are accusing the Devs of doing, while the Devs actually playtest this stuff and use builds, charts, graphs, etc...
It's like the 300 pound guy calling the 200 pound guy fat.
It's like the 300 pound guy calling the 200 pound guy fat.
Disclaimer: I'm not addressing the general argument here, just this specific statement.
If the 200-pound guy is 5'0", then what the 300-lb. man is saying is probably perfectly correct. If you're brought up on murder charges, it's not considered a reasonable defense to say "well, Stalin killed more people than I did, so go try him and let me go."
|
|
It's like the 300 pound guy calling the 200 pound guy fat.Disclaimer: I'm not addressing the general argument here, just this specific statement.
If the 200-pound guy is 5'0", that might still be perfectly correct. If you're brought up on murder charges, it's not considered a reasonable defense to say "well, Stalin killed more people than I did, so go try him and let me go."
As you said the 200 guy may very well be fat. The Devs may very well have faulty assumptions we can break down and show to be faulty.
However if you refuse to test your assumptions in even the most basic terms, it is kind of ridiculous to assume they are more correct than ones that have actually be through playtesting and development.
And if you present as evidience that someone is making faulty assumptions, a bunch of assumptions you hold that you aren't willing to test...
Shouldn't it be a greater surprise if someone doesn't call BS?
However if you refuse to test your assumptions in even the most basic terms, it is kind of ridiculous to assume they are more correct than ones that have actually be through playtesting and development.
So, can you show me proof that people are making assumptions and that your idea of testing is absolutely important? We need to test this, or its just not true.
In other news, can we talk about a faulty assumption devs make rather than lengthy talk about why we need builds? If we want lengthy talk about builds in a certain way that should probably be another thread with criteria and other things in the first post.
Edit: Call it faulty assumptions people make. Its not about devs anymore I don't think.
I would like to look at the logs. I suspect that in situations where the party was able to prep (pre-buff) things go very differently than in situations where they don't. Resist energy, for example, is a specific type, so you need to know in advance or you are wasting a round in combat casting it. And mirror image is minutes per level.
If the role of the martials is to keep things off the caster, that keeps the caster from harm that would otherwise be coming directly at them, disrupting casting and...well...killing them.
I find in the APs (and in games I play) pre-buffing beyond hours per day spells is only an occasional luxury.
But I'll take a look at the logs and we can discuss it here or in another thread. I'm just happy someone is producing data.
Got an email address for me (pm it to me)? There are five IC room logs, but you probably only need the room 0 log, which is where combats almost always are run. Room 0 for this adventure is >300,000 words (~1000 pages in Word) so I'll send some guidance as to where to find the specific combats you are looking for as well.
|
|
However if you refuse to test your assumptions in even the most basic terms, it is kind of ridiculous to assume they are more correct than ones that have actually be through playtesting and development.So, can you show me proof that people are making assumptions and that your idea of testing is absolutely important? We need to test this, or its just not true.
In other news, can we talk about a faulty assumption devs make rather than lengthy talk about why we need builds? If we want lengthy talk about builds in a certain way that should probably be another thread with criteria and other things in the first post.
Edit: Call it faulty assumptions people make. Its not about devs anymore I don't think.
Yes I can.
Which dictionary would you prefer the link to the word assumption from?
Because since you aren't producing any evidence, I'm left to assume you have no evidence.
You could show this to be a faulty assumption if you, you know, produced something other than your opinions.
I guess no one cares one way or another about maneuvers?
I guess no one cares one way or another about maneuvers?
I do. I would like to be more viable without an intense focus. I feel like they're best used on throw away NPCs, or games where I know I won't fight a lot of creatures outright immune. I think this could be fixed.
I just wonder why there are no comments about making maneuvers function without feat investment. Surely its easy to determine whether that would fundamentally damage the games equilibrium?
I just wonder why there are no comments about making maneuvers function without feat investment. Surely its easy to determine whether that would fundamentally damage the games equilibrium?
Well, against human foes maneuvers can be really devastating. Tripping a foe leads to a lot of AoOs, and if you do it while he's surrounded he may die trying to stand up from prone. Similarly, blinding them with a dirty trick or taking their weapon they may as well just give up. When you do this against players sometimes they call fowl, in particular if you sunder someone's weapon.
Against monsters they're pitiful, against humans they're high situational. I'm not a big fan of that sort of paradigm myself.
However if you refuse to test your assumptions in even the most basic terms, it is kind of ridiculous to assume they are more correct than ones that have actually be through playtesting and development.So, can you show me proof that people are making assumptions and that your idea of testing is absolutely important? We need to test this, or its just not true.
In other news, can we talk about a faulty assumption devs make rather than lengthy talk about why we need builds? If we want lengthy talk about builds in a certain way that should probably be another thread with criteria and other things in the first post.
Edit: Call it faulty assumptions people make. Its not about devs anymore I don't think.
If I give an opinion, say "in my experience, fighters are the worst class in Pathfinder" or "all summoners are broken, the designers made a terrible class", what does that accomplish? If all I get in response is "no, they're great" or "yeah, I agree you're right", then there is 0 value from that supposition, well unless I get value from people on the internet I don't know agreeing/disagreeing with me (I do a little, everyone enjoys being validated, but not much). Also, that vague comment is waiting to be shot full of holes since there are no specifics attached to it. Someone can rightly say "what are you talking about, in my games fighters rule!"(from someone only plays 1st-3rd level games with blaster casters) or "yeah, they just need to be cut from the game, a caster can do everything they do and more"(from someone who plays high level with 15 min adventuring days and caster-friendly house rules). Having baselines and testing assumptions can help with this by giving us some results that can support the assumptions.
That brings me to what I want to do in this thread, take advantage of you smart Pathfinder minds to help me test some assumptions I have and I've seen about Pathfinder. If anyone wants to tear apart one of these assumptions feel free, I don't have a dog in the fight and would be happy to see any actual data to support or reject these assumptions. Post play experience or personal feelings if you want, it's the internet it's not like I or anyone else can stop you, but if there's no numbers behind them there's not much you'll be telling us other than your opinion.
Baseline: Since I think working from a common base is important, I figure I might as well propose a baseline. If you feel like making a build or partial build to contribute 20 point buy (what PFS uses), standard races, Paizo only materials, and no variant rules would be a good baseline assumption. If you want to show how a 3rd party product or houserule you use modifies a class as a potential fix for a potential problem that's cool of course. I, for one, am always happy to learn about 3rd party stuff. If you want to make a point about how useful something is in a campaign (like for whether rogues bring enough to the table to not be supplanted by other class' archetypes) I feel that the Pathfinder Adventure Paths are a good thing to use. Homebrew campaigns can vary wildly, and the APs are Paizo's bread and butter (an assumption of mine, but I think it's valid). I think the APs should give us a good idea for what challenges Paizo assumes characters will face throughout a campaign.
Oh, and if there have been tests and builds shown for any of these assumptions elsewhere (not threads of "I feel this" or "In my game that" but actual data) I'm happy to follow links to it, no need to reinvent the wheel if someone else took the time to do something before.
Assumptions:
1. The rogue can be entirely replaced by any of the class archetypes that provide trapfinding. Feel free to pick any level for this, though if you have the time and inclination side-by-side examinations at low (1-6ish), medium (7-13ish), and high (14+) would be cool.
2. Combat maneuvers as is are useful throughout a typical campaign.
3. An Animal Companion/Eidolon/Summoned Creature can replace a fighter.
4. A prepared spellcaster doesn't have enough spell slots to prepare all of utility spells, defensive spells to be untouchable, buff/debuffs, save or die/suck, summonings, etc. Or, in less words, a PC caster can't do everything people say it does in the same day.
I can't think of or remember any more assumptions now, other than monk related ones that I've seen done to death. Here's hoping some of y'all enjoy testing or building, and that others have more and better assumptions to test.
Edit: another assumption,
5. A PC fighter can be built capable of doing at least three useful combat actions (i.e. melee, ranged, and a combat maneuver, or melee and two combat maneuvers) against typical opponents or throughout a typical campaign.
Builds are good to prove that something can be done. They aren't very effective to prove something can not be done.This is exactly what a build shows. If you say something can't be done, and someone in the thread finds a way to do it in a complete build that is still useful, you are then wrong. It can be done, as demonstrated.
Yes, but you keep asking people to use builds to prove negatives. That's not something that can be done, unless we try every possible class/feat/ability score combination. And I don't think anyone has the time for that.
You are the one who should be producing builds to prove your point.
1. The rogue can be entirely replaced by any of the class archetypes that provide trapfinding. Feel free to pick any level for this, though if you have the time and inclination side-by-side examinations at low (1-6ish), medium (7-13ish), and high (14+) would be cool.
2. Combat maneuvers as is are useful throughout a typical campaign.
3. An Animal Companion/Eidolon/Summoned Creature can replace a fighter.
4. A prepared spellcaster doesn't have enough spell slots to prepare all of utility spells, defensive spells to be untouchable, buff/debuffs, save or die/suck, summonings, etc. Or, in less words, a PC caster can't do everything people say it does in the same day.
Why show you full builds when I can just explain it simply?
1. Archaeologist rogue gets a better bonus(full time instead of specific), trap sense, Archaeologist luck, and rogue talents which means he can get the trap spotter feats and other rogue exclusives.
2. Flying foes are immune to trip, natural attacks are immune to disarm, big foes have large CMD(Ancient black dragon has 45.), gargantuan foes are likely completely immune to a quiet a few things.
3. Who argues this? What exactly are you looking for to replace? Is it the DPR? Skills? Meat shield status? Personally I prefer an expendable meat shield over one that complains when he dies.
4. That's highly dependent on your campaign. Are you fighting 4 encounters a day? what level? Does your DM love running the gauntlet? Does he expect your character to stay up 3 day straight fighting?
If my wizard is below "expectations," how bad off is a level 1 human monk with Str 16 (human +2) Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 7, exactly?
With favored class to hp, he has 11 hp and an AC of 14. It's nearly identical, except the monk's actually expected to fight in melee combat and isn't getting to raise his AC with mage armor like the wizard can.
Why isn't the party arcanist tossing Mage armor on him? My groups do this. So, he does get to raise his AC with mage armor like the wizard can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your party wizard can totally do that! But "having a party wizard" is not a monk class feature, so doing this is, strictly-speaking, outside of "what the monk can do" as a class.
[That's all personal though. Ciretose can't, that doesn't mean no one else can. Why should people spend the time to show you a wall is hard if everyone else is willing to take it for granite?
So far, I have seen NOTHING in this thread that is a “faulty assumption by the devs”. Yes, I have seen a few folks point out that a few classes could sure use a few tweaks and a minor boost or two. (We’d all like to see a Fighter get 4 SkP, right?). But none of that is based upon a “faulty assumption”.
I am hearing quite a bit of whining, but with nothing to back it up, other than “my favorite class isn’t as powerful as Id like it to be, thus the Devs hate me. Personally.”
Oddly, I think they nerfed one of my Faves a little, the Bard- but the Bard is one of JJ’s favorite classes. Still the bard is a fun and very playable class, and with archetypes can do almost anything.
So, it’s NOT “everyone else” not by a long shot.
Actually, speaking of bard, one of the things that gets me is the design for how its performances work. Start as a standard at level one then slowly getting better is silly to me. It takes away the chance for the bard to do a lot, and low level bards aren't that fun to me. Why can't it start as a swift from the start? Would that be overpowering? Its only a +1 to attack and damage after all.
I'm not sure how to phrase that as a faulty assumption. But I think its one.
Your party wizard can totally do that! But "having a party wizard" is not a monk class feature, so doing this is, strictly-speaking, outside of "what the monk can do" as a class.
Ah, perhaps at your table D&D is played as a one on one gladiator game. But in every table I have played it, D&D is played as a team. Every team-member has a niche, other team members use their abilities to help. Wizard can’t really heal himself, cleric can’t find & remove traps very well, etc.
Perhaps then, that *IS* a “faulty assumption by the devs”. They assume and play as if the game is played by a team of around four members, not a series of single PC’s making their own without any party back up. So, since I have only my 40 years of gaming and what JJ has told us of his gaming experience, perhaps indeed this is a faulty assumption. You and everyone else plays it solo. Hmmm.
The see only two major "faulty assumptions on the part of the devs."
(1) Monte Cook, in developing 3.0, came up with the whole Timmy Card/Ivory Tower Game Design thing: the assumption that many cool-looking but ultimately useless (or at least extremely substandard) options should be intentionally worked into the rules in prominent places as traps for people with poor system mastery. Even Monte eventually came to see this as bad design, but nevertheless it pervaded 3.0, and by extension 3.5 and Pathfinder due to backwards compatibility.
(2) The assumption that upper level play looks a lot like lower level play (i.e., dungeon crawls and a series of defined combat encounters), and therefore classes that contribute in combat at low levels are "equal" in contribution to classes that contribute to story direction itself at higher levels, because no other "story directions" were foreseen. (In other words, relative narrative control is ignored as long as encounter combat power is OK.) The APs are riddled through with this assumption.
In my x years of gaming I've had plenty of groups without a wizard or cleric. I also haven't claimed that everyone but me is x, because its silly and malicious imo, and I don't think it adds to the conversation. I might say I have a house rule at worst.
I just wonder why there are no comments about making maneuvers function without feat investment. Surely its easy to determine whether that would fundamentally damage the games equilibrium?
Maneuvers are VERY VERY boring for anyone who is not the ‘Maneuver-er”. I hate to play against or *WITH* a tripper. Slows down the game a lot. Yes, I’d get rid of the feat chain- by getting rid of the maneuver in it’s entirety. If they came up with agme where it was easier (as opposed to SIMPLER) to do trips, grapples etc , I wouldn’t play it. I want to see Conan killing the monster with a sword, not WWF.
Ah, perhaps at your table D&D is played as a one on one gladiator game. But in every table I have played it, D&D is played as a team.
And if we're evaluating what each member of the team brings to the team, it's disengenuous to list things the way you're implying:
See also my analogy elsewhere about D&D and team chess, and being on the same team. Even if the teams (white vs. black) are equal, if Person A on the black team gets to play the black rook, both bishops, and queen, and Person B on the black team only gets one of the black knights to control, etc. -- then even though the whole team is equal to the white team, the individual players on the black team are not in any way, shape, or form equal.
The see only two major "faulty assumptions on the part of the devs."
(1) Monte Cook, in developing 3.0, came up with the whole Timmy Card/Ivory Tower Game Design thing: the assumption that many cool-looking but ultimately useless (or at least extremely substandard) options should be intentionally worked into the rules in prominent places as traps for people with poor system mastery. Even Monte eventually came to see this as bad design, but nevertheless it pervaded 3.0, and by extension 3.5 and Pathfinder due to backwards compatibility.
(2) The assumption that upper level play looks a lot like lower level play (i.e., dungeon crawls and a series of defined combat encounters), and therefore classes that contribute in combat at low levels are "equal" in contribution to classes that contribute to story direction itself at higher levels, because no other "story directions" were foreseen. (In other words, relative narrative control is ignored as long as encounter combat power is OK.) The APs are riddled through with this assumption.
1. Please list these.
2. Maybe in your games they don’t but in my games they do. Yes, T-port is very handy for beating a retreat or by passing some outdoors stuff, but it’s not very useful in the dungeon.
So, since I have only my 40 years of gaming and what JJ has told us of his gaming experience, perhaps indeed this is a faulty assumption. You and everyone else plays it solo. Hmmm.
OK, so should I assume from this that you are uninterested in an honest discussion, and care only about how much snark you can blow out? If that's the case, just say so and I'll be sure not to reply to any further posts like this one.