|
So, in the thread Which Foes Are Not Stupid Enough to Attack the Casters First, Wrath stated that he doesn't have much respect for the idea that the DPR Formula is a good measure of character power, for a variety of reasons (How often are you managing to full-attack, DPR beyond the opponent's HP isn't helping you unless its enough to kill it in less actions, you may have more/reliable access to sneak attack, etc)
After some discussion, we/I came up with some ideas of other metrics that could prove more useful.
Average Number of Rounds to defeat a CR Appropriate Opponent: DPR/Average CR HP (this one is pretty easy).
These are the ones I'm starting this thread about
% to remove CR Appropriate Opponent in
1 Attack
1 Full-Attack
2 Full-Attacks
3 Full-Attacks
4 Full-Attacks
5 Full-Attacks
etc.
I'm sure I could figure out what formula I would need to calculate those things EVENTUALLY, but I didn't do so well in statistics and probability, and I acknowledge that advanced math is not my area of expertise.
So I thought I would ask here if anyone could help come up with formulas (or a spreadsheet, if the formula is really complex) to determine these things.
If you have any ideas on other useful statistics, or ways to make any of these formulas be more accurate, that would be much appreciated. :)
~DH
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if something could be put together for the defensive value of increasing your opponents' number of rounds/attacks that it takes them to kill you. That is, figure the monster's value on the metric proposed in the OP, and then measure a PC's ability to make the monster's score worse.
Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.
Not always - maybe you're trying to defeat an enemy before they can kill one of your friends. In that case, having a high AC won't help you.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.Not always - maybe you're trying to defeat an enemy before they can kill one of your friends. In that case, having a high AC won't help you.
And that specific case is about as relevant to the topic as is the specific case of when all you need to do is not-die until the ritual finishes (or whatever). Metrics remain useful even when you can contrive exceptions to the overwhelming majority of situations.
|
Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.Not always - maybe you're trying to defeat an enemy before they can kill one of your friends. In that case, having a high AC won't help you.
And then you have the opportunity to bring battlefield control into the equation. I have a Flowing Monk whose shtick is improving allies AC, redirecting attacks from allies onto himself, and negating attacks against allies. All of these are ways to frustrate the enemies attempts to deal damage to the party -- not just the self.
So I thought I would ask here if anyone could help come up with formulas (or a spreadsheet, if the formula is really complex) to determine these things.
The formula will be really complex, I'm afraid, because it involves not just averages but variance around the averages. As a simple example, rolling 3d6 (because you're using a large greataxe) averages at 10.5 points of damage, but the actual damage could be anywhere from 3-18 points. This variation is the difference between killing a CR 2 monster in one hit or six.
It's also going to be hard to figure out a similar score for casters, in part because the really powerful spells aren't the ones kill you. No one ever died from being nauseated, but a stinking cloud spell can effectively neutralize a dozen or more opponents. People have died from black tentacles, but generally the wizard's friends will kill them before the spell damage does.
And that specific case is about as relevant to the topic as is the specific case of when all you need to do is not-die until the ritual finishes (or whatever). Metrics remain useful even when you can contrive exceptions to the overwhelming majority of situations.
Actually, it's quite relevant -- it's the flip side of the glass-cannon DPR specialist who can't actually get his mojo off because he's been neutralized already. It's also a trap that many monk builds fall into. Monks find it very easy to not-die, between their awesome defensive abilities, huge saves, and various spell-like abilities, they can stand in the middle of combat like a tree.
And do about as much damage.
|
I don't think any one formula can really do what is needed. Calculating average damage can be ok in limited situations.
What Darkholme was providing in the previous thread was a fairly comprehensive list of the HP as well as ACs. These will be useful for comparisons of people's effectiveness outside of the concept of DPR.
In the same vein, a list of the save values for opponents and the sve DCs for enemy spell casters will also be useful. This means control based casters can get a good idea of how effective some of their spells can be.
Finally, I think some sort of metric consensus needs to be included for feats and skills in their ability to improve the combat effectiveness of a character. Things such as step up, or acrobatics for positioning or any other such feat as would be deemed providing benefit without actually given a fixed number in its descriptions. These are things that variable DPR mechanics just don't account for in a game.
As I said, I don't think any one formula can do it, but maybe we can come up with something useful.
|
|
Another thing I just thought of. Checking your build against stats presented in APs might actually work better than averages as well. However, those are built with the idea of a 15 point build, so might not be everyone's cup of tea.
In summary, things to compare
The rate at which you drop combatants from combat (be it damage out put or spells)
The rate which takes for enemy to drop you from damage without healing available to you.
Your ability to withstand being dropped out of a fight via spells that don't damage.
Those metrics can then be used to make judgments of the effectiveness of abilities you have that can mitigate or improve them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrath is partially correct. DPR alone is does not tell you the value of a character to a party in its own but it is a good metric to use to determine how a character performs in a certain part of the game, especially if he is designed to do damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is only going to result in a complex build that values everything. Character power may also involve skills as well. Spells are another value as they can supercede skills, deal damage etc.
You could assign a point value to each benefit like... a +1 to hit may be worth 100 points, where as a bonus to damage may be worth 35 points. However, the problem with that is the point values for many situations are going to be based on the percentages. Example: A Bonus to hit is going to be valued more for each bonus to damage, because a bonus to hit with 1-3 damage is worth less than a bonus to hit with 1-6+10 damage.
I don't think that there is one single way to legitimately apply value to a character. Statistically yes, but even if you have +25 to your will save, and you roll a 1 to fail your domination save, all the value in the world means nothing, and in fact turns that value against your own party. Very rare situation of course, but there are other situations such as hold person and other incapacitations.
I think the way you can check for balance is to look at the highest output in numbers. Like we could compete in DPR, or compete with Will Saves to see who can produce the highest numbers and see who has the best components for those gains. Figure the costs for those gains agianst each other to see if they are 'worth' them. Also... there are too many situational values. A ranger (without instant enemy) is going to be better against favored enemies than non-favored enemies. A +20 to Diplomacy may mean that much less if your DM just prefers to give you spoon-fed ifnormation. There are really a lot of variables to consider.
|
|
I am curious, are you only looking to measure HP damage? How about average number of rounds to remove/disable an enemy for save or suck type casters?
That would be fine as well, but keeping track of the action economy it takes to get there is the important part.
I wonder if something could be put together for the defensive value of increasing your opponents' number of rounds/attacks that it takes them to kill you. That is, figure the monster's value on the metric proposed in the OP, and then measure a PC's ability to make the monster's score worse.
I think this would also be a useful statistic, but I dont think you could handle it in the same formula, and I'm not sure how you would compare output from the first category (creature removal) to the second (creature effectiveness limitation).
Instead of Full-Attacks, for combat I'd look at % chance of removing the target from being able to contribute to combat. You'd basically be looking at which side is able to reduce the other sides actions/round to zero first.
That is the idea, yes, but tracking the actions it takes to get there is the important part.
The formula will be really complex, I'm afraid, because it involves not just averages but variance around the averages. As a simple example, rolling 3d6 (because you're using a large greataxe) averages at 10.5 points of damage, but the actual damage could be anywhere from 3-18 points. This variation is the difference between killing a CR 2 monster in one hit or six.
Yes. I want to know the odds of killing that CR 2 creature in one hit, and the odds that it will take 6 hits, and the numbers in between.
I suspected it would be a rather complex formula. I recall little bits of my statistics and probability math class from university. I found it tricky. However, if you knew what the variables were, you could spit out the numbers pretty formulaically, hence my thought that a spreadsheet for such a formula could be good if the formula is too complex to expect people to do by hand.
It's also going to be hard to figure out a similar score for casters, in part because the really powerful spells aren't the ones kill you. No one ever died from being nauseated, but a stinking cloud spell can effectively neutralize a dozen or more opponents. People have died from black tentacles, but generally the wizard's friends will kill them before the spell damage does.
Sure. for my purposes, completely disabled = dead. They're no longer able to cause you any harm, that means you win. I don't care if you're asleep, dead, paralyzed, or stunned; if it lasts longer than what's left of the 4-5 rounds in a combat, it's close enough (unless you have 25 people at full hp to coup-de-grace and 3 rounds with which to do it). The "partly dead" "somewhat ineffective" debuffs are going to be the hard ones to measure.
I don't think any one formula can really do what is needed. Calculating average damage can be ok in limited situations.
The formula for physical damage would be different than the formulae for spells; for sure.
Finally, I think some sort of metric consensus needs to be included for feats and skills in their ability to improve the combat effectiveness of a character. Things such as step up, or acrobatics for positioning or any other such feat as would be deemed providing benefit without actually given a fixed number in its descriptions. These are things that variable DPR mechanics just don't account for in a game.
As I said, I don't think any one formula can do it, but maybe we can come up with something useful.
Those would be good things to factor in as well, but I think a more accurate starting framework than just DPR would be a good place to start, and then we can figure out how to account for various corner cases later.
|
|
If you are doing this formula, you might have to accept that some classes are simply not going to fit for the reasons above.
Take two very good classes as examples, the Bard and the Witch. Most experienced players know these are excellent classes for both fun and power. However, the Bard is at best in a mostly support, force multiplier role. The Witch is even worse, the very best builds don't even use DPR at all, and they can't do it in one round anyway.
Actually, the Witch does do DPR, but only after Evil Eye and Magic Jar on the enemy ogre
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could certainly put together a complex set of probabilities to determine the general combat effectiveness of a character. The problem is that for general applicability you would end up producing several very large charts as your results. These charts would then need to be processed in a much more subjective manner to determine overall combat effectiveness.
The basic attack equation would have you put enter number of attacks/round, attack bonus for each attack, damage range, and probabilities of each possible damage output. It could then spit out a chart listing average number of rounds expected to disable the target by damage based on AC and HP.
The chart becomes significantly more complex if you want probability of number of rounds to disable the target or include other defensive variables like Damage Reduction.
The whole process can be reversed to determine how long a player can survive against a creature.
This process is actually significantly easier if the values you are working with are all known, like a specific player vs a specific enemy, but then we aren't talking generalities any more.
Oddly enough the process is significantly easier for a controller in that you are just comparing save dc vs saving throw producing a far simpler chart.
Now it is worth noting that it would not be hard to write a computer program that could calculate all of this out for you. The trick is sorting through all of the data it will spit out at you. This whole process is very doable, but it takes people willing to put in the effort to sort out the info and put it all together in an intelligible manner.
Now it is worth noting that it would not be hard to write a computer program that could calculate all of this out for you. The trick is sorting through all of the data it will spit out at you. This whole process is very doable, but it takes people willing to put in the effort to sort out the info and put it all together in an intelligible manner.
I think the proper values of each point or variable point would be the hard part. Like... I feel an Iron Will Feat protects a Fighter 4 better than say... a Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Monk. Plus... how do you pit point values for defenses to an equal number for damage? Hold person can stop a character dead in thier tracks before anything can happen... so how do we deal with initiative bonuses as well?
so in Mass Effect multiplayer, people rate builds by how much damage you could do in the amount of time a normal opponent could take to kill you. I thought this was a pretty good way, as it essentially put you in the worse case scenario and said how much could you kill?
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Darkholme was providing in the previous thread was a fairly comprehensive list of the HP as well as ACs. These will be useful for comparisons of people's effectiveness outside of the concept of DPR.
In the same vein, a list of the save values for opponents and the save DCs for enemy spell casters will also be useful. This means control based casters can get a good idea of how effective some of their spells can be.
I have those!
2 - 19.4
3 - 29.9
4 - 40.1
5 - 55.3
6 - 67.7
7 - 81.9
8 - 97.8
9 - 114.7
10 - 126.5
11 - 144.8
12 - 159.1
13 - 178.8
14 - 193.8
15 - 223.3
16 - 251.1
17 - 285.9
18 - 311.2
19 - 328.2
20 - 364.5
21 - 411.8
22 - 425.5
23 - 422.0
24 - 521.0
25 - 549.5
2 - 34
3 - 55
4 - 52
5 - 68
6 - 85
7 - 105
8 - 126
9 - 153
10 - 171
11 - 175
12 - 200
13 - 212
14 - 237
15 - 283
16 - 310
17 - 324
18 - 362
19 - 387
20 - 391
21 - 420
22 - 471
23 - 481
24 - 526
25 - 574
2 - 15.1
3 - 15.8
4 - 17.0
5 - 17.9
6 - 19.0
7 - 19.7
8 - 20.9
9 - 22.7
10 - 23.9
11 - 24.8
12 - 26.7
13 - 27.0
14 - 29.2
15 - 30.3
16 - 31.6
17 - 34.2
18 - 35.1
19 - 36.2
20 - 37.0
21 - 37.4
22 - 40.5
23 - 42.0
24 - 42.0
25 - 41.0
2 - 22
3 - 25
4 - 20
5 - 21
6 - 26
7 - 23
8 - 26
9 - 25
10 - 28
11 - 30
12 - 31
13 - 32
14 - 34
15 - 37
16 - 39
17 - 46
18 - 41
19 - 41
20 - 42
21 - 38
22 - 45
23 - 44
24 - 42
25 - 42
2 - 13.1
3 - 13.7
4 - 14.8
5 - 15.7
6 - 16.4
7 - 16.6
8 - 18.2
9 - 19.3
10 - 20.9
11 - 21.6
12 - 24.2
13 - 24.7
14 - 26.4
15 - 26.1
16 - 28.2
17 - 31.0
18 - 32.9
19 - 32.9
20 - 32.7
21 - 34.8
22 - 39.0
23 - 38.0
24 - 36.0
25 - 34.5
2 - 20
3 - 24
4 - 19
5 - 20
6 - 22
7 - 22
8 - 22
9 - 23
10 - 27
11 - 29
12 - 30
13 - 31
14 - 34
15 - 37
16 - 39
17 - 40
18 - 41
19 - 41
20 - 42
21 - 38
22 - 45
23 - 42
24 - 40
25 - 37
2 - 12.6
3 - 12.2
4 - 12.2
5 - 11.8
6 - 12.2
7 - 12.7
8 - 11.9
9 - 12.2
10 - 12.5
11 - 11.8
12 - 11.5
13 - 11.0
14 - 11.5
15 - 14.3
16 - 10.9
17 - 10.4
18 - 9.0
19 - 8.6
20 - 12.9
21 - 3.6
22 - 4.8
23 - 12.5
24 - 8.0
25 - 13.5
2 - 16
3 - 19
4 - 18
5 - 20
6 - 26
7 - 23
8 - 21
9 - 24
10 - 25
11 - 25
12 - 21
13 - 26
14 - 21
15 - 35
16 - 21
17 - 20
18 - 21
19 - 17
20 - 25
21 - 12
22 - 9
23 - 14
24 - 12
25 - 22
2 - 4.0
3 - 5.2
4 - 5.8
5 - 7.5
6 - 7.9
7 - 8.8
8 - 10.0
9 - 11.6
10 - 11.0
11 - 12.4
12 - 13.1
13 - 13.9
14 - 15.2
15 - 16.1
16 - 17.5
17 - 20.3
18 - 20.3
19 - 20.0
20 - 23.0
21 - 24.0
22 - 24.0
23 - 26.0
24 - 29.0
25 - 32.5
2 - 8
3 - 10
4 - 10
5 - 11
6 - 13
7 - 14
8 - 15
9 - 16
10 - 18
11 - 16
12 - 17
13 - 18
14 - 22
15 - 20
16 - 23
17 - 25
18 - 25
19 - 23
20 - 29
21 - 26
22 - 26
23 - 27
24 - 30
25 - 34
2 - 4.2
3 - 4.6
4 - 5.4
5 - 6.1
6 - 6.7
7 - 8.0
8 - 7.6
9 - 9.9
10 - 9.8
11 - 10.4
12 - 10.0
13 - 10.1
14 - 11.9
15 - 13.9
16 - 12.8
17 - 13.9
18 - 14.2
19 - 15.0
20 - 16.2
21 - 16.4
22 - 16.5
23 - 17.0
24 - 18.5
25 - 22.5
2 - 9
3 - 11
4 - 9
5 - 13
6 - 12
7 - 18
8 - 12
9 - 18
10 - 17
11 - 21
12 - 19
13 - 19
14 - 18
15 - 23
16 - 18
17 - 22
18 - 30
19 - 21
20 - 23
21 - 26
22 - 23
23 - 20
24 - 25
25 - 23
2 - 2.5
3 - 3.1
4 - 3.8
5 - 4.4
6 - 5.2
7 - 6.8
8 - 7.7
9 - 7.9
10 - 9.5
11 - 9.2
12 - 10.9
13 - 12.4
14 - 13.9
15 - 15.0
16 - 15.4
17 - 17.4
18 - 17.9
19 - 17.6
20 - 22.1
21 - 21.4
22 - 20.8
23 - 23.5
24 - 20.5
25 - 19.5
2 - 8
3 - 8
4 - 8
5 - 10
6 - 11
7 - 16
8 - 14
9 - 15
10 - 16
11 - 15
12 - 17
13 - 18
14 - 21
15 - 25
16 - 20
17 - 22
18 - 23
19 - 23
20 - 28
21 - 24
22 - 24
23 - 24
24 - 23
25 - 27
|
|
If you are doing this formula, you might have to accept that some classes are simply not going to fit for the reasons above.
Take two very good classes as examples, the Bard and the Witch. Most experienced players know these are excellent classes for both fun and power. However, the Bard is at best in a mostly support, force multiplier role. The Witch is even worse, the very best builds don't even use DPR at all, and they can't do it in one round anyway.
Actually, the Witch does do DPR, but only after Evil Eye and Magic Jar on the enemy ogre
Yes. Not all classes can be measured in "number of actions to shut down a CR appropriate opponent". That is true. This could not easily measure buff builds, debuff builds, healing builds, or battlefield control builds.
You could certainly put together a complex set of probabilities to determine the general combat effectiveness of a character. The problem is that for general applicability you would end up producing several very large charts as your results. These charts would then need to be processed in a much more subjective manner to determine overall combat effectiveness.
Charts? I think you could put together a complex set of probabilities that would allow you to spit out 1-5 numbers that would tell you your odds of taking down CR appropriate foes in each number of actions/rounds/whatever.
The basic attack equation would have you put enter number of attacks/round, attack bonus for each attack, damage range, and probabilities of each possible damage output. It could then spit out a chart listing average number of rounds expected to disable the target by damage based on AC and HP.
You wouldn't necessarily have to input the probabilities of each damage output. You could have the formula calculate from your damage formulas, the probability of dealing "X damage or more in Y rounds", where X is the average number of HP for that CR.
The chart becomes significantly more complex if you want probability of number of rounds to disable the target or include other defensive variables like Damage Reduction.
Yep.
The whole process can be reversed to determine how long a player can survive against a creature.
It sure could, and you could average the statistics of CR appropriate monsters to generate "the average monster" of that CR to compare it to.
This process is actually significantly easier if the values you are working with are all known, like a specific player vs a specific enemy, but then we aren't talking generalities any more.
Sure, but using the average of the monster's statistics helps you know what the generality of it is.
Oddly enough the process is significantly easier for a controller in that you are just comparing save dc vs saving throw producing a far simpler chart.
Save or suck is much easier. either it works, or it doesn't.
Now it is worth noting that it would not be hard to write a computer program that could calculate all of this out for you. The trick is sorting through all of the data it will spit out at you. This whole process is very doable, but it takes people willing to put in the effort to sort out the info and put it all together in an intelligible manner.
It would not be all that complex a program once you've figured out what kinds of formulae you would need, I agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think DPR is used so often less because anyone thinks it's the end all be all , but because it's easy and straight forward and something you can really optimize around in a vacuum. It makes it great for competitive optimization and what it does... other things are much harder to quantify because they throw in a lot more variables you really can't always account for.
|
|
I think DPR is used so often less because anyone thinks it's the end all be all , but because it's easy and straight forward and something you can really optimize around in a vacuum. It makes it great for competitive optimization and what it does... other things are much harder to quantify because they throw in a lot more variables you really can't always account for.
Agreed, unfortunately they're often presented as absolute reasoning for why things should happen and why if you don't build your character a certain way then your not playing it right.
Those are the views that I refuse to get behind and have even taken a stance of ignoring those parts in posts from folks outside of DPR Olympics threads. It turned out not to be a good idea though, as it really upset at least one poster so not something I'm going to engage in again.
Charts? I think you could put together a complex set of probabilities that would allow you to spit out 1-5 numbers that would tell you your odds of taking down CR appropriate foes in each number of actions/rounds/whatever.
I've never found averages to be all that useful, to much variation going on to make the average all that meaningful of a value in a game like this.
Since it's so easy to produce a range of AC values that you're capable of hitting works nicely, and a range of possible HP values works nicely too. A chart also tells you clearly how the fallout from missing impacts your ability to kill.
An end goal could be to further simplify such charts down to easier to process values, but you're giving a lot over to subjective value at that point and losing vast quantities of data that take probably less effort to produce in the process.
Edit: a nice feature that could be added to a more advanced version of such a program would be the ability to dynamically calculate the charts given some kind of status effect is applied to the target. So you can ask "At what point does a -2 to everything on the target help the fighter cut it down, and at what point is it a waste of effort?"
|
|
Ah. Personally I'm not a fan of charts. I like being able to see patterns visually, if I'm looking at more than a single number.
But this is now starting to sound like a rather complex piece of analysis software, rather than a couple of formulas or a tool to apply them for you. lol.
Of course, you can plot the data from a chart just as easily as you can plot data that is generated, and you could save that data into charts or databases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think power is based on means of solving problems, thats why wizard are so good , they have an almost unlimited way of solving problems trought magic. Most encounters have more than one way to be solved. More than ability to destroy creatures it should be measure to ability to "solve" encounters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.
|
|
Righto, here's something to consider.
I'm looking at Rise of Runelords as an example of a typical adventure.
So, at level 1, a single days encounters involve three fights in this case, each one escalating.
I'm going to break these down into threats you might like to think your character can handle on their own before requiring assistance.
1st encounter - a single goblin
2nd encounter - a single goblin and a will save vs a debilitating effect from a warchanter
3rd encounter - boss fight against goblin ranger and his goblin dog mount. You only need to hold for two rounds before your friends help clean him up after mopping up the minions as well. Requires a single fort save vs debilitating effect from the dog.
That's how the day is designed, and it's not too bad of a challenge.
Comparing data against this type of situation is much more telling for me than most formulas. Is there a way that this can be incorporated?
|
|
Hmm.
Well, the simplest approach is to take your abilities, and consider how well they work if you need to handle 4 CR appropriate fights in a day (and how long those take). As in, if you can only do something 3/day, and you use it all in the first fight, you now need to track what your performance would be like in the other three fights, without that ability.
|
|
Ok, so I'm looking at the NPC codex for Amiri, the core barbarian.
In our challenge, she holds off on rage till the last fight, feeling not overly threatened by lone goblins.
Encounter one.
Her average damage is 14 hp. A crit happens 10% of the time and causes 28 hp.
Both are more than enough to one shot the goblin.
With to hit mod, she only needs a 9 or more to hit the goblin. So she hits 55% of time.
Give those stats, two rounds at most to kill it.
Goblin hits her 40% of time for 3 damage.
Encounter 2-
Same opponent, so same values.
She has a will save +1 vs DC 12 hideous laughter. She'll pass 55% of the time! but if she fails! she's out of the fight effectively. Not good odds.
By the time the 3rd encounter rolls in she's more than likely suffered 3 damage.
Encounter 3 -
Much tougher, as two opponents. She rages.
If she hits while raging, an average hit will kill either opponent in a single attack.
To hit the champion she needs a 12 or more (40%)
To hit the dog she needs a 7 (65%), but the rider will negate that using his ride skill if possible, with good odds.
It's reasonable to assume she drops at least one of these in 2 rounds, possibly both if she's lucky.
She will likely get attacked twice though.
While raging the dog would hit her 50% of the time for 6 damage. A crit for 12, which would drop her to 0.
The goblin boss would hit her 65% for 5 damage, crit for 10.
Amiri should survive this, but it is very swingy.
Typical for level really.
|
|
Hmm. okay.
While taking this approach can be useful as the GM tailoring encounters to their PCs, it's not useful to the players, as they don't know what specific encounters the GM is going to throw at them and therefore can't analyze their effectiveness for those specific encounters.
That means they need to plan for the general case, rather than for specific encounters.
Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.
Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
Of course nearly all theorycraft is assuming The dex focused dervish dance build magus trap.
|
|
And Tiers might give you a general sense of what to expect from your class before you start building, but having some sort of useful way to measure the effectiveness of a particular character build at specific levels will make it much easier to know IF you are effective, and exactly HOW EFFECTIVE you are.
And Tiers might give you a general sense of what to expect from your class before you start building, but having some sort of useful way to measure the effectiveness of a particular character build at specific levels will make it much easier to know IF you are effective, and exactly HOW EFFECTIVE you are.
Tier list also focus heavily on late game play. Hence why full casters dominate the top tiers.
Meanwhile take level 10. 3/4 casters have 4th level spells while full casters have 5th level spells. Not a huge casting gap, especially when stacked against mountains of class features.
At 20 it's comparing 6th level spells and 9th level spells. That's a much bigger difference.
|
|
And Tiers might give you a general sense of what to expect from your class before you start building, but having some sort of useful way to measure the effectiveness of a particular character build at specific levels will make it much easier to know IF you are effective, and exactly HOW EFFECTIVE you are.Tier list also focus heavily on late game play. Hence why full casters dominate the top tiers.
Meanwhile take level 10. 3/4 casters have 4th level spells while full casters have 5th level spells. Not a huge casting gap, especially when stacked against mountains of class features.
At 20 it's comparing 6th level spells and 9th level spells. That's a much bigger difference.
Also true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmm. I think a decent way to measure characters is in the amount of agency they have.
What can they do?
Can people stop them from doing it?
How much can they limit the agency of others?
|
|
Hmm. okay.
While taking this approach can be useful as the GM tailoring encounters to their PCs, it's not useful to the players, as they don't know what specific encounters the GM is going to throw at them and therefore can't analyze their effectiveness for those specific encounters.
That means they need to plan for the general case, rather than for specific encounters.
Yeah, it's much too long to really be useful too.
We should be looking at three standards and a boss encounter probably, working off averages for the three and maybe 1 CR above for the boss. General stats rather than specific.
I'd like see us at least check the chance for debilitating or damaging saves in some areas to check how easy it is to take down your character without damage. This gives people a feel for areas they can improve on or gives parties who work as groups ideas for buffs they might prepare.
Also, it is important to note that the majority of creatures encountered in groups like this are not the same CR as the players. They are usually one or steps lower for levels 1 - 5. That dynamic changes as you get higher levels though. This also exacerbates the overkill effect you and I discussed earlier.
Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...
I will say that DPR, while it is an important factor, it does not make everything for a melee combatant.
%rounds of full attack (or comparable options), does, however. Plus, you need to factor in attacks outside of full attacks (AoO builds, for instance).
To give an example, lets look at reach weapons.
Few people will deny that these tools are excellent for providing deterrence, and they give you a role outside of just DPR.
But to make the most out of common reach weapons (polearms) for most characters, I find lunge is extremely important.
When you can full attack everything in a 45' circle around you ([10' reach, 5' from lunge, 5' lunge]x2 +5' for your own square in the middle of the circle), then you are doing a lot more than the guy that has a great sword that only attacks thing in a 25' circle (35' with lunge), even if that guy has a greatsword or nodachi, due simply to the fact that you get more full attacks per fight.
Combine that with the tactical advantages of lunge on a reach weapon (enemies end up 15' away from you when you are done; they need to move 10' to get to you, which means no full attack and you get an AoO for more effective damage), and it is at least something worth considering.
So for a metric- reach and mobility. Unfortunately, those are hard to put into a formula (at least one that would be comprehensible to a lit major such as myself), so meh....
This also of course leads to the fact that archery is always kind of high on the DPR charts (since they don't face penalties in up to a 205' circle by default, and can still hit far further than that)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I've found in many games though, combat usually starts much closer than extreme range for archers. Inside building areas, you're lucky to get 30 feet or more of space between you and a target.
Even outside, we often encounter things in rocky scree or bush land which obscures vision.
Also, if creatures are approaching cautiously, spotting them at distance is damn hard. The negative penalty per five foot increment adds up pretty fast. So even in relatively open areas, as long as some sort of concealing feature is there for a cautious approach (not necessarily full stealth) then you're going to encounter most things within a full move action from you at most.
Your lunge and reach idea is very cool though.
Of course, of course. Yeah, they tend to start closer...but with how the battlefield can shift, and how you might want to move around enemies at times.... it can sometimes be good to have options.
Hitting enemies on the extreme of the left flank when you start of the right flank has value.
I mostly brought up archery, since by default it can full attack from ANYWHERE pretty much (excluding situations where there is cover or other battlefield obstacles...which smart enemies would try to put into place with magic since no one likes getting picked off with arrows).
And of course, reach loves tight situations too. Being a 25' of AoO pain that cover the entire hallway is not a bad thing. If enemies fear you, then they will waste time avoiding you (good luck with lunge about though). Essentially, you make a better meat shield for your squishier party members.
Particularly nice if you exploit Riving Strike from ACG, since that basically applies 1 round of the evil eye hex to saves against spells on anything you hit with an arcane strike powered weapon. It seems like it might be worth grabbing so that you are still a threat, even after the 1 attack from AoO declines in threat. Turning the very fact that you got in a hit into a valuable tactic is nice. But that is less of a DPR thing, and more of a general build thing.
Ah. Personally I'm not a fan of charts. I like being able to see patterns visually, if I'm looking at more than a single number.
But this is now starting to sound like a rather complex piece of analysis software, rather than a couple of formulas or a tool to apply them for you. lol
I believe I said that upthread.
I think you are actually looking at a combat simulator, not a spreadsheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmm. I think a decent way to measure characters is in the amount of agency they have.
What can they do?
Can people stop them from doing it?
How much can they limit the agency of others?
So.... the tier list? Because that's essentially versatility that you are talking about which is precisely what the tier list measures.