I'm planning on running a campaign, but I need to get our group back into D&D. Our group has decided to steer away from d20 because it seems that D&D seems to break down after about 6th level.
Take the following scenario:
Human Fighter 1, STR 15, DEX 14, CON 13, INT 12, WIS 11, CHA 10
Armor: Chainmail, Heavy wood Shield
Weapon: No enhancement bonus
AC: 19 (10 + DEX 2 + Armor 5 + Shield 2 + Enhancement 0)
Attack: 3 (BAB 1 + STR 2 + Enhancement 0)
Chance to Hit: 80%
Using these stats as guidlines, progression as straight Fighter, Enhancement bonuses to weapons and armor (following armor at 3rd, shield at 6th, ...) at 1/3 level, the Core books, and putting the Ability score adjustment into anything but STR and DEX. This is not considering any Feats, Fighting Defensively, Aid Another, Size modifiers, and no Buffing/Harming spells. The percentage is based off of (Attack/20).
This same Fighter, attacking himself will miss:
1st 80%, 2nd 75%, 3rd 70%, 4th 65%, 5th 60%, 6th 55%, ..., 9th 40%, ..., 12th 25%, ..., 16th 5%, 17th On a 1
Making adjustments of Full plate, Heavy Steel Shield, and Masterwork weapon, the defender gains a little more protection:
1st 85%, 2nd 80%, 3rd 80%, 4th 75%, 5th 70%, 6th 55%, ..., 9th 50%, ..., 12th 35%, ..., 16th 15%, ..., 18th 15%, 19th On a 1
Making adjustments of Studded Leather, No Shield, and Masterwork weapon, things go south for any Rogue:
1st 55%, 2nd 50%, 3rd 50%, 4th 45%, 5th 40%, 6th 35%, ..., 9th 20%, ..., 12th 5%, 13th On a 1
I don't have the heart to pick on the Wizard (considering no spells). Of course, the Halfling (Halfling Thief, most powerful PC in the game!) always has a +10% to each of these because of racial and size bonuses.
This is being pretty stingy on the magic (at least from our group's perspective) at +1 enhancement bonus to magic weapon and armor every 3 levels as well as the PC only pumping up a "non combat" ability every 4. What do you use as a guideline for magical treasure?
So, what do you do? Do you keep with the Core Rules, or do you introduce items from Unearthed Arcana (ex, Defense Bonus) and Weapons of Legacy? House rules? Do you stick to the Elite array, or does 4d6 and Point Buy work for you? What about approving characters? Would you ask a player to rework a character if you think that the PCs are overall powerful?
With the ability to hit more often at higher levels, do you manipulate the Cleric? Or do you hand out more magical wonderous items to add armor (natural, shield, deflection, etc) bonuses to compensate? What tactics to your Players use to help? Do you use variant AC die roll?
There is also the "monster element" to this. All of the above is considering a stright Fighter attacking. I believe the CR is not an effective tool as there are too many powers out there that can lead to TPK. The Bodak is one of them. Gaze attacks are especailly strong because it only provides a bonus for averting, and a 50% miss chance for not looking. Paralysis is also tough as you lose a key player, most times it's the Fighter because he's doing the most damage. As the levels go up, the Attack Modifiers can be pretty heavy handed, or is this just from a player standpoint?
When creating NPCs to use against the PCs, what do you focus on? Is it more along the lines of Power then Protection, or the other way around? I know there's a "cinematic" option, but I'm just trying to get a feel for it. There's also considering the "boss" or the "underling", using a percentage of resources, and other factors.
Do you test out your adventures by a set of Iconics (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric)? How big is the party size (ours is usually 6-8, so that might be part of the problem)?
Do you advocate hit and run tactics for the NPCs? Our group has a problem with not resting and definately not backing down from a challenge (there's also a wizard that doesn't beleive that Fireball is a ranged attack, but we won't get into that ; ). How do you get players to realize that retreat is not a bad thing? As a player, I've backed away from a few fights when my back was against the wall, only to go back in to help save them.
Sorry for all the questions, but I have yet to find a good resource for the first time DM. I haven't read the DMGII, and the D&D for Dummies is a rehash of the DMG with some DMGII in it. But I believe you can't learn it all from a book.
Thanks
Todd
|
Todd - why is he attacking himself? The nature of what is an appropriate challenge is based around the opposition he will face, which isn't necesarily a clone. I think you are number crunching based upon some very dubious assumptions. Do you have any examples of play where the "breaks down at 6th level" stuff actually happens.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding how the opposition stacks up in D&D. The challenge ratings assume that a balanced party of four (note) will overcome an encounter with an encounter level (EL) equal to it's average PC level fairly easily, and that 14 or so of these will be necessary to go up a level. An EL two greater than this is potentially tough and a possible PC killer (maybe not a TPK, but possibly ugly). But all of this is based on judgement, since the possible options open with monsters, templates, added character levels, buffs, de-buffs, magic items, damage resistance, spell resistance, saving throws and sheer random nature means that the analysis you made is, while superficially interesting, beside the point. There are so many ways to go that some fighter hitting himself misses the point - that isn't the encounter he will have.
My only advice to you is to abandon the a priori assumption you have here and try and run a game. Experience in running and playing the game is what counts, not a somewhat dubious statistical analysis.
|
|
I'm planning on running a campaign, but I need to get our group back into D&D. Our group has decided to steer away from d20 because it seems that D&D seems to break down after about 6th level.
Take the following scenario:
Human Fighter 1, STR 15, DEX 14, CON 13, INT 12, WIS 11, CHA 10
Armor: Chainmail, Heavy wood Shield
Weapon: No enhancement bonusAC: 19 (10 + DEX 2 + Armor 5 + Shield 2 + Enhancement 0)
Attack: 3 (BAB 1 + STR 2 + Enhancement 0)Chance to Hit: 80%
Using these stats as guidlines, progression as straight Fighter, Enhancement bonuses to weapons and armor (following armor at 3rd, shield at 6th, ...) at 1/3 level, the Core books, and putting the Ability score adjustment into anything but STR and DEX. This is not considering any Feats, Fighting Defensively, Aid Another, Size modifiers, and no Buffing/Harming spells. The percentage is based off of (Attack/20).
This same Fighter, attacking himself will miss:
1st 80%, 2nd 75%, 3rd 70%, 4th 65%, 5th 60%, 6th 55%, ..., 9th 40%, ..., 12th 25%, ..., 16th 5%, 17th On a 1
Making adjustments of Full plate, Heavy Steel Shield, and Masterwork weapon, the defender gains a little more protection:
1st 85%, 2nd 80%, 3rd 80%, 4th 75%, 5th 70%, 6th 55%, ..., 9th 50%, ..., 12th 35%, ..., 16th 15%, ..., 18th 15%, 19th On a 1
Making adjustments of Studded Leather, No Shield, and Masterwork weapon, things go south for any Rogue:
1st 55%, 2nd 50%, 3rd 50%, 4th 45%, 5th 40%, 6th 35%, ..., 9th 20%, ..., 12th 5%, 13th On a 1
I don't have the heart to pick on the Wizard (considering no spells). Of course, the Halfling (Halfling Thief, most powerful PC in the game!) always has a +10% to each of these because of racial and size bonuses.
This is being pretty stingy on the magic (at least from our group's perspective) at +1 enhancement bonus to magic weapon and armor every 3 levels as well as the PC only pumping up a "non combat" ability every 4. What do you use as a guideline for magical treasure?
So, what do you do? Do you keep with the Core Rules, or do you introduce items from Unearthed Arcana (ex, Defense Bonus) and Weapons of Legacy? House rules? Do you stick to the Elite array, or does 4d6 and Point Buy work for you? What about approving characters? Would you ask a player to rework a character if you think that the PCs are overall powerful?
Sorry Todd, I missed some of your specific questions. I generally run with the core rules, and they seem fine and pretty well balanced. I'm not very aware of what the UA has, and in any case the stuff in supplements is often unbalanced due to its relative lack of play-testing. What stats characters have is a matter of taste - if you want to ensure all the characters are comparable, go with point-buy, but be careful how many points you will allow as this system virtually guarantees characters with at least one or two high stats. Rolling is more fun, arguably, and 4d6 gives a slightly better than average character. As to whether you need to down-grade an overly powerful character is probably another debate - search for the word "munchkin" and you'll see plenty on these borads on that. But you want to check over characters beforehand, firstly to avoid errors and secondly for campaign "feel" issues, if nothing else.
With the ability to hit more often at higher levels, do you manipulate the Cleric? Or do you hand out more magical wonderous items to add armor (natural, shield, deflection, etc) bonuses to compensate? What tactics to your Players use to help? Do you use variant AC die roll?
I'm not sure what your issue is here - can you clarify? If it is about damage handed out and received, the rules handle it reasonably as is. You are hampered without a cleric to some extent, but I don't see any real need to change them fundamentally.
One of the issues that you failed to address in your initial analysis is how MUCH damage is inflicted as levels go up. Yes, it increases, but probably not as much as hp and HD do. Higher level combats take a long time - that's because no one falls over much.
There is also the "monster element" to this. All of the above is considering a stright Fighter attacking. I believe the CR is not an effective tool as there are too many powers out there that can lead to TPK. The Bodak is one of them. Gaze attacks are especailly strong because it only provides a bonus for averting, and a 50% miss chance for not looking. Paralysis is also tough as you lose a key player, most times it's the Fighter because he's doing the most damage. As the levels go up, the Attack Modifiers can be pretty heavy handed, or is this just from a player standpoint?
When creating NPCs to use against the PCs, what do you focus on? Is it more along the lines of Power then Protection, or the other way around? I know there's a "cinematic" option, but I'm just trying to get a feel for it. There's also considering the "boss" or the "underling", using a percentage of resources, and other factors.
Save or die is nasty, bu it doesn't normally start arising until PCs have the power to ressurrect their comrades, or at least pay for it to be done. And the bodak isn't that powerful - the save DC is fairly pitiful, and you can close your eyes and be unaffected. Yes, hampers a fight, but then again a good party will use teamwork to get around these problems. I don't see the CR system as fundamentally broken - it is an OK benchmark if you remember that it is really a rule of thumb and not a carefully calibrated model. Also, multiple creatures of a certain EL are less formidable than a single creature of the same EL, but that is the only major caveat.
NPC are tricky, and a subject in themselves. What is appropriate will depend on the circumstances and the party predelectations as to what will be a challenge. It is hard to be prescriptive - I think you will need to experience what works and what doesn't for yourself.
Do you test out your adventures by a set of Iconics (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric)? How big is the party size (ours is usually 6-8, so that might be part of the problem)?
Nope - just use the CRs.
Do you advocate hit and run tactics for the NPCs? Our group has a problem with not resting and definately not backing down from a challenge (there's also a wizard that doesn't beleive that Fireball is a ranged attack, but we won't get into that ; ). How do you get players to realize that retreat is not a bad thing? As a player, I've backed away from a few fights when my back was against the wall, only to go back in to help save them.
If the PCs don't back down, they die - there are few better lessons than that. Don't do it too often, as they will get disheartened. But a reasonably appropriate CR should be OK, but a good backside-kicking will probably teach them. But if have an aggressive party, you will need to adapt to their style as well as them adapting to yours.
Sorry for all the questions, but I have yet to find a good resource for the first time DM. I haven't read the DMGII, and the D&D for Dummies is a rehash of the DMG with some DMGII in it. But I believe you can't learn it all from a book.
I quite liked the DMG2, but most of your concerns seem to be about the nitty-gritty rather than the fluff. As I said in my earlier post, you may just have to suck it and see. Successful DM'ing is mostly about experience. But check out these boards as they are very helpful. Just rememeber, any advice you get (including mine) may not work for you - but it is worth considering.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have to agree with what Aubrey said, the arguments you present are like saying that on paper, a bumblebee can't fly. Bumblebees clearly fly, and people playing D&D rarely complain about the issues you've raised (but hey, who knows, maybe those are the people that don't like D&D and go off to to play other games).
The key to figuring out how the game works is to play it first, then modify it. If you come out of the gate doing weird things like having fireballs not be ranged attacks, you're not going to experience the way the mechanics of the game really work.
And it is possible to learn D&D from just the books. I did (way back in the day) and I'm sure others on these boards did as well.
|
Tangent time--
They recently found out HOW bumblebees are able to fly. They create a vortex updraft or something underneath them with their wing beating. I don't entirely understand it--math not me smart any. Bumblebees have always been able to do it; it's people who had to figger out how they do it. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html
This website tells about it.
End tangent.
When I learned the Way that is D&D 3.0, I studiously read the books and made encounter charts for the party, vigorously studied the combat mechanics...and promptly chucked out the encounter charts I hade made.
As long as you have some basic idea of what is a good equivalent encounter for your party, there's no need to stress about it. If it looks like the encounter is going really badly for the party, use the DM standby - fudge your rolls in their favor. If it's going way too easy, fudge 'em in your favor.
Basically what Lilith said is true. The combat dynamics are just guidelines to throw something appropriate at your PCs. The warrior attacking himself is a great comparison in WoW but in D&D the encounters are based on a party of 4 against the monsters. You won't always have exactly 4 players of equal level in your group but that's the basis for the Encounter level system. For instance: 2 orcs(CR 1) are a good encounter for a group of 4 lvl 1 players. Not to mention that most monsters won't tend to have class levels in levels 1-6. Also the lvl1 orcs in the example probably won't have high quality gear (neither will the PCs but let's assume the lvl1 warrior has mail, a shield, and sword, the orc might be wearing 2nd hand hide, no shield, and a rusty battleaxe).
The back of the Monster Manual has a list by Challenge Rating (CR) for some good encounters. I think of there's any statistical breakdown it's in the lvl 20+ epic games.
Just wanted to do a little "damage control" before going to work. I'll give this more attention later tonight.
The reason for pitting the Fighter against himself is only to show the character against an equal opponent. The CR of the Fighter is equal to himself. I also added the level percentages to reflect this "even up" adjustment.
I intentionally left out damage as an option. I feel that the HP system, including DR, is solid and challenging. The main point the others in the group is that it is a matter of exchanging HP if you can easily beat their AC.
AC in 2e meant a lot more because there weren't as many modifiers. A 2e with 15 STR isn't the same as a 3e with a 15 STR. 2e wasn't perfect, or we wouldn't have gone to 3e. But it seems that it was a little tighter on the bonus modifiers to help with higher level play and "not hitting everything". XP is also a large factor. Everyone progresses at the same rate. To change this in 3e would fundamentally weaken other classes and will make the character less effective in combat (assuming the Core classes with "special powers" will be the ones on the short end of the XP revision stick).
I honestly don't have a problem with the system. These are the views of the other DMs in the group. I'm sure that stepping up and saying "I want to run a D&D game" won't be a problem, but I want to make sure that their experience is worthwile and they don't get upset at how the system works so they want to quit. If I run SCAP or AoW, this is a considerable amount of time invested only to get about halfway through before they become bored. While I haven't read AoW, SCAP does include a big boost in keeping the players connected with the "mystery", something that can only aid the game.
There are a lot of "what ifs" that go into any game. These are too numerable to consider when trying to provide an example of a concept. I ask for your help in thinking how they think so that I can better prepare for anything that comes up.
Keep 'em coming!
Thanks
Todd
I also instituted a "Defense Roll" house rule to try to avoid the damage after rolling a to-hit roll, its 1d20 + (AC - 10). If you win, you take half damage, otherwise full. Natural 20 evades all the damage, and defender always wins a tie. (I only use the defense roll with melee or ranged weapon attacks. So far it's worked pretty good.)
You're making the mistake of assuming that the game involves two fighters hitting each other in a vacuum. This is rarely ever the case.
CR7 does not mean that a level 7 fighter should be able to defeat it solo. It means that it's an average challenge for a party of four, since that's the default mode of play. Our level 7 fighter does not fight the CR7 opponent without his level 7 cleric, mage and thief, to use the old-school parlance. Nor is his typical opponent another fighter. Nor will such a fighter opponent have access to the same equipment and allies that he does.
Nor, indeed, is the CR system unapprocheable. Luck, terrain, circumstance, tactics, party composition and a host of other factors make combat unpredictable enough that today's slew-in-one-round wimp might be an unlucky TPK tomorrow. It's not perfect. It's more a rough guideline. It's about as accurate as you can reasonably get.
Actually, a 7th level fighter is an appropriate challenge for a 7th level fighter. This may not be the most challenging for one person, but it will still net the same XP. Don't tell me nobody has pitted the PCs against a group of 4 leveled characters against the PCs in the group (on the way to the overboss)... Or even a solo adventure.
The Elite array used is for an example. Most rolling 4d6 usually land with a similar array, point buy close (for the higher numbers). Besides, the bad guy is going to have the Elite Array, and there's a chance of him being a 7th level Fighter.
The main point I am trying to reach is that the AC does not appeal as much as a shiny sword. Technically, Full plate +5 and a Tower shield +5 is the most powerful (straight armor/shield) combination in the game. This is a max AC of 33 (Base 10, HP +13, Shield +9, DEX +1). A 15th level Fighter can hit this with a club on a 16 or less. If it was a magic club +5, an 11. This is only assuming a 15 STR, no magic (on a 10 for bless), no aiding (on a 9), no buffing (on a 9 for bull's endurance), no flanking (on a 9), and no stacking (all combined, a 3 or better to hit).
We have played around with different options. DR instead of the AC bonus. The PC get's hit more, and it's a duel of HP. Reduce the BAB by half. This extends the issue to 12th instead of 6th. Defense roll, too slow and it just evens out in the end (high roll, low roll, high roll, ...).
At 15th level, every person can have a +5 weapon, +5 Armor, +5 shield, and 100,000 gp spending cash. Yes, this is the "worst case scenario", but it is outlined in the DMG. They can also pop on a Ring of Protection +5 and Amulet of Natural Armor +5 to give the above scenario fighter a 13 to hit (minimum, swap out his shield for a belt of giant strength for another +3 to hit, down to 10).
Yes, there are other factors that go into all this. I've had my fair share of bad die rolls where I couldn't hit the broad side of a gargantuan construct (barn). Yes, this is number crunching. However, it is valid number crunching. These are scenarios that both the PCs and DM should be considering in a game of survival. "I want this cool sword, but everyone is still hitting me. How do I increase my AC?" or "I can't hit this guy, I need a better sword and team up with the rogue and ranger. Cleric, hit me with a spell!"
HP are also a big deal in the game. However, everybody has them and in order to focus on damage, you need to focus on hitting them first. If my Attacking Fighter is likely to hit the Defending fighter on a 3 or less with a little help from his friends, the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Fighter in the Defending group should be able to do the same. The Rogue has a -10 to this number (Studded Leather vs Full Plate, -1 from the DEX modifier due to Max Dex on Studded leather; -9 for no Tower Shield). End result? Failure only on a 1 (I'm sure there's more that you can add to the Rogue's AC, but can't remember any off hand, besides Feats).
I agree with Aubrey on her points. But to get the players back on the "d20 bandwagon", I need to find a way around the issues that they have and still make thing enjoyable. Interesting plot hooks, unique NPC design, and overall flavor will add to their enjoyment, but I don't want them feeling bogged down when they get hit every round.
I've been playing d20 since 3.0 came out (I waited in line at GenCon) and I like 3.5 as well (again, line). I get discouraged when I can't play a character past 6th level because the other DMs see that the game is breaking. Not that they haven't tried. We were playing one (Mongoose) module that was to go to 30th. We didn't make it past 6th because we refused to leave a person behind. Creature was hitting everyone and bad die rolls.
I appreciate all your help. The other DMs in the group have attempted to post something like this on other boards and only received the "you don't know what you're talking about", "I never play d20", or "I don't have a problem" responses. They also had the chance to attend a "What's wrong with D&D" seminar at GenCon (not what they expected) and talked with a few people that see the problem I am trying to convey. I may be going at this the wrong way, but it's not the easiest concept to portray in writing.
Sorry for the long post again, and thanks for your help!
Todd
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I still don't see the problem. I've played past 6th level and have not felt that the game was "broken." The complaint you seem to have is that offense does better than defense in D&D. I don't see this as a flaw. If the system were set up to favor defense, combats would last significantly longer, have a lot of dead rolls, and generally (IMO) not be as much fun. Yes, the 6th level fighter hits most of the time with his main attack, but his iterative attacks are less likely to succeed. For those with a lower BAB (rogues, monks, clerics, etc) the chance of additional iterative attacks hitting is even lower. But, the fighter should be able to hit in combat - that's his shtick. Just like the wizard gets to hit people without making any attack rolls at all.
Can you provide a concrete example of how this is an actual game based problem and not just a matter of preference? The fact that a high level fighter is almost guaranteed to hit at least once in combat is not a problem in and of itself.
|
|
Actually, a 7th level fighter is an appropriate challenge for a 7th level fighter. This may not be the most challenging for one person, but it will still net the same XP. Don't tell me nobody has pitted the PCs against a group of 4 leveled characters against the PCs in the group (on the way to the overboss)... Or even a solo adventure.
The Elite array used is for an example. Most rolling 4d6 usually land with a similar array, point buy close (for the higher numbers). Besides, the bad guy is going to have the Elite Array, and there's a chance of him being a 7th level Fighter.
The main point I am trying to reach is that the AC does not appeal as much as a shiny sword. Technically, Full plate +5 and a Tower shield +5 is the most powerful (straight armor/shield) combination in the game. This is a max AC of 33 (Base 10, HP +13, Shield +9, DEX +1). A 15th level Fighter can hit this with a club on a 16 or less. If it was a magic club +5, an 11. This is only assuming a 15 STR, no magic (on a 10 for bless), no aiding (on a 9), no buffing (on a 9 for bull's endurance), no flanking (on a 9), and no stacking (all combined, a 3 or better to hit).
We have played around with different options. DR instead of the AC bonus. The PC get's hit more, and it's a duel of HP. Reduce the BAB by half. This extends the issue to 12th instead of 6th. Defense roll, too slow and it just evens out in the end (high roll, low roll, high roll, ...).
At 15th level, every person can have a +5 weapon, +5 Armor, +5 shield, and 100,000 gp spending cash. Yes, this is the "worst case scenario", but it is outlined in the DMG. They can also pop on a Ring of Protection +5 and Amulet of Natural Armor +5 to give the above scenario fighter a 13 to hit (minimum, swap out his shield for a belt of giant strength for another +3 to hit, down to 10).
Yes, there are other factors that go into all this. I've had my fair share of bad die rolls where I couldn't hit the broad side of a gargantuan construct (barn). Yes, this is number crunching. However, it is valid number crunching. These are scenarios that both the PCs and DM should be considering in a game of survival. "I want this cool sword, but everyone is still hitting me. How do I increase my AC?" or "I can't hit this guy, I need a better sword and team up with the rogue and ranger. Cleric, hit me with a spell!"
HP are also a big deal in the game. However, everybody has them and in order to focus on damage, you need to focus on hitting them first. If my Attacking Fighter is likely to hit the Defending fighter on a 3 or less with a little help from his friends, the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Fighter in the Defending group should be able to do the same. The Rogue has a -10 to this number (Studded Leather vs Full Plate, -1 from the DEX modifier due to Max Dex on Studded leather; -9 for no Tower Shield). End result? Failure only on a 1 (I'm sure there's more that you can add to the Rogue's AC, but can't remember any off hand, besides Feats).
I agree with Aubrey on her points. But to get the players back on the "d20 bandwagon", I need to find a way around the issues that they have and still make thing enjoyable. Interesting plot hooks, unique NPC design, and overall flavor will add to their enjoyment, but I don't want them feeling bogged down when they get hit every round.
I've been playing d20 since 3.0 came out (I waited in line at GenCon) and I like 3.5 as well (again, line). I get discouraged when I can't play a character past 6th level because the other DMs see that the game is breaking. Not that they haven't tried. We were playing one (Mongoose) module that was to go to 30th. We didn't make it past 6th because we refused to leave a person behind. Creature was hitting everyone and bad die rolls.
I appreciate all your help. The other DMs in the group have attempted to post something like this on other boards and only received the "you don't know what you're talking about", "I never play d20", or "I don't have a problem" responses. They also had the chance to attend a "What's wrong with D&D" seminar at GenCon (not what they expected) and talked with a few people that see the problem I am trying to convey. I may be going at this the wrong way, but it's not the easiest concept to portray in writing.
Sorry for the long post again, and thanks for your help!
Todd
OK - first misconception: Aubrey is a BOY'S name. Fortunately it is an alias, or I might be upset. :-)
Secondly - your assumptions about how a game works are completely wrong. And I'm surprised at the basic flaws in your argument if you have actually been playing the game. An appropriate challenge to a 7th level fighter is not another 7th level fighter. That is simply a 50/50 contest between clones. It won't happen in the game. A 7th level fighter is an appropriate challenge to a party of four 7th level characters. They should win it without too much aggro. That is the way the CR system works. Unless you are actually trying to kill your PC's, that is the way it should be working.
As it happens, I haven't tried to line up the PC's against an equal and opposite party. Firstly, the EL is very high at 11, asuming our 7th level characters. Second, NPCs are not equipped as well as PCs, or shouldn't be per the rules. If they were, let's bump up the EL by a conservative +1 to 12. This is almost certain to kill some of the PCs - so it wouldn't really seem a good idea, except maybe for a big climactic encounter at the end of a campaign. This is a quite likely TPK - as the CR implies and intuition says it should be (50/50, anyway). Not good for campaign continuity.
Your comments on AC again work at a superficial number-crunching level, but again fail to account for some quite important aspects.
(1) Will everyone really have all this cool gear with +5 attached to it? That is super-expensive, and not everyone will have it. And if you do have a +5 sword, will it all be To Hit enhancement or damage enhancement (i.e. a flaming sword, flaming burst, or whatever) which will reduce your to hit chance. Just go for To Hit enhancement, you won't do a lot of damage when you hit.
(2) You list off a load of spells which can enhance combat. Fine: will you actually always have those? There are a limited number of spell slots, wands are also very expensive, walking round with hundreds of scrolls is just silly. They might not be there: attrition of resources is a big part of the game.
(3) You completely ignore the tactical aspect of the game. This can have a big effect upon what you can hit. The enemy will also be using tactics against you. So your fighter is super-macho with his +5 sword; not much use if he has failed his Will save and just died, or wandered into an extra-dimesional maze, or been mind-blasted, or dominated. Feat selection provides tactical possibilities for all sides. Same with spells (who says NPCs don't get buffs?). And selecting your ground to fight on.
(4) Fighters are supposed to hit things - it is the raison d'etre of the class. A PC with a fighter that can't hit anything will get frustrated quickly - so they get to hit things easily. A fighter who hits things on an 11+ is only hitting about half the time. That isn't that much, especially if you are fighting something with lots of HP. You are also ignoring iterative attacks, with successive -5 penalties. It gets a little bit more tricky to hit with each attack per round.
(5) Your rogue problem is likely completely moot. A rogue going toe-to-toe with a fighter of the same level will die - you don't need to number-crunch to work that out. Rogues are poor at that, and if someone is daft enough to play a rogue like that a swift PC death will be the inevitable outcome. The rogue creeps about the battlefield opportunistically sneak attacking and trying to avoid getting hit at all. Teamwork is key here (as it is generally).
(6) I said it before, but... You are still ignoring damage as well as To Hit. A wizard or sorcerer can do massive damage without even needing to make a To Hit roll. Sneak attack damage can be huge. You can hit every time and do 1 point of damage - your PC will also die. And how much damage can the PCs take? Or the opposition? All left out of the equation, but surely absolutely key.
I know you are rather seduced by your analysis, but it completely ignores major aspects of the game. If your PCs cannot survive the game as it stands.... What are they doing? Is the rogue going toe-to-toe with heavily amoured fighters. Does nobody heal anybody?
The example of the Mongoose adventure is interesting: what was the creature, what was the party level, and was it an appropriate challenge? Bad nights happen, but there is such a thing as bad adventure design. And bad player tactics. And bad DM'ing. TPKs happen, but don't necessarily invalidate the system. Are you suggesting it is impossible to get a party above 6th level? That is patently untrue, as the experience of virtually everybody else on the boards here can point out.
If your players are blaming d20 for their characters' deaths, that rather sounds like bad workmen and their tools. My PCs seem almost indestructible, and they face high CRs. There is no substitute for experience at play. The numbers are interesting, but frankly irrelevant. This is because tactics on both sides play such a big part in the outcome, and the "battlefield" is dynamic. Your static example fails to pick up on that.
|
You are right that this forum appears a lot more helpful and polite than others out there (though don't get between Sebastian & Takasi....;-)).
The posters do seem to attempt to answer queries to the best of their ability, assuming they get the gist or the kernel of the problem.
Try to avoid getting hung up on the chance 'to hit'. At low levels, a 'hit' usually represents someone being slapped upside the head so hard their ears ring and they fall down after one or two such blows. However (assuming the character is fighting a clone of himself), the percentage of max hp lost per blow tends to reduce at higher levels, since a PC's total hp increases faster than their damage potential (Eg a level 2 fighter can have up to twice the hp, but he certainly doesn't hit twice as often or twice as hard).
The exceptions to this trend are larger creatures (whose Str and base damage dice increase), or pure fighters (who can afford to buy feats, such as Power Attack and Cleave).
So a 'hit' no longer represents a lunge through the vittals, but a scratched cheek, a sprained ankle, blood in the eyes...
A combat between 2 identical fighters can still take a while, but instead of miss, miss, miss, miss, Knockout!, it's a case of feint, riposte, scratch, unbalance, Disembowel!
todd, try to outline a scenario in which the numbers don't work out for you. Try and use at least 2 PCs, preferably 4 PCs, with an appropriate CR monseters(s) for them to fight against. We can go through the numbers together and see if it works out or not. Look in the back of the Monster Manual for the Monster by CR list for easy examples.
|
|
My two cents: I have not had the game "break down", in either 3.0 or 3.5, at levels beyond 15-20+. Now, my gaming group does make use of some supplementary materials ("Complete" books, as well as "Sword and Sorcery" and the odd d20), so I don't know if that muddies the waters (from some postings here, I'd infer it may from some perspectives). I'd agree with the others that say the best way to find out is to play, and to let you and your group decide what works for you. Statistics are great, but roleplaying is more than just number crunching and "who can do what": it's about fun. Have some and see. :)
Fair Warning--
This post is a recap of the infamous "Grimcleaver System". It has in the past caused nausea, nosebleeds and double vision in some players, many of which are posting here. Nonetheless for the uninitiated I present it as a nice cinematic alternative to the RAW for a different flavor of D&D gaming--basically the version my group has used with tremendous success.
Tdwitt: Hopefully this will give you something different that might work for you.
Hit points are allotted by race, NOT class (since the idea of a halfling with 12 hp and a half-orc with 4 has always just rankled me!)
Halfling/Gnome 4
Elf 6
Human/Half-elf 8
Dwarf 10
Half-orc 12
Add or subtract Con mod and you're good to go. These don't go up with level, only with the toughness feat or ability increases.
Armor Class is replaced by Defense, and armor has nothing to do with it (armor gives an DR equivalent to its original AC bonus) but is rather your Dex mod + 10 plus a Base Defense Bonus (works exactly like BAB but is added to Defense, and represents the character's ability to dodge and weave around and not get hit--it goes off the same BAB's the classes use, but the classes with the highest BDB are the ones that are the most dodgy--rogues and monks, and trickles down to wizards and bards and such who really don't dodge too well).
Magic and monsters are toned down to scale them to fit the rest of the system, now that the inflated statistical wierdness has been drained out of it. Basically magic you keep the die type for damage or healing and add the number OF dice as a numberical bonus (ie. 6d6 fireball becomes 1d6+6 fireball--still plenty lethal in a world where folks have 4-12 hp!)
Monster hitpoints are another thing that needs reworking, since flipping through the MMs the impression is that their stats seem generated at random and not with any rhyme or reason that can be reverse engineered. Simple fix though is to consult the MMII pgs. 5-7 which give reasonable min and max hp per type of creature (construct, humanoid, dragon, etc.) per size catagory. This works great if you own the book--which I consider meat and potatoes, never far from my hand anyhow.
This changes play considerably, but I have found it to be all in good ways. Action is flashy and dangerous--but not too dangerous, with lots of steel flashing around. Gone is the video gamey characters and NPC's chopping each other like wood to no effect, taking arrows and falling off cliffs or falling into lava or acid and just boldly popping back out like nothing happened. It works good! I recommend it highly, at least to experiment with, if you have had problems with RAW d20. Give it a shot.
I´m not quite sure if I understand the questions right, but in my experience, the game does not break down on higher levels than 5 or 6. My PCs faced Hill Giants, two apiece, two times, and had a very hard time of it, even though the CRs were appropriate to their level at that time. And I had a fight against a party of NPCs that resulted in my NPC cleric being dead after a crit from the enemy cleric wich a pick (those x4 crits are nasty). If they hadn´t had very good equipment, this encounter could have resulted in a TPK easily.(They rescued Etienne d´Ambreville, who handed out very generous rewards).
So, basically I don´t think the game breaks down. It surely gets more difficult to DM the higher the PCs levels are. When mages (and sorcerers) get the "heavy artillery" spells like fireball, the tone of the game changes: groups of low-level enemies, like orcs, present less of a challenge, as they probably run away when their group gets hit once or twice by a fireball. My group wiped out a goblin encampment with fireballs from the sorcerer and ice storms from the druid, and because they had prepared that well, I let them have this success.
Stefan
First off, sorry about the confusion, Aubrey. The only Aubrey's I knew were female...
The complaint you seem to have is that offense does better than defense in D&D.
Bingo! I've been trying to figure out the least common denominator of my complaint. Amazing how something so simple gets caught up in the tanslation...
I believe that Defense should be given equal footing against Offense, or at least give the PC the choice. Alternity, Lord of the Rings, HERO and GURPS (I'm sure there are others) provide this by requiring the character to purchase their "Combat Skill Levels" or Rank benefits, D&D hands them out for free at each level and supplements them by weapon bonuses and combat/ability modifiers. Therefore, there is a dedication to increasing the combat abilities of the character. d20 doesn't allow for this in the Skill sense because of the Max Skill Ranks.
Armor, on the other hand, is a static number only modified by equipment. This gives Offense the "upper hand" later in the game. This has been addressed with a "patch" in Star Wars, Unearthed Arcana, and d20 Modern with the Class Bonus to AC when there is a likelyhood of less armor for protection. The designers realized that there is a greater opportunity to hit than to NOT be hit. Unfortunately, by the time these were published, 3.5 was on it's way out the door. It would take a different kind of "patch" to update 3.5 because it has so much fantasy (SW has little, d20m can't gaurantee it), versus hard science.
2e didn't have the amazing amount of modifiers to Attack as 3e does. STR bonuses were split between Attack and Damage, 3e gives the benefit (higher than 2e) to both. Also, the only way that you could increase an ability, short of a Wish, was through a manual or magic item. 3e gives you one every four levels.
Yes, 3e is a combat driven game (1e and 2e for that matter), but it hasn't been as heavy on the Attack roll as it was.
Damage has not changed from the previous versions, with the exception of DR (even that is a rehash). In fact, consistancy has gone up considerably! HP/HD are more balanced with the classifications of monster types. HP is an abstact system that doesn't reflect damage as the aforementioned game systems. Damage is harsher in those systems, D&D you stay up until you run out. Therefore, less "realism", more fantasy.
So, I guess it all boils down to a matter of Realism and BAB. I'll have to go and do some number crunching, but there may be a possibility of removing BAB entirely from the game and still achieve what I am looking for. Of course, this means that I'll need to do some modifications to AC as well (double the price of armor?).
I'll have to get back to everyone on my results.
Again, thanks!
Todd
todd, try to outline a scenario in which the numbers don't work out for you.
With my recent realization, I'll have to get back to you. However, the standard NPCs in the DMG coupled with the appropriate CR from the MM for any single man sized (I agree that larger opponents should be stronger) creature should do the trick.
When doing the mock combat, look only at To Hit. This is my issue. Add some flavor by adding AC and Attack tactics, but don't focus too much on Feats and Spells (this just blurs what I am trying to get at). The Core mechanic is the focus.
This post is a recap of the infamous "Grimcleaver System".
Although interesting, It's a bit more complicated than what I'm looking for. If you don't mind me asking, what prompted you to go this route?
Statistics are great, but roleplaying is more than just number crunching and "who can do what": it's about fun. Have some and see. :)
True, I've never said that it isn't. But the Core mechanics do drilldown to the numbers. If you don't have the numbers, you're playing Amber (the Diceless RPG). There's luck, skills, munchkinism, fudging, interaction, desperation, triumph, humbling, and some guy that touches your dice to add to the numbers...
So, basically I don´t think the game breaks down. It surely gets more difficult to DM the higher the PCs levels are.
This is another of my complaints. D&D has always been a "hack 'em up" RPG. However, it was much easier to prepare for a 2e game than 3e (so I'm told, I only DMed 1 2e game, and it was an RPGA game). I just wish the CR system was more on the spot. But then, no game is perfect because of the above.
I believe that Defense should be given equal footing against Offense, or at least give the PC the choice. Alternity, Lord of the Rings, HERO and GURPS (I'm sure there are others) provide this by requiring the character to purchase their "Combat Skill Levels" or Rank benefits, D&D hands them out for free at each level and supplements them by weapon bonuses and combat/ability modifiers. Therefore, there is a dedication to increasing the combat abilities of the character. d20 doesn't allow for this in the Skill sense because of the Max Skill Ranks.
Armor, on the other hand, is a static number only modified by equipment. This gives Offense the "upper hand" later in the game.
Well, one could argue that hit points are somewhat the defense statistic in the game. I think we can agree that the idea that a human can eventually withstand more physical damage than a giant solely due to his fighting prowess is ridiculous, so hit points do not represent actual physical toughness. This is reflected in the death from massive damage rule as well. IIRC, in the 1st Ed AD&D DMG hit points were explained just like that: they are more a reflection of the fighting prowess than an actual representation of "body", "life energy" or however you want to call it. Grimcleavers system tries to amend exactly that.
Stefan
This is another of my complaints. D&D has always been a "hack 'em up" RPG. However, it was much easier to prepare for a 2e game than 3e (so I'm told, I only DMed 1 2e game, and it was an RPGA game).
That is mostly true. In 3e, you have a lot more statistics to consider and prepare, in 2e seceral things were set, like sving throws and Thac0. But preparing a high-level spellcaster is a chore under any system. At least there is HeroForge for 3e, which makes my life as DM much easier.
2e stats are easier to modify, as they are not as highly interdependent as in 3e.Stefan
Although interesting, It's a bit more complicated than what I'm looking for. If you don't mind me asking, what prompted you to go this route?
I wanted a combat system that felt more like the way action happens in movies and books--where it's more about not getting hit, or your armor blunting the damage rather than taking ton of damage without dying. So after some trial and error I came up with the basics of this. It really isn't as complex as it might seem--really it's mostly the idea that characters increase in Defense as they level rather than gaining hit points, and that armor gives a damage reduction instead of making you harder to hit.
I thought the idea that armor either protects you completely or doesn't help at all was really wierd, so the DR thing seemed a neat way to make armor do what armor does. The low hit points based on race made the weapons do the kind of damage they should, but then the question became how to make Defense more of a factor so people weren't getting hit all the time--of import particularly if a character wore light or no armor. The idea came from some friends of mine to have a BDB, and base it on how "dodgy" the class was in the same way base attack bonus is based on how good at attacking the class is. The decision to modify magic and monster hit points likewise ended up being really necessary (and pretty easy really) the more I looked at spells like the cure spells that would heal more damage than anyone would ever take or creatures that had huge hit points if for no other reason than to challenge characters with similarly high hit points. So yeah, then pretty much everything fell together.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
First off, sorry about the confusion, Aubrey. The only Aubrey's I knew were female...
The complaint you seem to have is that offense does better than defense in D&D.
Bingo! I've been trying to figure out the least common denominator of my complaint. Amazing how something so simple gets caught up in the tanslation...
Okay, cool. It's not my bag, but I can appreciate where you're coming from. I guess if your main concern is rebalancing offense/defense, the easy solution is to adopt the base defense bonus that someone (maybe you - can't remember) suggested. Keep in mind that if you start messing with how hard it is for a fighter to hit, abilities that bypass the to-hit roll (such as the majority of spells) are going to be relatively stronger. You may need to allow the BDB to apply to saves to even things out (or maybe 1/2 BDB).
The other thing you might look up is True20. It's a variant d20 system from Green Ronin. I don't know a lot about it, but I do know that it uses a damage saving throw instead of hp. When you're hit, you make the save. Fail enough saves and you go down. I'm not sure if the base to-hit mechanic is the same, but the system might be more to your liking.
Tdewitt, I run a comparably sized group of PCs in my games. I just wanted to chime in on how to keep the ELs balanced for them. Basically, a group of 6-8 6th level PCs should be challenged with an EL about 2 higher than their average party level.
Remember, though, that the CR of any creature doesn't always set the EL. Add hampered terrain, the effects of PCs weapon in, say, water, and a plethora of other elements to an encounter and it can get significantly harder or even easier, thus increasing or decreasing the EL of the encounter.
OK. That's all. I think things have been pretty well covered by Aubrey the Deformed.
Also, I've found that running a Core Rules only game will significantly add to the overall game balance you're looking for.
Aubrey the Reformed?
Aubrey the Informed!
I don't know. Your avatar looks more DE formed to me. But have it your way :p