So, if we're debating the math of the CR system, let's debate the math.
(snip) Cook and Williams ran through their projected math for what high level combatants should accomplish. (snip)
-Frank
Well Frank, isn't this the basis of the argument on this thread? He is saying that they were calculated as combatants and not A combatant...that all the assumptions rely on the CR that is based around a party of 4, and that you cannot logically go "backwards" then and test via 1 on 1 encounter.
|
The way I see it, Lich-Loved simply used his perogative and created a thread to address and refute an earlier claim, and certain individuals didn't like that. Too bad, because a dialogue is about two sides.
The whole "I'm in med school thing" snippet just seethes bombastic arrogance. Heck, I'm a member of the legal profession, I've written a law review article, and helped with several others. But when it comes to D&D and it's new lease on life, Pathfinder, I'm just like any other player and DM. But as a little advice, based on copious amounts of real world experience, punctuating good ideas with derogatory and condescending remarks minimizes the effect of such ideas.
As for an 8th level fighter in combat under the Pathfinder system, I'll let my upcoming playtests be the best guide.
|
Well Frank, isn't this the basis of the argument on this thread?
So, if we're debating the math of the CR system, let's debate the math.
(snip) Cook and Williams ran through their projected math for what high level combatants should accomplish. (snip)
-Frank
It certainly isn't for Frank (if I can be so bold as to speak for him), and I think he's got a point.
He is saying that they were calculated as combatants and not A combatant...that all the assumptions rely on the CR that is based around a party of 4, and that you cannot logically go "backwards" then and test via 1 on 1 encounter.
The point that Frank is making (and via Aubrey's reposted email, has provided justification for) is that the DMG operates under the assumption that you can, in fact, do exactly that. Frank is assuming that the DMG is correct and playtesting from there. Lich-Loved is calling it wrong, which may be morally satisfying and even true to a very real extent, but is, quite frankly, utterly unhelpful. Frank has noted that playtesting has shown relatively decent balance for several classes under the exact assumptions that the DMG supplies.
Key point here: even if the DMG's logic for encounter scaling is wrong, Frank's playtesting experience still gives us a point of comparison, one that is usable beyond Frank's game table because it is related to a statistic we all have access to: CR.
Game balance is about being roughly equally effective relative to other PCs, and Frank's method of determining this is as useful as one could ask for from a system designed to determine it. If playtesting had shown that, for instance, most of the core 11 classes wind up clocking in at, say, 30% wins, then we would have that as a point of comparison to judge power level by. Frank is claiming, and I can't really see a purpose in doubting him without someone else to provide playtest notes that significantly contradict his claim, that the number for most of the classes does, in fact, come out around 50%. That this matches the DMG's logic is nice and helpful, but utterly unnecessary to the value of Frank's model.
And yes, for the record, LL has been baiting Frank, and Frank, with his usual masterful sense of tact, has been stoking the flames nicely. Which is why I'm not responding to either of them, nor will do so.
The way I see it, Lich-Loved simply used his perogative and created a thread to address and refute an earlier claim, and certain individuals didn't like that. Too bad, because a dialogue is about two sides.
The whole "I'm in med school thing" snippet just seethes bombastic arrogance. Heck, I'm a member of the legal profession, I've written a law review article, and helped with several others. But when it comes to D&D and it's new lease on life, Pathfinder, I'm just like any other player and DM. But as a little advice, based on copious amounts of real world experience, punctuating good ideas with derogatory and condescending remarks minimizes the effect of such ideas.
As for an 8th level fighter in combat under the Pathfinder system, I'll let my upcoming playtests be the best guide.
Well in Franks defense I think he has worked on game systems before, hence the reason I and a few others don't automatically dismiss his ideas. If Lich-loved's cred's are truthful, then he obviously has an advanced understanding of mathmatics and numerical-based logic, so I think his opinion is worth something in those regards.
The opinion that (disregarding if the original intent was to make one 8th level character = CR8 monster or not) a test using an actual party as a playtest and not a single creature, and then use judgement to determine if the character is pulling the proper weight seems as logical (if you assume that lich-loved is correct which I think he probably is) if not more-so than a 1 on 1 fight between a player and monster seems sound to me.
Either way, I wouldn't say a 1 on 1 test holds no value as a test.
Finally, your insults and accusations only serve to make you look bad. Debate the merits of your premise, and lay off the ad hominem attacks. Trying to silence dissenting opinions only gives the impression that you can't defend your premise. Oh, and telling me I should be "ashamed" if I happen to agree with Lich-Loved doesn't endear me to any of your future ideas.
QFT.
I've followed both of the Lich Loved debates and in each, Frank and K have turned it into an ad hominem attack. The debate is clearly about someones ideas and as such, we should be able to openly discuss them in a forum. The childish responses are indicative of an ego that is too big for this forum.
|
|
Well said David. Frank and Lich-Loved obviously have some interesting points to share. When those points are delivered along with some abrasive remarks or outright personal attacks, it detracts from those ideas.
With that said, I'll see what happens to some 8th-lvel fighters soon enough. Could anyone recommend a good module to test out the aformentioned ideas?
|
|
Well said David. Frank and Lich-Loved obviously have some interesting points to share. When those points are delivered along with some abrasive remarks or outright personal attacks, it detracts from those ideas.
With that said, I'll see what happens to some 8th-lvel fighters soon enough. Could anyone recommend a good module to test out the aformentioned ideas?
Not off the top of my head. Most of the mods I can think of are sufficiently "thematic" that they slant towards a certain kind of encounter pretty thoroughly, and thus wouldn't necessarily be as helpful as one would like for getting a wide range of experiences to judge from.
One thing I'm really thinking would be good would be to have someone playtest through Sins of the Saviors in the Pathfinder RPG. It's pretty generally accepted that most of D&D's issues are most visible at high level play, and there's a wide variety of encounters in that module that would serve nicely as a set of playtest experiences to draw from...
|
|
We were all warned about personal attacks wrt the 4e threads a while back. It doesn't really bother me; I'll tell anybody things they don't want to know about their ancestors all day long or til they swing.
Plus, I think when you stoop to pissy little insults you blow whatever point you made, whether garbage or golden. Or maybe it advances an agenda in a Jerryspringeresque sort of way. What do I know?
2c.
|
Firstly yes, I have read the whole thread (made my Reflex save to dodge the flames) but I just wanted to bring this up.
The tool (CR/EL/PL system) is broken, by the designers own admission. And as such, can not be used as a way to accurately measure anything.
The entire point is to *fix* it. Therefore, we use it for our measurements, and correct the things that don't fit.
I pretty much agree with both statements, but it seems to me that if the tool is broken, then it is the tool's fault, not that which you are applying it to. If the useful-but-flawed CR system fails to account properly for a 13th level Fighter, then the flawed system should be changed so that it works, rather than bending the Fighter out of shape to erase evidence of that individual error.
|
|
Firstly yes, I have read the whole thread (made my Reflex save to dodge the flames) but I just wanted to bring this up.
The tool (CR/EL/PL system) is broken, by the designers own admission. And as such, can not be used as a way to accurately measure anything.I pretty much agree with both statements, but it seems to me that if the tool is broken, then it is the tool's fault, not that which you are applying it to. If the useful-but-flawed CR system fails to account properly for a 13th level Fighter, then the flawed system should be changed so that it works, rather than bending the Fighter out of shape to erase evidence of that individual error.
The entire point is to *fix* it. Therefore, we use it for our measurements, and correct the things that don't fit.
The problem with this statement is that it assumes, prima facie, that the 13th level fighter is where it is supposed to be. There is signficant evidence, both anecdotal and mathematical, to suggest this is not the case. See, here's the thing: the tool may be busted, but it's busted pretty much the same way for all the classes, and so is something of a non-issue. It's a known and relatively fixed bias, and so can be accounted for.
Moreover, it's not so much the absolute value of the CR system that we're trying to establish here, but the relative value of the classes to that system and, by extension, to each other. Even if the CR system is entirely screwed up, by placing characters of the same rank up against it to see how they function, we can still judge them relative to one another by the results of their performances. And by that standard, the fighter comes out looking ineffective.
|
Without knowing the details or politics of this situation, I'd like to comment that the depth of mathematical discussion listed in this thread makes me feel proud of PAIZO's open playtest, proud of the intellect of the participants of these threads, and proud of everyone's passion around discussing the game we love.
See, here's the thing: the tool may be busted, but it's busted pretty much the same way for all the classes, and so is something of a non-issue. It's a known and relatively fixed bias, and so can be accounted for. [...] Even if the CR system is entirely screwed up, by placing characters of the same rank up against it to see how they function, we can still judge them relative to one another by the results of their performances.
I think that's the point of disagreement - whether it's busted in the same way, and whether you can meaningfully use solo character + CR to judge relatively utility. In my opinion, the classes are powerful in different circumstances, some overlapping, some not (insert Venn diagram reference here). A wizard and a rogue lose some of their potential if they're alone, where other classes don't. If the creature has a power that requires a save, classes will be more or less effective depending on whether the required save is the classes's good save. Rogue vs. area effect, cleric or wizard vs. charm, fighter vs. fort save or die, etc.
There was an assertion earlier that some people (like Frank) are taking that into account, and looking at a set of challenges at the same CR. That's good, but what I think Lich-Loved is arguing is that it's half the battle.
Let's talk about a different variable - is this the first fight of the day, or the fifth? If we presume that the fighter is healed, they're just as effective at the end of the day as at the start. Wizards, on the other hand, might be running dry on powers. It might be argued that a fighter is a slow-and-steady character, relatively less powerful at the start of a day but then steadily closing the gap like a turtle.
If we decide -that- is the situation, and that it's not fun for the player because most campaigns have more first-fights than fifth-fights, then we also have our solution - give the fighter daily powers so they can follow the same power curve as other characters. Or give them feats that grant daily powers, so that they can choose whether or not to follow that curve.
I don't know who is arguing that the 50/50 challenges have no value (and I'll disagree with anyone who does). But they aren't a be-all trump card, either. The game is more complex than that.
How about a set of choose 2 from (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) challenges at CR+1? I think that would be closer to the balanced-4-person party and would have less variability.
|
As someone pointed out, I haven't given a great deal of thought to how to make the system better. I posted a quick response to this in a couple of posts last night, but now that I am awake again, I wanted to reiterate my solutions.
The two solutions are:
(1) Perhaps PRPG could simply say that monster CR is based on the process defined in the MM pg 302 and that Table 3-1 and associated text in the DMG, when used to reduce party sizes below four (and maybe above 8) no longer applies.
(2) We could run individual playtests of class x against a selection of monsters and keep changing the features of the class until we get a character of Level x winning 50% of the time against a foe of CR x. Then, we are at a crossroads. We need to decide on how much a monster of CR x should tax the party of four. Assuming we stay at 20% reduction of resources, we will need to either increase the number of monsters present at that CR (thereby shifting the "logs" in the DMG table around) or buff the monster. Given that buffing the monster invalidates our single-character test, we will need to add foes to the encounter so the party is appropriately taxed. We will then need to playtest this new arrangement to be sure that the party is being taxed at the desired 20% rate.
The benefit of (1) is that it is simple and cheap to fix and does not send ripples throughout the rules, something that should not be overlooked given the real-world nature of the task Jason has undertaken. My issue with this solution is that is does not address the concerns of those that feel that classes other than the rogue are underpowered.
The benefit of (2) is that it will ensure all classes are equal contributors in combat but it comes at the expense of a large change to the rules (classes, races(?), spells, feats, et. al.) and requires extensive playtesting to be sure nothing else is broken. It also changes the paradigm that a CR x creature should face a Level x party to present an "appropriate challenge" since everyone but the rogue will likely be getting a buff (depending on who you ask about current character power and usefulness).
Note that both of these solutions effectively decouples CR from EL, at least as it applies in the existing Table 3-1 in the DMG. The first says that CR is constant so the table holds, the second says we have changed CR, so rewrite the table.
I believe at heart this is where the debate should be at. We should be discussing if it is appropriate for a Level X fighter to defeat a CR x foe 50% of the time. Some would say this was a design intent but if it was, it was misguided given the way the CR system was developed and using this misguided approach to derive this assumption is mathematically inaccurate. What the designers did (intentionally or not) was ensure that a group of 4 (with some under performers and some over performers) would be balanced against a CR x foe. I think this is why they ask DMs to "be sure each class has a chance to shine". The designers knew full well the group members didn't perform equally in all cases.
If we as players want all characters to be equal and break away from under and over performers, then we need to revisit the CR system and assign CRs (and eventually ELs based on those CRs) based on a one vs one CR system but we should not delude ourselves that the existing CR system is that one on one system.
Edit: spelling, grammar
|
|
The problem with this statement is that it assumes, prima facie, that the 13th level fighter is where it is supposed to be. There is signficant evidence, both anecdotal and mathematical, to suggest this is not the case. See, here's the thing: the tool may be busted, but it's busted pretty much the same way for all the classes, and so is something of a non-issue. It's a known and relatively fixed bias, and so can be accounted for.
Moreover, it's not so much the absolute value of the CR system that we're trying to establish here, but the relative value of the classes to that system and, by extension, to each other. Even if the CR system is entirely screwed up, by placing characters of the same rank up against it to see how they function, we can still judge them relative to one another by the results of their performances. And by that standard, the fighter comes out looking ineffective.
Actually, that isn't the general assumption. The general assumption is that the tool being used is misleading. The call is to re-examine the classes by mechanisms other than CR, a tool that is only designed to balance foes against a party of four. Williams, Tweet, et al, did not design the system for the purposes to which it is now being applied. It's like trying to use a visual spectrograph to measure ultraviolet light levels - you'll never get useful results.
I'm not saying the classes are balanced. I don't think anyone else on this thread is saying it either. What we are saying is that CR isn't the tool to balance them.
Two points here. First, that's not what the OP's argument said, inasmuch as he had solid points to make in support of his position. He argued that the assumptions made to calculate CR don't support the conclusion that you can scale APL down to a single character. This is true, as far as it goes.
But that isn't very far.
Because A does not imply B does not, in any way shape or form, mean that B is not true. Nothing in the OP's argument or any other argument I have seen has come anywhere near proving that a single character of level X should not have a roughly 50-50 chance of beatig a randomly determined opponent of CR X. LL has argued that the assumptions of the CR system don't validate that conclusion, which is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. Moreover, Frank has shown that his (admittedly self-described) rigorous playtesting that it is true for the majority of cases. That means, outside any other dispute, the CR system has value for determining playtest quality.
Second, the comparison between UV and visible light is not a valid one. You can never measure UV with a visual-wavelength spectrograph, but the CR system, as admitted by LL himself, does in fact measure character contributions in the arrangements stipulated under the creation of the CR system. With 4 PCs of level CR+2 against two creatures of CR whatever, LL has admitted that the CR system is valid. That you are not using all the of the assumptions of the original system does not mean that that system becomes completely useless; it only skews the results. But unless you can somehow show that the CR model systematically skews in favor of one character type over another, it's an adjustment that make no difference in relative comparisons.
To use the class y at level X vs. monster of CR X winning 50% of the time = the correct CR should be normalized. Assume all rolls are 11, and all damage is exactly averaged. This will at least give a spring board that doesn't rely on player (or DM) dice luck.
|
|
The problem with this statement is that it assumes, prima facie, that the 13th level fighter is where it is supposed to be. There is signficant evidence, both anecdotal and mathematical, to suggest this is not the case. See, here's the thing: the tool may be busted, but it's busted pretty much the same way for all the classes, and so is something of a non-issue. It's a known and relatively fixed bias, and so can be accounted for.
Moreover, it's not so much the absolute value of the CR system that we're trying to establish here, but the relative value of the classes to that system and, by extension, to each other. Even if the CR system is entirely screwed up, by placing characters of the same rank up against it to see how they function, we can still judge them relative to one another by the results of their performances. And by that standard, the fighter comes out looking ineffective.
Fair point. I don't really think the fighter is as good as soloing monsters as the rogue is. And I don't necessarily mind. Several "optimized" fighter builds can attain that degree of power, but most of the fighter players I've played with haven't gone with those and have been satisfied anyway. Were their characters as individually powerful as the party wizard? Probably not, but because they weren't forced to fight solo, they were able to fulfill their role well and have their fellows fill in for their shortcomings. This doesn't mean that I don't see where you're coming from. I like to quantify things, and I agree that there should be an accurate system for gauging the power of PC's and monsters on an equal scale, as really, that's what 3rd edition is about. The premise that PC's and monsters are built from the same blocks, and thus, are interchangeable at will.
I don't think that I could come up with a better system than CR quickly, or even at all. What I can do is offer suggestions. If the fighter isn't able to destroy the appropriate monster, why not? You need damage to defeat a combat encounter. That, or save-or-dies to substitute. But not every class has necessarily been designed to output damage. Perhaps the fighter's role is to soak up damage and provide flanking bonuses and general support. This would be his contribution to the party's "expendable resources". So when the fighter goes it alone against a beholder, perhaps he's bringing his full 25% of damage soak and flanking. But damage soak alone won't kill the beholder. The rogue, on the other hand, contributes his 25% by doing the majority of party damage. So when he goes up against the beholder, he deals does his thing, which unlike the fighter's, is actually the killing of the foe. So, given stealth and appropriate level, he deals a level-appropriate amount of damage and kills the beholder outright. A cleric of healing, who's contribution to the party comes in restoring the health of his party members and perhaps a few buffs on the side, is also going to struggle to bring the beast down if he's by himself, just because that's not what that character does.
Of course none of this has any bearing on the effectiveness of that character as a single foe, but if your testing it's strength as a member of an adventuring party, then test it's ability to fulfill it's party role. Taking the example above, count how many rounds it takes the rogue to bring the beholder down. You could even assume that the beholder doesn't focus completely on the rogue because there are "invisible" party members distracting it. Takes him 6 rounds to deal the damage? Ok. Bring in the fighter and have him do his stuff, attracting the beholder's attention, and trying to keep it off his target dummy companions. Stop after 6 rounds. Did the fighter die? Did the beholder kill the 26 hp "invisible" wizard? If so, note it. Bring in the cleric. The beholder can attack him, but assume distraction as per the rogue, because the "invisible" fighter is meant to be doing his job. Have the cleric heal and buff his companions. Look at how much damage the "invisible" party members took. Would the cleric's healing have prevented their deaths? If so, he's fulfilling his role. Fantastic.
Essentially, I sympathize with you that each class should be mechanically unique and yet equally appealing in terms of power. But in a game based on the assumption that you're part of a team, not every team member has to fulfill each role equally. You can't compare a striker's goal tally to that of a goalkeeper and claim the goalkeeper is unskilled because he scores less. He isn't as proficient at kicking goals because that's not what he brings to the team. When determining PC balance, each PC should be measured in terms of his role in a group, which is why balanced playtesting with a solo PC is fundamentally difficult.
Just my 2c.
TWB
EDIT: Sorry about context, the discussion moved on a bit while I was posting...
|
|
I'm not going to respond to most of this, because I think most of it has been responded to already in various places, but I did want to address this point quickly:
Let's talk about a different variable - is this the first fight of the day, or the fifth? If we presume that the fighter is healed, they're just as effective at the end of the day as at the start. Wizards, on the other hand, might be running dry on powers. It might be argued that a fighter is a slow-and-steady character, relatively less powerful at the start of a day but then steadily closing the gap like a turtle.
The fighter is in just about as much trouble at the end of the day as the wizard or cleric is, because while they are almost out of spells, the fighter is either almost out of hit points, or the cleric is almost out of spells to give him/her hit points back. Hit points feature prominently on the list of "expendible resources" that a party is expected to go through in a given encounter, whatever that percentage might be, and it's almost certainly going to be inequitably distributed in "favor" of the front line meleeist. The fighter actually recovers his/her expendible resources, on his/her own, far slower than any other class' benefits - this is because s/he is assumed to have access to magic that will accelerate that recovery (which most spellcasters cannot do with their spells). This makes the fighter almost as reliant on the spellcaster's adventuring day as the spellcasters themselves are.
|
|
To use the class y at level X vs. monster of CR X winning 50% of the time = the correct CR should be normalized. Assume all rolls are 11, and all damage is exactly averaged. This will at least give a spring board that doesn't rely on player (or DM) dice luck.
This would exclude the potential for crits, and set up a situation in which either all attacks are successful or all attacks are misses, which I think you can see would skew the results painfully.
A better equivalent, which involves much more math, calculates the total average damage, based on percentage chance of hitting and/or critting, and on average damage dealt, gets the job for fights that focus on dealing damage. It still does nothing for other types of encounters, such as spellcasters with save-or-lose effects.
You can't strip the randomness out of the system, because then it falls apart entirely.
|
|
I'd love to send this thread to a statistician, or a quality assurance analyst and see what they say. Or, maybe some of you have that skill and have already commented. This is very interesting to me. I have always accepted dungeons and dragons as an artform, requiring a dm to have a "feel" for when enough is enough based on infinate variables processed quickly by the human mind, rather than trusted number-crunching. That is, I've typically subscribed to a Malcolm Gladwell, BLINK philosophy that in the moment the dm is able to determine unconsciously, and rather quickly, what the appropriate encounter size should be.
That said, I've always used cr, and before that Hit Dice (in the 1980s-90s), to estimate and approximate challenges, but use the contextual in-the-moment variables to refine the actual amount of the threat. Old-school DMs often used selected monster powers to highlight or accentuate the drama of the specific beat's powers. Back in the day, this was far more important than balance.
But please know, I find the 3.5 system, and Jason Bulman's system refinement to be an improvement on that childhood game. I appreciate the sophistication of 3.5, and the attempt at balance, measurement, and intelligent stocking of encounters based on mathematics such as CR, APL, etc.
Please, please keep this discussion going - and thank you for everyone's input.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Assume all rolls are 11, and all damage is exactly averaged. This will at least give a spring board that doesn't rely on player (or DM) dice luck.
Hi, DJ.E.D. Good to see you.
In one way, you're right: we want to see a typical fight, with typical die rolls.
But continuous rolls of 11 miss one of D&D's combat's features: the critical hit. If we keep rolling 11's, then the fighter's keen battleaxe (doing triple damage every tenth hit) never factors into the combat.
You're right about damage: there's no trouble assuming average damage.
My suggestion: make two sets of cards numbered 1-20 for each combattant. When rolling d20's in combat, shuffle, draw till the deck is exhausted, and reshuffle.
The fighter is in just about as much trouble at the end of the day as the wizard or cleric is, because while they are almost out of spells, the fighter is either almost out of hit points.
You're right. Except that a fighter's attacks and defenses don't ablate during the day. A wizard or paladin at the end of several encounters has exhausted spells and spell-like abilities: they're not as effective in combat.
A fighter is fine, fine, fine, fine, dead.
I'd love to send this thread to a statistician, or a quality assurance analyst and see what they say. Or, maybe some of you have that skill and have already commented.
I hold an M.S. and some of a PhD. in Mathematics, including several courses in Numerical Analysis, and I've taught A.P. Statistics.
Really, the discussions we're having here are probability, not statistics, and are at a highschool / undergraduate level.
I hold an M.S. and some of a PhD. in Mathematics, including several courses in Numerical Analysis, and I've taught A.P. Statistics.Really, the discussions we're having here are probability, not statistics, and are at a highschool / undergraduate level.
This is very importantly true. The math we are talking here is not higher math. It's simple math. No one here should honestly be being confused by anything mathematical that is being tossed around in this discussion. And while Lich Loved is throwing a lot of the math around, his actual argument is completely non-mathematical. It's that the Encounter Level rules are not applicable to parties with less than four people. And the fact is that the Party Level/Encounter Level/CR rules are explicitly written to include "larger and smaller parties." His fundamental claim that the rules were never intended to allow for parties larger or smaller than four is flat false.
Nor is the concept being introduced in Pathfinder. The new XP charts list a party size of "1" as an available option. All of the math is a smokescreen for an essentially indefensible argument that the game of D&D is irreducibly complex and that we should not attempt to examine its underpinnings in order to gain information.
Where have I heard that argument before?
Right Here.
-Frank
Okay, since everyone seems to be tiptoeing around the issue, I'll try a direct attack. On an issue of this size, I expect that lacking the bonuses of the dwarf, I'll end up as a sticky paste. Someone be ready to ressurect me when it's all over.
The issue, as I see it, is this: CR=APL should consume 20% of all resources. In words of the mass combat system:
monster HP / (% party hits monster) x (avg party dmg per hit) = rounds
rounds x (% monster hits party) x (avg monster dmg per hit) = party HP lost
party HP lost / party HP ~= (approx equal) 20%
This works for HP, but not for spells, equipment, and anything else we're calling resources. It also relies on calculation of:
average party BAB
party HP
average party AC
I'd say that any CR system that doesn't at least take this into account is likely to fail. Now here's the rub - the wizard obviously has less AC and BAB than the fighter, enough that they're two seperate entities. Ah, but look at the damage the wizard can dish out, if MeatShieldO the fighter does his job. Oops, piercers. Ouch for the wizard.
Now consider damage output. Putting saves into the wizard and cleric spells is just fine, and not that hard. If one presumes the job of the cleric is to buff rather than heal, then increase the party stats for calculation of the formulae after round two. The problem I run across is the rogue's sneak attack. I've played too much Champions to believe that +2d6 is exactly double +1d6. (But that's a side issue.)
Already, we've gotten to where the system is complex beyond what most people would see as practical. Me, I'm a computer programmer, and I've already got concepts of how to build an 'encounter calculator' that does most of the grunt work. I'm just not certain that it would be practical.
Which grants more in a fight, Great Fortitude or Combat Reflexes? How dramatically does that change if the encounter is a dryad vs troglodyte vs shark? I honestly think that any manner of 'simple' balancing mechanic is beyond the question. Sadly, this also means that most 'simple' ways of calculating XP will also not work.
And that doesn't touch upon the idea of what manner of 'resources' a party is supposed to have. But basically, that's the can of worms as I see it, and even my framework solution has glaring problems with it.
Nrg. Brain snap. Assign the critters both a CR and type. Party should be equal to CR=Lvl of Melee, Ranged, Buff, and Ambush type of monsters. Fighter should be roughly equal of Melee monster of equal CR. I see many problems, but the post has gone on long enough.
|
|
Nothing in the OP's argument or any other argument I have seen has come anywhere near proving that a single character of level X should not have a roughly 50-50 chance of beatig a randomly determined opponent of CR X.
I think, though, that it is fair to say that nothing anywhere in the rules says that level x character should beat a CR x foe 50% of the time. Prior to my post refuting this, the assumption by some was that Table 3-1 and its surrounding text did just that. I believe I have shown this is simply not the case. Thus the debate should not be: "Character X is underpowered because, per the DMG, the character should beat a foe of the same CR 50% of the time." Instead the debate should be: "Should a character be able to beat a foe of the same CR 50% of the time?" I think this is a valid debate and may even be true to what the designers intended. I don't really know. What I do know is that if the answer to this question is "yes - a level x character should be matched evenly against a CR x foe" it means either PRPG will need major work or those that subscribe to this belief will be disappointed. I simply wanted to point out that there was no "mandate from heaven" that a level x character defeat a CR x foe as things stand unless the (misleading) text in the DMG is extrapolated beyond its limits.
LL has argued that the assumptions of the CR system don't validate that conclusion, which is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. Moreover, Frank has shown that his (admittedly self-described) rigorous playtesting that it is true for the majority of cases. That means, outside any other dispute, the CR system has value for determining playtest quality.
Again, it doesn't mean that the conclusion is right either. I believe Frank's playtest reports that some characters meet the level x / CR x challenge and many others don't. I am not sure how big of a problem this is overall. Some people are passionate about it and feel that all characters should be balanced and others feel that it is the team that matters, with DM's ensuring all characters get a chance to shine.
Also, as a point of clarification, I feel that the CR system, well a CR system, is very important for determining playtest quality. I only ask that we not confuse the existing CR system (created by and for 4 characters) with one that is balanced for 1 character, nor that we do it in a vacuum without consideration to how changes derived from this change will impact the game. I do believe, however, the existing CR system is as good a jumping off point for the developing a new CR system as can be found. But simply running a fighter against a bunch of foes and beefing up the fighter if it is found lacking and changing/testing no other parts of the system (especially the EL tables) is a mistake.
Where have I heard that argument before?
Right Here.-Frank
LOL...oh no u din't
I may not be the foremost expert on tabletop gaming, as it's only a hobby, but I know trolling like the back of my hand.
That one is too blatant to be taken seriously.
4.6 at best.
But if Rogues, Wizards, and Clerics all pass the 50% test and fighters fail horribly, doesn't that suggest something is wrong with fighters. Look, I'm not ideologically comitted to the 50% number. If you determine that some other number would work better, then we can maybe use that. But everyone needs to be working off the same number.
Except, of course, characters who bring a *lot* to a group but have notable solo failings. If someone did the test, got 35% for fighters, but convinced me that in a group they were way better, that would be acceptable. Or used a fighter and another character of level X-2. But there's not currently any evidence that a fighter brings much fo anything to a group, or an reason a beholder would want to kill the fighter before the rogue, even ignoring the fact that beholders can kill both at once.
Edit: Trollman's analogy is spot-on. Some genuine flaws in the system have been pointed out, but Lich-loved doesn't seem interested in working past them; he'd rather appeal ot irrducible complexity.
|
|
This is very importantly true. The math we are talking here is not higher math. It's simple math. No one here should honestly be being confused by anything mathematical that is being tossed around in this discussion.
I agree. It is simple stuff. Independent and dependent variables are basics. I never claimed it was hard.
And while Lich Loved is throwing a lot of the math around, his actual argument is completely non-mathematical.
It is in fact completely based on the definition of independent variable, to be clear. However, simply providing a definition of independent and dependent variables is somewhat obtuse so I spent a bunch of text showing why CR was dependent and why this dependency leads to bad thinking. If you want to call that non-mathematical, mmmmk. The point is, no one seemed confused by my explanation, which means it was clear and thorough, even if not everyone agreed with it.
It's that the Encounter Level rules are not applicable to parties with less than four people. And the fact is that the Party Level/Encounter Level/CR rules are explicitly written to include "larger and smaller parties." His fundamental claim that the rules were never intended to allow for parties larger or smaller than four is flat false.
No my fundamental claim is that anyone, readers or designers, that attempt to claim that the rules were written for smaller and larger parties (regardless of how explicit those rules were or how vigorous the debate) have made a mistake. Those that believe this have forgotten CR is not a constant except for parties of 4 core characters. It can be in the rules and still be wrong. We are all familiar with this phenomenon I am sure.
Nor is the concept being introduced in Pathfinder. The new XP charts list a party size of "1" as an available option.
I am not sure how this is a problem or issue. I never said you couldn't have a party of one, I said you can't expect a party of one to defeat a foe of the same CR 50% of the time. If that blessed event comes to pass, however, I am glad to see our lone character will get the xp he rightly deserves. Thanks, Pathfinder.
All of the math is a smokescreen for an essentially indefensible argument that the game of D&D is irreducibly complex and that we should not attempt to examine its underpinnings in order to gain information.
No, the argument isn't that all. I say that mathematically designing "appropriate encounters", given the number of independent variables, is too difficult to do. This happens all the time in real world science (the weather comes to mind as a sysytem too difficult to model except in gross form). What can be done, what was done, was to empirically determine the outputs of a scenario based upon a set of fixed inputs. This is also done all the time in science; even if the system itself is too complex to describe fully (mathematically), we can create a model for the system using known inputs to generate outputs. The error occurs when people believe they know more about the system than they do. If you tested a black-box system at inputs l,c, and n, you cannot determine the outputs at l1,c1,n1 from that test. There is nothing complex about this, it just is.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
We actually try to replicate the encounters in the way that that monsters actually would be fought. Ankhegs, for instance, burrow up from below.
The CR system is not always indicative of whether a party can effectively beat that monater or not either.
As in the above text, an Ankheg is CR 3. We had a party consisting of:Dwarf Barbarian 2
Elven Scout/Ranger 1/1
Elven Fighter 2
Human Cleric 2
Celadrin Warlock 1 (Me)
The Ankheg burrowed up and attacked the party, taking 2 points of Damage and cleaning the floor with them. The Dwarf was the only one to survive and only because he was CON based with a mountain of HP plus he ran away.
Party returned later in a new incarnation:
Dwarf Barbarian 3 (same character with 35/50 HP)
Halfling Rogue 2
Human Favoured Soul 2
Human Wizard 2
Air Genasi Swashbuckler 1 (Me again)
The Ankheg again burrowed up, surprising the Dwarf and taking him down to 5 HP in 1 round. My Swashbuckler leapt off a ladder, plunging her Sawtooth Sabre into the creature, and tumbling into position beside it. The Rogue, seeing the sucess of the Air Genasi also took a flying leap, but wasn't so lucky. The Ankheg attacked my character, narrowly missing, then the Halfling attacked, killing the beast. 1 extra level on the Barbarian made no difference other than the fact that it gave him more HP so he survived instead of dying. Practically the same party, and we had 1 TPK (for argument's sake) and 1 relatively easy victory.
So CR is not always an exact science and just because one party defeats a monster with ease, doesn't necessarily mean that another party of equal strength will do the same.
I know that this is a little off the original topic, but it illustrates how CR shouldn't always be taken literally to mean that everything of a given CR is esaily defeatable by it's CR match.
And yes I did play 2 LA+1 PCs. But in between them I also played a Human Fighter/Rogue 1/1 who got his head chopped off 15 minutes into me sitting down to play him for the first time. I now go into each session with a new character already made up, so I don't heve to sit there and make a new one up and watch the others continue to play. Incidently, my next character will be a high CON Azerblood, but I'm still debating over Fighter or Warlock (with an eye towards Hellfire Warlock)
|
|
Shisumo, thanks for the recommendation for an adventure to test out some of the recently posted assertions. "Sins of the Saviors" looks promising, although my group is leaning either "the Fanewarrens" from Malhavoc Press or one of two Dungeon Crawl Classics. ("War of the Witch Queen" or "Temple of the Dragon Cult").
Those that believe this have forgotten CR is not a constant except for parties of 4 core characters.
Um... CR is a constant. All the time. That's what a constant is. Encounter Level is a variable, one which varies according to all kinds of inputs such as numbers and position.
If you encounter a group of monsters with a smaller or larger party, the relative Encounter Level to the Party Level goes up and down. But the CR of every single monster in the opposition group is still exactly the same.
-Frank
The rogue failing against those immune to sneak attack is taken into account with his 50% success rate, as those particular fights are the ones where he doesn't succeed.
There IS something wrong when a human barbarian is inferior to a frost giant in every way. Because the rules explicitly state that they ARE the same CR, and without extra/intra-polation, and failure for this to occur means a failure on the system's part in some fashion.
By the way, the DMG is NOT silent about CR/EL when the party size is outside the standard of 4. On page 49, it rather explicitly states the entire EL standard of doubling numbers increasing EL by +2. Back in 3.0, the DMG also included the fact that when the EL = APL +4, your party has a 50% success rate, but this can be easily inferred in 3.5 (with the whole mirrored party thing).
Saying the system is irreducibly complex when outside the 4 core party rubric means we cannot ever have a 3 player or 5 player party (let alone solo), without making the entire EL system a game of magical tea-party. I have no idea why you're against the concept of probabilistic distribution, because that's a fine method.
Also, changing X classes to fit this rubric is easier than having to change Y classes (fighter /= wizard, one has to change, at minimum) AND an entire encounter adjucating system (one that already works for the most part, in my opinion).
I can understand wanting to lower the rubric to less than 50% success when solo (maybe 40%, absolute limit of 33% IMO), on the basis that even semi-optimized players working in tandem create a Voltron effect of unified power you don't get when you slap eight orcs together to fight your level 1 party.
It is in fact completely based on the definition of independent variable, to be clear. However, simply providing a definition of independent and dependent variables is somewhat obtuse so I spent a bunch of text showing why CR was dependent and why this dependency leads to bad thinking. If you want to call that non-mathematical, mmmmk. The point is, no one seemed confused by my explanation, which means it was clear and thorough, even if not everyone agreed with it.
It's not necessarily that your math was wrong, but that you went into drolling detail that ultimately boiled down to Frank's summary, and seems more like an attempt to distract others into a "he must know what he's talking about, so I'll agree with him" mood (dazzle them with numbers, as it were).
No my fundamental claim is that anyone, readers or designers, that attempt to claim that the rules were written for smaller and larger parties (regardless of how explicit those rules were or how vigorous the debate) have made a mistake.
Which brings us to the summary of "CR/EL is irreducibly complex outside the Ginyu Force Four". That leaves us with the conclusion that it is impossible to empirically, or even guideline-ly, suggest ANY kind of alternative; which I, and others, highly disagree with as that defeats the entire purpose of playtesting.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If Challenge Rating were to act as a constant, then the following statements would be equivalent:
"A well-balanced party of 3 PCs can barely vanquish 8 hobgoblin fighters."
"A well-balanced party of 9 PC's can barely vanquish 24 hobgoblin fighters."
That hasn't been my experience.
That's EL, not CR. CR is only in regards to the challenge/power of a single monster.
If Challenge Rating were to act as a constant, then the following statements would be equivalent:
"A well-balanced party of 3 PCs can barely vanquish 8 hobgoblin fighters."
"A well-balanced party of 9 PC's can barely vanquish 24 hobgoblin fighters."That hasn't been my experience.
That doesn't make any sense. CR is the strength of an individual monster, not of the strength of the entire group of enemies. So the CR of each Hobgoblin is fixed.
-Frank
Just to be clear, there are several different points brought up in this thread.
First there is Lich-Loved's point that the math behind the assumption "a level X character should be an "equal" (50/50) fight for a CR X opponent."
Next, I admit I stepped on Lich-Loved's point by bringing up that the EL/CR/APL system doesn't work - and therefor can't be used to accurately measure anything.
And then there are a couple others who are saying that their point is that we should try and fix the EL/CR/APL system, and that is what is being argued.
There have been a few others, but if they came close to the topic, I missed it.
If anyone is referring to "general assumption," later in this thread, I'd suggest being more clear about which general assumption you are referring.
But I do wish posters would stop throwing around points like "the CR/EL/APL system works some of the time, doesn't that mean that..." No. It doesn't. At best it suggests something. It doesn't mean anything. Just because a broken analog watch is correct twice a day, doesn't mean it can be used to measure time.
The system further breaks down when trying to weigh one class against another, because some classes work best in numbers. Rogues on the top of the list.
The best we can do is to measure a class versus a 4 character party - a Fighter, a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Wizard of all the same level - because that is the only circumstance that the CR/EL/APL system is remotely accurate.
|
|
Which brings us to the summary of "CR/EL is irreducibly complex outside the Ginyu Force Four". That leaves us with the conclusion that it is impossible to empirically, or even guideline-ly, suggest ANY kind of alternative; which I, and others, highly disagree with as that defeats the entire purpose of playtesting.
Actually I have provided two alternatives, one of which includes extensively playtesting CRs. Perhaps you missed this post?
Edit: adverbs
Can't we all just get along?
|
|
Those that believe this have forgotten CR is not a constant except for parties of 4 core characters.Um... CR is a constant. All the time. That's what a constant is. Encounter Level is a variable, one which varies according to all kinds of inputs such as numbers and position.
If you encounter a group of monsters with a smaller or larger party, the relative Encounter Level to the Party Level goes up and down. But the CR of every single monster in the opposition group is still exactly the same.
-Frank
I could have been clearer and I have made this mistake more than once. CR isn't a constant. I misused the term in my haste. What CR is, is "currently known at only one set of inputs, masquerading as a constant". Thanks for pointing this out.
The designers attempted to separate the independent variables of monster HD and abilities into CR and attempted to put the things like party size, number of foes present, party level, and terrain (things that "vary according to all kinds of inputs") in EL. They failed. Had they really done their job, CR would have been an independent variable - like any constant must be and would have been determined using some god-awful process I would rather not think about. Instead, they made CR dependent on party level and party count. Really. They did. CR is not "a variable which can be assigned any permissible value without any restriction imposed by any other variable". It is absolutely restricted by party count, among other things. Thus it is dependent and thus it cannot be a constant.
Worse, they reused party level, party count and CR in the EL table, hopelessly mingling the two together, which works only in the special case that CR is treated like a constant. As long as you really are talking about a party of 4 characters, Table 3-1 applies. The intention was to treat CR like a constant once it was determined, which in many ways you could do, but in the special case of EL scaling, you explicitly cannot do this because of the incestuous relationship between the EL character count and the character count assumptions built into CR.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
They made CR dependent on party level and party count. Really. They did. CR is not "a variable which can be assigned any permissible value without any restriction imposed by any other variable". It is absolutely restricted by party count, among other things. Thus it is dependent and thus it cannot be a constant.
So, what I understand you saying is that a change in party size and composition (for example, but not exclusively, reducing a party down to 1 PC) changes the monsters CR, as well as changing the encounters EL.
(Another example: if the party doesn't have a cleric or paladin, and encounters a ghoul, that changes not only the encounter's EL, but also the ghoul's CR.)
Am I undeerstanding your claim?
|
|
I saw zero personal attacks in this thread by the Op. I actually like a few of Franks opinions because they spark some debate (although not the demeanor), but this isn't a personal attack even if it proves Frank wrong on many of his points.
Proves? If you say so. I have yet to see such "proof". I see a lot of handwaving.
If Challenge Rating were to act as a constant, then the following statements would be equivalent:
"A well-balanced party of 3 PCs can barely vanquish 8 hobgoblin fighters."
"A well-balanced party of 9 PC's can barely vanquish 24 hobgoblin fighters."That hasn't been my experience.
Its funny, the encounter calculator here, linked on the hypertext SRD:
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htmrates those the same.
8 CR 2 vs 3 level 6 PCs is very difficult and yields 1200 XP
24 CR 2 vs 9 level 6 PCs is... very difficult and yields 1200 XP.
Huh.
The encounter level of the second encounter is 11 rather than 8, but thats to be expected with a much larger party.
The difference you may be experiencing is that in a 3 person party, everyone is going to have to top-tier optimized to deal with a well played encounter. A nine person party can afford to have a couple stinkers, because even a bard who is only buffing the party is giving out bonuses to a larger group. The force multipliers go up. On the other hand, if you have nothing but stinkers, they aren't going to compare to 3 top tier characters. But thats a flaw in class balance, not the CR system.
|
|
So, what I understand you saying is that a change in party size and composition (for example, but not exclusively, reducing a party down to 1 PC) changes the monsters CR, as well as changing the encounters EL.p
That is a great question. I hope I can answer it for you.
CR is a measure of a foe against a party of four. It is undefined elsewhere. So the CR of the monster relative to the character (I use this exact phrase in my OP, in italics, at the very beginning of my discussion of CR calculation for this very purpose) is undefined. So, in a word, yes, the CR is likely different, though it is undefined. The EL is likewise undefined, since CR is undefined for this case and EL is dependent upon CR. It may turn out that in some cases the CR is the same (I think Frank has shown this to be the case with the rogue and a few other classes) and it may be that the CR of the monster is different. Again, all of this is predicated upon the very real fact that CR is a derived quantity, not a fixed quantity, though in many cases it can be used as one - unless you are using it to determine EL for a non-compliant party. It is counterintuitive, I know, but that doesn't make it less true.
Since you are into math, we can talk about e as being a universal constant; it has the same value at all times (well, all the times I know, your PhD work trumps me on this). However, in electrical engineering, there are all kinds of "situational constants". For example, there is a factor called permeability (denoted as greek mu) which describes the ability of a medium to pass magnetic flux. The undergrad equations assume permeability to be the constant 400(pi)nH/m (roughly 1200 nano-Henrys per meter of medium traversed). However, this constant is for a vacuum only and perhaps applies (or very nearly applies)to homogeneous, linear isotropic mediums like air. In other places, especially where the medium is non-homogeneous, mu will be represented by a function. It is the same way with CR. CR can in general be assumed to be a constant but in the special case where we are talking about the very points upon which the constant was determined, we can no longer afford the luxury of assuming that CR we use in 4-person encounter building is the same CR we use in one-person encounter building.
(Another example: if the party doesn't have a cleric or paladin, and encounters a ghoul, that changes not only the encounter's EL, but also the ghoul's CR.)
This is another great question. And the answer is... I am not certain. It would seem the designers go out of their way to say that well-prepared parties should not receive a reduction in XP because an otherwise harder encounter was made much easier by sound play or item use (ref DMG sidebar on this topic pg 40). Given this thinking, I can see where you might not want to raise the EL if the party is especially unprepared for the challenge. On the flip side, the party you mention is atypical and falls outside of the CR system, so I would say the answer is again undefined for the same reason as above.
Let me add this, perhaps it will help. The designers wanted CR to be a constant. It would be great if it were. But the constant was impossible to derive through mathematics alone. So they turned to empirical methods to derive the constant. This approach, by itself does not make CR a non-constant. Clearly, pi can be determined empirically and it is a constant. However, their empirical approach, which utilized character level, count and class forever prevented CR from being the constant they so desired and later used in Table 3-1, especially because one use of table 3-1 is to change character count. Whereas "all circles are created equal" and thus any sampling of circles properly measured will yield an empirical value for pi, not all character class/level/count combinations are created equal, and thus the values of CR will not be constant.
I am anxious to see what you glean from these responses.
|
|
Proves? If you say so. I have yet to see such "proof". I see a lot of handwaving.
Well Virgil has said I overtalked the point. I suppose once something reaches a certain length, readers are inclined to punt rather than stick with the text. I can't please everyone.
If it seems like a lot of "handwaving", let me give you the Cliff Notes version:
(1) Independent variables are "variables which can be assigned any permissible value without any restriction imposed by any other variable."
(2) CR is a derived quantity based on party level, class and count.
(3) Given (1) and (2), CR is a dependent variable and thus can not be a constant. Its value is dependent upon character count among other things
(4) Table 3-1 in the DMG uses CR as an independent variable, which is fine, until it allows you to reduce character count (rather than foe count), since CR is still dependent (per the above) upon character count.
Given (4), arguments that assert that Table 3-1 (and its surrounding text) allow reduction of parties to a character count of 1 is mathematically in error.
Hopefully your issues around handwaving have been eliminated. If not, just refer to this post and I will try and help you out.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
CR is a measure of a foe against a party of four. It is undefined elsewhere. So the CR of the monster relative to the character is undefined.
And other people are arguing either:
or
An analogy with circles of varying diameters. (Strong case: CR, like pi, is a constant. Weak case: CR, like circumference, is a calculable dependent variable.)
You're arguing that assessing CR against anything other than a well-balanced party of 4 is like asking "what's the volume of a cylinder whose base has a diametr of 5 inches." There's not enough information to answer the question.
Okay? Does this make sense to everybody?
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT:
The concern about CR is over-stated. This is because we never face a character; we face encounters. Since --I think everybody agrees-- party size does influence Encounter Level, a lone fighter against a CR 7 monster may not be having a EL 7 encounter, and we shouldn't run the fight pretending that it does.
It makes sense to run some of Mr. Trollman's one-on-one simulations, but only to compare Class X's successes against Class Y's.
And it would be even better to run "Party-of-3" "plus 1" encounters. To compare a paladin against a monk, run each of them against several threats of an appropriate EL, along with a cleric, wizard, and rogue..
By the way, folks, here's a thought experiment.
Parties 1, 2 3, and 4 each have four 9th Level characters; they are identical except:
Party 1 has a cleric who rebukes undead.
Party 2 has a cleric who turns undead, but who has already exhausted her turn attempts today.
Party 3 has a cleric who turns undead, played by a new player who doesn't understand what turning means.
Party 4 has a Radiant Servant of Pelor, farm-fresh and eager, who metes out hot death to the undead.
The parties run into 12 shadows. Should these encounters be the same EL?
|
|
You're arguing that assessing CR against anything other than a well-balanced party of 4 is like asking "what's the volume of a cylinder whose base has a diametr of 5 inches." There's not enough information to answer the question.
Exactly, though I would like to add (and this is important for the overall point of this thread): since CR is undefined, EL is also undefined because EL depends upon CR. This latter point is relevant because the discussion is about APL (Average Party Level) vs APL battles: a CR 8 fighter having an APL of 4 facing a CR8 monster having an APL of 8 and winning 50% of the time. APL is synonymous with EL in this case and this is why I have provided this addendum; not only don't we know the CR of the foes relative to the character, we don't know the EL (APL) of the foe to the character. Hence discussions pitting APL vs APL don't make a lot of sense for 1 v 1 battles.
Chris, the Strong Case is a given. Seriously, CR is defined as a constant value. There should be no argument about that. Many of LL's comments only make any sense if you assume that he's talking about EL and not CR - something he himself has admitted to doing on occasion.
Seriously. CR is a constant. It's not a derived variable that is treated as a constant, it's a constant. It's like a monster's Base Saves. They don't really change even if the monsters come in larger numbers or the PCs come in smaller numbers.
-Frank