Squirrelloid wrote: Many puzzle monsters. Notably, the spectre just utterly hoses him. Its not that he can't damage an incorporeal monster - that just requires a magic weapon, but a monster who will seriously surprise him by coming out of a wall or the floor and drain 4 levels before he does anything? That's a real problem and he has no answer (and no possible answer at that level). And a wizard jumped by a spectre coming out the floor and will lose 2 entire spell levels when drained 4 levels will be able to do anything against it either?
Spectres 1-1 are a completely nasty fight against anyone... even perhaps a cleric, though with the turn undead they stand a chance.
I just find the whole 1-1 thing rather unconvincing. There are lots of creatures that are nasty when faced 1-1 but with a group... say 4 against 4 would be a completely different fight.
A group of 4 spectres vs a cleric, rogue, barbarian and wizard, for example.
The cleric would likely turn and damage quite a bit of the undead... does that make him too powerful? Against undead he's strong (The new turn undead is too powerful IMO but its the niche of the cleric to be good against undead) The rogue should not be able to sneak attack a spectre like ghost (PF new sneak attack rules be damned) so he's severely weakened in this, does that mean he's weak?
D&D is meant to be a group game, not a solo encounter fest. My barbarian supports the rest of my party when I play, and likewise, they support me. I keep the stuff off my wizard that wants to splat him, and he and the cleric keep me from being charmed and turned against the party, does that mean my barbarian sucks? The party needs me, and I need them. When my barbarian goes off alone, I can reasonably expect to die, just like the wizard who goes off alone, and so forth.
For me, D&D is a team effort, and when it stops being that,is when I lose interest and just go off and play Diablo.
Squirrelloid wrote: \
Swordslinger wrote: Squirrelloid wrote:
I'm sorry I chose good spells. Are you sad I didn't purposefully gimp the wizard to increase the Barbarian's ego? Seriously, combat magic at all levels is save or lose, and all wizards in any playtest i run will use such magic, and supplement it with magic that improves their mobility and survival. Its how the game works.
Well, the thing is that you've chose your load out of spells specifically to fight fighters. Like the wizard knows he's oging against a fighter. What happens if he's against another wizard or a wraith? Then stuff like web and flight doesn't help him much. Specifically the load out was designed to slay a fighter, and yeah obviously if your entire spell load out for the day is dedicated to doing that, you'll win. But what happens when you've got fly, protection from arrows, web and stinking cloud and you run into a wraith or another caster? You're basically screwed. Save or lose spells (1) tend to target will, (2) are good against the vast majority of potential opponents at low levels, and (3) work against even will favored enemies by spamming them. They are also wins when they work. This means they are an efficient use of resources.
What spells would you take? Seriously?
Elf Wizard 7
Baughdvnleob is finally fast enough to deal with Expeditious Retreat, and has a magical bow to stop Levitate/Protection from Arrows from working. Unfortunately, the wizard can have (DC18) Phantasmal Killer, Black Tentacles, Charm Monster, Confusion, Greater Invisibility, Rainbow Pattern, Fear, Enervation, Fly, Ray of Exhaustion, Wind Wall, Suggestion, and Hold Person among their good choices in addition to all their previous options. Avoiding Baughdvnleob in melee has never been easier, and blocking ranged attacks is still possible. Not to mention spamming save or lose spells with a high enough DC that Baughdvnleob really does need to be worried.
It's pretty doggone rare to see a wizard without a single damage spell. No Fireball, Scorching Ray, Lightning Bolt, Ice Storm, etc. No Magic Missile? That wizard would be completely uneffective against the first decent undead he came up against. Further he has no utility spells, no Dispel Magic, Protection from or Resist Energy, Globe of Invulnerability, Knock, etc, just conveniently chosen non-fortitude save spells. I guess no wizard in his right mind would ever use Blindness/Deafness on any regular day.
It just seems like the fight against the wizard, given both terrain, and spell selection is an automatic and forgone conclusion. A rogue would also likely get creamed in this test, FYI.
You know, Squirrelloid, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing time in your OP if you had simply shortened Baughdvnleob's name to Bob. He was just an example after all. Not like he needed a fancy, unpronouncable name like Baughdvnleob for people to remember him by.
Squirrelloid wrote: I'm sorry that playing the classic barbarian archetype is considered inappropriate. Because honestly he should be able to get by doing that. S, that's a great argument against the flavour of the barbarian. It's a pretty weak argument against the mechanics of the barbarian. Flavour can always be rewritten; for instance, if you renamed the guisarme as the "ridiculously oversized viking axe" and armor spikes as "horned helmet" or "hobnailed boots", the flavour would be appropriate (IMO) without affecting the mechanics.
Consider the following argument:
"Historically across all civilizations, queens have not had more power or mobility than kings, as a rule. Therefore, when I play chess I only move my queen one square in any direction. So believe me when I say the iconic queen is one of the weakest pieces in chess!"
At any rate, I know I'm not going to change your mind, S. Maybe I'll post my own playtest next week called "Barbarians Can Do Just Fine Against Level-Appropriate Enemies". Then our comments will cancel each other out like matter + anti-matter.
:)
What I like is how you admit that when building a wizard you pick optimized spells but when building the barb you didn't.
You want a first level spell selection for a wizard, magic missle, identify, and mage armour. Now when running that through your encounters does it win 50% of the time, and don't tell me that that is intentionally gimping the wizard because I've seen that spell selection. I've seen first level spell selections like that, and it worked in a party, but it would fail in solo, just like the barbarian you built. Now at higher level the spellcaster is easier to run, but still a player who doesn't know how to optimize his choices can fail at a higher than 50% ratio. Not every player who comes to the game knows that fly and greater invisibility are full of win.
Would a player wanting to run a blaster mage win 50% of the time if he chose a spell selection that looks like a warmages spell list? A blaster mage is as Iconic as a barb with a big axe. Yes a type of caster can win against in solo 50% of the time, but so can a barbarian built the right way.
And the CR system is a failure of design anyways, the idea of it seems sound, but a lot of creatures don't match their CRs and certain parties don't have the same EL as others. Which coincidentally also works for individual characters. Jason isn't doing a redesign, hes making minor fixes and tweaks to the game to make it more playable, the question isn't is the barb an equal challange in solo combat against an =CR opponent, the question is do the changes made make it fun to play through all levels, and your tests don't determine that.
Go to your DMG (3.5 edition) & read pages 36 through 40 (emphasis on 39). Read it once, twice, then thrice.
A two-man party counts as a party of four with APL-2. A party of eight counts as a party of four with APL+2 for encounter design (and a very large table at Roy Rogers). How do you not notice this? It's following the numbers for EL, wholesale! A Level 5 character is a CR 5 monster.
Do you realize that trying to playtest with four characters at once makes the entire thing long-winded and unclear? What on earth is 20% resource loss? You can easily have one player underpowered while another is overpowered, but you won't be able to tell the difference by the success rate of the party because they combine to the same total as two balanced players.
Because of how the EL system works, the party could easily consist of four overpowered characters, but still go through encounters like before. This is because they can be OP by almost half again over a balanced party (and thus just shy of APL+1), and we can't really tell the difference between the two. The same thing applies if the party is collectively 15% below par. When you have that large of a range of error from balance, just by using a party of four, it's an incredible amount to seperate out imbalance for any single variable.
This is why you want to use a solo test. Because the CR/EL system says it works, and it also does work from personal experience. Because you aren't inundated with three other players' numbers that would drown out your specific contribution.
And as it stands, I can safely say that at high levels, this 'iconic' party can substitute their fighter for a player with levels in warrior, for all the contribution he brings to the table. Or even better, drop the fighter slot altogether, and have the rogue or cleric take Leadership and have the cohort cleric do the fighter's job just as well (and possibly better, depending).
Virgil wrote: Go to your DMG (3.5 edition) & read pages 36 through 40 (emphasis on 39). Read it once, twice, then thrice. Please stop being insulting.
For one, I'm trying to make a point. I'm arguing on the basis of an explicit ruling from the book, and it feels like it is being ignored in favour of personal opinion. For two, I'd like to avoid references to kettles.
My problem is that I have a hard time trusting tests based on a mechanic (the CR, EL system) that pretty much every professional designer (including the original I believe) feels is a clunky, awkward, and not particularly accurate way of measuring power and appropriate challenges. If dragons were intentionally given CRs lower than they should have who's to say that other monsters' CRs aren't off as well?
Seems to me there are 3 main ways of thinking about this.
1. Either you agree with the premise that (CR or EL = level => 50% chance of winning on average).
or
2. You disagree with the above premise and think it is not useful.
or
3. You disagree with the above premise, but still think there is some useful information to be gained from the process.
In either case there is no point arguing the premise, the people who think #1 or #2 will not be swayed. There have been several threads dedicated to the validity of (CR or EL = level => 50% chance of winning on average), and to my knowledge they have all ended badly.
SO maybe, just maybe we can agree to disagree on the premise and avoid getting into another fight over this?
The people who fall into camps 1 or 3 are free to discuss the playtests and those in camp #2 are free to say they respectfully disagree with the methodology. But getting any deeper into it will just lead to another nasty thread.
P.S. for the sake of disclosure I consider myself a #3.
Glan Var wrote: Im not going to say your testing is entirely wrong. Its not. You have effectively exposed many of the barbarians weaknesses.
However, understand that these challenges are not meant to be faced by any one class, nor as one fight at full strength.
The CR rating only really begins to work if you have a full party, and you challenge them with several fights in succession.
Please read your DMG on CR, EL, and APL. I'm assuming the rules of the game hold, that's really all i have to say on the matter.
Glan Var wrote:
The question you should really be asking here isn't "how does the barbarian do as a stand alone warrior" but rather "Is this class performing an important and useful role as part of a group."
The best thing about fighters, barbarians, and paladins past 4th level is not their insane combat ability, its their toughness. A barbarian can take several more hits than a cleric or mage. That usually means that the mage is going to get two or three more spells off. The healer will have someone who take take several rounds worth of damage and not simply die from it, so their healing abilities are more effective. The rogue now has someone to flank with, who might actually benefit from +2 to hit.
And why do they bother to hit the barbarian instead of the wizard? The wizard is the one they need to really worry about. Or the cleric. Or the druid. And the cleric and/or druid takes just as much (if not more) effort to kill than the Barbarian does. Being able to take hits is not a good life choice, it just means you don't get attacked because you're not worth killing - your offense is negligible.
Glan Var wrote:
I always try to test new classes as part of a larger whole. As far as the barbarian is concerned, yes, he has some serious weaknesses. He has to chose between a good AC and his accelerated movement (although with a dwarf thats not a problem at all) and his damage (2-hander vs. Axe and Board). His low will save, even when raging, makes him vulnerable to a wide array of spells and special abilities. But he serves the role as the party roadblock very effectively, especially when you use his feats and special abilities to improve that role.
With a party of four you seriously can't tell if the barbarian's action is 'do a keg stand' or 'hit monster' starting somewhere around level 5. So looking at party performance tells you nothing about class performance - some classes will be able to handle the challenge and pick up the slack for those who can't.
Roadblock doesn't work as a role in D+D because monsters can easily avoid you or attack past you. Unless you spend your whole life in a 5' wide corridor (and even then spellcasters can cast past you). Stop trying to define the melee warrior as not being able to do level appropriate things.
His will save in the above example was actually pretty decent at those levels against spells. It just isn't good enough.
Glan Var wrote:
I do not believe the barbarian is underpowered. Its job is simply not to do huge amounts of damage all at once. His job is to fight, and keep fighting, buying time for the rest of the party to set up the win, either by increasing his fighting strength or by locating the monster's weakness. I would also point out that the barbarian can keep on beating things into the dirt long after the...
Sigh, stupid quote cut-off. Anyway, no, he can't. He can continue to swing his axe as long as he has hp. Once he's dead his axe stops swinging. Just because his resources are measured in a different currency than the wizard's offensive resource doesn't mean he has infinite combat ability.
Know Remorse wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Many puzzle monsters. Notably, the spectre just utterly hoses him. Its not that he can't damage an incorporeal monster - that just requires a magic weapon, but a monster who will seriously surprise him by coming out of a wall or the floor and drain 4 levels before he does anything? That's a real problem and he has no answer (and no possible answer at that level). And a wizard jumped by a spectre coming out the floor and will lose 2 entire spell levels when drained 4 levels will be able to do anything against it either?
Spectres 1-1 are a completely nasty fight against anyone... even perhaps a cleric, though with the turn undead they stand a chance.
I just find the whole 1-1 thing rather unconvincing. There are lots of creatures that are nasty when faced 1-1 but with a group... say 4 against 4 would be a completely different fight.
A group of 4 spectres vs a cleric, rogue, barbarian and wizard, for example.
The cleric would likely turn and damage quite a bit of the undead... does that make him too powerful? Against undead he's strong (The new turn undead is too powerful IMO but its the niche of the cleric to be good against undead) The rogue should not be able to sneak attack a spectre like ghost (PF new sneak attack rules be damned) so he's severely weakened in this, does that mean he's weak? I agree, spectres are brutal against Wizards as well. That's fine, the wizard is also supposed to bat 0.500. Autolosses are expected in a scenario where you're supposed to lose 50% of your fights on average. Ie, APL+4 = EL. Which is exactly what this was.
The cleric has a chance with turning. The rogue is less likely to get utterly hosed by the spectre, as he'll tend to have a decent touch AC and Uncanny Dodge, good initiative (so the spectre may not get two consecutive chances to attack), and a magic weapon so he can actually fight the thing. Its still brutal, but he doesn't get totally hosed before he can act.
The 1-1 paradigm is in the rules. I merely am assuming the rules hold. All of them.
Similarly, SA would probably work against spectres because the new rules say it does (If they do - i'll need to check). The point of playtesting is not to try out your houserules, but play the rules as written to the letter of the law, not some weird variation of how you think it should work. Otherwise you're playing MyD+DVariant, not Pathfinder.
Know Remorse wrote:
D&D is meant to be a group game, not a solo encounter fest. My barbarian supports the rest of my party when I play, and likewise, they support me. I keep the stuff off my wizard that wants to splat him, and he and the cleric keep me from being charmed and turned against the party, does that mean my barbarian sucks? The party needs me, and I need them. When my barbarian goes off alone, I can reasonably expect to die, just like the wizard who goes off alone, and so forth.
For me, D&D is a team effort, and when it stops being that,is when I lose interest and just go off and play Diablo.
D+D is exactly what the rules say it is, nothing more, and nothing less. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. You can play the game however you want, but this doesn't change how the rules are written. You can mod the rules however you want, but it stops being D+D at that point. And the rules support parties of 1. End of debate.
As far as keeping monsters away from the wizard, even assuming it works (which it shouldn't - the monsters should just ignore you), what is the barbarian doing that several charmed or animated Ogres couldn't do better? (Replace Ogres with reasonable beefy monster of an appropriate level to cover most of the spectrum). Or a druid couldn't do better? Think about it - the druid's animal companion seriously can perform that job just as well and its a *class feature* of another class.
Know Remorse wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: \
Elf Wizard 7
Baughdvnleob is finally fast enough to deal with Expeditious Retreat, and has a magical bow to stop Levitate/Protection from Arrows from working. Unfortunately, the wizard can have (DC18) Phantasmal Killer, Black Tentacles, Charm Monster, Confusion, Greater Invisibility, Rainbow Pattern, Fear, Enervation, Fly, Ray of Exhaustion, Wind Wall, Suggestion, and Hold Person among their good choices in addition to all their previous options. Avoiding Baughdvnleob in melee has never been easier, and blocking ranged attacks is still possible. Not to mention spamming save or lose spells with a high enough DC that Baughdvnleob really does need to be worried.
It's pretty doggone rare to see a wizard without a single damage spell. No Fireball, Scorching Ray, Lightning Bolt, Ice Storm, etc. No Magic Missile? That wizard would be completely uneffective against the first decent undead he came up against. Further he has no utility spells, no Dispel Magic, Protection from or Resist Energy, Globe of Invulnerability, Knock, etc, just conveniently chosen non-fortitude save spells. I guess no wizard in his right mind would ever use Blindness/Deafness on any regular day.
It just seems like the fight against the wizard, given both terrain, and spell selection is an automatic and forgone conclusion. A rogue would also likely get creamed in this test, FYI.
First, there's a lot of spells there that I give as options. Surely the Wizard is packing 2-3 of them, since those are the spells that actually kill people or protect the wizard. I didn't even give the wizard equipment, for pete's sake, nor feats - he's hardly optimized. All he has is spells.
Second, I haven't played a wizard with a damage dealing spell since 2nd edition. (And the only one i've ever considered was the MM-all-the-time mage because it was entertaining with metamagic, but certainly wasn't good). Damage dealing spells are especially useless at 1st level, and don't get much better as time goes on. A wizard relying on damage dealing spells is like a Barbarian with metamagic feats and a toothpick... and the Barbarian is still better...
Third, damage dealing spells from evocation are pretty meh. If I want to deal damage I'll use the Orb spells. And which would you rather have - a spell that deals ~1/10 of your average opponent's hp which has a damage type where immunity and resistance is common, or a spell that makes your opponent lose combat instantly 1/2-1/3 the time. I know what i'd take.
Fourth, I gave his offensive options, not his spell list. Because he could come packing any of that. Knock doesn't even eat up a relevant spell slot at level 7 (and what wizard walking around in a forest has *knock* memorized?). Globe of Invulnerability is actually something i've never seen cast in over 15 years DMing and playing. Protection from Energy is the type of thing you memorize because your Cleric buddy divined you were going to fight a red dragon today, elemental damage is not *that* common at these levels, and not in quantities that demand that kind of protection - Resist Elements is again a low level spell not in those slots. Dispel Magic is honestly not as useful as everyone thinks it is - its a pretty bad use of a combat action, and if you need one out of combat you can seriously camp out for an hour to memorize it and swap it in. And good fortitude saving spells at low levels... Stinking Cloud... which is ok, he might be packing that. Its a *2nd* level spell, not 3rd or 4th like all the spells I listed there. Blindness/Deafness is similarly a great spell, guess what level it is? You may have missed it, but Phantasmal Killer requires a Fort save.
And yeah, come 9th level the wizard totally packs Baleful Polymorph. Come 11th we snag Disintegration. But before then there aren't many plausibly useful fort save spells, and we're certainly packing will save targetters. And reflex save targetters like Web.
And he fricking lives in the woods. Get off the terrain thing. Its right there in the MM. If you think elves should live in dungeons complain to whomever wrote the MM, not me. "Waaa, monsters live in terrain that takes advantage of their abilities, not in terrain that utterly hoses them so I can stomp them, Waaa".
But if we really must see how Damage McDamagy does against Baughdvnleob, our assumptions: 18 Int (15 + 1 lvl + 2 racial), 16 dex (14 + 2 racial), 11 Con (13 - 2 racial), and 12 Cha. We don't care what our Str or Wis is right now. Evoker. Now i actually have to go check out what kind of abilities wizards get in 3.P...
We'll take a serious hit on effectiveness and forbid Conjuration and Necromancy. (You wouldn't believe how reamful that is). As I generally forbid evocation for a specialist, this is weird territory for me.
Ok, he adds +2 damage to all his spells that deal damage.
He has a 1d6+3 damage (su) ranged energy attack that uses a standard action... whatever...I'll stick with the longbow...
We get 3 MMs as a (sp), presumably using our CL as its CL, but it doesn't say...
We get Scorching Ray 1/day (sp). Same presumption on CL.
We get Lightning Bolt 1/day (sp). Same presumption on CL.
Do I really need to actually memorize evocations at this point? No, seriously, i think i'm covered...
If I keep myself to core feats metamagic is useless at these levels (could really go for some Sudden metamagic though), so we'll pass on that and consider other options (and not bother choosing our bonus MM feat). Improved Initiative is a shoe-in. We'll burn our feats on Toughness and Combat Casting, because core has little to interest us.
We have an Owl familiar - seems appropriate for a forest. Its sleeping right now, and we don't even care.
Initiative +7
HP: 29
AC: 13 (13 touch, 10 FF)
(Relevant) Skills: Spellcraft 7
Ok, Spell list. We get 5/4/3/2 with bonus spells. We're packing some sort of defensive options, because its really a good idea. Greater Invisibility is a great idea. Hmm... lack of conjuration is really hurting here. And there seriously isn't a core evocation spell worth taking at 4th level. Let's try the following:
1st: Feather Fall, Expeditious Retreat, Magic Missile x3
2nd: Hideous Laughter, Protection from Arrows*, Resist Energy, Fox's Cunning
3rd: Slow, Deep Slumber, Fireball
4th: Greater Invisibility, Confusion
*Cast already
DC 14 + spell level.
I'd take a fortitude targeting spell, but virtually all such spells that actually do anything are Conjuration or necromancy.
Max spotting distance for a forest is 3d6x10'. And don't give me crap about the forest, its the elf's native habitat.
Battle #1:
Max spotting distance is 70', at which distance they easily spot each other so no one is surprised. Baughdvnleob actually wins initiative, rages, burns 3 rage points for 10' of movement and charges. He hits for 19 damage, and Powerful Blows to add 7 hoping to drop the wizard in one go, but falls short. Our 3hp wizard trivially casts Improved Invisibility defensively, and moves away and behind some foliage or a tree (Is no longer threatened because Baughdvnleob can't see her).
Baughdvnleob has no idea where the wizard is, and tries to pinpoint her twice by sound, failing. He's still raging.
The elf wizard peaks her head out from behind the bush (or whatever), and casts slow on Baughdvnleob, which fails. Baughdvnleob fails to hear her whispering the words of the spell due to distance. She is using stealth untrained to make herself harder to find.
Baughdvnleob keeps his rage on and takes both actions to try to pinpoint the elf, and fails.
The elf hits him with a lightning bolt (sp), then moves 30'. Baughdvnleob fails his save and takes 23 damage.
Baughdvnleob keeps his rage on and tries to pinpoint her twice again, and fails. (DC 35 = 10 unarmored creature walking +20 invisible +5 distance)
Fireball. Baughdvnleob fails his save again, and takes 31 damage (54 total). She moves 30' keeping Baughdvnleob at near the same distance.
Baughdvnleob, rage still on, moves toward the fireball source and tries to pinpoint. He succeeds, barely, but she's just going to move again...
MM for 17 (71 total). Moves 30' behind cover (just in case) and not directly away from Baughdvnleob.
Baughdvnleob, rage still on, tries to pinpoint her (fails). He whips out his bow.
MM for 14 (85 total) drops Baughdvnleob to unconsciousness. Win for the wizard.
Battle 2:
50' distance, Wizard wins initiative, repeat of above except the wizard never takes damage.
Battle 3:
140' distance, they still spot each other pretty easily. Wizard wins initiative, more or less a repeat of above with Baughdvnleob even more screwed.
No flight, no save or lose spells, nothing but Greater Invisibility and Evocation.
Um a spellcaster cannot whisper his spells, in the PHB it says in plain english (since you keep telling us how many times we have to read it :P) that he must speak in a strong voice to cast spells. As such instead of him trying to spot the caster on his initiative he should have a readied action for when he hears a spell being cast and have a bow drawn or a throwing axe out. Now run it again please and keep it within the rules listening for someone speaking clearly.
I appreciate the effort that you have taken to test this out.
I still have some skepticism with the true culpability of the test, however.
Should the barbarian be able to do as much damage as the wizard on a single fight? If so, maybe he should have D6 hp and the inability to wear armor.
The fight with the barbarian and wizard would be distinctly different had the wizard already been adventuring throughout the day, had already expended some of his resources. Any wizard able to dump his load of daily spells or pick from a full spellbook is going to be at a distinct advantage over a melee class. The melee classes need healing, usually from someone else, and they are back to full 100% operation, even at the 4th encounter of the day as long as someone has topped them off.
The casters on the other hand are distinctly different, sure they can excel in the beginning of the day, but they have to become much more resourceful and are unable to keep that pace throughout multiple encounters.
Does that mean casters suck? Does that mean melees suck? If the DM is allowing one encounter a day, then, yes the casters can dominate, but if they are enforcing 3-4 encounters a day, the casters will either conserve some resources or go nova, and then sit as a backrow player the following encounters.
4E is definitely going the route of evening out all the classes, equally distributing damage amongst all the classes. I'm not interested in that sort of system.
You commented that the melees should be ignored by the monsters who should instead go splat the wizard. True. I'd like to see the system worked on where the fighter, the paladin and the barbarian have skills and feats that permit them to prevent just that. Similar to the ability of the Knight in the PHBII, where all terrain around him is difficult terrain, other abilities can be bestowed upon the melees that make it more difficult to ignore. Damage does not have to be the only mitigating factor to determine who is to be ignored or not.
lastknightleft wrote: Um a spellcaster cannot whisper his spells, in the PHB it says in plain english (since you keep telling us how many times we have to read it :P) that he must speak in a strong voice to cast spells. As such instead of him trying to spot the caster on his initiative he should have a readied action for when he hears a spell being cast and have a bow drawn or a throwing axe out. Now run it again please and keep it within the rules listening for someone speaking clearly. It actually doesn't matter much, because one person talking is not given as a DC in the book, and the elf wizard can just cast from farther away for the relevant spells to avoid being heard. (It gives _people_, ie plural, talking, and _people_ whispering), so we're talking in the ballpark of 5 + 20 pinpoint invisible + 1/10ft of distance, I remade the relevant roll, he failed. Her mouth can also be behind the tree/bush/whatever, because she only needs her eyes to peek out, which isn't going to be the +5 for a *wall* in the way, but its going to be a positive modifier (especially for someone trying to pinpoint location based on sound). Even if he does pinpoint her location, he has a 50% miss chance with the invisibility and she has cover to some degree, likely pretty good cover since she can choose where she's standing.
And he can draw his bow, it doesn't matter. The DC to pinpoint her once distance is factored in is really hard. And she can be up to 170' away and still blast him if she can see him. At 100' its hugely unlikely he can pinpoint her by sound, even with good perception.
And she doesn't even have to cast slow (in fact, she didn't in 2 and 3). The lightning bolt and MMs are spell-likes, and thus don't require speech, so he can't try to pinpoint her when she activates those. Only the fireball gives him a (poor) chance to locate her, and in the unusual case where they start within charge range and she loses initiative is the only time when one bow hit would even matter.
Know Remorse wrote: I appreciate the effort that you have taken to test this out.
I still have some skepticism with the true culpability of the test, however.
Should the barbarian be able to do as much damage as the wizard on a single fight? If so, maybe he should have D6 hp and the inability to wear armor.
The fight with the barbarian and wizard would be distinctly different had the wizard already been adventuring throughout the day, had already expended some of his resources. Any wizard able to dump his load of daily spells or pick from a full spellbook is going to be at a distinct advantage over a melee class. The melee classes need healing, usually from someone else, and they are back to full 100% operation, even at the 4th encounter of the day as long as someone has topped them off.
The casters on the other hand are distinctly different, sure they can excel in the beginning of the day, but they have to become much more resourceful and are unable to keep that pace throughout multiple encounters.
Does that mean casters suck? Does that mean melees suck? If the DM is allowing one encounter a day, then, yes the casters can dominate, but if they are enforcing 3-4 encounters a day, the casters will either conserve some resources or go nova, and then sit as a backrow player the following encounters.
4E is definitely going the route of evening out all the classes, equally distributing damage amongst all the classes. I'm not interested in that sort of system.
You commented that the melees should be ignored by the monsters who should instead go splat the wizard. True. I'd like to see the system worked on where the fighter, the paladin and the barbarian have skills and feats that permit them to prevent just that. Similar to the ability of the Knight in the PHBII, where all terrain around him is difficult terrain, other abilities can be bestowed upon the melees that make it more difficult to ignore. Damage does not have to be the only mitigating factor to determine who is to be ignored or not.
An APL+4=EL battle is your daily battle alotment. If they were EL=APL then yes, you expect 4 (and it costs fewer spells to finish them individually). The nice thing about the one character CR = level battles is that (1) you can assume he's at full strength because its all the combats you expect him to fight and (2) it tests out how well that class performs in isolation without relying on other classes to pull it up by its bootstraps.
I agree that something melee characters could be given is abilities which force monsters to engage them instead of other characters. That would give them a schtick that actually works, and while it wouldn't be as usefully tested by this methodology (similarly the bard), it gives them something they can do to control the shape of a battle and have a level appropriate ability. (Now they'd just need level appropriate ways to absorb damage).
But as presented, martial classes don't do that, and all the barbarian really does is hit stuff. So this methodology is an adequate test of how well hitting stuff is as a life choice. Any character whose abilities are offensive or personal defensive is testable by this methodology. Its characters with multiplicative effects in a party (like a bard) who aren't tested as well in this way.
Squirrelloid wrote:
I agree that something melee characters could be given is abilities which force monsters to engage them instead of other characters. That would give them a schtick that actually works, and while it wouldn't be as usefully tested by this methodology (similarly the bard), it gives them something they can do to control the shape of a battle and have a level appropriate ability. (Now they'd just need level appropriate ways to absorb damage).
But as presented, martial classes don't do that, and all the barbarian really does is hit stuff. So this methodology is an adequate test of how well hitting stuff is as a life choice. Any character whose abilities are offensive or personal defensive is testable by this methodology. Its characters with multiplicative effects in a party (like a bard) who aren't tested as well in this way.
I completely agree. Abilities akin to the monks stunning fist, or even attuned to the deft opportunist ability that the rogue has... say if the targetted foe attacks someone else he drops his guard down and immediately incurs an attack of opportunity from the skilled melee class.
Things like this would make foes more likely to not ignore the melee.... theres lots of abilities like this than can be presented to give warrior classes an added edge, as well as combat flavor and feel.
lastknightleft wrote: Um a spellcaster cannot whisper his spells, in the PHB it says in plain english (since you keep telling us how many times we have to read it :P) that he must speak in a strong voice to cast spells. As such instead of him trying to spot the caster on his initiative he should have a readied action for when he hears a spell being cast and have a bow drawn or a throwing axe out. Now run it again please and keep it within the rules listening for someone speaking clearly. Oh, I suppose i should point out that using Perception to pinpoint her location is in fact a move action, so he can't ready an action to shoot an arrow when she speaks - he doesn't know where to fire just because she talked. He can ready an action to pinpoint her location (mostly useless, cause she'll just move afterwards), but he can't actually fire on the readied action. So yeah, no readying an action to attack an invisible character when they speak, you have to first determine which square they're in.
DM: "You hear chanting"
Player: "I attack!"
DM: "Would you like to nominate a square?"
(Remembering of course that the wizard could be anywhere within 170', that's a hell of a lot of squares. We're talking a 69x69 area before subtracting out the places that don't have LoS to where the character is, and even if we subtract out half of them the chances of choosing the right square are vanishingly small.)
As others have kinda pointed out, the CR/EL system is set for a party, not one person. From the SRD:
Challenge Rating
This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.
I'd expect a 5 headed hydra to eat about any solo 4th level character.
Ernest Mueller wrote: As others have kinda pointed out, the CR/EL system is set for a party, not one person. From the SRD:
Challenge Rating
This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.
I'd expect a 5 headed hydra to eat about any solo 4th level character.
One person can be a party, nothing in the rules prohibits it. Seriously, claiming you have to have at least two people to be a party is like denying the existence of the empty set in math - there's no reason whatsoever. "Party" is merely the game term for 'some number of adventurers who stab things in the face in order to loot their stuff'. "1" is an acceptable number.
The DMG also says a party of twice the size is APL +2, and half the size is APL -2. Ergo, a party of 1 is APL -4 = (APL-2)-2, thus the APL of a Level 8 character is 4, and a CR 8 monster is an EL 8 encounter which has a 50% chance of killing him. The game is not just about four person parties, and certainly not only about parties that include a wizard, cleric, rogue, and fighter.
The SRD merely contains the short note from the Monster Manual that explains briefly what CR is. That's not the end-all be-all of EL, CR, and APL.
Virgil wrote: For one, I'm trying to make a point. I'm arguing on the basis of an explicit ruling from the book, and it feels like it is being ignored in favour of personal opinion. For two, I'd like to avoid references to kettles. Unfortunately the point you're tryin to extrapolate from that section doesn't hold up with a single character. A two person party can overcome what a solo PC cannot, but even then you have to err on the side of caution. The CR/EL rules aren't a science, it's not 1+1=2.
As many have pointed out Adventuring is a team sport. And the home team for 3.5 is Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and Jozan built with 25 point buy. The only true way to playtest rules is to make up characters and run them through encounters.
primemover003 wrote: Virgil wrote: For one, I'm trying to make a point. I'm arguing on the basis of an explicit ruling from the book, and it feels like it is being ignored in favour of personal opinion. For two, I'd like to avoid references to kettles. Unfortunately the point you're tryin to extrapolate from that section doesn't hold up with a single character. A two person party can overcome what a solo PC cannot, but even then you have to err on the side of caution. The CR/EL rules aren't a science, it's not 1+1=2.
As many have pointed out Adventuring is a team sport. And the home team for 3.5 is Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and Jozan built with 25 point buy. The only true way to playtest rules is to make up characters and run them through encounters. Running a party is a *terrible* way of playtesting classes. If the wizard is too powerful and the fighter is underpowered, what does the party blowing through encounters tell you? If you run one class at a time, you get data specifically about that class, not about some complicated product of multiple classes acting in concert.
Seriously, this is not a hard concept. It gets used in science every day. To examine the response of a variable you have to actually isolate that variable.
Again the CR/EL system is not math or science... it's art and trial and error. And there is such a thing as designing encounters geared for a certain class, ability, skill, etc.
Squirrelloid wrote: Oh, I suppose i should point out that using Perception to pinpoint her location is in fact a move action Really, I'm not going to say you're wrong, cause I don't have my book with me, but that just sounds wrong, not in mechanics granted, just based off of real life experience. If the mechanics really state that it is a move action to pinpoint someone by sound I would house rule it away, having played paintball and having sound give me away. If the rules say it's a move it's a move action, but are you sure?
I can't believe this is still being brought up. Actually, scratch that, I can.
I am struggling to come up with something to say that won't be a rehash of what has already been said regarding this CR/50% win issue. Hmm I will go for the Cliff Notes version.
CR 5 vs level 5 should not result in a 50% win rate as the 3.5 game is currently implemented (regardless of how it was designed/intended) and if that is the intention of PRPG design (and I am not certain at all that it is), then a PRPG battle of CR 5 vs APL 5 will not result in a 20% reduction in party consumables since some or many classes (fighter of course, you can argue about the others) will need to be radically improved to the point that including these new classes in the party of four will no longer cause the party to lose about 20% of its resources in the battle since the individual members are significantly more powerful.
I now return you to the wolf pack. Enjoy.
Given the high number of variables involved when selecting the monsters, wouldn't it make more sense to pit a Barbarian X against a Fighter X? I'd more readily believe that to be a 50/50 fight.
Lich-Loved wrote: I can't believe this is still being brought up. Actually, scratch that, I can.
I am struggling to come up with something to say that won't be a rehash of what has already been said regarding this CR/50% win issue. Hmm I will go for the Cliff Notes version.
CR 5 vs level 5 should not result in a 50% win rate as the 3.5 game is currently implemented (regardless of how it was designed/intended) and if that is the intention of PRPG design (and I am not certain at all that it is), then a PRPG battle of CR 5 vs APL 5 will not result in a 20% reduction in party consumables since some or many classes (fighter of course, you can argue about the others) will need to be radically improved to the point that including these new classes in the party of four will no longer cause the party to lose about 20% of its resources in the battle since the individual members are significantly more powerful.
I now return you to the wolf pack. Enjoy.
So you're saying its ok that melee classes are underpowered, and that they shouldn't be able to do level-appropriate things. Because if other classes can pass these tests and melee classes can't, that shows a serious imbalance in class design, and that is a huge problem.
The game rules specifically state that an EL = APL encounter should go 50-50, and provide rules for determining the APL of a party of any size, including 1. At which point, the 50-50 EL=APL standard for a 1 person party is a plausible standard of balance. That some classes currently fall short just means they need to be fixed. Other classes make that standard.
If you have an alternate standard of class balance you'd like to propose, by all means do so. But to be a superior standard it must (1) be capable of being assessed easily (full party playtest utterly fails to detect differences in class power because you're multiplying variables together), (2) be back compatible as per 3.P standards, meaning you can't strip out Vancian spellcasting (as much as I'd like to) among other things - strict power-ups are easier on back compatibility than powering down overpowered options, because you just have to give characters things rather than take them away, (3) Result in interactions with the monsters that allow the existing CR system to continue to be plausibly useful.
The 50-50 test actually meets all of those. Its just at present, wizards and CoDzilla are forced to shoulder most of the burden, and high levels is truly rocket launcher tag where anything plausibly challenging can score a TPK if things go wrong. Which means the fighter might as well drink a martini instead of fighting because he actually has no influence over the result of combat, and that is a problem.
DMFTodd wrote: Given the high number of variables involved when selecting the monsters, wouldn't it make more sense to pit a Barbarian X against a Fighter X? I'd more readily believe that to be a 50/50 fight. The goal isn't to have every fight be 50-50, but on average a class should win 50% of fights across all possible fights. Assessing across 10 fights that represent the range of possible challenges is a sample to approximate that. One could expand the size of the sample by running more different challenge types - and this would be superior to limiting the number of tests. Basically, a class has to fight more than just fighters (or whatever).
Further, a battery of encounters like those listed above means you can run all classes against the same set of tests, creating a basis for meaningful comparison.
So yes, some fights should be 50-50, but others should be 20-80 and others 90-10. So long as it averages 50-50, we're happy.
Squirrelloid wrote: Lich-Loved wrote: I can't believe this is still being brought up. Actually, scratch that, I can.
I am struggling to come up with something to say that won't be a rehash of what has already been said regarding this CR/50% win issue. Hmm I will go for the Cliff Notes version.
CR 5 vs level 5 should not result in a 50% win rate as the 3.5 game is currently implemented (regardless of how it was designed/intended) and if that is the intention of PRPG design (and I am not certain at all that it is), then a PRPG battle of CR 5 vs APL 5 will not result in a 20% reduction in party consumables since some or many classes (fighter of course, you can argue about the others) will need to be radically improved to the point that including these new classes in the party of four will no longer cause the party to lose about 20% of its resources in the battle since the individual members are significantly more powerful.
I now return you to the wolf pack. Enjoy.
So you're saying its ok that melee classes are underpowered, and that they shouldn't be able to do level-appropriate things. Because if other classes can pass these tests and melee classes can't, that shows a serious imbalance in class design, and that is a huge problem.
The game rules specifically state that an EL = APL encounter should go 50-50, and provide rules for determining the APL of a party of any size, including 1. At which point, the 50-50 EL=APL standard for a 1 person party is a plausible standard of balance. That some classes currently fall short just means they need to be fixed. Other classes make that standard.
If you have an alternate standard of class balance you'd like to propose, by all means do so. But to be a superior standard it must (1) be capable of being assessed easily (full party playtest utterly fails to detect differences in class power because you're multiplying variables together), (2) be back compatible as per 3.P standards, meaning you can't strip out Vancian spellcasting (as much as I'd like to)... My only point is this, Yes 3.0 said that, and then it didn't in 3.5 the reason the developers realized it was bunk and so loosened up the words so people wouldn't take it litterally, by the time it came to redesign the system, they scrapped it and admited that it only worked when dealing with a party of the core 4. Now anybody that has run the system knows that the CRs are really just a loose guidline that you use to get a general idea. Considering all that I'm just gonna lump myself in category three, yes some useful information came from this test even though the basic assumptions were wrong and call it quits.
Using CR as the sole delimiter for the appropriateness of a single-character encounter is sheer lunacy. Even the WotC designers before 4E was announced admitted that CR just plain does not work as designed. They've also admitted to specifically increasing or decreasing some creatures' CRs, such as dragons.
Hell, the best example I can give of CR being a useless indicator of exact difficulty of an encounter is in PF#4: Mokmurian is a CR 15 encounter? That's a laugh. He should be CR 17-18, at least. He effectively gets +1 CR on top of his class levels for everything that being a Stone Giant gets him (extra feats, extra saves, extra hp, extra skill points, racial abilities, etc). It's ridiculous.
CR is a broken system. The designers know and admit that it's a broken system. 4E completely and totally redesigned the system because it was so broken that there was no real fix for it. So, why are you using CR to judge whether a character is powerful enough?
Zurai wrote: So, why are you using CR to judge whether a character is powerful enough? I'll field this one.
Because it's the only yardstick we have when staying with a 3.5 variant. The best you can hope for is to fix CR, which these sorts of playtests do help with.
OK, what about Barbarian X vs every class X in a series or one on one fights?
DMFTodd wrote:
Given the high number of variables involved when selecting the monsters, wouldn't it make more sense to pit a Barbarian X against a Fighter X? I'd more readily believe that to be a 50/50 fight.
The goal isn't to have every fight be 50-50, but on average a class should win 50% of fights across all possible fights. Assessing across 10 fights that represent the range of possible challenges is a sample to approximate that. One could expand the size of the sample by running more different challenge types - and this would be superior to limiting the number of tests. Basically, a class has to fight more than just fighters (or whatever).
Further, a battery of encounters like those listed above means you can run all classes against the same set of tests, creating a basis for meaningful comparison.
So yes, some fights should be 50-50, but others should be 20-80 and others 90-10. So long as it averages 50-50, we're happy.
cappadocius wrote: I'll field this one.
Because it's the only yardstick we have when staying with a 3.5 variant. The best you can hope for is to fix CR, which these sorts of playtests do help with.
Sorry, that's worthless. The yardstick is broken - and not just in one direction. Some CRs are too low, some are too high, some just plain do not fit at all. A yardstick with no consistency is not a measurement tool. It's the same reason your science teacher always told you to always measure fluids at eye level; looking at it from above or below skews the results arbitrarily and (effectively) randomly.
Guys.
We've been through all this. Several times. It's caused temporary suspensions, and brought moderation to the forums. We know all the arguments.
Coming into threads intended for this type of playtest and criticizing the basic concepts, using the same reasons that have been offered up by numerous previous posters without changing anyone's mind, consitutes threadcrapping by anyone's definition.
Please stop.
There are other threads on these forums. You are not required to post here. Continuing to do so in this manner is extremely disrespectful. Critiques of specific aspects of the playtest should be more than welcome, as is constructive criticism for improving the process. "CR is broken" and "characters aren't supposed to be solo monsters" however, have been done. It's time to move on.
Thank you.
Shisumo wrote: Guys.
We've been through all this. Several times. It's time to move on.
Thank you.
But Shisumo, you don't understand! There's someone who is wrong on the internet! It would be criminal to stop beating a dead a horse until that horse admits he is wrong and that that makes him a terrible person.
Shisumo wrote: Critiques of specific aspects of the playtest should be more than welcome, as is constructive criticism for improving the process. "CR is broken" and "characters aren't supposed to be solo monsters" however, have been done. It's time to move on.
Thank you.
The point being raised by numerous people here is a "constructive criticism of the playtest" in that these posters are indicating that the test should be re-run with a party of four characters or run in another manner other than the one presented. Viable suggestions or alternatives have been given. The reason we keep seeing the same responses is that there continues to be OP's that make the same claims over and over again using a specious approach to playtest that is not at all agreed upon.
If we as a community don't want to rehash the same issues again and again (and I agree that this is not want we want to do) then we should also note when the OP is heading into territory that has already been covered.
I do agree though that this has been done to death and the best thing to do is let this and threads like it die without response. Perhaps then we won't see further "Class x under-performs at a,b and c" posts that are the ultimate culprit in the horse-flogging contest.
Baquies wrote:
DMFTodd wrote: OK, what about Barbarian X vs every class X in a series or one on one fights? Given the high number of variables involved when selecting the monsters, wouldn't it make more sense to pit a Barbarian X against a Fighter X? I'd more readily believe that to be a 50/50 fight.
The goal isn't to have every fight be 50-50, but on average a class should win 50% of fights across all possible fights. Assessing across 10 fights that represent the range of possible challenges is a sample to approximate that. One could expand the size of the sample by running more different challenge types - and this would be superior to limiting the number of tests. Basically, a class has to fight more than just fighters (or whatever).
Further, a battery of encounters like those listed above means you can run all classes against the same set of tests, creating a basis for meaningful comparison.
So yes, some fights should be 50-50, but others should be 20-80 and others 90-10. So long as it averages 50-50, we're happy.
Personally, I think this is the best measurement for balance between to classes. The only thing that a PC is guaranteed to have a true 50/50 chance of winning is their clone. This means that Character A with class B at level X is equal to Character C with class B at level X. Since all the classes are supposed to be the same powerlevel(roughly), Character E with class D at level X is the equal of Characters A and C.
I you want to test the classes for balance here is the best way to do(As I see it).
Set-up a round-robin tournament. Pick 1 race (I would suggest human), and use the elite array. Use average HP. These are to keep the number of variables down. Otherwise build the characters as normal for PCs.
Run each class against each other class 4 times(I used 4 as there should be a 50/50 win/losses record). Once all matches are finished tally all wins and losses. The classes as a whole should have a similar number of wins and losses. Once we get a set of data like this, we can move from there as to saying what class is weaker than the other.
Lich-Loved wrote: Shisumo wrote: Critiques of specific aspects of the playtest should be more than welcome, as is constructive criticism for improving the process. "CR is broken" and "characters aren't supposed to be solo monsters" however, have been done. It's time to move on.
Thank you.
The point being raised by numerous people here is a "constructive criticism of the playtest" in that these posters are indicating that the test should be re-run with a party of four characters or run in another manner other than the one presented. Viable suggestions or alternatives have been given. The reason we keep seeing the same responses is that there continues to be OP's that make the same claims over and over again using a specious approach to playtest that is not at all agreed upon.
If we as a community don't want to rehash the same issues again and again (and I agree that this is not want we want to do) then we should also note when the OP is heading into territory that has already been covered.
I do agree though that this has been done to death and the best thing to do is let this and threads like it die without response. Perhaps then we won't see further "Class x under-performs at a,b and c" posts that are the ultimate culprit in the horse-flogging contest. Criticizing the metric is not a constructive criticism, because it doesn't address anything about the playtest itself.
Regardless, I have yet to see a plausible alternate metric for measuring class power. Running four characters is not an acceptable option - it doesn't tell you anything about the relevant balance of the classes. I know you've said your an engineer in the past. I'm an evolutionary biologist. You know as well as I do that you can't learn anything meaningful just by looking at the whole system - you have to break it down into small components and see how those individual components respond. Its the only way you can learn anything.
So unless you can suggest an alternate plausible metric which is actually informative and actually gives information about specific class performance, you aren't being useful. You're basically saying 'we can't balance the classes', which is a poor statement.
The metric really works. It might not be the balance point *you* want, but it is a balance point, and it means all classes can do level appropriate things when its met.
Squirrelloid wrote: The metric really works. It might not be the balance point *you* want, but it is a balance point, and it means all classes can do level appropriate things when its met. So how well does a solo Bard work with your testing methods? How about a Marshall? Healer? Vow of Nonviolence character?
All of those are fairly balanced choices compared to others that are available, but none of them will show as being anything but goblin fodder using your testing metric. Thus, your metric really doesn't work.
I have read this entire thread, there are some things that I want to bring up that I either missed (if this is so than I am sorry) or havn't been brought up.
1) why are you ignoring critical? for fighters and barbarians, you eliminate the equivalent 4.5 hits worth of damage per 10 level one battles, and more at higher levels... for the wizards, who do not relay on getting critical in solo play, this is nothing... but the melee classes it is crucial that critical remain in play - if, as you say, you are adhering to the CRs - as this is part of balancing the CR of the melee vs spell caster
2)to truly gauge this you need more than just win/loose.... you need damage dealt/taken ratios, total amount of foes slain per 100 attempts at each example. and number of completed out of 100 attempts.
3) what was your acceptable +/- percent for an 'even fight'? is it +/- 10% so winning 40-60 battles of 100 is considered 'even'?
4)If I gave you a level 7 barbarian who used 1/2 of his starting gold, and took less than a quarter of the wealth that any other party member, but still has better gear in written adventure paths (I can get you one from age of worms, savage tide, or rise of the runelords) and stat him up as he was than, with the pathfinder changes, would you care rerunning your tests?
I think that what people are trying to say is that by number crunching the characters you made for this test, your results may be true, but for people with other choices open to them, the results may be different. stating an entire class is broken because it cannot solo in a game designed for group play. (before you state the CR pages again let me finish) For which the abilities were made to be in a group. you state that x rage power wasn't useful during this test or that test, but sometimes in a group it WILL be useful against the same opponent, because the barbarian is holding back the horde while the blaster wizard goes to work.. so saying they don't work is premature
Cpt_kirstov wrote: I have read this entire thread, there are some things that I want to bring up that I either missed (if this is so than I am sorry) or havn't been brought up.
1) why are you ignoring critical? for fighters and barbarians, you eliminate the equivalent 4.5 hits worth of damage per 10 level one battles, and more at higher levels... for the wizards, who do not relay on getting critical in solo play, this is nothing... but the melee classes it is crucial that critical remain in play - if, as you say, you are adhering to the CRs - as this is part of balancing the CR of the melee vs spell caster
You may have noticed I work with expected damage a lot, because it lets me say something about average performance across a larger number of encounters than I could possibly play. Criticals don't change average damage much at all, because you only threaten 1/20 times, and not all of those are confirmed, which for the relatively small multiplication of damage is sufficiently infrequent that it doesn't actually matter.
Furthermore, monsters get criticals too, so its not like crits are just a player advantage.
I ignored them because it makes the math easier. I can do the math with criticals, but all it will prove is they don't change expectation much.
Cpt Kirstov wrote:
2)to truly gauge this you need more than just win/loose.... you need damage dealt/taken ratios, total amount of foes slain per 100 attempts at each example. and number of completed out of 100 attempts.
I run theoretical battles using expectation, and use some instances when it seems really close to tell me how close my quick brush approach is. Many of these are obvious. I don't need to run 100 spectre vs. barbarian battles to know the barbarian loses 95+ of them - its brutally obvious. So you'll see expected damages and probabilities of failing (or not failing) a battery of save DCs, which are evidence for how I judge the fight to come out.
Cpt Kirstov wrote:
3) what was your acceptable +/- percent for an 'even fight'? is it +/- 10% so winning 40-60 battles of 100 is considered 'even'?
An even fight is hard to judge or comes out as being determined solely by who goes first (on close initiative bonuses). A Probable conclusion is based on a fight that is likely to go one way, but could go the other way on not too unlikely sets of events. A certain conclusion is when its statistically improbable that the fight could go any other way. (~p<.05 for the alternate result, and most of the time its more like p<.0001).
Cpt Kirstov wrote:
4)If I gave you a level 7 barbarian who used 1/2 of his starting gold, and took less than a quarter of the wealth that any other party member, but still has better gear in written adventure paths (I can get you one from age of worms, savage tide, or rise of the runelords) and stat him up as he was than, with the pathfinder changes, would you care rerunning your tests?Quote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. However, I don't care what published adventures do. I care about what the rules say, which say a level N PC is expected to have a certain amount of wealth by a certain level. So a Barbarian with less than appropriate wealth is not of interest to me and I have no reason to believe it should be balanced, just like a barbarian with more than acceptable character wealth gives me no a priori reason to believe it should be balanced theoretically.
Cpt Kirstov wrote:
I think that what people are trying to say is that by number crunching the characters you made for this test, your results may be true, but for people with other choices open to them, the results may be different. stating an entire class is broken because it cannot solo in a game designed for group play. (before you state the CR pages again let me finish) For which the abilities were made to be in a group. you state that x rage power wasn't useful during this test or that test, but sometimes in a group it WILL be useful against the same opponent, because the barbarian is holding back the horde while the blaster wizard goes to work.. so saying they don't work is premature
The test doesn't expect it to 'win' in a solo game, it expects it to lose 1/2 the time on average. This is a test of whether it can do level appropriate things - ie, if monsters should care at all that PC4 is a barbarian.
(And how do you propose a barbarian hold back that horde instead of running past him and thrashing the wizard? Seriously, if wizards do the killing, they should know to just kill the wizard. This isn't a hard concept - if you strip can strip all of a party's relevant offense by killing particular classes for most fights, those classes are clearly more powerful than the classes that isn't true for. If the party cannot win wihtout the rogue, wizard, and/or cleric, but can win without the fighter/barb/whatever all the time, someone is underpowered.)
Zurai wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: The metric really works. It might not be the balance point *you* want, but it is a balance point, and it means all classes can do level appropriate things when its met. So how well does a solo Bard work with your testing methods? How about a Marshall? Healer? Vow of Nonviolence character?
All of those are fairly balanced choices compared to others that are available, but none of them will show as being anything but goblin fodder using your testing metric. Thus, your metric really doesn't work. A bard has charm person, he actually does ok.
A marshal... um, i'm not sure i care about MiniHB classes, and I don't know offhand. My guess is, like melee characters, he doesn't do so well.
Healer, in addition to being a miniHB class, is also the worst piece of trash ever put to paper. And given some of the trash WotC published, that's saying something. I've tried hard to forget it even existed, thanks for reminding me. Its beyond saving, healing is a bad life choice for combat because offense matters more than defense. Healing is what wands do after combat is over. The class fails in first principle, and fails this test. And that's fine. It never has been able to do level appropriate stuff and everybody knew that when it was published. So yeah, it fails, so what. Its also known to be so weak a 3.5 monk makes it look good.
Vow of Nonviolence - I really don't care. That's actively making a choice to not play the game. Seriously, you're playing a character who refuses to stab people in the face in a game about stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff. Next you're going to tell me that characters shouldn't be allowed to loot the bodies without being evil - it is stealing after all. Applying anything resembling real world philosophy to D+D is bound to fail, because at its heart the game is about breaking and entering, aggravated assault, manslaughter, and robbery. And no, its not ok because the monster has 'evil' written on its character sheet, just like putting on a cape and a mask and beating up criminals in your spare time is also a crime in reality.
In a game about monster slaying, if you don't slay monsters, you aren't playing the game. Deal with it.
Squirrelloid wrote:
You may have noticed I work with expected damage a lot, because it lets me say something about average performance across a larger number of encounters than I could possibly play. Criticals don't change average damage much at all, because you only threaten 1/20 times, and not all of those are confirmed, which for the relatively small multiplication of damage is sufficiently infrequent that it doesn't actually matter.
Furthermore, monsters get criticals too, so its not like crits are just a player advantage.
but the use of feats or weapons to improve critical threat does make a difference in the battle. most lvl 7 melee geared will have access to buffs feats and weapons that can make a barbarian's threat 3/20 which would mean a critical hit almost every other battle, versus 1 in 5 battles without.
Squirrelloid wrote: And how do you propose a barbarian hold back that horde instead of running past him and thrashing the wizard? Seriously, if wizards do the killing, they should know to just kill the wizard. This isn't a hard concept attack of opportunity, bull rush, fighting defensively.. there are more..
Squirrelloid wrote: In a game about monster slaying, if you don't slay monsters, you aren't playing the game. Deal with it. that is not true - it is not a game about monster slaying, it is a game that INCLUDES monster slaying. To be ABOUT monster slaying, would mean you couldn't play without killing anything.. which is not true, in a game full of court intrigue, I have gone up 3 levels without a combat encounter
I'm just going to stop feeding this now.. My final thoughts re that your methods are sound, and numbers are correct, but your assumption tat by limiting yourself to x character it becomes a fair test, while x barbarian and x wizard are in two different power levels in terms of preparation, you scew your findings.. as others have stated.
there are reasons a group of 3 characters can defeat villains that groups of 7 get TPKed, and it's not the dice, nor is it anything that a mathematical equation can track. Without setting up a map and actually running the encounter, some of your findings could be wrong... there is at least 1 or two I disagree with, but that could be just how we run barbaians differently
Cpt_kirstov wrote: Squirrelloid wrote:
You may have noticed I work with expected damage a lot, because it lets me say something about average performance across a larger number of encounters than I could possibly play. Criticals don't change average damage much at all, because you only threaten 1/20 times, and not all of those are confirmed, which for the relatively small multiplication of damage is sufficiently infrequent that it doesn't actually matter.
Furthermore, monsters get criticals too, so its not like crits are just a player advantage.
but the use of feats or weapons to improve critical threat does make a difference in the battle. most lvl 7 melee geared will have access to buffs feats and weapons that can make a barbarian's threat 3/20 which would mean a critical hit almost every other battle, versus 1 in 5 battles without. And if there was a special ability in play which did that I would have considered criticals, as stated in the assumptions. That said, even a threat on 3 numbers doesn't happen very often when the average combat lasts 2 rounds, or don't matter when you one hit kill the creature anyway. A lot of those combats fall into those categories. If you'd like to demonstrate my failure to take criticals into consideration causes a bias in my results, please provide the evidence.
Cpt Kirstov wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote: And how do you propose a barbarian hold back that horde instead of running past him and thrashing the wizard? Seriously, if wizards do the killing, they should know to just kill the wizard. This isn't a hard concept attack of opportunity, bull rush, fighting defensively.. there are more..
None of which actually succeed in stopping monsters from attacking the wizard in most situations. A reasonable number of monsters fly, have ranged save or lose abilities or attacks, and trivially avoid you. If you aren't a plausible threat, that's exactly what they should be doing.
Cpt Kirstov wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote: In a game about monster slaying, if you don't slay monsters, you aren't playing the game. Deal with it. that is not true - it is not a game about monster slaying, it is a game that INCLUDES monster slaying. To be ABOUT monster slaying, would mean you couldn't play without killing anything.. which is not true, in a game full of court intrigue, I have gone up 3 levels without a combat encounter
I'm just going to stop feeding this now.. My final thoughts re that your methods are sound, and numbers are correct, but your assumption tat by limiting yourself to x character it becomes a fair test, while x barbarian and x wizard are in two different power levels in terms of preparation, you scew your findings.. as others have stated.
there are reasons a group of 3 characters can defeat villains that groups of 7 get TPKed, and it's not...
First, you can play a game with no killing, but you're off in optional rule territory on xp awards. The DMG does provide guidelines on awarding xp outside of killing monsters and defeating traps as optional and alternate systems, but the only core system is beat this EL challenge and get xp. That's the very foundation of the game.
I've played a political D+D game before. It was ok. D+D doesn't support it very well - there are other systems who do it better, and whose xp systems revolve around different metrics than killing stuff. (Ultimately skills aren't sufficiently developed as a system compared to combat).
Second, propose different barbarian builds? Less face it, this is a game with a lot of choices. We can only evaluate some sets of choices at a time.
And wow, that's cute quote cut-off by the boards... I seem to recall you were saying something about setting up a map... I'm assuming basic terrain suitable to the creature's home terrain. Yes, unusual terrain which specifically favors one side makes it harder - it also increases the EL. So not relevant.
Why do people who are in disagreement about the basic rubric of your playtest continue to complain that your using it. I mean flawed or not clearly SQL's not gonna change that rubric this late in the testing. Doesn't make sense.
Lich loved stated that other options had been suggested and I wonder LL have you ran those tests here on the board. Or we're they just suggested as a conter to this method and then not pursued.
I would further wonder if there'd be a way to test... under like a .. pick up game dynamic.
Take the Iconic 4 Warrior/Cleric/Spellcaster/Skill creature
and yank one out and see if the party performs better or worse for the change. Only I'm not sure how to quantify that.
I mean I do agree with what SqLord's saying about the number crunch
but if ther are alternatives should the detractors have running threads about it instead of harrassing you about the way you conduct your test? I'd just like to see the alternative to his methods is all...
Midnight-v wrote: Why do people who are in disagreement about the basic rubric of your playtest continue to complain that your using it. I mean flawed or not clearly SQL's not gonna change that rubric this late in the testing. Doesn't make sense.
Lich loved stated that other options had been suggested and I wonder LL have you ran those tests here on the board. Or we're they just suggested as a conter to this method and then not pursued.
I would further wonder if there'd be a way to test... under like a .. pick up game dynamic.
Take the Iconic 4 Warrior/Cleric/Spellcaster/Skill creature
and yank one out and see if the party performs better or worse for the change. Only I'm not sure how to quantify that.
I mean I do agree with what SqLord's saying about the number crunch
but if ther are alternatives should the detractors have running threads about it instead of harrassing you about the way you conduct your test? I'd just like to see the alternative to his methods is all...
What this man said.
Squirrelloid wrote: In a game about monster slaying, if you don't slay monsters, you aren't playing the game. Deal with it. I think here we have the crux of the matter. Squirrelloid is playing a completely different game from the rest of us - D&D Minis.
Fortunately, PFRPG isn't modifying the D&D Minis rules, so we no longer need to pay any attention to him.
The basic test premise is somewhat sound, but I feel that the tests can be easily biased by setting up various situations. Like the spectre for instance automatically getting a surprise attack. Spectres can only see like 5 ft out of the surface they're hiding in. So the barbarian has to pass right next to it if it wants to stay in total cover. If it peeks out to see where he is, it's a hide check versus a spot check, something the barb has a chance of detecting.
But instead we're dealing with an omniscient spectre who sits in a wall that happens to be where the barbarian is going to pass by.
That's just a slanted encounter.
Similarly, the wizard spells are specifically devised to counter the barbarian. As others have said, it's not a standard spell load out, but rather a specific anti-melee selection. If the wizard found himself against incorporeals or a variety of other encounters he'd be hosed with what spells he took. Also, naturally it's set in the woods so as to give the wizard a big terrain advantage.
I mean, obviously a monster gains an advantage if the situaton favors it, that's why in the DMG you actually get more XP if you have to defeat monsters that have favorable terrain (and the encounter is no longer really equal to your CR, it's somewhat higher because the monsters begin with advantages).
For this test to matter it needs to have more concrete rules. Something like:
you each start 60 ft away in a 200x200 room with a 10 ft ceiling. No one has surprise. Roll for initiative.
Also when doing these tests with casters, they should have to choose their spells before they know what monsters they're going to be fighting. We really need to make this into more of a double blind study, because bias is completely ruining any value it may have, despite having a fairly sound premise.
Because right now, there just aren't enough standards on it, and it suffers so much from tester bias as to be almost useless.
Zurai wrote: Squirrelloid wrote:
Vow of Nonviolence - I really don't care. That's actively making a choice to not play the game. Seriously, you're playing a character who refuses to stab people in the face in a game about stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff. Next you're going to tell me that characters shouldn't be allowed to loot the bodies without being evil - it is stealing after all. Applying anything resembling real world philosophy to D+D is bound to fail, because at its heart the game is about breaking and entering, aggravated assault, manslaughter, and robbery. And no, its not ok because the monster has 'evil' written on its character sheet, just like putting on a cape and a mask and beating up criminals in your spare time is also a crime in reality.
In a game about monster slaying, if you don't slay monsters, you aren't playing the game. Deal with it. I think here we have the crux of the matter. Squirrelloid is playing a completely different game from the rest of us - D&D Minis. For the full philosophy (as described by Frank Trollman), see the second post here: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294
|
