EL 7 challenges
40 ft spiked pit trap with a proximity trigger Fireball (8d6) at the bottom.
A Chimera
A Succubus
An Huge Air Elemental
A Lillend
A Spectre
A pair of Achaierai
A pair of Green Hags
Six Chokers
An Elf Wizard 7
40ft Spiked Pit Trap w/ Prox Fireball
Baughdvnleob II falls in, it does its job. He can't find it even with stonecunning because the search DC is >20.
Certain Loss
A Chimera
It has a piss-poor breath weapon whose damage performance is approximately on par with Baughdvnleob II's bow attack and only 1/4 rounds. It wants to close to melee. It does try to ambush, but Baughdvnleob II actually has superior sensory capabilities. With even initiatives, this is going to be a brutal melee.
In a full-attack, Baughdvnleob rages, and drops a surprise accuracy on the second swing. Expected damage ~28 (.8*16.5+.9*16.5) each round, which finishes the Chimera in 3 rounds. Further, 2 rounds is close enough that Baughdvnleob can move and attack or charge in round one.
The Chimera also expects to deal 17.5 damage (.75*8+.75*2*5.5+.65*2*2.5) per round of full attack to raging Baughdvnleob II, which takes longer than 3 rounds to kill him.
Certain Win. The DR improvement makes this go from a close fight to domination.
A Succubus
Baughdvnleob II gets suckered in by the Succubus's disguise, and gives her a kiss, netting a negative level. He then has to deal with the suggestion to do so again (Will DC 21), which he makes on the first go 35% of the time. Indomitable doesn't actually help, because the Suggestion finishes in one round (and another one gets dropped on him). And as his Will save plummets from negative levels, this looks like curtains. Even if he does pass one, the Succubus Charm Monsters him on her next action, and starts the process all over again. At best Baughdvnleob gets a round of damage to drop her, and with DR 10/cold iron or good, AC 20, and 33hp, that's looking like quite a stretch. He'll also have to draw his weapon, assuming he has it on him (he was just seduced into a bedroom or somesuch) - more likely he's weaponless and unclothed. And that's *at best*.
Certain Loss
An Huge Air Elemental
Even assuming it doesn't just spin cycle Baughdvnleob II to death, this is looking pretty brutal.
The Air elemental goes first with its +13 initiative. In a full attack it expects to deal (.75*2*13) 15 damage, which takes it 6 rounds to kill Baughdvnleob II. On a full attack, raging Baughdvnleob II, with surprise accuracy on the second swing, expects to deal (.7*16.5+.8*11.5) 17.25 damage, which takes a lot longer than 6 rounds.
The whirlwind damage isn't significant, but if it can suck Baughdvnleob II in (DC22 ref save) it can carry him 200' straight up and drop him for 20d6 (67 average after DR) damage, which means it can kill him faster than he can kill it in this way as well.
Certain Loss
A Lillend
Flying and stupidly fast while doing so, Baughdvnleob II is reduced to his ranged weapon here. Its preferred mode of attack is Charm Person and Hold Person, but at their DCs Baughdvnleob is rather likely to pass them on the first chance, much less using the Indomitable Will re-roll. It can spam quite a few of them, but Hold allows a save every round on its own (so even blowing the second save doesn't hurt too much), meaning the up to 4 Charm Person spells are the real worry, and they have a lower DC.
If it opts for close combat it expects to deal (6.5*.7 + 6.5*.45 + 6*.45) ~10 damage per round, and start a grapple with improved grab. Its CMB is +16 and Baughdvnleob's defense is 13 (raging), for a DC of 28, which it makes 45% of the time (for 9 average damage). All damages given post-DR. Despite that, its going to take quite a few rounds for it to kill Baughdvnleob II, and it only has 45hp.
Baughdvnleob can drop it in 2 rounds on average, so if he avoids being grappled before then he has it made. If he gets grappled he needs to beat a DC 31 with a CMB of +11, meaning he needs a natural 20... At which point its curtains for Baughdvnleob II.
Probable Loss/Even. Counterintuitively enough, the Lillend does best in melee, winning almost half the combats where Baughdvnleob II gets the first full attack, and doing better (closer to 70%) if she does.
A Spectre
Baughdvnleob II loses this one for the same reason as Baughdvnleob I. 2 Negative Levels per hit just devastates him and his ability to compete with it.
Certain Loss.
A Pair of Achaierai
The 3 hour insanity from failing a fort save is nasty, and he fails 20% of the time, which translates to serious problems if they spam it. The increased DR helps him resist the damage, but Achaierai are rather capable damage dealers. And it takes an average of two rounds to kill one on average. However, Great Cleave + Surprise Accuracy can be a lifesaver here.
Baughdvnleob II rages, pops surprise accuracy, and starts his great cleave with power attack action. He hits 80% of the time for 1d12 + 16 damage (.8*22.5 = 18 expected), and cleaves for another (.8^2*22.5) 14.4 expected on the other one. Baughdvnleob also activates Animal Fury for a bite for (.7*9.5) 6.65 damage. The Achaierai respond by dropping their toxic black cloud, inflicting an average of 4 damage (post DR) each and giving them a 36% chance of driving Baughdvnleob II insane as per the spell. If Baughdvnleob keeps his sanity, he does the exact same thing in reverse (starts with the one he didn't start with on the great cleave, and bites the one he didn't before), which expects to finish both Achaierai.
Even Fight. 64% chance of victory, 36% chance of going insane and dying a bloody death.
A Pair of Green Hags
While Baughdvnleob II does better than Baughdvnleob, it isn't by enough to change the same end conclusion. If he can make a bunch of DC 15 fort saves, he can kill them in a few rounds. If he starts failing them his effectiveness drops precipitously and eventually he hits Str 0 and they eat him. This makes the number of rounds it takes for him to kill them rather relevant.
Baughdvnleob II can use the Great Cleave/Surprise Accuracy synergy again, which actually makes our P(hit) 95% (barely), and power attacking probably isn't a good idea because we need to keep hitting. They only have 49 hp, and we can do 16.5 damage per hit, but even with all hits its going to take us about 3 rounds to kill them with average rolls (and that's exactly kill them, so 50% of the time it takes 4 rounds).
Baughdvnleob II fails a DC 15 fort save 20% of the time. Over four rounds he has to make 8 of them, meaning he expects to fail 1.75 of them. Given that most of the damage is done by the end of round 3, failing one isn't fatal as he still has damage to spare, and even failing two probably isn't enough to seriously worry him.
Probable Win. Rolls going against him could swing it, but most of the time he'll pull through.
Six Chokers
He outperforms Baughdvnleob I here with Great Cleave at his side, and Baughdvnleob I also creamed this.
Certain Win.
An Elf Wizard 7
There just isn't a good way to get flight reasonably by 7th level, and the potion is pretty easy to dispel (even if Baughdvnleob II had one). So in open terrain Baughdvnleob II loses or draws against the wizard (spell load dependent, as Baughdvnleob II's added resilience to will save spells could be unexpected).
He can deal with Invisibility fairly trivially, assuming he isn't surprised. (And given its short duration, the wizard isn't walking around with GI up anyway). This degenerates to the even fight from Level 4 where its a race between failing a save and getting past the magically conjured obstacles. So a wizard who opts for invisibility over fly is in some trouble.
Probable Loss averaging over avoidance spell choice.
Certain Win 2
Probable Win 1
Even 2
Probable Loss 1
Certain Loss 4
4 out of 10. Still hanging onto the cusp of balance.
The synergy between Surprise Accuracy and Great Cleave was rather critical to performance in some of those fights. Indomitable Will continues to be useful. And the improved DR swung a few fights from even into probable or certain win territory. All in all, the changes to the class are responsible for some of the improvements, and some due to a (probably unintentional) rules synergy. But that rules synergy is actually a good thing, so I have no objections.
It tells me i posted but I can't see my post.... this is weird. If this shows up and my old post doesn't i'll edit this with my previous post's text instead.
(Edit: and there it is...)
Squirrelloid wrote: White Dwarf battle reports are useless. They put together armies that are a random mishmash of units which often don't compliment each other, there's rarely any sense of real strategy, and they keep playing games until the army of the month wins one and write that one up for White Dwarf. Gamesworkshop is the premier example of 'we can't be bothered to playtest our rules or release errata on a timely basis'. And yes, I do play 40k.
I'm not saying its too hard to get 5 guys and run a game. I'm saying that doesn't tell you *anything* about whether the Barbarian is doing level appropriate things. The players could blow past everything you throw at them, but if the Barbarian's effective contribution isn't near 25% its hardly fair to the person playing the Barbarian - and you won't be able to know that the class is failing to perform since the party is just dominating everything it comes across.
Playtesting with a group works great for testing out an adventure, because you get data about the level of threat of the challenges faced in the adventure. That's one variable. If you try to use it to analyze classes you're conflating, in a multiplicative way, 4 variables that are themselves the sums of internal class variables, and your ability to analyze anything goes to hell.
Seriously, read a book or take a class on experimental design.
And I've been playing D+D in one form or another for over 16 years. These playtest results conform to what I've experienced over the life of 3e.
Edit: Regardless, this is off topic in this thread and I will not respond to further posts of this nature here.
I also play warhammer fantasy and I have been playing D&D for over 11 years, just thought that I'd throw that out there for you. I have a BFA and am a well read individual, so you won't be able to throw your weight around with me.
I also don't see how this could possibly be off topic, we are discussing the fundamentals of play testing here, and you are writing a play test after all.
I'm merely stating that using a single character play test is not going to give a accurate evaluation of the classes in the situations that you are providing. The last time I checked we were talking about a game, not a clinical drug trial. Running statics are great if you run them in a way that takes into account the game in it's entirety. If you can't take in all the variables then what is the point? Are you telling me that the game as a whole doesn't matter? Just some numbers that you crunch and that's really all the game is? Lets be truthful, your way of play testing isn't scientific at all, so they go through the same trials but the wizard falls down the pit and it's a win but the barbarian falls and its a lose, how is that scientific? They both fell they both lose.
There is something that you can tell me about the barbarian in a party test, is the person playing the barbarian having fun? Although I guess that's not really scientific, but still more important than the numbers. Is he useful with in the context of the game? As you go through the game take notes on the number of times the barbarian acts verses the number of the other players, these are the things that are important, are all the players getting an equal share of play time. That's what I want to read about in a play test.
May wrote:
I also don't see how this could possibly be off topic, we are discussing the fundamentals of play testing here, and you are writing a play test after all.
This is a thread on a redesign of the 3.P.0.2 Barbarian class. If it doesn't pertain directly to that redesign, it is off topic.
(and seriously, I had fun playing a 2nd edition cleric who threw eggs at monsters, put a cow skull on his head as a helmet, and variously did other crazy things but never anything mechanically effective. I had fun as a 2nd edition druid who talked with squirrels and didn't really do much else. But in both cases that's because I was *ignoring* the game and acting a part - I didn't need a rules set for those. I might as well have been playing make believe. If I'm going to actually play the game, I'd like choices such as class to not determine before anything else happens whether I actually can or not, having fun *despite* the game does not mean the game or a particular aspect of the game is well designed. If my barbarian redesign is more fun than the previous design, is it better? How would you tell? Shall we get players to estimate how many utils they gained from playing the class?)
Squirrelloid wrote: If my barbarian redesign is more fun than the previous design, is it better? How would you tell? Making a character more powerful so that it dominates the play is not really what I would consider more fun. I would call that cheese, and I wouldn't allow it in my games. The purpose is to overcome challenges together, not to overpower the other people in the party. Does your barbarian rewrite overpower the other classes? Well who knows since you don't want to run a party based play test.
Squirrelloid wrote: Shall we get players to estimate how many utils they gained from playing the class?) Yes, I would like to know what kind of changes in utility they would accrue. That's precisely the kind of information that people might seek, even better would be a side by side comparison between classes. Even better would be a level by level comparison in the percent gained.
When you mention your useless cleric and druid characters, were you saying that you had more fun ignoring all the rules of the game? So what's the point of going through the scientific process, if you would rather play make believe?
May wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: If my barbarian redesign is more fun than the previous design, is it better? How would you tell? Making a character more powerful so that it dominates the play is not really what I would consider more fun. I would call that cheese, and I wouldn't allow it in my games. The purpose is to overcome challenges together, not to overpower the other people in the party. Does your barbarian rewrite overpower the other classes? Well who knows since you don't want to run a party based play test. Shall I point you to my wizard playtest thread, where you can see the wizard outperforms this barbarian rewrite by a large margin? The rogue also does better, and he also has twice as many skill points for outside of combat activities!
May wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote: Shall we get players to estimate how many utils they gained from playing the class?) Yes, I would like to know what kind of changes in utility they would accrue. That's precisely the kind of information that people might seek, even better would be a side by side comparison between classes. Even better would be a level by level comparison in the percent gained.
When you mention your useless cleric and druid characters, were you saying that you had more fun ignoring all the rules of the game? So what's the point of going through the scientific process, if you would rather play make believe?
I'm saying you can have fun ignoring the rules of the game. Its not the only way to have fun, nor should it be. In fact, at that point you're not really playing the game.
You should be able to have fun actually playing the game. That means being able to do things that matter. The numerical analysis and my play experience suggests martial characters can't do that (do things that matter) at mid-high levels. I've seen martial character players be unhappy because they couldn't really contribute meaningfully.
Utils aren't actually measurable by the way. Its an economics joke, a util is the 'fundamental unit of happiness'. No one has actually figured out how to measure such a thing.
What level Barbarian are you comparing to your EL7 encounters?
Lvl 7?
Pathos wrote: What level Barbarian are you comparing to your EL7 encounters?
Lvl 7?
Last posted build, yes - level 7. Sorry about that - offtopic discussion separated the two (build and playtest post) by more than it should have.
Squirrelloid wrote: Pathos wrote: What level Barbarian are you comparing to your EL7 encounters?
Lvl 7?
Last posted build, yes - level 7. Sorry about that - offtopic discussion separated the two (build and playtest post) by more than it should have. Why are you using an equal level in determining if the Barbraian will win or not? If you look under the CR description in your MM (Taking your CR/EL 7 Succubus as an example), it plainly states that the CR is based off a party of 4 adventurers of an average level of equivelent level.
I know this has been brought up before in this thread, but just where do you get the idea that the CR/EL is based off of a single party member?
Squirrelloid wrote: Regardless, the rules say this is how a 1 character party should perform against challenges EL=level. (Ie, 50-50 fight on average). If you don't like that methodology, this isn't the place for that - propose a better methodology that's actually capable of getting the relevant data or accept the fact that this is the best way of doing it. And if you still don't like it, ignore it and let those of us who care continue without being berated about it. I just would like to understand where you have come up with this information.
Pathos wrote: Why are you using an equal level in determining if the Barbraian will win or not? If you look under the CR description in your MM (Taking your CR/EL 7 Succubus as an example), it plainly states that the CR is based off a party of 4 adventurers of an average level of equivelent level.
I know this has been brought up before in this thread, but just where do you get the idea that the CR/EL is based off of a single party member?
Squirrelloid wrote: Regardless, the rules say this is how a 1 character party should perform against challenges EL=level. (Ie, 50-50 fight on average). If you don't like that methodology, this isn't the place for that - propose a better methodology that's actually capable of getting the relevant data or accept the fact that this is the best way of doing it. And if you still don't like it, ignore it and let those of us who care continue without being berated about it. I just would like to understand where you have come up with this information.
First, Succubus is a terrible example of something the party fights, because any fight with a Succubus is going to be, or at least start, one-on-one (and hopefully one of your more perceptive buddies figures out that cute damsel formerly in distress that seems to want you to get into her pants is actually a demon, or your buddies are sufficiently nearby that when you finally roll your Will Save and start screaming they can come running). She just flees if the party sees through her deception. It says so right in her statblock.
Anyway, the math works like this. For a party of 4, a standard encounter is EL = APL. EL is of course works on a log 2 system. If you have 2 CR N monsters its an EL N+2 encounter.
Now, the DMG also tells you that if you have a number of players different than 4, the APL gets modified. For every doubling of the number of players, the effective APL goes up by 2. For every halving of the number of players, the effective APL goes down by 2. (For intermediates you can use log math to figure out the exact effective APL of the party).
Ie, APL and EL are effected identically by changes in the number of creatures in them, its just that APL assumes 4 creatures at level N for an APL of N, and EL assumes 1 creature of CR N for an EL N, because the goal is to have the standard encounter be more of a speedbump than anything.
Now, an EL+4 encounter has a 50% chance of TPKing the party. (3e gave the actual number. The text in 3.5 is much vaguer because they took the exact number out, but they never changed the system design and the text suggests what the 50% number was telling you in concrete terms). Its easy to see why this is the case - an EL+4 encounter could be a mirror match, which by definition is a 50-50 shot.
Now, when its one character, the effective APL = level -4. This means a EL encounter = the characters level is an EL+4 encounter, and thus a 50-50 shot.
Basically, this paradigm assumes the math on encounter strength and party strength laid out in the DMG is true, and checks each class to see if it measures up. Some classes do (the Rogue is pretty close at every level. Wizards start a little rocky, and quickly move up to about right in 3.5 - 3.P seems to push them totally over the top. Clerics and Druids are a little to a lot strong in 3.5 - haven't looked at the Paizo versions. And that's looking at levels 1-10, I haven't done any testing higher than that, nor do I know many people who have - most people trying to test wizards above 10th level need to make assumptions about what kinds of rules loopholes they're willing to exploit, which makes it hard to do something repeatable).
Squirrelloid wrote: Shall I point you to my wizard playtest thread, where you can see the wizard outperforms this barbarian rewrite by a large margin? The rogue also does better, and he also has twice as many skill points for outside of combat activities! I saw your wizard play test and I think you need to rethink bringing that mess up. As far as I can see your wizard wouldn't really do as well as your test states if you had followed the rules of the game:
Trapped and locked door: loss
Pitt trap: loss
Orcs: probable loss (come on it's a loss)
celestial dogs: loss
elf wizard: probable loss
lemure: win
ghoul: even
zombies: win
pair of stirges: loss
spiderswam: probable win
I think it would be even worst than this if you didn't rely so heavily on your "Wicked cool ILLEGAL hat" and it seems to me that you are running away an awful lot. I don't know if I would count running away as a win, I would call it as it is. I love the wizard class, but not so much as to say they are that awesome at first level, even with the pathfinder rewrite. Well and at this point we really are off the topic.
As for measuring the utils of the classes, you can play test with a group of people, and have them rate the class level by level. Run your build through all 20 levels, it shouldn't take that long as your play test isn't that complex of a set of challenges. Take your rating system and compare the classes. Doesn't sound so hard to me, just a little bit more face time with your players.
Squirrelloid wrote: You should be able to have fun actually playing the game. That means being able to do things that matter. The numerical analysis and my play experience suggests martial characters can't do that (do things that matter) at mid-high levels. I've seen martial character players be unhappy because they couldn't really contribute meaningfully. Well if characters don't feel like they contribute, that is the fault of the GM. I have spent countless hours playing D&D and if a player is unhappy consistently it has nothing to do with class and everything to do with the amount the GM includes them in the game. So if your martial players feel left out that's your doing.
May wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Shall I point you to my wizard playtest thread, where you can see the wizard outperforms this barbarian rewrite by a large margin? The rogue also does better, and he also has twice as many skill points for outside of combat activities! I saw your wizard play test and I think you need to rethink bringing that mess up. As far as I can see your wizard wouldn't really do as well as your test states if you had followed the rules of the game:
I think it would be even worst than this if you didn't rely so heavily on your "Wicked cool ILLEGAL hat" and it seems to me that you are running away an awful lot. I don't know if I would count running away as a win, I would call it as it is. I love the wizard class, but not so much as to say they are that awesome at first level, even with the pathfinder rewrite. Well and at this point we really are off the topic. I don't do anything with the hat that couldn't be done with any other arcane bonded item. And I changed it to an amulet when it was pointed out hats weren't a valid object - that didn't effect the playtest at all. (Seriously, a wizards hat is an iconic item for them, it really should be an option).
Continuing to berate a point that has been acknowledged as wrong by the letter, but which had no actual gameplay effect is both annoying and pointless. Yes, it can't actually be a 'hat', its $ArcaneBondedItem, and it can do everything I said it did during the playtest.
Otherwise if you'd like to point out rules of the game which weren't followed and which haven't already been resolved, I'll be happy to consider your points. Do so in that thread, and not this one.
And the level 4, 7, and 10 runs do increasingly well. I'd love to see a martial class rating a 5 at level 10, and the wizard beat that by quite a bit.
May wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote: You should be able to have fun actually playing the game. That means being able to do things that matter. The numerical analysis and my play experience suggests martial characters can't do that (do things that matter) at mid-high levels. I've seen martial character players be unhappy because they couldn't really contribute meaningfully. Well if characters don't feel like they contribute, that is the fault of the GM. I have spent countless hours playing D&D and if a player is unhappy...
... That a fighter feels like he can't contribute relevantly in a level-appropriate melee encounter is not the GM's fault.
The 2nd edition solution was to hand out an artifact weapon to the fighter to give them good high-level things to do. In 3e, everyone sees through that, and if you have to start handing the fighter an artificat weapon just so he can do things he knows he's being coddled. No one likes being pitied.
May, did you not see the standard he's working under? We want these solo challenges to out-and-out lose 50% of the time. This means that some challenges are going to give him a loss without a chance, his weak areas generally. A party fighting an EL=APL encounter is expected and designed to drastically overpower and win with minimal resource loss, and having a party covers up weaknesses the others would have; as opposed to one class drastically overpowering the other like you seem to think.
I'd have to look at the other playtests, but the pit trap thing does need some consideration. It really should be an objective win for anybody so long as they can get to the other side, whether they fell down or not, which means the barbarian wins if he can climb out of it (only DC 15).
Let's get down to the meat and bones of my problem with your play tests. You are not actually playing, how can you call it a play test with out playing the game?
If you are not playing then it's not a PLAY test. It's number crunching. The last time I played I don't remember a math quiz waiting on the table for me when we started.
Also if players don't feel included or able to contribute, it is the GM's fault. The GM runs the game, it's his responsibility to make the adventure fun for all. I play in a high level game with a person that plays a barbarian, I've never seen him not able to contribute, nor has he ever expressed that kind of sentiment. Good GMs make adventures that are well rounded for all the players, no matter what class.
May wrote: Let's get down to the meat and bones of my problem with your play tests. You are not actually playing, how can you call it a play test with out playing the game?
If you are not playing then it's not a PLAY test. It's number crunching. The last time I played I don't remember a math quiz waiting on the table for me when we started.
Playtest. noun. A test to determine, quantify, or qualify how something performs in play.
May wrote:
Also if players don't feel included or able to contribute, it is the GM's fault. The GM runs the game, it's his responsibility to make the adventure fun for all. I play in a high level game with a person that plays a barbarian, I've never seen him not able to contribute, nor has he ever expressed that kind of sentiment. Good GMs make adventures that are well rounded for all the players, no matter what class.
Translation: GMs should need to rewrite the basic rules of the game to make it even playable, and everyone needs to suck this up and not complain because they have to put in hours and hours of work just screwing with the system rather than developing their world or the next adventure. No one should expect the system works as advertised.
May, frankly your posts are severely offtopic and borderline trolling. If you don't like the system i'm using, feel free to ignore this thread. Its really easy, you stop clicking on it.
Here's the Level 10 build I'll be playtesting in the near future.
Notes:
I'm intentionally avoiding a large disposable item load. It makes it easier to analyze the class itself.
There is a serious lack of useful feats. Most of the [Combat] feats are crap - I suppose I could start my way towards Backswing, but 2 feats for that seems painful, and its a rather poor damage payout for 2 feats. I could grab more +save feats. I could take Weapon Focus (*yawn*). I ended up contemplating Defensive Training and Improved Initiative, which mostly makes me a sad monkey. (Barbarian's really need a feat that lets them choose an extra rage power they qualify for).
His weapon really wants to have the Mage Bane property, but that isn't core. Sigh. Seriously the best weapon enhancement for its cost ever written.
I'm getting a little worried that Baughdvnleob II's damage just isn't going to keep up with monster hp, we'll see how that turns out.
One of the things I've been noticing is that there are certain effects which the barbarian just doesn't have a good answer to, like magical flight. However, just handing the Barbarian 'fly' also strikes me as wrong. I've been contemplating an ability of some sort that lets him dispel a spell effect on a successful attack - I'll post some ideas I've had for people to look at after I finish playtesting present material.
Baughdvnleob II, Dwarf Barbarian
S 19 +4
D 13 +1
C 16 +3
I 10 +0
W 16 +3
C 6 -2
Racial Traits: Slow and Steady, Dkvis 60', stonecunning, keen senses, Greed, Hearty, Weapon Familiarity, Hatred, Defensive Training, Stable
Languages: Common, Dwarven
Level 7:
BAB: +10
Skills (ranks): Perception 10, Acrobatics 10, Climb 10, Survival 10
Class Features: Rage (+4 str/con, +2 will, -2 AC, 70 Rage points), Fast Movement, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Indomitable Will, DR 6/-, Irresistible Force
Rage Powers: Animal Fury, Battle Sense, Surprise Accuracy, Strength Surge, Elemental Rage
Feats: Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Iron Will, Defensive Combat Training
Equipment (~49k): Greataxe +1, Composite Longbow +1 (+6), Mithril Platemail +2, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Cloak of Resistance +2, Belt of Strength +2, Headband of Wisdom +2, Winged Boots, 50' rope, grappling hook, flint and steel, 20 arrows each of various metal types
Combat Statistics:
Senses:
Perception +16 (+18 taste/touch or stonework traps)
Darkvision 60'
Initiative: +1
Mobility:
Move: 30'
Climb +14 (incl. -3 ACP, +2 rage)
Acrobatics +11 (incl. -3 ACP)
Defenses:
HP: 106.5 (126.5 when raging)
AC: 22 (20 rage, +4 vs. giants)
DR: 6/-
CMB: +18 (+4 vs. bullrush/trip, +2 rage)
Fort +12 (+2 rage) / Ref +10 / Will +10 (+2 rage)
+2 vs. spells, poison
Offenses:
Great Axe +15/+10 (1d12+7) (+2/3 rage)
Bite Attack (Animal Fury) +16 (1d6+6) (rage only)
Composite Longbow +12/+7 (1d8+7) (rage only)
CMB +14 (+2 rage)
Irresistible Force (Can dispel magical barriers)
Option: Powerattack (-4 attack, +4 damage; -6/+6 while raging)
Option: Cleave (Full attack = An attack that hits procs an additional attack against another target)
Option: Great Cleave (As cleave, but can keep making attacks as long as he hits and has new targets, all attacks 'at the same bonus' to hit)
Option: Rage (49 pts), +4 Str, +4 Con, +2 Will Save, -2 AC
Option: Battle Sense (Rage Power, 3 rage, Blindsense 30')
Option: Animal Fury (Rage Power, 6 rage, +bite attack)
Option: Surprise Accuracy (Rage Power, 6 rage, +10 to hit to one attack)
Option: Strength Surge (Rage Power, 3 rage, +10 to str check or CMB)
Option: Elemental Rage (Rage Power, 3 rage, all damage this round is of an elemental type)
And the challenges he'll be facing...
EL 10 Challenges
A Trap-Filled Hallway
A Bebilith
A Fire Giant
A Guardian Naga
A Clay Golem
A level 10 Elf Wizard
A Pair of Mindflayers
A Pair of Behir
Twelve Trolls Ok, that should actually be 6 trolls, la la la, but the wizard handled 12 trolls - we'll see how it goes
A Horde of Shadows
1. SqLord. I find these tests interesting.
2. I've been waiting for the detractors of this test model to post thier results using the "group" model. Oddly they don't, its annoying, maybe thier right maybe SqL's right but they aren't DOING anything to prove or disprove thier point. So its just pointless hatred directed at SqL, who's at least doing some work under "some" model. Which is cool cause I feel like I'm getting something out of it. I was reading the Lords of Madness book and it had a encoutner chart that was like heroic vs horrific encounters and where they should occur at which level in the campaign/adventure.
Between how thats written and what The op is suggesting, these are "boss fights" which I find it useful to see how classes perform in said cirumstances.
3. Seriously, posts like "Your testing style is stupid, you results are boring" are just trolling. Please dont' troll here, it's disrupting the testing.
Midnight-v wrote: 1. SqLord. I find these tests interesting.
2. I've been waiting for the detractors of this test model to post thier results using the "group" model. Oddly they don't, its annoying, maybe thier right maybe SqL's right but they aren't DOING anything to prove or disprove thier point.
Huh? There have been over a dozen people (Vigil, tallforadwarf, KnightErrantJR, etc.) posting their group's playtest results.
Midnight-v wrote: 3. Seriously, posts like "Your testing style is stupid, you results are boring" are just trolling. Agreed. S is not going to change his mind on his methodology.
Recent threads in Races & Classes
|
