Though it also has the effect that if you do get hit, it at least absorbs some of the force (which is where a percentage based DR would come into play).
Yeah, I'm down with damage mitigation, I'm just wondering whether it's more like straight reduction or a percentage reduction in 'reality' (that's not the defining issue here, of course; if it is a straight reduction then for the reasons we discussed above, it's pretty useless in the game and that may not be silly, though, given that armour would probably be pretty useless against melee brutes if they did exist. Clearly, we need armour that works in the game).
Personally, I'd be happy to get some more maths to reduce the binary role of Armour Class.
Too hard to tell what it's like in reality. No magic, and nothing stronger than a strong human with a weapon to test it against.
I assume by more maths you mean something other than a means of getting up to +10 more AC if you focus on it and devote a great deal of your cash to it spread in a back loaded fashion over 20 levels. Doubt it needs more math. Anything beyond that just risks double fixing the issues.
It's still technically way to costly as it's taking a large percentage of your overall wealth just to make it a coin toss, especially when you consider the real defenses (cloak of resistance + stat items for saves) come out to be far cheaper. And they do actually work. And grant other benefits such as Con = HP, Dex = Initiative, and Wis... well it helps a few skills, and spellcasting, but aside from those and the saves that's about it. If you aren't focused on those skills and aren't a divine caster, this is obviously the least useful of the three beyond the save purpose.
But, as stated in the OP the first draft was made intentionally conservative.
|
I assume by more maths you mean something other than a means of getting up to +10 more AC if you focus on it and devote a great deal of your cash to it spread in a back loaded fashion over 20 levels. Doubt it needs more math. Anything beyond that just risks double fixing the issues.
I just meant that I'd be OK with fractional damage reduction, for example (as you suggested), if it meant that DR was useful. But in the end, like most people concerned about the problem (including you) I want meleers to not get autohit by level-appropriate melee brutes.
It's still technically way to costly as it's taking a large percentage of your overall wealth just to make it a coin toss, especially when you consider the real defenses (cloak of resistance + stat items for saves) come out to be far cheaper. And they do actually work. And grant other benefits such as Con = HP, Dex = Initiative, and Wis... well it helps a few skills, and spellcasting, but aside from those and the saves that's about it. If you aren't focused on those skills and aren't a divine caster, this is obviously the least useful of the three beyond the save purpose.
But, as stated in the OP the first draft was made intentionally conservative.
The principle in your OP of reducing the cost of Armour/Shield/item-originated Armour Class seems to be a pretty good one (and easy enough to put into the game). We could always argue about the numbers later...
|
|
Know what the three most common creature types in the MM are? If you said Dragons, Magical Beasts, and Outsiders you'd be correct.
Yes, those are the most common in the book. You missed my point that dragons are still not a typical creature.
Note however the first creature is a pure melee brute. All it can ever do is move and attack, not necessarily in that order. In other words, it's like the PC melee brute, except better.
I'm going to assume you mistyped, because the first creature type you or I mentioned is Dragon, not Magical Beast.
I do want to know what tactics and logic Mr. One Trick is supposed to be using,...
I'll gladly provide you with some. Using cover, terrain, and reach, a maneuverable character can improve his chances of surviving. Close-Quarters Fighting is one solid defensive feat. Spring Attack's mechanic is also defensive in nature.
Please don't assume I am advocating boosts to AC alone vs. high-level threats. Miss-chance items are also a valid investment. Feats, skills, and items that help PCs detect hidden threats are also available to reduce the threat of ambushes. I typically advocate a mix of these things for a party. Now that we get down to it, I would also agree that a high AC 'tank' character is challenging and inferior to a more balanced PC build in many situations. I'm simply pointing out flaws and exceptions to your assumptions and offering some advice and alternatives.
Also, everyone owns things that are completely devoid of intelligence (that golem) as all it can ever do is auto attack the closest enemy. So congrats, you can do what a Commoner can. Except this isn't worth bragging about. Oops.
On this, you are wrong. Spellcasters and rogues in particular may be highly challenged by golems. A commoner does not have the feats or hit points to save his party in the same situation. 'Auto-attacking' here doesn't make sense because the melee character is employing one or more feats and tactics against the golem. If you are saying melee without a two-handed power attack is useless, well, that's one opinion. Yes, a one-handed attack does less damage. That is obvious, thank you.
Then they are still low level, or perhaps you're giving them about double the normal treasure and they haven't capped their ACs yet. Regardless, permanent investments that grant diminishing returns are textbook examples of Logic Fail.
Again, you make a wrong assumption. Diminishing returns are a fact for every class in every party role, not just the high-armor PC. If you want to fix that for the whole system, I'll be interested to see the post.
edit: Please respond with a civil tone, at minimum. Your 'fail' and 'oops' statements carry a sarcastic, dismissive, or condescending tone which does not foster open communication.
Most common creature type means you will face it the greatest percentage of the time if chosen at random. Therefore, it's going to come up a lot and therefore be 'typical' in that you will see dragons fairly often. Regardless of statistical probability I then went on to cover various other types of creatures where it amounted to essentially the same damn thing.
I said first creature and not first creature type because I was referring to the Half Fiend Advanced Rage Drake. In other words it may be a creature of the Dragon type, but it doesn't have the meaningful options other dragons do like breath weapons, spells, and respectable flight (60/average is ok, but nowhere near a match for a True Dragons). It's just a big dumb auto attacking melee brute. Just like Mr. So Called Tank, except with higher numbers.
Maneuverable characters are the antithesis of mundanes. See also: Full Attacks, Book of Nine Swords. In other words, you can't do it without making yourself suck so horribly you are completely irrelevant, even if you otherwise would not be. Reach is not valid, because enemies still out reach you. It helps you keep up, but doesn't let you get ahead. Therefore, it is not a defense.
Close Quarters Fighting is respectable. It probably won't stop a massive grappler sort but it does give you a small chance of evasion. It also isn't available in PF, but eh. Spring Attack however just means you've wasted three feats and made yourself irrelevant. Oh and it still gets to full attack you, just you can't full attack back. Oops.
Spellcasters laugh at golems, give the DMs an 'are you serious' look, then proceed to auto own it with a low level spell. Or just get the mindless thing to fall into a pit or whatever and keep going. Either way. Rogues get to easily win as well provided they have a (pick one) Wand of Golemstrike, pair of Deathstrike Bracers, Demolition Crystal on their weapon... otherwise, they sit in the corner and play with themselves. They aren't 'challenged', they're just turned off. Unless they do the pit thing. Commoners? They get the pit option too. On a more serious note, you can make a Commoner charge hard enough to OHKO a golem. That's pretty much all he can do, ever but then that makes him a Fighter... except he gets Listen and Spot as class skills. Commoner gets the point.
Back on topic. Mr. So Called Tanks So Called Tactics amount to slightly different ways of doing the same damn thing with the same damn weakness, therefore the only thing he accomplishes if he did have multiple tricks at best is watering himself down as the same counters negate all his tricks. Still auto attacking. When auto attacking, the win always goes to the guy with the bigger numbers. Intelligence is a non factor.
Melee that isn't two handed Power Attack is useless. This is fact, because it's the only way you have any chance whatsoever of winning an auto attack contest. It wasn't the point I was raising though, so I'm not sure what that bit was even in response to.
Diminishing returns do not affect every class in every role. Some of them (casters) actually keep up. It's not system wide, it is broad archetype wide.
Lastly, the word 'Fail' is not present in this post. Except in the previous sentence obviously. Oops in this context is a tounge in cheek way of getting those responding to not take themselves and this too seriously. In other words it is intended to amuse, not belittle. Were I aiming for the latter, I would be more creative.
Yay for bad forum formatting making responding to many points when it cuts off quotes a huge pain in the ass. Post complete.
Funny thing is I have never really experienced this. In several games.
Keep my AC fairly high for my level, but the GM still hits on occasion but certainly never hits ALL the time.
I can easily pop my AC and defenses up using Tower Shield and Total Defense to keep anything from hitting me.
I soloed a 9 headed cryo-hydra, when it was a few levels higher than me. I took some good damage, but when I needed to turtle down to chug some healing potions the hydra had no chance to hit me. At least none worth worrying about.
When I see threads along these lines I often wonder how much is real mechanics problem and how much is GMs "boosting" their attacks.
I can tell you from play testing Burnt Offerings so far, the poor little Goblins have almost no chance to hit the PCs. Their AC is just too darn high to be easily hit. And the same goes as a player up to level 22.
I assume that the majority of most D&D players just stand there and trade blows instead of using maneuvers and defensive options balanced by full attacks. Kind of like Rock-em-Sock-em Robots.
Turtles are non threats. Your DM coddled you by making it not just ignore your non threatening, inefficient, resource wasting butt. Non threatening due to the turtling. Inefficient and resource wasting because you are actually using healing potions. Clarification added to indicate statement of fact, not insulting.
Maneuvers, barring unnerfed trip are wastes of actions. Defensive actions are either wastes of actions, or turtling which gets you ignored. Rock em Sock em Robots is the name of the game, like it or not. Thinking anything else is deluding yourself.
No, Nine headed hydra are Intelligence 2, they lack the intelligence to make efficient decissions about what is a greatest threat. They will attack whatever hurt it, or what ever is closest or what it wants to eat most. If a wizard is standing back and buffing the fighter in this fight, the hydra is not intelligent enough to realise that the wizard is the bigger threat and go for it.
Having a monster act in a manner appropreate to its levels of intelligence and its natural behaviours is not coddling you, it is being a good DM.
Your statements are not fact and they are insulting. Your personal game style again leds you to make baseless claims of Fact, when in truth it is only opinion.
Edit: This came out slightly more like a personal attack than i would really like. I do beleive however that the point is valid, so please, rather than taking offence accept that despite being very bright, my written language skills suck a little.
The take home message however is a good one, opinion does not make fact and not all monsters make optimial decissions, even those who are in theory capable of doing so.
|
|
It helps you keep up, but doesn't let you get ahead. Therefore, it is not a defense.
This is a logical fallacy. A single feat or item by itself is not going to 'let you get ahead'. That isn't how the game was designed. Modifiers are generally best used by stacking together small bonuses of different types.
Let me try to follow your original build again, to make sure I have this straight. You took a dragon (highest type for str+BAB by CR), removed its special abilities to lower its CR, and then boosted its basic attack even more with a template. The creature represents one threat a high-level group might face, but certainly doesn't represent the average or majority. In a word, it is unbalanced. A CR 20 Demon (Balor) for example, has an attack bonus of +33(which it can then increase with spells and items). I also don't think most DMs pick monsters at random out of the MM, so I still would say that your assertion that Dragons are a common encounter is false.
Is there a low-level spell that spellcasters take to deal with golems? Because I am not familiar with it. Perhaps it is from a splat book I don't own.
Maneuverable characters... In other words, you can't do it without making yourself suck so horribly you are completely irrelevant, even if you otherwise would not be.
Your opinion does not match my experience in this respect. For example, just this week my party's scout/ranger dished out the most damage of the PCs. His maneuverability even helped him 'tank' creatures if they tried to persue him, because they would get only a single attack and his skirmish increased his AC.
Reach...helps you keep up, but doesn't let you get ahead. Therefore, it is not a defense.
This is a logical fallacy. Just because several high CR encounters have large or larger creatures doesn't mean reach is useless. Growth-type spells used on a fighter with a reach weapon can put him/her on much more even terms with a BBEG, and may even keep them from taking extra damage from spiked armor or body flames.
Diminishing returns do affect the spellcasters on the case of magic items, just like everyone else.
Auto-attack contests, maneuvers as non-factors, ... you must have a very boring by-the-numbers gaming table. Do your players/fellow PCs get belittled for choosing sub-optimal builds, too?
Using this tool:
http://www.cuberocks.net/DnD/CritterFilter/CritterFilter.php
And pull up the average attack for each CR
It looks like
CR... # ... Melee_Attack
18... 17... 30.53
19... 20... 32.50
20... 16... 37.31
Which means the average Melee attack at CR 20 is 37... Considering that AC tops out around 40-45 or so for a melee type, that "average" melee attack is hitting 60% to 80% of the time.
The problem is that it's pretty much the same numbers game starting at level 7 or so. I've already run through the numbers in my post here
While the average is closing to 65% hit rate, that's still pretty darn bad considering we are comparing spending 1/2 of all your wealth on AC vs a "average" melee attack.
I think making armor cheaper would help out as it would probably drop the average hit rate closer to 40-50% which is where it really should be for a "tank" character.
|
regarding the OP,
There is definitely a problem in certain level ranges... I would place this around levels 5-12. Lets look at these ranges a bit...
1-5
You have a good starting point for AC vs attack (mind you the players are heroes and statistically should be at a start 20% more powerful then an equal level NPC/creature). Most main tanks will have from 17-19AC and gain 1 AC/level. This growth is consistent with bab growth resulting in the player taking an equal number of hits. (we are using level +2 for attack bonus on average, resulting in 25-35% hit rate/attack)
5-12
This is where it gets interesting... the players AC skyrockets towards a cap (they move up to plate mail, its magic, their shield is magic, they have other magic items), it's not unreasonable to achieve 25-30AC at this point (or more... my cleric usually gets close to 35 at level 12). So we are looking at 1.5AC points per level. This would work well if your player is pouring all his money into the parties artificer/wizard who is spec'd out to churn items for his party, which leaves little for upgrading his offensive capabilities. If this is the case you quickly reach a plateau for AC
13-20
Pre-Epic levels your player has already reached or come very close to his AC cap via items (the rest of his AC must come from crunching his feats/class options). Thankfully this is where players start getting damage reduction, avoidance/miss chance, regeneration etc. Mobs attack ratings also tend to go up in a non-linear fashion, and mobs are averaging 40% or more hit rates, with multiple attacks... and the extra HD just aren't cutting it. This leads to the problem where its the players or the enemy who must kill the other group typically in the first 3 rounds.
I think the biggest problem is there needs to be a baseline...
you have 4 ways of adjusting the ATT vs AC ratio:
Armor/Equipment
Buffs (spells abilities etc)
Innate (class, feats, etc)
Combat options (full defense, etc)
The two most likely candidates for a rigid baseline are armor/equipment and innate (class, feats, etc). That way every combat you go into, things start out pretty regular... then you throw your variables in to push the combat in one direction or another via combat options and buffs.
Armor/Equipment is pretty well balanced, except for the fact as the OP pointed out that it gets so bloody expensive so quickly that you cant be expected to have a optimal baseline without severe shortings in other areas (ie your +1 plate with +8 worth of other things). My solution to this would be a system similar to the above... but making upgrading the same old equipment easier with a straight 50% discount since you are upgrading, not creating from scratch.
Classes are looking quite a bit more balanced (although their damage output is quickly approaching tome of battle levels which just further exasperates the problem of one shot kills...)
The way I see it, players should be cautious and that should be rewarded... but they shouldn't be afraid to strike off on their own to scout a corridor, or be the unlucky guy who has to open a door (you know the monk who is about to die again)... they should have a reasonable (and in this case I mean 60-75% chance) of surviving each round of concentrated attack.
As for players being damage machines, you don't want the players one shotting everything... but except for the leaders of each encounter or in rare encounters of player leveled NPCs... the trash should just be there to inflict minor damage and be an inconvenience... its the heroes and the anti-heroes who control the fate of battle. Those anti-heroes should be equivalent to players or even slightly to moderately stronger (if there is less trash)
|
|
they should have a reasonable (and in this case I mean 60-75% chance) of surviving each round of concentrated attack.
I somehow can't reconcile 'high level play' -- we're talking about the players being some of the most powerful people in the game -- with '60-75% change of surviving each round of concentrated attack'. That's just way too deadly for my liking (and similarly for the opponents) and pretty much part of the problem with high-level play, surely?
they should have a reasonable (and in this case I mean 60-75% chance) of surviving each round of concentrated attack.I somehow can't reconcile 'high level play' -- we're talking about the players being some of the most powerful people in the game -- with '60-75% change of surviving each round of concentrated attack'. That's just way too deadly for my liking (and similarly for the opponents) and pretty much part of the problem with high-level play, surely?
They are also fighting some of the most powerful things in the world, or even more powerful things from outside it. Such things should threaten them.
|
|
They are also fighting some of the most powerful things in the world, or even more powerful things from outside it. Such things should threaten them.
Threaten is one thing. Threaten to the extent that getting one full round attack against me in one encounter and getting one full round attack against me in another encounter should combine to give in the region of a 50% chance of character death*, I don't think that sounds like a lot of fun (and I wouldn't want similar to apply to the opponents, either); I want my fighter to be able to stand up to the enemy and trade some blows. Not only does it not sound like game fun, it blows narratively (even a doomed powerful combatant should last more than a few seconds, storywise) and while it could make sense logically, so would having more durable high-level meleers. I mean, surely we do want doughty fighters than can survive a head-on confrontation with a melee brute? Otherwise, we have 'the fighter, master of the battlefield so long as he's the only one on it', which is pretty much the current situation at high level. World logic pretty much gives us a free choice and given the narrative and game-fun benefits of more durability, it doesn't seem like a hard choice to me.
*Which is about the case for a 70% survivability for a given first full-round attack.
No, Nine headed hydra are Intelligence 2, they lack the intelligence to make efficient decissions about what is a greatest threat. They will attack whatever hurt it, or what ever is closest or what it wants to eat most. If a wizard is standing back and buffing the fighter in this fight, the hydra is not intelligent enough to realise that the wizard is the bigger threat and go for it.
Having a monster act in a manner appropreate to its levels of intelligence and its natural behaviours is not coddling you, it is being a good DM.
Your statements are not fact and they are insulting. Your personal game style again leds you to make baseless claims of Fact, when in truth it is only opinion.
Edit: This came out slightly more like a personal attack than i would really like. I do beleive however that the point is valid, so please, rather than taking offence accept that despite being very bright, my written language skills suck a little.
The take home message however is a good one, opinion does not make fact and not all monsters make optimial decissions, even those who are in theory capable of doing so.
Intelligence 2 is the same as a high end animal. Which isn't great, but does mean they get the predatory cunning and instinct. Now. If a predatory animal such as a wolf, or a tiger, or whatever else can work out to attack the small and weak looking guys first... guess what? That means they aren't going after Mr. Full Plate with all the muscles. Or so I don't get straw manned by the odd beatstick lacking all the metal, just the guy with all the muscles. Which means they might ignore the Cleric at first because they can't process the whole heal thing and he's covered in metal too, but they will be going after that tasty looking wizard, rogue, and any small size PCs (who are also likely the rogue and/or the wizard in that order of probability). You said it yourself. 'Or that it wants to eat most'. Predators cull the weak. It's instinct.
End result is it does the same damn thing for a different reason. Oops. This is Fact. Ain't nothing insulting about it, unless you are so thin skinned that being proven objectively wrong makes you go cry in the corner. If that is the case, perhaps you simply should not talk to me.
This is a logical fallacy. A single feat or item by itself is not going to 'let you get ahead'. That isn't how the game was designed. Modifiers are generally best used by stacking together small bonuses of different types.
What context is this referring to? It's not reach, so what are you replying to with this?
Let me try to follow your original build again, to make sure I have this straight. You took a dragon (highest type for str+BAB by CR), removed its special abilities to lower its CR, and then boosted its basic attack even more with a template. The creature represents one threat a high-level group might face, but certainly doesn't represent the average or majority. In a word, it is unbalanced. A CR 20 Demon (Balor) for example, has an attack bonus of +33(which it can then increase with spells and items). I also don't think most DMs pick monsters at random out of the MM, so I still would say that your assertion that Dragons are a common encounter is false.
Dragons do not get the highest Str + BAB by CR. Other types do it better. The other types might not get the breath weapon and spells to go with that (see also: Just That Badass) however this topic is only for the discussion of AC and other defenses against mundane attacks. Therefore, it does not matter if the creature is tearing you apart in melee because it is a melee brute, therefore that is all it can do ever or is tearing you apart in melee because it is Just That Badass. What matters is it is tearing you apart in melee, even though you've devoted around half your total resources (300k or more) to the specific purpose of not getting torn apart in melee.
My actual point is that what makes dragons Just That Badass is the ability to be competent in melee and have spells, breath weapons, whatever for variety. The True Dragons qualify. This creature however does not have those special abilities. It's just an ambush predator with Int 4, Pounce, Improved Grab, two Rakes, and a Strength based Stun resulting in a creature that jumps on you, does a claw/claw/bite, and attempts to grab. If it succeeds it also gets rake/rake/worry (the stun). That's it. Half Fiend adds various things such as SLAs which could be nasty if it had higher than Charisma 10 (12 after the template) and therefore had a decent save DC but instead are only good for buffing (Unholy Aura), utility (Darkness), and flavor stuff (desecrate). It also gets boosted to Int 8 by the template. Half Fiend does almost nothing to boost its offensive stats. It just gets +4 Strength out of the deal (+2 to hit, 2 damage) for an increase of 3 to its CR. Had I instead not applied this template, 3 of these things would be a CR 20 encounter. Obviously shaving off 2 to hit and 2 damage but putting two more on the field results in a much more difficult encounter. Alternately, advancement rules to increase its HD by 6 would result in gaining 6 BAB and 2 strength which is +8 to hit and +2 damage. Clearly this too is superior. Especially when you consider the two feats, possible size increases, and whatever else that comes with that.
It has the Dragon type, but not the Dragon Badassness. The Half Fiend template dilutes its offense overall. It does provide +4 resistance to saves 1/day via Unholy Aura which is decent in the defense department, along with SR 35 (just high enough to matter a little) and other minor stuff like resist 10 all energy types except sonic.
Is there a low-level spell that spellcasters take to deal with golems? Because I am not familiar with it. Perhaps it is from a splat book I don't own.
It's core. See, golems only ignore spells that allow SR. That means grease = win, illusions that are not mind affecting = win, and fog spells = win. That isn't a complete list. You could also try a Disintegrate on the floor under it or something, but that isn't low level.
Your opinion does not match my experience in this respect. For example, just this week my party's scout/ranger dished out the most damage of the PCs. His maneuverability even helped him 'tank' creatures if they tried to persue him, because they would get only a single attack and his skirmish increased his AC.
1: Do not insult and discredit me by calling my words useless. Opinion + internet = useless.
2: Swift Hunters are limited to one attack a round unless they have Travel Devotion + 9 turn attempts to use it 4/day, or are using Manyshot and therefore taking a huge penalty to accuracy on all attacks.
3: If not the above, your statement is automatically false. Assuming it is and therefore the Swift Hunter was competent... Ok. He's doing moderate amounts of damage. That's nice. Why is mediocre ranking number 1? Why are they chasing, exactly? He does have to be within 30 feet to do even that much after all. And why are you making out as if AC was actually relevant?
This is a logical fallacy. Just because several high CR encounters have large or larger creatures doesn't mean reach is useless. Growth-type spells used on a fighter with a reach weapon can put him/her on much more even terms with a BBEG, and may even keep them from taking extra damage from spiked armor or body flames.
The higher you go, the bigger they get and the longer their reach gets. You aren't getting ahead, you are keeping up. And not even that well. Avoiding spiked armor and body flames is again keeping up. To get ahead, he'd need a reliable reach advantage. Which he was probably getting at the first few levels, but beyond that no.
Diminishing returns do affect the spellcasters on the case of magic items, just like everyone else.
Spells duplicate magic items in many cases, or supersede them. So while their AC is useless too by default, they do have the resources to get enough to matter if they cared. Say around 60. So stuff misses sometimes. However, they have no reason to bother as they get real defenses. Therefore, their defenses stay relevant. And their offenses? That's called spell level progression.
Auto-attack contests, maneuvers as non-factors, ... you must have a very boring by-the-numbers gaming table. Do your players/fellow PCs get belittled for choosing sub-optimal builds, too?
Are you arguing that I should just make up random BS to make things work when they clearly do not? Textbook Oberoni. Because see, even in 3.5 Size and Strength outstrips you, and negates every maneuver, even if they were good. In PF you start with a lower success rate and it drops still lower faster because now you also get negated by the fact BAB scales faster than 1:1. Therefore it falls off the radar even faster. Which means Viable Melee Build number 2 (the tripper) gets negated more and more often by pure accident. Unless of course I coddled him by only ever using Medium and Small humanoids. But that means coddling everyone, because NPC humanoids are dragon hordes, except in a much easier to open package. In other words, I'm giving everyone very easy and very highly rewarding fights. Oops.
Viable Melee Build number 1 is the charger. It only works if you can dash in, eat your AoO, and kill the target in one round. Otherwise, it kills you. Naturally this happens less and less often as well.
Auto attack contests is simply the nature of melee. Only casters and martial adepts get to be interesting, such is the nature of 3.5 (and PF amplifies this effect).
MegaPlex: The thing to keep in mind about the optimization by the numbers handbook is it includes everything in the Monster Manual. Including the stuff that doesn't really care about melee. Therefore the average is lower, in much the same way including the 8 Strength Wizard in melee accuracy calculations lowers the average and makes the end result misleading (you actually need more).
CR 20 creatures get 9 core examples. One is a pure melee brute (Big T) with a to hit around... what? 57 or so? Something like that. 6 are various dragons, who have those numbers as a baseline, but also get as much wealth as an NPC of their level, decent spellcasting ability, and feats which are not factored. End number will be higher. The last two are specifically stated to prefer ranged attacks, with listed combat tactics basically summed up as 'screw over the PCs as much as possible with the good spells, then melee to make the deaths official'. In other words, Mr. Balor and Mr. Pit Fiend don't get into auto attack contests. Dragons lied about their weight for the purposes of weight classes. And Big T is Big T.
Nanyea: Two things. One: Enemy BAB scales better than 1:1, they also increase in Strength faster. End enemy accuracy scales by 2-3 points per level every level, and is pretty consistent. Your AC however scales in a backloaded curve. However, it isn't steep enough. So you start off getting missed a lot, then go on towards getting hit every single time. With the OP, it scales more steeply and thus keeps up. After all, you probably won't get +1 armor until level 4 or more likely 5 because 1k + base cost is a big chunk of 5.4k or 9k, and this is just one item. Not even a primary item (that honor goes to your weapon). By level 15+ you're probably getting about +1 on your armor a level every level due to the way WBL scales at this point. Then there's also your buckler or animated shield to keep up, ring, amulet... ends up becoming still slower.
Two: 'Tome of Battle' levels of damage is extremely misleading. Warblades (the best of them at doing damage) are mathematically proven to be on par with, or inferior to a core only Barbarian for damage output at every single level. The Tome of Battle guys just get more than one trick ever period, and can move more than 5 feet in addition to dealing that damage. That's it. Note: Barbarians get to move and do decent damage too as long as you go out of core. It's called Lion Totem, and it gives them the Pounce ability. Barb 1 gets it (though barring Whirling Frenzy or Haste or something, you don't actually get multiple attacks until level 6 so it's pointless as an early game dip).
|
|
On the subject of what animals do in terms of attacks and tactics, that could and presumably should vary from animal to animal depending on their evolution (or, in the case of weird magically mutated nasties, whatever instinctual behaviours they have from whatever source they came). Predators that attack herds certainly do go for the weak-looking stragglers so in some situations (say, big armoured tanks at the front, weedy unarmoured casters at the rear) one could easily imagine that the casters are the ones they plan to grab and carry off to eat. Once combat starts, they might also associate the casters with the stuff that hurts most, if the casters were going for direct damage.
On the other hand, a short-sighted bad-tempered rhino of an animal might just seek out the thing that reminds it most of itself.
In parts of the world where adventurers are really common or for stupid monsters that are sufficiently rare but also attract parties out to slay them, presumably the really suboptimal instinctive tactics will get selected out.
Long post is LOOOONG. You have been warned. See edits.
On the subject of what animals do in terms of attacks and tactics, that could and presumably should vary from animal to animal depending on their evolution (or, in the case of weird magically mutated nasties, whatever instinctual behaviours they have from whatever source they came). Predators that attack herds certainly do go for the weak-looking stragglers so in some situations (say, big armoured tanks at the front, weedy unarmoured casters at the rear) one could easily imagine that the casters are the ones they plan to grab and carry off to eat. Once combat starts, they might also associate the casters with the stuff that hurts most, if the casters were going for direct damage.
On the other hand, a short-sighted bad-tempered rhino of an animal might just seek out the thing that reminds it most of itself.
In parts of the world where adventurers are really common or for stupid monsters that are sufficiently rare but also attract parties out to slay them, presumably the really suboptimal instinctive tactics will get selected out.
This is D&D. The world loaded with predators and practically the poster child exhibit of natural selection as a direct result due to that, and the fact certain creatures are just innately better than you by virtue of their species (a Bugbear is better at fighting than a human, period so go gain a few levels and come back).
With that said, don't rhinos get trample? They might charge at Mr. Armor because he's closest, then they stomp right over him to harass whoever is behind him. This is admittedly an improvement over Charge > Pounce > half resources wasted on a defense that is not a defense, now Mr. So Called Tank is near dead in the surprise round but still doesn't mean it's just sitting there trading full attacks with the guy.
|
|
With that said, don't rhinos get trample? They might charge at Mr. Armor because he's closest, then they stomp right over him to harass whoever is behind him. This is admittedly an improvement over Charge > Pounce > half resources wasted on a defense that is not a defense, now Mr. So Called Tank is near dead in the surprise round but still doesn't mean it's just sitting there trading full attacks with the guy.
Jesus wept, irritating accidental mouseclick killed post. Which was longer than this one will be.
Anyhow, I just used 'rhino' to mean 'stupid aggressive brute', not the game rhino (which presumably does have trample). Also, of course, the rhino isn't a predator, it's just aggressively territorial, etc.
I don't have a problem with animal behaviours for higher-level predator animals against parties (the sort that are more likely to have encountered parties, both because the predators are rarer and because they are sufficiently nasty that adventurers might end up dealing with them) being sensible. The animal intelligence limitation just means that their instinctive behavioural programs are simple and they don't easily learn new ones, but selection can and should nevertheless pick out the working simple programs.
At the risk of making an arguement for authority, I should point out that this was my field of study at university, so I know just a little bit about it ;)
Intelligence 2 is the same as a high end animal. Which isn't great, but does mean they get the predatory cunning and instinct. Now. If a predatory animal such as a wolf, or a tiger, or whatever else can work out to attack the small and weak looking guys first... guess what? That means they aren't going after Mr. Full Plate with all the muscles.
You are guilty of Anthropomorphism and assumption in your arguement.
- Your assuming that the attack by the hydra is a hunting behaviour.
- That the ability to judge relative weakness in its traditional prey will allow it to judge relative strength of a novel creature.
- Your assuming that it is able to understand that Sword and Armour make the target tougher.
- You ignore the possiblity that the hydra is fighting to protect its territory
- That it is an ambush preditor taking the first thing coming within reach.
Animals do not 'think' in the same way humans do. Surprised and cornered animal animals tend not to make the same assessments that they do when hunting. Instead, attacking the nearest or biggest threat or fleeing if it can.
Or so I don't get straw manned by the odd beatstick lacking all the metal, just the guy with all the muscles. Which means they might ignore the Cleric at first because they can't process the whole heal thing and he's covered in metal too, but they will be going after that tasty looking wizard, rogue, and any small size PCs (who are also likely the rogue and/or the wizard in that order of probability). You said it yourself. 'Or that it wants to eat most'. Predators cull the weak. It's instinct.
Predators do not stick around for protracted fights, they give up if a fight becomes threatening. So a good hit or two from the fighter would likely send a hunting hydra running. One defending its nest, or in someway controlled into fighting, would more likely attack what it considered the biggest threat first. Why, because the principle of Kin selective altruism comes into play. I would die for two siblings, four nephews, or eight cousins.
End result is it does the same damn thing for a different reason. Oops. This is Fact. Ain't nothing insulting about it, unless you are so thin skinned that being proven objectively wrong makes you go cry in the corner. If that is the case, perhaps you simply should not talk to me.
End Result, making claims of fact when you know nothing about the subject is dangerous for your credibility.
The only thing I am assuming is that muscles make a person bigger, and armor makes a person look bigger. That's it. It doesn't necessarily know that metal stick is a weapon (though if it did, that'd mean it'd guess wrong about who is most dangerous to it), or even that armor might hurt its teeth until it tries a bite out. It just needs that simple predatory instinct 'eat the weak looking' and go after the smaller guys such as the Wizard, the Rogue, and any random Halflings or whatever.
Also, define 'a good hit'. Because we're talking about a creature with hundreds of HP, therefore one hit is likely just a scratch that literally heals in seconds due to that Fast Healing bit. While you're at it, show me where I assumed the Hydra was an ambush predator. Are you confusing different statements?
This topic is being epically derailed. I'd tell you to take it to PMs if you want to continue, except these forums don't have PMs. Oops.
The only thing I am assuming is that muscles make a person bigger, and armor makes a person look bigger. That's it. It doesn't necessarily know that metal stick is a weapon (though if it did, that'd mean it'd guess wrong about who is most dangerous to it), or even that armor might hurt its teeth until it tries a bite out. It just needs that simple predatory instinct 'eat the weak looking' and go after the smaller guys such as the Wizard, the Rogue, and any random Halflings or whatever.
Also, define 'a good hit'. Because we're talking about a creature with hundreds of HP, therefore one hit is likely just a scratch that literally heals in seconds due to that Fast Healing bit. While you're at it, show me where I assumed the Hydra was an ambush predator. Are you confusing different statements?
This topic is being epically derailed. I'd tell you to take it to PMs if you want to continue, except these forums don't have PMs. Oops.
Sorry that should say 'not an ambush preditor'
The only thing I am assuming is that muscles make a person bigger, and armor makes a person look bigger. That's it. It doesn't necessarily know that metal stick is a weapon (though if it did, that'd mean it'd guess wrong about who is most dangerous to it), or even that armor might hurt its teeth until it tries a bite out. It just needs that simple predatory instinct 'eat the weak looking' and go after the smaller guys such as the Wizard, the Rogue, and any random Halflings or whatever.
Size as primary prey selection mechanism is an assumption. For instance
research on Octipi and sharks show numerous non- size specific triggers.Hydra have a batterly senses to call upon when selecting prey. It could as easily choose scent characteristics, as a way of selecting diseased prey.
Even with visual senses, relative bulk is not the only possible gauge of weakeness in prey animals. Motion patterns might be the trigger, in which case, humans don't seen look like food, because they move wrong.
Also, define 'a good hit'. Because we're talking about a creature with hundreds of HP, therefore one hit is likely just a scratch that literally heals in seconds due to that Fast Healing bit. While you're at it, show me where I assumed the Hydra was an ambush predator. Are you confusing different statements?
In the strictest sense, any level of damage which come close to requiring more energy to heal than the creature will gain from the prey. This is very hard to calculate given the fantasticial nature of the hydra, but in an abstract game such as this a good rule of thumb would be somewhere in the region between 10%-20% of total hit points. For an average 9 headed hydra, that means some where between about about 10 and 20(being generous as well as there hitpoints are somewhat lower than 100.) This is within the damage potenial of a low level fighter for a single blow. If the hydra lacked Immense fast healing, i would very likely have placed the threshold down at about 5% of total hit points, because it is a solitary hunter. If it where a pack hunter which hunts with close relatives , then this would have been higher.
As a stated in a previous post, my dyslexia kicked me in the arse and i dropped the 'not'. Its actually fairly reasonable to beleive the hydra is an ambush preditor, given that they are solitary, and not especially fast moving water dwellers. I suspect they hunt in a similar manner to crocidiles.
This topic is being epically derailed. I'd tell you to take it to PMs if you want to continue, except these forums don't have PMs. Oops.
Insulting the boards isn't helpful. This is off topic, but should be dealt with. To me the real concern is your over willingness to claim your opinion as fact. A promise to try not to continue would end the discussion here and now, but if it is to continue, you are right, it should be elsewhere.
While this little sidetrack is useful in exploring nominal animal and magical beast behaviours, I think in referencing back to the original point, a nine headed cryohydra is probably the optimal tanking scenario, assuming cold resistance or evasion, higher AC, and a tower shield, amongst all of the CR10 monsters.
This does tie back into one of the problems here, though. The fact that we are talking about a tower shield means that we are not talking strictly AC only defense. The tower shield mentioned in the example can provide full cover on top of whatever AC the character was loaded down with. Add fighting defensively, and this is absolutely the most ideal turtling scenario imaginable. A nine headed cryohydra of CR10 offloads some offensive prowess (less heads and BAB) for a cold breath weapon, Reflex 19 for half unless you have evasion. Let's assume a ring for that, and a decent enough reflex save so that you are more than coin tossing it. I'm going to ballpark with saves at 30% failure for ease, since saves are relatively cheap. It's biting at +13, so against AC 28 it hits only on 15 or better, 30% * (9 * 10.5) = 28.35 average per round. Turtling early in the fight and for the touch attacks to burn the stumps, either by fighting defensively, or using the tower shield for cover, or getting a higher AC beforehand, makes the character quite a great deal safer, since you can make the cryohydra miss on anything but a 20. For the breath weapon, that's [9*3d6(10.5)/1d4(2.5)] * 30% = +11.34 per round with evasion, +24.57 without. Cold resistance, even 5, eats deeply into that damage, since you get that against all 9 rolls (3d6-5). Total average damage at full heads, without evasion would be 52.92 per round, but since a fight with a hydra is about rolling sunder against the heads at CMB +18 (Size Huge +4 + 5 Str +9 BAB), this number will likely shrink as the fight progresses, or grow if you can't touch attack to burn the stumps.
Keep in mind that in general, hydras are, in fact, opponents designed to be either controlled off the battlefield or killed by sunder. Fast Healing 19, and the sunder rule for the heads, ensures that. So while it does sound like good fight, and I'm sure it was, it is exactly the kind of opponent a high AC, high BAB character is designed to fight. The hydra still has 10 ft reach, but the cryo- simply makes it easier to shut down a part of the attack routine. It is also slow. It is essentially a mook squad with a breath weapon, and along with the giants, the best case scenario for a melee opponent.
Edited to correct information on Tower Shield.
ZN: If humans don't move the right way, Hydras don't attack them and human or human(oid)s vs Hydra doesn't happen. Moot point if that is the case, so if this scenario is happening it is not the case.
If it only takes one little hit to scare it off despite the fact it has Fast Healing your damage in 6 seconds or less predators never get any food because even a weak kick or something sends them scurrying.
Insulting the boards? What are you talking about? The subject is extremely off topic and should be covered elsewhere as coddling specific PCs by making it trivially easy to scare off creatures that have little reason to be scared of you as random arbitrary house rules has no place, and no relevance in a discussion about mundane attacks and defenses. I said it should be discussed elsewhere but cannot due to the lack of a PM system. So again, what are you talking about?
While this little sidetrack is useful in exploring nominal animal and magical beast behaviours, I think in referencing back to the original point, a nine headed cryohydra is probably the optimal tanking scenario, assuming cold resistance or evasion, higher AC, and a tower shield, amongst all of the CR10 monsters.
More or less, mainly due to the lots of attacks at very low accuracy. It's an extremely atypical niche though.
This does tie back into one of the problems here, though. The fact that we are talking about a tower shield means that we are not talking strictly AC only defense. The tower shield mentioned in the example can provide full cover on top of whatever AC the character was loaded down with. Add fighting defensively, and this is absolutely the most ideal turtling scenario imaginable. A nine headed cryohydra of CR10 offloads some offensive prowess (less heads and BAB) for a cold breath weapon, Reflex 19 for half unless you have evasion. Let's assume a ring for that, and a decent enough reflex save so that you are more than coin tossing it. I'm going to ballpark with saves at 30% failure for ease, since saves are relatively cheap. It's biting at +13, so against AC 28 it hits only on 15 or better, 30% * (9 * 10.5) = 28.35 average per round. Turtling early in the fight and for the touch attacks to burn the stumps, either by fighting defensively, or using the tower shield for cover, or getting a higher AC beforehand, makes the character quite a great deal safer, since you can make the cryohydra miss on anything but a 20. For the breath weapon, that's [9*3d6(10.5)/1d4(2.5)] * 30% = +11.34 per round with evasion, +24.57 without. Cold resistance, even 5, eats deeply into that damage, since you get that against all 9 rolls (3d6-5). Total average damage at full heads, without evasion would be 52.92 per round, but since a fight with a hydra is about rolling sunder against the heads at CMB +18 (Size Huge +4 + 5 Str +9 BAB), this number will likely shrink as the fight progresses, or grow if you can't touch attack to burn the stumps.
Except for using the turtle shield as cover means that it takes damage instead of you and potentially breaks as a result, and the ring is over half your level 10 WBL on top of the amount needed for the AC gear so you basically have no offense whatsoever even without turtling... Yeah. Also, you can't attack while doing that. The guy also has a +12 Reflex save apparently. It's possible at level 10, but at the same time as all the other stuff not really.
Keep in mind that in general, hydras are, in fact, opponents designed to be either controlled off the battlefield or killed by sunder. Fast Healing 19, and the sunder rule for the heads, ensures that. So while it does sound like good fight, and I'm sure it was, it is exactly the kind of opponent a high AC, high BAB character is designed to fight. The hydra still has 10 ft reach, but the cryo- simply makes it easier to shut down a part of the attack routine. It is also slow. It is essentially a mook squad with a breath weapon, and along with the giants, the best case scenario for a melee opponent.
Edited to correct information on Tower Shield.
Hydras are trap monsters. See, they're supposedly designed to reward players that were 'smart' and took Improved Sunder. Yes, it actually says that. Of course, as anyone with a brain already knows taking a feat to become better at breaking your own stuff, which you need to be good or even relevant doesn't work out. In fact it is an extremely unintelligent and irrational thing to do for reasons that should be blatantly obvious. Even if you do have it, that is at most one head gone per attempt at a cost of two attack actions at the absolute minimum. Suffice it to say you aren't winning that contest. Meanwhile Fast Healing 19 is pretty good, but not that hard to simply brute force. Think of it as an automatic Cure Serious Wounds every round with average results (3d8+5 = 18.5, close enough). At level 5, one, or perhaps two of your party members can brute force that when a CL 5th CSW is level appropriate, even if it could be used round after round. Which it can't, but not the point. All of them will tear it apart if they focus fire. This is at level 10, so simply beating the crap out of it is even easier. And since it is one big guy alone, focusing fire is an inevitability.
If however you fall into the trap, you spend a whole lot of time doing a whole lot of nothing, meanwhile it gets to attack with all heads as an attack action including as an AoO.
Condescension aside, COL is right. Some people saying, "well, I havn't seen this" isn't actually changing that. How have you not? Just look at the class tables. You need no further evidence. How a system with scaling offense but without scaling defense, got through the WOTC playtesters, I'll never know, but it did, and we should fix it.
The problem isn't just BAB versus AC. The problem is also that most class features are offensively based, and the defensive abilities (barbarian DR, monk bonuses to ac) are far weaker than the offensive abilities (sneak attack, favored enemy).
That being said, I don't think changing magic items are the way to fix the system. The offensive and defensive items actually work against one another relatively well. And that solution doesn't work for DMs, like myself, who run rare magical items, and frown on magic-item-mart. Since the problem starts with the classes, I think it should be fixed with the classes. Namely, I think Barbarian DR needs to be doubled, fighter armor training needs a bit of a boost, and rangers need a dodge bonus to AC (perhaps tied to favored enemy). Rogues and bards aren't really meant to be taking a ton of hits, so I'm not sure they need more abilities. Clerics are gods, wizards could use a new greater mage armor, and druids..well, they're quite good. Maybe more barkskin...
I'm aware that these aren't the big fixes that have been proposed, but I'd rather fix things in moderation.
ZN: If humans don't move the right way, Hydras don't attack them and human or human(oid)s vs Hydra doesn't happen. Moot point if that is the case, so if this scenario is happening it is not the case.
If it only takes one little hit to scare it off despite the fact it has Fast Healing your damage in 6 seconds or less predators never get any food because even a weak kick or something sends them scurrying.
Insulting the boards? What are you talking about? The subject is extremely off topic and should be covered elsewhere as coddling specific PCs by making it trivially easy to scare off creatures that have little reason to be scared of you as random arbitrary house rules has no place, and no relevance in a discussion about mundane attacks and defenses. I said it should be discussed elsewhere but cannot due to the lack of a PM system. So again, what are you talking about?
Welcome to the economics on nature. Most animials die before sexual maturity. Most preditors have low success rates on hunts.
Cheetahs abandon a chase within a minite if they don't catch prey quickly and only have a 50% ratio of success, which is actual excilent by the standards of most preditors.
It is neither random, coodling or arbitary, it is how nature works. As ever, your personal play style, highly optimised gamist from what i have seen, clouds your ability to understand that people playing in no optimised or non-gamist game, do not suffer the same issues you find in the game.
What you consider coddling is in fact a fairly realistic Simulationist responce of a monster to an encounter. A hunting Hydra has no reason to stick around if it gets damaged more than it fast heals, two turns in a row. If it is defending its nest, the it will exibit different behaviour, such as attacking what ever it perceives to be the biggest or closest threat.
Condescension aside, COL is right. Some people saying, "well, I havn't seen this" isn't actually changing that. How have you not? Just look at the class tables. You need no further evidence. How a system with scaling offense but without scaling defense, got through the WOTC playtesters, I'll never know, but it did, and we should fix it.
The problem isn't just BAB versus AC. The problem is also that most class features are offensively based, and the defensive abilities (barbarian DR, monk bonuses to ac) are far weaker than the offensive abilities (sneak attack, favored enemy).
That being said, I don't think changing magic items are the way to fix the system. The offensive and defensive items actually work against one another relatively well. And that solution doesn't work for DMs, like myself, who run rare magical items, and frown on magic-item-mart. Since the problem starts with the classes, I think it should be fixed with the classes. Namely, I think Barbarian DR needs to be doubled, fighter armor training needs a bit of a boost, and rangers need a dodge bonus to AC (perhaps tied to favored enemy). Rogues and bards aren't really meant to be taking a ton of hits, so I'm not sure they need more abilities. Clerics are gods, wizards could use a new greater mage armor, and druids..well, they're quite good. Maybe more barkskin...
I'm aware that these aren't the big fixes that have been proposed, but I'd rather fix things in moderation.
Well, if you frown on magic item marts you are accepting, willingly or not mundanes will never rise above mook status. And if you don't mind parties of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard to avoid that whole Red Shirt thing, that's cool. This is neither sarcasm nor insulting. It simply is. I mean I suppose you could figure out when you are expected to get your +x to y stat, and apply it as some inherent bonus instead but this turns out tacky and very non flexible so as to be unworkable (see also: Vow of Poverty) and is doing the same thing just with slightly different fluff text.
Now, you could double Barb DR. It's still too small to actually do much, so it won't make much of a difference. Armor Training... unless you're willing to pack on 10 AC over 20 levels, it's not going to change enough to matter. Same with the Ranger, except worse because he has further to go to reach the point where stuff misses him sometimes. Rogues may not be meant to be hit, but they still will simply because SA has a max range of 10 yards, and the PF designers are quite hellbent on ensuring they can apply their SA under as few conditions as possible. One of which is flanking, so they're stick meleeing on a D6 with no real defenses. Or was it D8? Either way, no real defenses and relatively low HP means they get happily mauled by whatever they're trying to backstab. Kind of like early edition thieves, that were useless except for traps.
The magic item thing was chosen because it steepens the back loaded curve required and already follows about the same pattern without needing to be bent. You can take a saw to the square peg, or just use a round one. The latter is much more straightforward.
Edit: One minute is ten rounds. In D&D potential combat, that is borderline eternity. Whereas 'hits once for trivial damage' takes what? One second? Two? It'd happen before Mr. Hydra's initiative comes up by default. Also last I checked, the predators on earth don't get that big. A cheetah is about human size. About the worst nature has to offer is a Polar Bear or something. Which is pretty mean, but still doesn't compare to a huge freakin' nine headed ice breathing thing. So why would you assume Earth rules apply to something that outclasses any Earth predator by a landslide?
Your idea is completely arbitrary and coddling because Mr. So Called Tank isn't even really hurting it with that pokey stick of his. It's a scratch that heals in seconds. You really see some multi ton monstrosity whimpering and crawling away because you gave it a freakin' paper cut? *stare*
My games are not 'highly optimized'. They are 'practically optimized'. In other words I assume anything that's going to be fighting does not want to die and therefore does what they can to ensure this as best as that creature possibly can. And if it doesn't want to fight, that it has some means of getting the hell out or otherwise avoiding it. Yes, that means no spamming Toughness. Max or even highly optimized though? No. Truly optimized characters would tear my creatures apart due to the simple fact I'm not using any of the really mean tricks because I am sticking to basic logic, not going out of my way to make things strong. Hell, all three of the casters in my game are losing multiple caster levels to other stuff. By the rules of optimization this is a Cardinal Sin because there is no way possible to ever get something better than caster levels unless it is horrifically broken. That's just how good caster levels are.
Except for using the turtle shield as cover means that it takes damage instead of you and potentially breaks as a result, and the ring is over half your level 10 WBL on top of the amount needed for the AC gear so you basically have no offense whatsoever even without turtling... Yeah. Also, you can't attack while doing that. The guy also has a +12 Reflex save apparently. It's possible at level 10, but at the same time as all the other stuff not really.
Sure, but the rules for cover essentially give you evasion with the tower shield. If the armor is cold resistant, or you chug a potion of energy resistance, that essentially will almost completely shut down the breath weapon as a threat, as on average you are looking at 4.5 damage per breath, or 1.8 damage per round. That's with only cold resistance 10 and failing all saves.
The ring of evasion as an idea was something I pulled in without pricing it, but using the shield for cover, assuming it is +1 or +2 at this level, will make it hardness 7 or 9, HP 30 or 40. If the DM is kind enough to give you a tell a round before you are breathed on, or you turtle and get out of melee within the odds, that gives you evasion and a cover bonus to your reflex save, which the shield will get as well, as it is a magic item, and gets to use your reflex save. Cheese-tastic, but not that it matters. Cover is optimal against the cryohydra's breath weapon, assuming the hydra never charges when you were expecting it to breathe. Curiously, the breath weapon can't scratch a magic tower shield, thanks to cold being only 25% effective against objects, so this is so optimized against this single opponent it's laughable. Against other energy damage types, the tower shield fares far worse.
10.5-7, even still, works out to 3.5 * 9, which will likely destroy the shield in one round if you cover and the hydra melees you when you thought it would be breathing. A +2 tower shield fares better, though, but still gets destroyed within a few rounds of melee when used as cover. If the DM handwaves some of the rules because he wants the PC to win, then most of this stuff isn't even going to be looked at. Cover will be cover, the PC will know when the hydra is going to breathe, and the magic tower shield will last forever against a hydra in melee, because some DMs like the PCs to have fun tactical options that aren't within the RAW. The entire example is moot, as although it is in every way one of the most optimal examples within RAW that supports a turtle, with a small handful of missteps, 6 AC and the source of evasion is gone.
... wrote:
Your opinion does not match my experience in this respect. For example, just this week my party's scout/ranger dished out the most damage of the PCs. His maneuverability even helped him 'tank' creatures if they tried to persue him, because they would get only a single attack and his skirmish increased his AC.
1: Do not insult and discredit me by calling my words useless. Opinion + internet = useless.
A quick search of this thread finds no one calling your words useless. Nor am I seeing anyone insult you or "discredit" you. Obviously you feel very strongly about 3.5 and your feelings are instilling in you a bit of drama that we, the Paizo staff and moderators, would prefer you left out of your posts. I've asked you a few times before, as has Gary: leave the drama behind. Talk like an adult. Play nice. I know you think that if you use tact the others on this board won't "get" you or will "fail to understand you" and that will cause you untold hardship as you have to stoop to their level to explain yourself repeatedly but we'd much rather you used tact and civil discourse. Your need to invent drama, to find goblins where they're not, to insist there's a tribe of posters who follow you around and harass you is just distracting. More people will listen to you if you just talk and not infuse everything with vitriol.
Go ahead and take three days off to think about your posting style.
|
One thing that no one has taken into account is the fighter's use of blur or displacement effects or the use of barkskin (or haste). These potions are cheap and effective and pay for themselves out of the treasure horde of these mid to high level foes. They provide miss chances, which, in the world of "AC is binary" means an effective AC boost of 20% or 50%, while haste makes spring attack more effective. These items boost armor class only when it is really needed, so the fighter can sink even more of his WBL into additional defensive potions and damage-dealing gear. Lastly, there is the caster to cast slow, enervation, or ray of enfeeblement. Why would a party not use these obvious advantages when fighting a melee brute?
I guess the answer to be one or more of the following:
* "Fighters are the sux" and are a resource drain, stealing treasure and valuable spells from the casters.
* Buffing fighters or allowing fighters to self-buff is a waste of the wizard's precious resources.
*Working together as a group is a waste of the caster's time.
Amirite?
One must remember that Paizo has changed the way that the CR system works.
Aside from homebrew monsters/dragons, I would like to see a list of monsters that can easily hit (>50%) a character with an AC of 40. (Not saying that anyone is wrong; just interested in seeing the numbers.)
Well, if you frown on magic item marts you are accepting, willingly or not mundanes will never rise above mook status. And if you don't mind parties of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard to avoid that whole Red Shirt thing, that's cool. This is neither sarcasm nor insulting. It simply is. I mean I suppose you could figure out when you are expected to get your +x to y stat, and apply it as some inherent bonus instead but this turns out tacky and very non flexible so as to be unworkable (see also: Vow of Poverty) and is doing the same thing just...
LOL. Is is bad that I'm used to this by now? I'm not against magic items. I just prefer that they be kept special. The reason that fixing the system with magic items is a poor fix is that, whether you consider them another aspect of customization or not, other DMs have differing opinions. And, I think it's silly to use a magic item system to fix a character system.
As for my fixes, I agree, not enough. However, for the sake of backwards compatibility, I prefer small fixes over large ones.
Another thing that a friend and I have tossed around is an increase of base AC equal to 1/4 or 1/2 BAB (my preference is 1/4). I know this is a large change, but it would go a long way to mitigate the issues of scaling BAB versus nonscaling AC.
Lich-Loved, this level of moderate buffing is entirely within the purview of any character, though. While it is absolutely within my assumptions that a potion or other use of blur and barkskin is presumed as necessary, haste or other movement enhancers are likely a part of most melees who are confined to the ground, and fly or air walk become assumptions at certain points, and protection from evil becomes almost too good to ever want to go down, the real issue is that when CRs start getting wonky around about CR10, particularly with creature advancement, AC plays a greatly reduced actual role in a character's defense.
Yes, non-AC boosters are good, but relative to actual AC, they play a greatly enhanced role as opponents advance against the PCs. At a certain point, the best AC you can get isn't good enough to mean anything, and you are constantly fighting off the effects of improved grab or swallow whole if AC is all you have. Assuming buff time is dangerous, because it assumes the players have the actions available to be buffing. Since resources are finite, especially when generating high level challenges, such things are finite options.
An opponent who has been slowed, and otherwised de-fanged, is a threat which can be engaged by cohorts, summons or other minion level characters, and should pose a minimal threat to PC-level opponents. If the only way for a melee to have a chance against a CR even opponent is to have that opponent debuffed by magic, then there is a problem with the assumptions which placed the opponent at that CR, since the melee has no resources to deliver that debuffing.
|
|
Lich-Loved, this level of moderate buffing is entirely within the purview of any character, though. While it is absolutely within my assumptions that a potion or other use of blur and barkskin is presumed as necessary, haste or other movement enhancers are likely a part of most melees who are confined to the ground, and fly or air walk become assumptions at certain points, and protection from evil becomes almost too good to ever want to go down, the real issue is that when CRs start getting wonky around about CR10, particularly with creature advancement, AC plays a greatly reduced actual role in a character's defense.
And, from my point of view - rightly so. There is only so much various kinds of armor can do for you. Magic needs to fill the gap in the form of making the character harder to locate, causing misses and the like. I like that mankind has not been able to make armor that equates to dragon's hide; that their abilities eventually come up short when compared to the toughest magical creatures out there. This is where magic comes in to provide the next level of protection, doing things that no material armor can do.
Yes, non-AC boosters are good, but relative to actual AC, they play a greatly enhanced role as opponents advance against the PCs. At a certain point, the best AC you can get isn't good enough to mean anything, and you are constantly fighting off the effects of improved grab or swallow whole if AC is all you have. Assuming buff time is dangerous, because it assumes the players have the actions available to be buffing. Since resources are finite, especially when generating high level challenges, such things are finite options.
Except in surprise situations, high level groups should have a good idea of what they are facing. In the 13th level game I run, the party almost always has arcane eye and prying eyes up and the cleric does his best to understand what foes exist in an area. The group uses conjured creatures as scouts and generally does not commit until they know what is was they face, or at least have time for a few actions before diving head first into battle (wind walk helps greatly here since the group could spend hours flying about scouting before being forced to deal with anything). Thus I don't see lack of buff time as an indication that armor classes need to improve in most cases; the party should have ample time to buff. Swallow hole and grabs have proven to be useless because most members of my 5 person group (everyone but the wizard, who has his own solutions) uses freedom of movement, which prevents these sort of threats completely.
An opponent who has been slowed, and otherwised de-fanged, is a threat which can be engaged by cohorts, summons or other minion level characters, and should pose a minimal threat to PC-level opponents. If the only way for a melee to have a chance against a CR even opponent is to have that opponent debuffed by magic, then there is a problem with the assumptions which placed the opponent at that CR, since the melee has no resources to deliver that debuffing.
I agree with you here, except that I don't see anywhere where the game rules indicate that the fighter should be isolated and be forced to fight a monster solo with CR equal to his own level. The fighter could probably solo (using his aforementioned self buffs) a monster near his CR, perhaps one or two CR lower, but since CR was selected based on a party of four PCs with all buffs lasting 10 minutes or longer running, the imbalance you perceive really should never occur except in an extreme situation. It really isn't a valid comparison to say that the fighter is lacking when he can't defeat a foe of his CR without help from another party member. Should the fighter be placed in that situation, then I also agree that there is a problem with the assumption that placed that opponent there, unless it was the fault of the players themselves that caused this kind of mismatch.
One must remember that Paizo has changed the way that the CR system works.
Aside from homebrew monsters/dragons, I would like to see a list of monsters that can easily hit (>50%) a character with an AC of 40. (Not saying that anyone is wrong; just interested in seeing the numbers.)
can i add to the request that some of them be PC classed and NPC classed monsters of a lower CR, which to my mind should be making up a fairly large proportion of what a High level party should be fighting.
|
|
The fundamental problem is that what exactly that a melee type can provide a party that the spellcaster cannot provide as a single action of its own class. Because as far as I can tell. Summon whatever of an appropriate level by itself replaces a fighter in most combat situation in a single spell! So why exactly should a caster feel obliged to burn a turn helping out a melee type when he can wholesale replace him within the exact same period of timeWhy would a party not use these obvious advantages when fighting a melee brute?
I guess the answer to be one or more of the following:
* "Fighters are the sux" and are a resource drain, stealing treasure and valuable spells from the casters.
* Buffing fighters or allowing fighters to self-buff is a waste of the wizard's precious resources.
*Working together as a group is a waste of the caster's time.
Amirite?
The point whether summoning an animal of the same CR of the fighter (eg a dire lion at CR5 to replace a 5th level fighter) is debatable, but assuming for the moment that a dire lion is always superior, your comment merely illuminates the point I am making. The underlying issue brought up in the OP is not really "fighters need an AC boost" it is "fighters are inherently bad and need a complete overhaul because they can't 'compete' with the wizard", a topic that has been done to death three times over on this board. This thread is just another aspect of this point of view.
With that being said, I do believe fighters could use a boost. I just wanted to make sure everyone here knew we were rehashing the same issue that has been talked about for months on dozens if not hundreds of threads. I am more than willing to concede that when the game is played outside its design boundaries (ie the fighter soloing a foe equal to his CR), the fighter does not perform as well as other character classes. I am also aware that when the game is not played cooperatively, where every player basically says: "How can I make you obsolete?", that the fighter fails to measure up. (Aside: why doesn't the party consist of all fighters with Wizard cohorts in these games I hear about when this issue comes up? Then the fighter-types can tell the wizard's player to not bother to show up at the table.)
Whether the game is played cooperatively at your table or not, fighters are very often buffed and foes debuffed at many gaming tables, which should come as no surprise since this was how the game was designed to be played. "Fixing" the fighter by providing all sorts of class enhancements so it is fully able to stand on its own without any teamwork or magical expendables will break the many games out there where the fighter will end up with all of these proposed enhancements and still be buffed by the party wizard and cleric. This will skew the CR system completely (as in force a reset of the CR's since an encounter that used to take 20% of the party's resources no longer does) and add elements to the game that I personally, and at least a few others like me, disagree with from a fighter flavor perspective (like cheapening magic items even further or adding wuxia elements to the fighter).
One must remember that Paizo has changed the way that the CR system works.
Aside from homebrew monsters/dragons, I would like to see a list of monsters that can easily hit (>50%) a character with an AC of 40. (Not saying that anyone is wrong; just interested in seeing the numbers.)
Frost Giant Jarl (Blkgrd 8) or other advanced Giant, Genie, or Vampire with full BAB class levels should be able to do so within reasonable CRs, Nightcrawlers, Elder Earth and Air Elementals almost can, the Big T can, and any of the big CR20+ Outsiders could, but they would probably be doing something else. Rebuilding some of the lower CR Outsiders with better melee feats would also probably allow them to, as well, but that is outside of your original request.
Pulling dragons off the list of SRD MM monsters shortens the list substantially, of course, as sufficient monsters that have high BABs are rare without advancing dire animals or magical beasts. Following advancement rules:
Aberration, construct, elemental, fey, giant, humanoid, ooze, plant, undead, vermin +1 per 4 HD added
Animal, magical beast, monstrous humanoid +1 per 3 HD added
Dragon, outsider, nonassociated class levels +1 per 2 HD or 2 levels added
means that for anything with full or 3/4 BAB, namely giants, vermin, animals, abberrations, humanoids, magical beasts, constructs, and monstrous humanoids, get really dangerous in terms of effective BAB per CR granted. Undead even with 1/2 BAB per HD, break even when advanced with full dragons or outsiders, although end up with more HD on the side.
|
|
"Fixing" the fighter by providing all sorts of class enhancements so it is fully able to stand on its own without any teamwork or magical expendables will break the many games out there where the fighter will end up with all of these proposed enhancements and still be buffed by the party wizard and cleric.
I imagine the casters would then reserve their slots for something more worthwhile than keeping the fighter barely viable. That will present problems of its own, but I doubt that casters are a bottomless well of charity if fighters stop being feeble.
Mister TreeLynx - You seem like a very reasonable man with many good ideas. Would you by any chance be willing to present off site contact info to me so that we can discuss some gaming matters?
I have spoilered contact information in my profile. It would be nice to have PMs on the boards, but I suppose Paizo has enough trouble keeping them running.
|
|
"Fixing" the fighter by providing all sorts of class enhancements so it is fully able to stand on its own without any teamwork or magical expendables will break the many games out there where the fighter will end up with all of these proposed enhancements and still be buffed by the party wizard and cleric.I imagine the casters would then reserve their slots for something more worthwhile than keeping the fighter barely viable. That will present problems of its own, but I doubt that casters are a bottomless well of charity if fighters stop being feeble.
It will present problems of its own, specifically a problem leading to circular improvement of the fighter. It goes something like this:
(1) CRs are based on a party of four (wizard, rogue, fighter, cleric) running with buffs with durations of 10 minutes or higher
(2) XP charts, spells per day and so forth operate under the assumption that a party of four uses about 20% of its resources defeating a foe of CR equal to the average party level
(3) Fighters are seen as weak in this grouping, so they are improved so that that they don't need buffs. This frees wizards to do other things with their slots
(4) The party of four with the enhanced fighter fights a monster of CR = party level, except the enhanced fighter now contributes more and/or the wizard does more since he is further hurting the foe rather than buffing the fighter
(5) This means the CRs are now wrong since less than 20% of the party's resources are used in a CR=party level encounter. So the CRs for all monsters are reset to reflect the party's new power
(6) Now the fighter is relatively weaker again, since what before was a CR5 encounter is a CR3 encounter, and the fighter fails to contribute by himself against a CR5 encounter. So, the fighter needs "fixed" again
The problems stems from the fact that cooperation between the classes is not only assumed in the rules, it is mandated by the CR system. Expected results have never been defined for one on one combat; the game is, at its heart, cooperative and lacks the resolution of individual contributions in combat. From the way 3x encounters were designed, it seems like the designers intended a party to be only as weak as its weakest link. A new style of play has arisen, however, that says that the party must all be as strong as its strongest link, or the strongest link is "wasting his actions". It is a fundamentally different design approach and one I don't think you will ever fix properly unless you define the fighter to be the standard class, drop all other classes to his level powerwise, and then reset CR's so that an appropriate CR encounter uses 20% of the group's resources, again making the game cooperative and everyone as strong as its new strongest link - the fighter.
4e almost did exactly this - they redefined a wizard to be weaker than his 3x counterpart and then made everyone a wizard. The same approach applies, they just chose a different base class. The end result was a balanced game (from what I have been able to learn and a playtest of my own) but it hardly cheered "innovation and differentiation among the classes". I really don't want to see my fighters become wizards or my wizards to become fighters. For this view, I am willing to pay a penalty that the fighter will never be as good as the wizard after a certain point. I like the way that feels much better than the 4e-style alternative.
You must not read or watch the same fantasy material I do...
To add...
Fafhrd and the Grey MouserConan
All of LoTR except Saruman and Gandalf (Gandalf was a 5th level wizard, anyone?)
Elric of Melniboné (grey area to be sure, more gish than anything else)
Of these, I think D&D draws most from the Newhon stories of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
|
|
(Aside: why doesn't the party consist of all fighters with Wizard cohorts in these games I hear about when this issue comes up? Then the fighter-types can tell the wizard's player to not bother to show up at the table.)Becuase the wizard cohort tells the fighter player not show up and the DM plays the game by himself
Bah, the cohort can be used to buff and manufacture for the fighter, who does all of the real work himself. It is only your inherent bias toward wizards' superiority that makes you view non wizards as useless. Fighters very well *could* hire wizardly help that did just that, couldn't they? And they could get it, wouldn't they? The wizard is only needed for a couple of things, and not even all of the time and then he can go stand in the back while the fighting men do the real work. In fact, without a mage sucking all of the party treasure, the fighters could buy more useful items and purchase spellcasting on an as-needed basis.
It is just a matter of perspective, really.
|
|
You must not read or watch the same fantasy material I do...
Well the dragon examples really are not equivalent to D&D foes, are they? The dragons in D&D are pretty nasty, don't have "weak spots" in their armor, are wizards as well as fierce fighters and are especially cunning and intelligent, not falling for foreseeable traps. It is no wonder they fell to "normal" fighters in your examples. You look at these examples and think that the D&D fighter is weaker; I look at the example and say that D&D dragons are much stronger than found in fantasy. Maybe we should make dragons match our expectations rather than making fighters something they aren't in fantasy?
Regarding Drizzt, the much maligned dark elf *very* rarely meets a wizard in his wanderings. When he does, the wizard does nothing like what a D&D wizard would do and nowhere close to what a GamingDen wizard would do. Should the dark elf run into one of those, the novels would come to a very rapid end. He isn't even an example of anything in this case, except what a fighter can do when he never meets a mage worthy of a spellbook.
|
|
No your meta-gaming ... and other good stuff...
Yes I am, but it is only to point out a difference in perspective. For what it is worth, I would like to see the fighter buffed as well, just with the utmost care so he does not become something other than a fighter. Decorating him with more trinkets (as the OP suggested) doesn't fit my idea of fantasy. Making him into "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Ball Z" also doesn't meet my definition of a fantasy fighter. The problem is that the game was built around the sort of cooperation you abhor, so fighters were human rather than superhuman. You won't be satisfied until the fighter is the equivalent of the wizard (eg super human through gear or otherwise) and I won't be satisfied if he is, *and* I think if he were to become this superhuman, then major aspects of the game, from CR to the ability to buff others, would need to be re-examined to keep the game from just spinning out of control.
I guess my point is that I understand your and CoL's frustration, it is an ugly situation, but no easy fix exists. It isn't as simple as making the fighter much better, though. The game balancing factors (eg resources acquired and spent to accomplish goals) also has to change from being cooperative to competitive with corresponding examination of big things (can or should characters expected to be buffed before a fight? If so, who does the buffing? Why would they want to?), what magic items fighters can consume or use to further enhance their super powers (should the game assume fighters have a certain WBL? What sorts of assumptions about expenditures should the new fighter have at each level? Should he be expected to funnel resources into potions or will fights be scaled such that these sorts of things aren't needed and the fighter's powers alone are enough?) and the like.
I hope that the fighter can be made better without breaking the cooperative nature of the game, it becoming a supers game or the game becoming more like Gauntlet, where everyone just tries to "own the monsters", no one buffs anyone and every player races to be first to the treasure and food piles.