|
The party did a fair share of utilizing social skills and sneaking for nearly a whole session to ensure they would battle the BBEG alone. Help was on its way, but not quick enough. Although the PC's did get a lucky break in the final fight, BBEG activated his boots of teleporation and tried to get in on the mage who had a greater anticipate teleporation up. The party really seemed to enjoy the battle with the Dracolich at any rate, especially the Paladin, for both mechanical and flavor reasons. As a caster the Dracolich used nothing more than some staple spells and flashy/fluffy options that I'd normally stray from as a PC (such as Meteor Swarm). The PC's had very good saves, I think only a couple of saves out of a good few dozen failed over the course of the battle.[quote=]You could be better at building casters, OR you could have sub-consciously chosen spell that made your party cry- ie you hit the fighter and rogue with will saves, dropped a fireball on the casters, and had enough "time" to stack 3-4 buffs on your Dracolich, where as you just threw the warrior out there without any support at all. That BBEG Caster should have been there to support his boss, no? Or at least SOME other lower level casters should have been there as a personal body guard? So not "character" building problem, more of an ENCOUNTER building problem.
IMO, anyway.
It sounds like they were well played and well prepped for the main boss, but less well prepped for the Dracolich.
Advance knowledge and being able to set a battle on your terms is worth a lot of CR in my experience.
|
|
I can't wait for Paizo to adjust for CoDzilla 5 players. Considering he doesn't even own the Advanced Players I suspect it doesn't make much business sense.Particularly given the conversations on these boards, I can think of about 4 people offhand I could game with for one session without anyone wanting to commit homicide. That's not a lot.So... while I'm finishing catching up on reading this thread... am I among those four people? lol.I can't speak for CoDzilla, but my own thoughts on this statement are below.
I don't really expect Paizo to adjust for me. I have some problems with the rules and the game, and in some cases I've lobbied for improvements in areas that I see problems with (like giving the monk fricken real full BABfor example) but the more extreme ends of my playstyle are things I might discuss from time to time for various reasons, but never really try to push onto Paizo.
And this is why I like you guys.
@ kyrt-ryder:
While DR at lower levels would be nice, as it is the Fighter would be stepping on the Barbarian's toes (next to Raging, DR is his major shtick), although either way, DR 5 simply isn't enough, even /-, when you look at the damage high level attacks are capable of doing.
Honestly, since ignoring Fear effects was already a Paladin thing, I would've rather seen Fighter's "Bravery" ability protect against Charms and Compulsions. That change alone I think would offer Fighters at least a noticable increase in defense, however slight.
Until it was pointed out to me in this thread, I wasn't even aware that they could retrain. I haven't had a chance to actually read the specifics of it, but at least being a core mechanic is a step up over 3.5's Fighter.
Does anyone have a link of Kirth's rewrites. I'd like to really go through them, and know I've seen them in a thread or 2, but can't seem to find them at the moment.
The party did a fair share of utilizing social skills and sneaking for nearly a whole session to ensure they would battle the BBEG alone. Help was on its way, but not quick enough. Although the PC's did get a lucky break in the final fight, BBEG activated his boots of teleporation and tried to get in on the mage who had a greater anticipate teleporation up. The party really seemed to enjoy the battle with the Dracolich at any rate, especially the Paladin, for both mechanical and flavor reasons. As a caster the Dracolich used nothing more than some staple spells and flashy/fluffy options that I'd normally stray from as a PC (such as Meteor Swarm). The PC's had very good saves, I think only a couple of saves out of a good few dozen failed over the course of the battle.[quote=]You could be better at building casters, OR you could have sub-consciously chosen spell that made your party cry- ie you hit the fighter and rogue with will saves, dropped a fireball on the casters, and had enough "time" to stack 3-4 buffs on your Dracolich, where as you just threw the warrior out there without any support at all. That BBEG Caster should have been there to support his boss, no? Or at least SOME other lower level casters should have been there as a personal body guard? So not "character" building problem, more of an ENCOUNTER building problem.
IMO, anyway.
It sounds like they were well played and well prepped for the main boss, but less well prepped for the Dracolich.
Advance knowledge and being able to set a battle on your terms is worth a lot of CR in my experience.
They thumped a handfull of the Dracolich's minions (mostly Ice Devils, a couple Horned Devils), but one of the Ice Devils barely survived and Teleported out to alert its boss. It waited for an oppurtune moment and got the drop on them along with a small contingent of devilish soldiers, who died quickly, though the battle with the Dracolich himself ended up being about 20 rounds; I don't remember exactly how many, but round / level buffs were actually wearing up at high levels.
DR comes at such a high level when huge+ monsters often have power attack and are simply doing high enough damage that DR 5/- isn't really that nice of a buff. DR x/- should show up earlier and be more stackable with other sources like adamantite armor.
I'd be okay if all of the pure melee martials (fighter, paladin, barbarian, and ranger) all had moderate access to DR effects. That would supplement the higher AC, and higher HPs nicely.
Combined with better saves, I personally prefer going with 1/2 HD + stat + 2 if favored progression. This restores the martial character to his 2e levels of defenses which I think it really critical when you factor in how many high CR foes can throw around high DPR and SoL effects.
|
|
They thumped a handfull of the Dracolich's minions (mostly Ice Devils, a couple Horned Devils), but one of the Ice Devils barely survived and Teleported out to alert its boss. It waited for an oppurtune moment and got the drop on them along with a small contingent of devilish soldiers, who died quickly, though the battle with the Dracolich himself ended up being about 20 rounds; I don't remember exactly how many, but round / level buffs were actually wearing up at high levels.
Nice.
CoD will tell you combat never lasts more than a few rounds.
Our high level 3.5 Forgotten Realm's party is on track to meet with Myth Drannor's Dracolich, and this post only makes me look forward to it more.
|
|
Dragons are somewhat of an exception, because they combine HUGE fly speeds, spellcasting, and some other traits. A dragon that's played intelligently can drag a fight out for what seems like an eternity if the battlefield is exposed enough.
They thumped a handfull of the Dracolich's minions (mostly Ice Devils, a couple Horned Devils), but one of the Ice Devils barely survived and Teleported out to alert its boss. It waited for an oppurtune moment and got the drop on them along with a small contingent of devilish soldiers, who died quickly, though the battle with the Dracolich himself ended up being about 20 rounds; I don't remember exactly how many, but round / level buffs were actually wearing up at high levels.Nice.
CoD will tell you combat never lasts more than a few rounds.
Our high level 3.5 Forgotten Realm's party is on track to meet with Myth Drannor's Dracolich, and this post only makes me look forward to it more.
Oh I know
The umbral dragon in Scarwall nearly TPKed a party I was running. They all entered the courtyard flying, and when they went in one room the dragon came out behind them. The whole thing ended up over the castle with the Dragon trying to divide and conquer. The sorcerers multiple enervation spells dropped him low enough for the cleric/barbarian to finish him.
This is why all my players at levels they can afford such things carry both fly and invisibility potions at all times.
Nice.CoD will tell you combat never lasts more than a few rounds.
Our high level 3.5 Forgotten Realm's party is on track to meet with Myth Drannor's Dracolich, and this post only makes me look forward to it more.
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
I don't think it's completely out of the question to shave off a round from that total if everyone has a high DC SoL or the ability to pounce and do hundreds of HPs + to single target foes.
Even stepping back from some of the Char Op builds that obviously were based on sketchy rules lawyering there are plenty of 3.x builds that can do astronomical direct damage or can spam metamagiced spells.
For me that highlights the problem with playing with pathfinder + 3.x material. Pathfinder core has it's issues but it's not complete and total rocket launcher tag given some decent houserules. 3.x IMHO was a lost cause.
DR comes at such a high level when huge+ monsters often have power attack and are simply doing high enough damage that DR 5/- isn't really that nice of a buff. DR x/- should show up earlier and be more stackable with other sources like adamantite armor.
I'd be okay if all of the pure melee martials (fighter, paladin, barbarian, and ranger) all had moderate access to DR effects. That would supplement the higher AC, and higher HPs nicely.
Combined with better saves, I personally prefer going with 1/2 HD + stat + 2 if favored progression. This restores the martial character to his 2e levels of defenses which I think it really critical when you factor in how many high CR foes can throw around high DPR and SoL effects.
Perhaps it would be good to institute a rule akin to 3.5's Unearthed Arcana's armor adds DR? Or to a lesser extent, armor converts X damage to non-lethal damage. At that point damage would be easier to deal with. It would heal quicker and be less likely to result in character death, adding to the 'being tough' idea behind martials.
[quote=]CoD will tell you combat never lasts more than a few rounds.
Our high level 3.5 Forgotten Realm's party is on track to meet with Myth Drannor's Dracolich, and this post only makes me look forward to it more.
Well, the Dracolich did have a lot of abilities to swat enemies away while he continued to cast. Coupled with contingent defenses he could take a bit of debuffing to effectively deal with. I believe the Paladin took him down with a critical hit (we were using the Critical Hit Deck, so while undead are generally immune to extra critical damage, there are a handful of effects which are able to affect them in that cute thing) while hovering at Death's door with 1 HP after taking the brunt of an Ottiluke's Freezing Sphere (3/Day Quickened SpL) and a full attack. Divine Vigor actually saved his life.
Also, are you playing or DM'ing the Dracolich?
|
|
Nice.CoD will tell you combat never lasts more than a few rounds.
Our high level 3.5 Forgotten Realm's party is on track to meet with Myth Drannor's Dracolich, and this post only makes me look forward to it more.
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
I don't think it's completely out of the question to shave off a round from that total if everyone has a high DC SoL or the ability to pounce and do hundreds of HPs + to single target foes.
Even stepping back from some of the Char Op builds that obviously were based on sketchy rules lawyering there are plenty of 3.x builds that can do astronomical direct damage or can spam metamagiced spells.
For me that highlights the problem with playing with pathfinder + 3.x material. Pathfinder core has it's issues but it's not complete and total rocket launcher tag given some decent houserules. 3.x IMHO was a lost cause.
3.5 is hard. I won't run it and I only play with a DM who has a strong but reasonable hand.
I find the SoL spells aren't as SoL as some like to say. I'd love someone to make a DC save chart so we can look at what the actual percentages are vs average, median, and high saves at = CR, but it is too many variables for me to want to mess with.
|
|
Also, are you playing or DM'ing the Dracolich?
I'm a player in that game. It's a huge group that has played from 1st level in various incarnations and now are working with the Blade Singers to deal with the various factions in Myth Drannor.
We have a really good DM that has literally taken the group through hell and back. The group is a bit to big at this point (Wives and Girlfriends suddenly appeared through the years) and so it takes forever to get through rounds at this level, but it is still a lot of fun.
|
|
3.5 is hard. I won't run it and I only play with a DM who has a strong but reasonable hand.
Could you explain exactly what was so difficult about 3.5 for you Ciretose?
I might be the exception here, but I ran a 'relatively' all in game (obviously a few things were nerfed, and a lot was modified because I considered it too weak) without any difficulties myself.
In the sense that a lot of the books are broken (spell compendium in particular) and so you have to say "No" a lot because of poorly thought out design (I'm looking at you Polymorph...)
And we have two wizards in the group who both have a bad habit of reading only the good parts of the spell when they try to cast. Our DM is really good, so he catches most of these, but he's also been playing since high school and knows the rules backwards and forwards.
So far Pathfinder has worked much more smoothly.
Perhaps it would be good to institute a rule akin to 3.5's Unearthed Arcana's armor adds DR? Or to a lesser extent, armor converts X damage to non-lethal damage. At that point damage would be easier to deal with. It would heal quicker and be less likely to result in character death, adding to the 'being tough' idea behind martials.
Personally I like Armor as DR but the Unearthed Arcana implementation was problematic because it reduced AC by a value of X. While this wasn't inherently bad it just meant that creatures with power attack could just hit you that much harder which with all the boosts to PA including damage multipliers meant that Armor as DR often meant you were taking more damage from CR appropriate foes.
I haven't played around with armor as DR in Pathfinder yet but due to the less open ended nature of power attack it might work better than it did in 3.x
Ultimately though I think you'd need to do armor as DR in addition to the base +AC in order to really achieve the desired effect of high durability.
This post is a bit of a threadjack, but the previous comment about hitpoints and armor and such has me thinking.
Hitpoints are generally referred to as an abstraction. As luck, as stamina a character burns up to avoid taking serious 'real damage.'
But if that's the case, then why the hell does the game make it take sooooooooo long to heal naturally? Seriously, a high level character could be bedridden for MONTHS to get back to full health without magic.
It seems more logical that a character's HP would naturally recover pretty quickly while resting, and that over a good night's sleep (assuming the character is also eating properly) a character should have his hit points back.
Some people have HPs functioning as "luck preventing a more serious blow" but others actually have it where the high level warrior can actually shrug off a greatsword blow or a fall from a 100 ft cliff, get up and walk away relatively unscathed.
Personally I think a reserve hit point system or a WP/VP system would work better than straight HP but WP/VP systems tend to go over like a lead balloon with most D&D fans.
The Unearthed Arcana WP/VP system is pretty flawed but if you use them more like 2 successive HP tracks (WP = Con, VP = HD) then you can achieve some cool effects like making VP completely refresh after a rest while WP damage restores slowly (like it would naturally).
That reduces the need for constant CLW spam which I think is one of the primary limiters for martial characters.
If I can lose HP to the point where I only have WP left but I can rest and be good as new for the next fight then my utility as a fighter type goes way way up.
I'm a player in that game. It's a huge group that has played from 1st level in various incarnations and now are working with the Blade Singers to deal with the various factions in Myth Drannor.
We have a really good DM that has literally taken the group through hell and back. The group is a bit to big at this point (Wives and Girlfriends suddenly appeared through the years) and so it takes forever to get through rounds at this level, but it is still a lot of fun.
Well fun is the key component of the game, after all. It's great that you have a DM you like. With so many styles of play and personalities, I find that it is very difficult to find that DM that is the perfect fit. And good luck with the Dracolich (I've never seen an 'easy' Dracolich battle). In the words of Moira from Fallout 3, "Try not to die!"
This is a pretty cool idea. Something like 20% of all damage taken with light armor, 40% with medium, and 60% with heavy could really make armor useful and fun. Solo it doesn't really change things unless you're packing a bunch of potions or a few cornercase self healing wondrous items, but it sure makes that Channel Energy more useful.
Yeah, then even rogues in lighter armor would get a boost. Although perhaps based off of AC bonus from armor, that way enchanted light armor past a certain point would give a larger bonus. Also some concession should be made to help the Monk in this regard. Poor fella' has enough problems to deal with.
I think that in UA the varient to give DR also cut down on AC granted by armor (I always ignored that part).
EDIT: Apearently vuron already said that, perhaps I should read all replies before I start responding to things...
While you 'could' make it based on the AC the armor provides, that just makes some armors within a given weight category even more superior to others, and that's something I really don't like. That, and I'm not sure what would be a good AC:Non-lethal damage conversion ratio off-hand.
This is a pretty cool idea. Something like 20% of all damage taken with light armor, 40% with medium, and 60% with heavy could really make armor useful and fun. Solo it doesn't really change things unless you're packing a bunch of potions or a few cornercase self healing wondrous items, but it sure makes that Channel Energy more useful.Yeah, then even rogues in lighter armor would get a boost. Although perhaps based off of AC bonus from armor, that way enchanted light armor past a certain point would give a larger bonus. Also some concession should be made to help the Monk in this regard. Poor fella' has enough problems to deal with.
I think that in UA the varient to give DR also cut down on AC granted by armor (I always ignored that part).
EDIT: Apearently vuron already said that, perhaps I should read all replies before I start responding to things...
That is true. That said, I still think that before I instituted a houserule that allowed for armor to convert damage to non-lethal damage I'd want someone compariable for Monks, especially because with their Wholeness of Body ability, this could be a great boon and much needed boost to the class.
That is true. That said, I still think that before I instituted a houserule that allowed for armor to convert damage to non-lethal damage I'd want someone compariable for Monks, especially because with their Wholeness of Body ability, this could be a great boon and much needed boost to the class.While you 'could' make it based on the AC the armor provides, that just makes some armors within a given weight category even more superior to others, and that's something I really don't like. That, and I'm not sure what would be a good AC:Non-lethal damage conversion ratio off-hand.
This is a pretty cool idea. Something like 20% of all damage taken with light armor, 40% with medium, and 60% with heavy could really make armor useful and fun. Solo it doesn't really change things unless you're packing a bunch of potions or a few cornercase self healing wondrous items, but it sure makes that Channel Energy more useful.Yeah, then even rogues in lighter armor would get a boost. Although perhaps based off of AC bonus from armor, that way enchanted light armor past a certain point would give a larger bonus. Also some concession should be made to help the Monk in this regard. Poor fella' has enough problems to deal with.
I think that in UA the varient to give DR also cut down on AC granted by armor (I always ignored that part).
EDIT: Apearently vuron already said that, perhaps I should read all replies before I start responding to things...That's easy enough. They're fricken monks who've trained their bodies to be weapons. (Watch some xiaolin damage taking demonstrations some time.)
So a Monk would either count as wearing light armor (20%) or you could, as GM, decide to give them the middle ground between light and medium (30%)
Bam, done.
I'm going to have to play test it a few ways first. At fist 3/10's felt too small mechanically, but then there is greater milage out of it because of WoB, and I'd hesitate to give a very high percentage, because even as a warrior focused on physical perfection I feel it shouldn't really outshine the heavier armors.
Oh how the wizard cried and wailed when a spell component went missing, was damaged, or was unavailable in town.I don't think "The classes are perfectly balanced if the GM plays as though he's out to get or punish the players of the good classes" is a very good argument. I mean, hell, I can beat Tiger Woods at golf if the referees help me out and keep running him over with golf carts.
Among other things, it disallows you from running any published adventure as written.
That wasn't my argument at all, Dire Mongoose, and frankly I take great offense at the notion that I am somehow punishing my players. Not only do I NOT punish my players, I wrote the proverbial book on counseling new GMs on the difference between themselves as neutral GMs and fairly representing the NPCs who do wish to interfere with the players' characters.
What you are missing in what I said, what seems to have eluded you, is that the game itself, AS WRITTEN, requires material components for spells. Those material components cost money or need to be found, quested for, etc. They can run out, and they can be damaged, or even confiscated by rival mages.
Since I was not arguing anything, merely offering the benefit of my substantially large and bulbous and swelling bank of experience, it might be helpful to go back and re-read my post with that in mind.
In my experience, there is no gap, and that needs no argument, since it is my only experience. The point is that if the GM is paying attention to all aspects of the RULES AS WRITTEN, including the cost and use of material components, including the rules on getting rest, and if the GM is acting as a good disciple of Morgan Freeman and loving Infinite Variety, and if he is thinking of all sorts of ways to challenge all of the players (note challenge does not = "punishment"), then all things should be equal, and like me, that theoretical GM should not be experiencing such a gap.
My same large and meaty experience has taught me that other GMs DON'T think of those things - I certainly have not encountered such scenarios on occasions when I was running a PC, and the results are spoiled rotten metagamers like the one I described previously (who by the way was not only a metagamer, but a rampant cheater, but that's another story).
If I am wrong, the proper way to address my argument is to present some other reason why material components and eight hours rest exist, or to argue why they should not be used as plot points or challenges. It is not to simply accuse me of "punishing" somebody before moving on, which is barely one step removed from calling me a name. As to not being able to use published adventures, that is not a real argument in this case, since most published adventures don't mention where to go to get material spell components, and it could just as easily be the luck of the dice that keeps the PCs locked in at a location where rest is not practicable. To my mind your statement would assume that said published adventure lists a solution for every detail of the core rulebook, which we all know is not at all the case.
First off, apologies for not reading the entire thread. It's just that I'm getting a little bored with this subject matter.
I play many pathfinder campaigns, as well as having a little experience GM'ing. One thing that most of them have in common is that it is the classes like Paladin, Fighter and Ranger that win most of the encounters for the group through sheer damage.
One example comes to mind (cause we played that campaign this week)Is our Kingmaker campaign. The GM has already issued a houserule in this campaign that only the base weapon die is multiplied on a crit after several episodes where the ranger dealt 600+ damage to various short lived BBEG's. This was at level 12 I think.
Well this week again it was the ranger, fighter and paladin doing most of the work. The wizard (elven necromancer lich) who has a +19 on SR checks (at level 13) and good DC's didn't manage to land any spells. While me myself who play a cleric in this campaign had enough work just keeping everybody alive.
I'm not complaining tho. It was an awesome 15 round fight and we had fun. I just want to warn against nerfing casters, because I'm not seeing them as being that dominant.
Oh and I'm hoping to avoid parttaking in a lengthy discussion, I just wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Forcing people to spend precious game time "questing" for bat guano and eye of newt is pretty much totally out of the norm for modern games.
It's pretty much assumed that adequate collection of standard (those that don't cost GP) is pretty much handled in the downtime of the game.
Other than "What are you guys doing during your downtime?" Collecting components, crafting gear, drinking ale, flirting with wenches, are pretty much handled with monthly upkeep and maybe a skill roll.
Monthly upkeep is pretty much assumed to handle all the bookkeeping elements that bogged down 1e games like "What did I eat?", "How much does this inn cost?", and "Do I need to spend x number of days rooting around in caves looking for bat guano".
I'm not saying that AoE spells and called shot Combat Maneuvers might not deprive the caster of components but those "balancing" aspects are a) more trouble than they are worth and b) some of the most un-fun throwbacks to old school roleplaying imaginable.
I'd be tempted to say Badwrongfun but I typically think just about any rule is workable given enough group buy-in. I can't imagine that flying in most groups though.
|
In the sense that a lot of the books are broken (spell compendium in particular)
YMMV I havent had such a problem, spells like close wounds help to avoid deaths (wich I hate), lesser vigor helps with the 15 minute adventuring day, and most others help with not playing again and again the very same spells, making spellcasters feel diferent to each other, that said conviction, mass, could a problem although it helps with the players not diying, it also makes saves very easy very fast in the adventuring career.
I think pathfinder is just fine as is. I agree there can be a slight discrepancy in some cases, but its not anything that breaks the game or requires a rewrite.
I remember reading a post by somebody on here (professorcicero?Something like that I think.) that said that martial characters should be like the pure warriors from myth. Beowulf holding his breath for ages to fight at the bottom of a lake, etc.
I think that would pretty much take care of everything I could want out of the game. =]
I've seen Kirths retools that make feats advance by BAB, and I love the idea. I'd make feats a lot more powerful and character defining though. It's a major boost in power, but since everyone gets feats it's still basically even across the board. But thats another topic.
I think PF is just fine. Use common sense and use the antagonists intelligently and the game is fine.
What you are missing in what I said, what seems to have eluded you, is that the game itself, AS WRITTEN, requires material components for spells. Those material components cost money or need to be found, quested for, etc. They can run out, and they can be damaged, or even confiscated by rival mages.
Perhaps I could also quote the rules as written for you:
Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
One thing ive noticed, is in the 'wizards rule martial drools' type threads Theres alot of talk of combat ending in only a few rounds stuff being beaten without effort Etc.
for the most part it doesnt seem to corespond with any game ive ever actually seen played.
|
I 'could' link you to the old ones, but I should warn you he's got a version 2.0 coming out that I haven't seen yet.Does anyone have a link of Kirth's rewrites. I'd like to really go through them, and know I've seen them in a thread or 2, but can't seem to find them at the moment.
I have the v2 disc in hand, and am planning on setting up a SRD style site soon. Keep an eye out for the link.
I never found a gap. Never thought there was a gap, and to paraphrase the most spectacular movie of 1991, believe there is "no [gap] but that which we make."
I think if you are seeing a gap it's because the GM is not challenging the WHOLE party correctly and/or you are experiencing what I have come to think of as Self-Gratification through Metaspell.
That is to say that the player of the spellcaster is not putting himself in the more conservative, more responsible shoes of his character, but is letting loose the full brunt of his power in anticipation of the always-available eight hours rest and unlimited spell components via his generous GM (and probably gratifying himself in a way the rest of us would find creepy if we knew about it).
I had one of these metagamers in our most recent party. He truly got off on letting loose tremendous power to show up the fighters. He loved to teleport around every obstacle. But Bruunwald is not a lazy GM. Bruunwald is a detailed GM who likes variety in encounters and settings.
Oh how the wizard cried and wailed when a spell component went missing, was damaged, or was unavailable in town. You should have seen how red his face got when I kept the party up all night in a haunted castle and ruined his rest (and theirs). He was not used to GMs keeping track of such things and had taken them - and the power that came with such lax details, for granted.
The only place I've ever found that gap was in how lazy this guy's previous GMs had been in challenging him.
This says it all. If you see a "gap", fix it. It shouldn't be the fault of the game itself. It's like blaming a car maker for a wreck because the Speedometer can reach 160 MPH.
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
I don't see any evidence for this. I think I remember reading a Dev post that said 4-5 rds would be about average, which fits with my experience.
I don't see any evidence for this. I think I remember reading a Dev post that said 4-5 rds would be about average, which fits with my experience.
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
It's been a long time since I read that thread but I thought the average and expected number of rounds was pretty low.
Considering in the DPR olympics a single level 10 fighter typically averages 35%-45% of a CR appropriate foe with a full attack I think those sort of averages is probably appropriate.
Round 1- Charge or Vital Strike (or full attack if archer)
Round 2- Full Attack
Round 3- Full Attack
Pretty reliably kills a CR appropriate foe.
Against CR +1 or +2 foes the PCs will typically outnumber so fighter + rogue can double team and 3 round.
This can break down if the starting distance is too far and the PCs aren't ranged specialists or if the defenses are high enough that whiff factor on iterative attacks goes way way up.
What breaks this scenario down is if the caster gets off a SoL that enables a CDG the first round. All of a sudden the monster that is expected to last 3 rounds is only lasting 1 round. In some cases that's 20-25% of the monsters but in some cases that's 50-100% of the threat.
That's where the game breaks down and why abilities like persistent spell (or bouncing spell) are so problematic for game play. Anything that significantly boosts the odds of success for a SoL effect has a chance of ending or at least crippling an encounter with one action.
Throw in all the utility that the average prep caster can do and it's not really a wonder why some people really dislike the quadratic caster -linear fighter school of class design and why games like 4e went to draconian measures to redress that balance.
Considering in the DPR olympics a single level 10 fighter typically averages 35%-45% of a CR appropriate foe with a full attack I think those sort of averages is probably appropriate.
I do not believe that the DPR Olympics (given the conditions established) is a reliable gauge of actual game play, but YMMV.
|
|
I do not believe that the DPR Olympics (given the conditions established) is a reliable gauge of actual game play, but YMMV.Considering in the DPR olympics a single level 10 fighter typically averages 35%-45% of a CR appropriate foe with a full attack I think those sort of averages is probably appropriate.
I don't think I've ever seen any theoretical model for melee/spellcasting comparison presented in a discussion like this one that would qualify as a "reliable gauge of actual game play." The DPR Olympics aren't any less reasonable than fights occurring on infinite planes, for instance.
The DPR Olympics aren't any less reasonable than fights occurring on infinite planes, for instance.
I wish I had an Infinite Plane. Then Wonder Woman and I could hang out....
|
|
The DPR Olympics aren't any less reasonable than fights occurring on infinite planes, for instance.I wish I had an Infinite Plane. Then Wonder Woman and I could hang out....
But your conversations would be continually interrupted by duels between linear fighters and quadratic wizards. Best to just let it lie.
I don't see any evidence for this. I think I remember reading a Dev post that said 4-5 rds would be about average, which fits with my experience.
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
The closest thing I could find was a reference to an editorial made by James in regards to AP design that "average" encounters were typically 2 rounds and "major" encounters were 4. Most of my Dragon Magazines are in storage so I can't do a better attribution than that.
Dave Noonan I believe said something like the average lifespan of an encounter in 3.x was something like 5 rounds.
Personally I think epic fights with end bosses being resolved in a couple of rounds is anti-climactic. I vaguely remember someone talking about how their group 1 rounded Dragotha in AoW. While that is certainly an outlier the simple fact that it's even remotely possible in actual play is kinda depressing.