Brian Bachman wrote: That's a pretty impressive mortality rate, unless you are playing more than once a week or so, roughly a character death every couple of sessions. Most groups I'm familiar with wouldn't find that real fun. It's indicative of a style of play where everybody is going for the jugular at all times, and it sounds like the enemies are played with the intention of doing maximum damage to the party at all times, regardless of whether that is the smart move for them or not. To me the smart move is to ignore the helpless characters and focus on the ones still capable of hurting you, knowing that you probably have time to finish off the helpless ones later. Unless you know you have no chance of surviving the fight and are fanatical, in which case you will just try to do the most permanent damage you can before dying. Not how most enemies should logically be played, IMHO. But I assume that style is fun for you or you wouldn't still be doing it after 5 years. I can certainly see it as being exciting, as long as you aren't too attached to your character. It's not that high, considering that 3rd edition came out what, 10 years ago? 11? And during about half that time, we had two different games going at once. It is also somewhat front loaded - there were a lot more deaths early on, before we realized what did and did not work. The process took a while because it was necessary to rule out other factors.
As for the approach, in combat, either actual combat or this people do fight fast and viciously, because combat is over in seconds regardless of whether you like it or not. You certainly cannot do things like run away, so fighting viciously is your only potential way out.
Not to mention this is a world where you can beat someone within an inch of their life and not only will they still be able to fight back completely unimpeded, but the common healing magic can erase even that in seconds. And if you actually knock them unconscious, but don't kill them, they can still easily get back up. Making sure they stay down is a weak swing away. That same weak swing isn't going to cause any damage to anyone else worth noting. And even if it's not a weak swing, they'll still shake it off. Hitting the guy that is down, to actually reduce the enemy's numbers is the only smart move to make.
As for being attached to your characters, Rocket Tag is fast, vicious, and high risk high reward. But provided you have rockets too, deaths are surprisingly infrequent. It helps that we all meet the criteria I state, or as close to it as possible. But ruling out such things as low tier classes being killed because they are low tier and therefore die easily to things that better characters can survive, and those 8 I mentioned before there's been about... 20 character deaths in total, over the past 5 years, and about 100 character levels between the games involved. That's not very common at all. Sure, the deaths that do occur still do impose permanent setbacks for the most part. If they occurred often, well it'd be time to make a new character, even if the old one could be brought back it'd no longer be worth it to do so as they'd be too far behind.
That is why the competence training I mention is so critically important, so you can deal with enemies that are actually played intelligently without dying every other combat.
CoDzilla wrote: No, what you are describing is a success rate much greater than 75%. You're right, I thought you were talking about a 75% chance per action, not overall rate.
I found this a enjoyable read, as I think every persons take on the game is based on their experiences and preferences (for the GM's).
I think most people have put up what I feel is viable, and below, or above such, but I will digest quickly what I feel is the case.
There is 2 different types of viablity.
1. Party Viability
2. Character Viability
Party Viability will always trumph Character Viability past levels 6-8 because of the magic system/ease of character bring healed/brought back. So any character the contributes heavily to Party Viability past level 8 will always continue to "live" if they wish so (and the Gods/GM agree) because the party needs them.
But a character needs to really be viable by itself in order to become part of the viability of the party.
Character Viability will be the amount at which a character can normally be successful within their "role". Because of this being a game of almost unlimited "roles" it is hard to pinpoint a Characters Viability without defining the role they fill, but they must be able to be successful at that role.
Lets look at one of the typical "accepted" roles within almost any viable party, shall we?
The Meat Shield/Tank/Big Stupid Fighter or just.. The Fighter
The viability again is based upon the role, and how much that role is needed, and the character can fill it. If the campaign revolves around parliamentary procedure, and a ton of role playing with combat and muscle needed only every 2-3 sessions this character will be based (and the viability changed) compared to a kick-in-the-door smash-there-head type campaign, right?
So even something that is normally accepted as a normal role, has a hard time being viable in a non-typical environmental condition (i.e. gaming world).
So this is important why we first decide what the total Party Viability niche they must fill, the amount of character/pc's/players that must be required/expected to do so.
For example if we say that a campaign typical has the following ranges of things
Combat 40% (give or take 15%) [Combat 25%-55%]
Roleplaying 30% (give or take 10%) [Roleplaying 20%-40%]
Traps/Skills 20% (give or take 10%) [Traps/Skills 10%-30%]
Puzzles 10% (give or take 5%) [Puzzles 5%-15%]
Now lets say the margin for error is 5% which I think is acceptable.
I think the conclusions I would come from this, which is all just my opinion and drawing on some thoughts on other peoples opinions...
Party Viability = The capability of the party to not only fill the larger % situations (i.e. Combat) but also aid, or not hinder the partys total viability in the less % situations.
Character Viability = The capability of the individual to fill some or all of the roles he is capable of, and the player accepting either non-maximum viability in all roles, or his character playing a less role in party viability during those times, and a higher part in the places he is strong in.
Rather long winded I know but I just thought I would say that I thought, prob to much for anyone to read, and I prob went on to much. I just think if people kept those things in mind, we could assign numbers for viability in each section with the understanding that some characters (or most) will not be able to fill every role. Also, there is a large fluctuation between character viability and the ability for the party to "cover" each others weaknesses and the GM either abusing that or not.
Sorry for the long post, ignore if you like.. :)
CoDzilla wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: That's a pretty impressive mortality rate, unless you are playing more than once a week or so, roughly a character death every couple of sessions. Most groups I'm familiar with wouldn't find that real fun. It's indicative of a style of play where everybody is going for the jugular at all times, and it sounds like the enemies are played with the intention of doing maximum damage to the party at all times, regardless of whether that is the smart move for them or not. To me the smart move is to ignore the helpless characters and focus on the ones still capable of hurting you, knowing that you probably have time to finish off the helpless ones later. Unless you know you have no chance of surviving the fight and are fanatical, in which case you will just try to do the most permanent damage you can before dying. Not how most enemies should logically be played, IMHO. But I assume that style is fun for you or you wouldn't still be doing it after 5 years. I can certainly see it as being exciting, as long as you aren't too attached to your character. It's not that high, considering that 3rd edition came out what, 10 years ago? 11? And during about half that time, we had two different games going at once. It is also somewhat front loaded - there were a lot more deaths early on, before we realized what did and did not work. The process took a while because it was necessary to rule out other factors.
As for the approach, in combat, either actual combat or this people do fight fast and viciously, because combat is over in seconds regardless of whether you like it or not. You certainly cannot do things like run away, so fighting viciously is your only potential way out.
Not to mention this is a world where you can beat someone within an inch of their life and not only will they still be able to fight back completely unimpeded, but the common healing magic can erase even that in seconds. And if you actually knock them unconscious, but don't kill them, they can still easily get back up.... OK, that sounds a little more normal, expanding it from 5 years to 10 or 11, and from once a week to twice a week much of the time. Not too terribly different (if a little higher) than our own game. I don't keep exact stats, but I would estimate we've had probably 20-40 character deaths over that same period, playing once a week with occasional down periods and pretty frequent weeks off when noone can make it. The majority of our deaths occur at the mid to higher levels, when opponents do so much damage that crits can blast a character out of existence easily, and spells are really, really SoL. Of course, at that level, most of those deaths ain't permanent. We haven't had a single TPK during that time, but have come pretty close multiple times.
In my experience most deaths come from poor player tactical decisions either directly or indirectly, or from just bad luck like heavy crits and/or blown saves at the wrong time. SoL spells have certainly claimed a few, but not that many, and certainly not the majority.
Well the thing is, before we learned what classes worked, we really racked up the death count by feeding the monsters with NPC classes like Fighter, Paladin, etc. Eventually we started playing solid classes. The deaths dropped dramatically. There still were a lot of unlucky save or lose fails, but not nearly as many as with the low tier classes. The number of deaths that could not be attributed to lack of power or bad luck is surprisingly small. Mostly because at the same time we were learning what classes do and do not work, we were learning how to use the good classes effectively. End result? Not a lot of tactical failure. For example, at least 3 or 4 deaths came about because we DID stop and check for traps, instead of just blitzing the dungeon and outrunning the alarms. Because we were slow, enemies buffed up fully. That was actually the closest we came to the entire party dying. Suffice it to say when I mock trapfinding as a liability, it's for good reason!
There were also less deaths at higher levels, because higher level characters tend to have more answers to incoming rockets other than get hit by them.
At level 1, any random nobody can walk up to you and 1-2 shot you.
At level 20, they need a full attack to do that. Much less likely.
At level 1, you can expect to only have a 1/4 chance to pass a save or lose.
At level 20, you can expect to have a 1/4 chance to fail a save or lose, and that's if you aren't trying.
CoDzilla wrote: At level 20, you can expect to have a 1/4 chance to fail a save or lose, and that's if you aren't trying. The reroll mechanic is ubiquitous now. You can end up having 3-4 rerolls just for a single saving throw. If it's a 25% chance to end up failing a save or lose, the rerolls will bury that. . .
Based on the discussions on this thread, I'm starting to think parties can easily design/outfit themselves for viability. Pushing for powerful offense isn't the real solution. The key questions seem to be:
* How often can I give the enemy the staggered condition during combat?
* How often can I avoid full attack actions?
* How often can I reroll/avoid save or lose spells/conditions?
Offense isn't the solution precisely because the game is moving away from the "rocket tag" type fast game. Healing is too easy, so continuous small damage isn't a early-game threat like it used to be. AoE blasting damage isn't nearly the threat it was in earlier editions. The real threats seem to be full attack actions and save or lose spells. If the party focuses on generating the staggered condition, full attack actions are only possible in a few situations. If the party focuses on rerolls, the threat of the 1 on the D20 goes down immensely.
Hmm, I wonder in a future game if I can convince everyone that the reroll mechanic is the way to go. . . as well as focusing on maximum staggering mechanics. . .
meabolex wrote: CoDzilla wrote: At level 20, you can expect to have a 1/4 chance to fail a save or lose, and that's if you aren't trying. The reroll mechanic is ubiquitous now. You can end up having 3-4 rerolls just for a single saving throw. If it's a 25% chance to end up failing a save or lose, the rerolls will bury that. . . That qualifies as things that improve the situation from that which you aren't trying.
Quote: Based on the discussions on this thread, I'm starting to think parties can easily design/outfit themselves for viability. Pushing for powerful offense isn't the real solution. The key questions seem to be:
* How often can I give the enemy the staggered condition during combat?
Largely a matter of offense.
Quote: * How often can I avoid full attack actions? Largely a matter of offense in PF (3.5 offers means of avoiding it other than kill it first or never get anywhere near it).
Quote: * How often can I reroll/avoid save or lose spells/conditions? Rare in PF, more common in 3.5, the only thing that isn't offense.
Quote: Offense isn't the solution precisely because the game is moving away from the "rocket tag" type fast game. Healing is too easy, so continuous small damage isn't a early-game threat like it used to be. AoE blasting damage isn't nearly the threat it was in earlier editions. The real threats seem to be full attack actions and save or lose spells. If the party focuses on generating the staggered condition, full attack actions are only possible in a few situations. If the party focuses on rerolls, the threat of the 1 on the D20 goes down immensely. No, offense still is the solution. You just need good offense. Non fatal HP damage is a worthless offense. Blasting spells are worthless because they didn't scale like everything else.
CoDzilla wrote: Well the thing is, before we learned what classes worked, we really racked up the death count by feeding the monsters with NPC classes like Fighter, Paladin, etc. Eventually we started playing solid classes. The deaths dropped dramatically. There still were a lot of unlucky save or lose fails, but not nearly as many as with the low tier classes. The number of deaths that could not be attributed to lack of power or bad luck is surprisingly small. Mostly because at the same time we were learning what classes do and do not work, we were learning how to use the good classes effectively. End result? Not a lot of tactical failure. For example, at least 3 or 4 deaths came about because we DID stop and check for traps, instead of just blitzing the dungeon and outrunning the alarms. Because we were slow, enemies buffed up fully. That was actually the closest we came to the entire party dying. Suffice it to say when I mock trapfinding as a liability, it's for good reason!
There were also less deaths at higher levels, because higher level characters tend to have more answers to incoming rockets other than get hit by them.
At level 1, any random nobody can walk up to you and 1-2 shot you.
At level 20, they need a full attack to do that. Much less likely.
At level 1, you can expect to only have a 1/4 chance to pass a save or lose.
At level 20, you can expect to have a 1/4 chance to fail a save or lose, and that's if you aren't trying.
I understand your group had certain experiences that may or may not be unique to your table, and responded by creating a standard party build and tactical response that you have found good results with. I would just state that the way you guys chose to handle it is certainly not the only way, and may not even be the best way for other tables with different DMs and styles. But you probably knew that is what I would say and I know that you won't agree, so let's just leave it there.
Instead, let me examine briefly one of the assertions you make repeatedly, that party death at first level is completely random across all classes because level appropriate monsters can one or two shot any PC and kill them. I'll venture into the math, where I rarely go, to show the fallacy in that statement, and why, at low levels, martial characters have some significant advantages in survivability.
Let's go with Fergie's falchion-armed orc as a typical 1st level encounter. It has +4 to hit and does 2d4+4 damage, generating possible crits on an impressive 18-20. A party of 4 of these guys would be a pretty challenging encounter for 4 1st level PCs.
Now, our typical martial character has at least 12 HP, and a Con of at least 12, so it takes 24 HP of damage to kill him outright. Most martial builds will probably be sturdier than that, but those are reasonable minimums. He also likely has an AC of at least 15, probably better, but we'll go with the worst case scenario for this. So Mr. Orc can hit Mr. Fighter 50% of the time, doing an average of 9 points of damage, and a maximum of 12 (note that 12 only occurs on 1 of 16 random rolls). No one-shot kill there, but might be taken to zero approximately 3% of the time.
So let's look at crits. Mr. Orc is excited because falchions generate lots of crits. He gets a possible crit 15% of the time, but can confirm it only 50% of the time. So he gets a crit on an impressive 7.5% of his swings. Unfortunately, to take Mr. Fighter directly to dead dead, he needs to do maximum damage, which as we mentioned before, only happens one in sixteen times. Average crit damage is 18. So that means his total chance to one shot Mr. Fighter is less than one half of one percent. His chance to take him to zero or lower is considerably better, but still less than 20%.
Add in the fact that the fighter ain't just standing there, has an even or better chance to win initiative and actually probably has a much better chance to one shot the orc than the orc has to one shot him, and the numbers go even lower. Make it a less optimal weapon for the orc than a falchion and it goes lower. Give him a better AC, and the chance goes down. Give the fighter more Con (and thus HPs) and it becomes impossible for the orc to one-shot him, and impossible for him to even take him to zero in one shot unless he crits.
So, your claim that character death is random at 1st level is demonstrably, by the math, untrue. The martial character has easily demonstrated mathematical survivability advantages at 1st level.
Brian Bachman wrote: I understand your group had certain experiences that may or may not be unique to your table, and responded by creating a standard party build and tactical response that you have found good results with. I would just state that the way you guys chose to handle it is certainly not the only way, and may not even be the best way for other tables with different DMs and styles. But you probably knew that is what I would say and I know that you won't agree, so let's just leave it there. The hand waving dismissing thing. You're doing it again.
Quote: Instead, let me examine briefly one of the assertions you make repeatedly, that party death at first level is completely random across all classes because level appropriate monsters can one or two shot any PC and kill them. I'll venture into the math, where I rarely go, to show the fallacy in that statement, and why, at low levels, martial characters have some significant advantages in survivability.
Let's go with Fergie's falchion-armed orc as a typical 1st level encounter. It has +4 to hit and does 2d4+4 damage, generating possible crits on an impressive 18-20. A party of 4 of these guys would be a pretty challenging encounter for 4 1st level PCs.
Stop. Right there.
1: You are artificially nerfing the enemies. This automatically invalidates any argument you make.
Quote: Orc
CR 1/3
Melee falchion +5 (2d4+4/18–20)
2: Since it is CR 1/3, 4 of these guys is only marginally harder than a routine encounter. So it's still meant to be quite easy. For it to actually be remotely challenging, you'd need at least 10 of them (level +2 or so). Instead, it's just a speed bump.
3: Though it only has 6 HP, you need to do 18 damage to actually kill it, and until then it can still fight just fine. That makes it surprisingly resistant to PC rockets.
Quote: Now, our typical martial character has at least 12 HP, and a Con of at least 12, so it takes 24 HP of damage to kill him outright. Most martial builds will probably be sturdier than that, but those are reasonable minimums. He also likely has an AC of at least 15, probably better, but we'll go with the worst case scenario for this. So Mr. Orc can hit Mr. Fighter 50% of the time, doing an average of 9 points of damage, and a maximum of 12 (note that 12 only occurs on 1 of 16 random rolls). No one-shot kill there, but might be taken to zero approximately 3% of the time. At least assume reasonable stats. I am, and it still results in random death.
Quote: So let's look at crits. Mr. Orc is excited because falchions generate lots of crits. He gets a possible crit 15% of the time, but can confirm it only 50% of the time. So he gets a crit on an impressive 7.5% of his swings. Unfortunately, to take Mr. Fighter directly to dead dead, he needs to do maximum damage, which as we mentioned before, only happens one in sixteen times. Average crit damage is 18. So that means his total chance to one shot Mr. Fighter is less than one half of one percent. His chance to take him to zero or lower is considerably better, but still less than 20%. And then you remember there are four of them. He's in two hit KO range at any time. And they hit half the time.
Quote: Add in the fact that the fighter ain't just standing there, has an even or better chance to win initiative and actually probably has a much better chance to one shot the orc than the orc has to one shot him, and the numbers go even lower. Make it a less optimal weapon for the orc than a falchion and it goes lower. Give him a better AC, and the chance goes down. Give the fighter more Con (and thus HPs) and it becomes impossible for the orc to one-shot him, and impossible for him to even take him to zero in one shot unless he crits. With what actual abilities does the 1st level Fighter do 18 damage? Sure it's possible with a Str of 20 and a Greatsword, but you have proven to be the sort opposed to common sense building decisions, and that is still only 1:12 odds on a hit.
Quote: So, your claim that character death is random at 1st level is demonstrably, by the math, untrue. The martial character has easily demonstrated mathematical survivability advantages at 1st level. Except that he hasn't. Here's what actually happens:
Orcs all charge the same person, because they are orcs, and orcs charge things. Each of them does 6-12 damage, with a +7 to hit. That's a greater than 50% chance to be hit by any given attack. Regardless of who they are aimed at, as you are not getting an AC of 18 or better at this level without severely gimping your character.
The PC in question (doesn't matter who they are) has a HP total between 10 and 13, inclusive. Not much variance. So OHKOs are possible, two hit KOs practically assured. In addition, the PC in question, regardless of who they are needs to take anywhere from 25 damage (Rogues, the lowest defense classes in the game) to 27 damage (the martial types, CoDzillas) to die outright. Strictly speaking, a CoDzilla could have 28. 8 base, 3 Con, 1 favored class, dead at -16. But let's assume the CoDzillas do not have a 16 Con. Of course, once you do go down you immediately go to hit on a 2 or better status as helpless creatures are prone, and have an effective Dex of 0, meaning their AC is 1 + armor and is therefore around 7 or less.
So anyways, each attack has at least a coin toss chance of hitting, there's four of them, and any two hitting will drop that character on the spot.
If the first and the second hit, it's time to reroll, as the third and fourth will auto hit and assuredly kill.
If it takes until the third hit to drop you (aka, one miss early), the fourth might kill (18-36 damage vs 25-27 HP = better than 50% chance to die).
If it takes until the fourth hit to drop you (aka, two miss early) you probably don't die this round, but are easily finished off by the brutal and savage orcs if they ever get another turn. Better hope you can get a Color Spray in there, as you aren't plowing through 72 HP in 1 round as a level 1 party.
If the enemy gets a critical hit at any time, and this has an over one in four chance to happen a round every round at the absolute MINIMUM, you instantly go down if not down already, or instantly die if already down. And if this occurs on any attack other than Orc 4's attack, you die from the follow up.
So let's say your party of four somehow lucks out and beats the 4 Orcs without losing anyone.
Each person gains 135 XP. On the fast track, that is only marginally higher than 10% of a level. So you have 9 more of these, and you have to survive every single one of them just to get to level 2. You must then survive an additional 15 such fights to get to level 3. Then, and only then have you escaped the Luck Based Mission and can start making strategy and choices matter. Obviously, your chances of pulling this off 25 times in a row are absurdly low. That's why it's a Luck Based Mission.
Things get a lot worse if you don't have a DM skilled enough to realize any advancement track slower than Fast completely breaks the game. If you are unfortunate enough to have such a DM, you need to avoid random unavoidable death 15 times to hit 2 and 22 more times to hit 3 (Medium) or 23 times to hit 2 and 33 more times to hit 3 (Slow). Suffice it to say, not happening. Don't be surprised if the DM either has to fudge dice constantly, deliberately nerf enemies, or you are on "Bob the 20th" by level 3. Not to mention the obvious problems with such an approach, starting with "no one will take their characters seriously if they have to change them every other fight".
So we skip straight to level 3, that way we can actually do things like strategize, and roleplay, and otherwise play the game and have those things matter.
Now sure you can assume that because 4 Orcs is marginally harder than normal at level 1, you shouldn't do that. Well, ok. Then it's 3 Orcs. You still randomly die all the time. But at level 2 4 Orcs is a fair bit easier than normal, and by the same logic it should actually be around 6 or so to be a routine encounter. That results in more random death, not less. And once you remember that a sizeable percentage of encounters are meant to be harder than routine, the chance of random death goes up even more. And these are just stock Orcs, no modifications made of any kind. Which means they are very weak as actual threats go. I mean really. +4 racial bonus to Str and they STILL only manage a +3 modifier? Any PC would have +6 with that. Stock Orcs are terribly gimped.
1 orc = CR 1/3
2 orcs = CR 1/3 (+2) = CR 1 Average
3 orcs = CR 1/3 (+3) = CR 2 Challenging
4 orcs = CR 1/3 (+4) = CR 3 Hard
6 orcs = CR 1/3 (+5) = CR 4 Epic
CoD, you really, really, really need to learn more about low level encounters before you make these claims. You are just completely off.
I'll be the first to admit that orcs can be fairly nasty compared to the other creatures encountered at that level. But you frequently use Gobluns as a proverbial 1-shoter of PCs, so I'm guessing that you could back up your statements with a few goblins as well...
But really, setting up a scenario where one PCs gets charged by a an entire "Hard" encounter of melee bruts with a -1 perception modifier and Int of 7 isn't really proving anything but "don't bumble into things". The PC's would probably have access to a buff or two, and a round of missile fire or other "softening" of the enemy before they get gang-banged. Consider that the real encounter would probably play out differently, with fairly meaningful healing, tactics, terrain, etc.
I think you should play or at least read the rules on low level before dismissing it entirely.
PS From the PRD:
"Ability Scores: The creature's ability scores are listed here. Unless otherwise indicated, a creature's ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11. Creatures with NPC class levels have stats in the standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), while creatures with character class levels have the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8); in both cases, the creature's ability score modifiers are listed at the end of its description."
So stock orcs are only "gimped" if you don't think maxing out strength is a good idea for an orc warrior. Or if you just don't understand the rules.
EDIT: Sorry to feed the trolls. On topic, I think "viable" comes down to a character being able to contribute meaningfully to a CR=APL encounter, 5 times a day, with no one dieing. That is kind of the bare minimum. I also think that a character should be able to do something against a APL+2 (or APL+3) dragon encounter. It doesn't have to do much, but if the characters answer is "I go out and hide", that isn't very viable.
I removed a post. Don't be a jerk.
Well, that is all the proof I needed.
Where is that greasemonkey script?
CoDzilla wrote: Lots and lots of stuff. Just a few things.
I don't mean to be dismissive, I just don't think anyone wants to hear us rehash the exact same arguments we've had before. I don't particularly like to repeat myself, and don't think anybody else wants to read it. So if it is ground we have covered repeatedly before, I choose to just summarize our disagreement and move on to new ground. You're welcome to disagree with how I summarize it, if you want.
Thank you for pointing out two errors in my analysis. It should be +5 to hit rather than +4. Although that has a minor cascade effect on the math, in the end it doesn't change the conclusion, as it is still less than a 1% chance of a one shot by the orc on even a marginal martial character. I also forgot ferocity, which does make it almost impossible for the martial class to one shot the orc without buffs. Good catch. That's what I get for trying to do something from memory rather than looking it up.
I fully admit Mr. Fighter is not optimized. I did that deliberately, as optimizing him would give poor Mr. Orc no chance at all of one-shotting him. I was deliberately and I thought explicitly choosing a worst case scenario to make the point that it only gets better from there.
As to your 10 orcs scenario, it is, as Fergie pointed out, ludicrously inappropriate for 4 1st level characters.
The idea that they all charge the same character is similarly ludicrous, and by my reading of the RAW, impossible, as they need a straight and unobstructed line to the target. After the first one charges, the others can't. If they are all going at the same time, they would interfere with each other, and only one or two would get charges in. I can see allowing simultaneous charges from different sides of the PC if he starts then encounter surrounded, but that's clearly a specific and uncommon circumstance. And, as the rules clearly state, there are many, many other things that can prevent charges. That's why I didn't include it, or any other special tactics, in the analysis. Including them makes it much more complicated, and further favors the fighter who probably has access to more of them. Besides, what are the other characters doing while the fighter gets gangbanged? Sitting with their thumbs up their asses? Do the orcs beat everybody's initiative (with that awesome initiative bonus of, wait for it, +0)? Does the fighter just separate himself from his comrades, spread his arms wide and close his eyes like a sacrificial lamb?
I don't agree with your max HP of 13 for martial characters. Many have 14, and occasionally someone has more. Barbarians frequently have 16 or more. On the other hand, only the superoptimized wizard/sorcerer who has left large vulnerabilities in other stats to boost his Con will have 10 HP. I know all of yours will, but let's assume for a moment that your preferences do not define the gaming universe.
The Fast Track assumption, skilled DM jibe and so forth strike me as a vain attempt to explain away why you don't like to play at low levels. Why don't you admit you just don't like low level play? That's OK. It really is ... without any foolish attempts to justify it by assuming a mantle of non-existent superiority.
Brian Bachman wrote:
The idea that they all charge the same character is similarly ludicrous, and by my reading of the RAW, impossible, as they need a straight and unobstructed line to the target.
There are three squares from which an orc can attack in front of any medium sized creature.
cappadocius wrote: Brian Bachman wrote:
The idea that they all charge the same character is similarly ludicrous, and by my reading of the RAW, impossible, as they need a straight and unobstructed line to the target.
There are three squares from which an orc can attack in front of any medium sized creature. But they also must move in a straight line for the character. If those squares do not fall in that line, they cannot charge. Unless they are spread out, all 3 are very unlikely to fall on that line, and it is possible only 1 will. That is barring other obstructions.
Brian Bachman wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Lots and lots of stuff. Just a few things.
I don't mean to be dismissive, I just don't think anyone wants to hear us rehash the exact same arguments we've had before. I don't particularly like to repeat myself, and don't think anybody else wants to read it. So if it is ground we have covered repeatedly before, I choose to just summarize our disagreement and move on to new ground. You're welcome to disagree with how I summarize it, if you want. I don't like repeating myself either. Which is why I hate even having to have a document with all of my posts in it in case I ever need to repost them as a result of biased moderation. But hey, immature forums warrant immature tactics.
Quote: Thank you for pointing out two errors in my analysis. It should be +5 to hit rather than +4. Although that has a minor cascade effect on the math, in the end it doesn't change the conclusion, as it is still less than a 1% chance of a one shot by the orc on even a marginal martial character. I also forgot ferocity, which does make it almost impossible for the martial class to one shot the orc without buffs. Good catch. That's what I get for trying to do something from memory rather than looking it up. The thing is, once he goes down it becomes trivial to hit him.
Quote: I fully admit Mr. Fighter is not optimized. I did that deliberately, as optimizing him would give poor Mr. Orc no chance at all of one-shotting him. I was deliberately and I thought explicitly choosing a worst case scenario to make the point that it only gets better from there. The problem is that even in a real scenario it still doesn't work out well. So no.
Quote: As to your 10 orcs scenario, it is, as Fergie pointed out, ludicrously inappropriate for 4 1st level characters. His math is wrong, as usual.
Quote: The idea that they all charge the same character is similarly ludicrous, and by my reading of the RAW, impossible, as they need a straight and unobstructed line to the target. After the first one charges, the others can't. If they are all going at the same time, they would interfere with each other, and only one or two would get charges in. I can see allowing simultaneous charges from different sides of the PC if he starts then encounter surrounded, but that's clearly a specific and uncommon circumstance. And, as the rules clearly state, there are many, many other things that can prevent charges. That's why I didn't include it, or any other special tactics, in the analysis. Including them makes it much more complicated, and further favors the fighter who probably has access to more of them. Besides, what are the other characters doing while the fighter gets gangbanged? Sitting with their thumbs up their asses? Do the orcs beat everybody's initiative (with that awesome initiative bonus of, wait for it, +0)? Does the fighter just separate himself from his comrades, spread his arms wide and close his eyes like a sacrificial lamb? At least 3 can charge the same person. And that's with Falchions. If they instead have some use Falchions and some use Spears, also an orcish weapon you can have 10 charge the same character. And that assumes the enemies only come from one side. If they are surrounding the group, more can.
Alternately they can move normally to surround a PC, and get the +2 via flanking if you would like. That is actually BETTER for the orcs than charging. But see, I picked things that were orc like, in addition to being successful.
And it doesn't matter who they target. Doesn't have to be the Fighter. As stated, it could be anyone. It doesn't much matter, because the focus fire will one round them regardless.
Quote: I don't agree with your max HP of 13 for martial characters. Many have 14, and occasionally someone has more. Barbarians frequently have 16 or more. On the other hand, only the superoptimized wizard/sorcerer who has left large vulnerabilities in other stats to boost his Con will have 10 HP. I know all of yours will, but let's assume for a moment that your preferences do not define the gaming universe. I assumed a typical party makeup. Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard. All have favored class: HP. The Wizard has 16 Con, the others have 14. This means the Cleric has 11 HP, and 25 until death, the Fighter has 13 HP, and 27 until death, the Rogue has 11 HP, and 25 until death, and the Wizard has 10 HP, and 26 until death. Notice that there is very little variance. That's why it doesn't matter who they target.
A Barbarian will have 15. Rage doesn't count, because that just causes rage death when you get KOed. Even so, that only amounts to 2 more than the Fighter. Not a big difference, even at this level as it is less than one quarter of one hit.
Quote: The Fast Track assumption, skilled DM jibe and so forth strike me as a vain attempt to explain away why you don't like to play at low levels. Why don't you admit you just don't like low level play? That's OK. It really is ... without any foolish attempts to justify it by assuming a mantle of non-existent superiority. The dismissive handwaving again.
My not liking it is irrelevant to the fact it does not work. We are discussing the fact it does not work, not what some random guy on the Internet thinks about it.
cappadocius wrote: Brian Bachman wrote:
The idea that they all charge the same character is similarly ludicrous, and by my reading of the RAW, impossible, as they need a straight and unobstructed line to the target.
There are three squares from which an orc can attack in front of any medium sized creature. Understood, but they still have to be able to trace an unobstructed straight line to that point from wherever they start. Sometimes it will happen, but not that often. And of course, why they would all shoose to attack the fighter and ignore everyone else is still a mystery.
My group actually uses a hex grid, which allows for a little more subtlety and detail in movement, but does limit the number of people who can surround a single character to 6 rather than 8. But that's clearly houserules. Does give a bit different flavor to combat, though.
Quote: I don't like repeating myself either. Which is why I hate even having to have a document with all of my posts in it in case I ever need to repost them as a result of biased moderation. But hey, immature forums warrant immature tactics. So, you're calling the moderator of this forum immature? Do tell more. . .
CoDzilla wrote: a list of quotes longer than most threads Superfish, you need to chill, man. While I am impressed at your ability to make such a ridiculously long quote, people would listen to you more if you just summarized and moved on to the point you're trying to make. If you want to help the rest of us, then there are better ways than sounding like an 8 year old throwing a temper-tantrum.
Frankly, low-level encounters are quite survivable, or otherwise noone would play them. But, I'm pretty sure 90+% of games start at 0xp, and don't even get into the teen levels. So, most people must be surviving quite easily. I even know some players who prefer low-level play because it's comparatively simple.
As a nicer way of repeating Brian B, what are the rest of the party doing while the Orcs attack? Yes, the fighter is usually in front, but not so far that no one can help him. This is a team effort, no one is supposed to be doing everything by himself. I'm not saying that some character's can't, just that they shouldn't have to.
I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with your low-level character(s), taking it out on everyone who's trying to be civil won't change that.
I removed a post that was far, far too long.
|
