Basically, how much damage should players be being hit with by level. From my understanding, anyone with d10 or d12 hit dice should be able to take a few hits before going down....
So I am in a level 4 campaign. Our fighter, consistently, for the past 3 sessions, takes A LOT of damage. He basically always gets two shot, or one shot. He has a little less then 40 health "He rolled a little bit above average." Our last few fights he took he took 41 damage from a random mob, and 24 damage per hit on a boss. Basically, health has become, whats going to kill you in one hit, and whats going to kill you in 2 hits.
I think this is to "balance out" the players character of doing a lot of damage. He rolled an 18 for strength, and had gotten over size two weapon fighting to deal large amounts of damage.
He also had gotten Spirited Charge, which allowed him to actually hit well into the 30s with one attack "forgoing his two weapon fighting".
The DM has actually made him fight a clone of himself to prove just how "broken" he was when he successfully one rounded himself "Him against the clone, he won at least".
The rest of the party varies, we actually have 2 fighters, the other one being a range spec and does around similar damage, he never gets hit though, being ranged and all.
Lots of factors here, tough to parse with available info. Bestiary Page 291 has a table that gives average damages for creatures by CR.
The enemies could be rolling well.
The GM could have a different (but still correct) opinion of what constitutes a level-appropriate challenge.
At 4th level, I would expect a fighter to have around 38 HP if he has a Con 14 and rolls average on HD, plus his Favored class bonus to HP.
Assuming a very tough encounter (CR6) he shouldn't really be taking more than 25 at a single whack. Of course, there are crits. And 25 is just the number on the table, I take that with a grain of salt. It does represent the desired "standard" though.
Without a window into your GM's brain, it's not possible to say what's going on though...
According to the bestiary, 40 damage is the kind of average damage that you take at CR 9 if all of its attacks hit you. So, if it got max damage, it'd be like, CR7.
To deal around 24 damage in one blow, the monster would have to be somewhere in the realm of CR10. A stone golem is CR11 and does 2d10+9, average 20.
He's supposed to be taking, for high damage, on average for CR4 creatures, 16 damage if all of the monster's attacks hit.
For the GM? He's overtuning a little I think. Or the fighter is the only meleeist so he's focused down.
For his damage? You guys should probably not allow the "oversized weapon" cheese. Is he dual-wielding greatswords or something?
So... he's also charging on a mount, right? And he has mounted combat?
Short answer, see this chart:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html
Long answer:
Sounds like this player is stretching things a little bit. I'm guessing that he is missing some part of his "over size two weapon fighting" ...like the part where you can't weld two greataxes, and even two battle axes are going to be at something like -4/-4
To hit:
+4 Base
+4 strength
+1 weapon
-4 oversize 2 weapon
-2 power attack
Total:
+3+3 to hit.
For damage, I'm not seeing how he is getting much more then 1d8+
+4 strength
+1 weapon
+2 specialization
+4 power attack
and ummmm...
So that is a whooping 1d8+11
but the offhand is:
+2 strength
+1 weapon
+2 specialization
+2 power attack
1d8+7
I believe he is using bastard swords, he also does crit often. He has had access to potions of haste, something the DM actually gave us. The DM, at the start of the campaign let us pick an addition plot wise "power" while I picked "Telepathy", he decided to pick the power that lets him do an additional 1d6 fire damage to all his attacks.
He was also given full plate adamantium armor. However, both of those attacks, among a few others, went right through the DR.
Another encounter had him hit for 38 damage with one, none critical punch from a random mob, which also caused knock back and prone. I think the DM thinks he gave us to many "gifts" and is now trying to compensate. Basically, even with the DR, he is still getting hit well over half his health.
My character, if he had been hit with any of these would have been dropped to -10 or dead. "Rogue".
It seems to me the dm just isnt very experienced, made a few mistakes and is trying to compensate, and aiming to give the player a bit of his own medicine.
The received damage seems high, I think the DM might need to polish his skill in encounter building a bit and try to get creative with weaker monsters rather than take out the big guns every encounter.
I earnestly suggest the GM retool things, with your help. If things are this bad at 4th level and you're being subjected to a swingy play experience to (over)compensate, I don't even want to think about 10th level.
The thing to do is to talk to the GM and the other player, tell them that this arms race is taking your further and further from the baseline assumptions of the game system, and it is going to become rocket tag. If the group agrees that combat should play out over multiple rounds (maybe 3), then you're headed in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, maybe this is what your GM wants.
That is actually another good question, how long should a single encounter take, round wise?
That is actually another good question, how long should a single encounter take, round wise?
This is a style of play thing. "Envelope pushers" usually say that combat gets decided in Round 1 (or sooner! :/ ) But it depends largely on the optimization of the players, the number of opponents, and the GM's style.
I try to shoot for 3-4 round combats, with some longer and some shorter. If I found that the players were regularly winning faster than that, I would retool my own approach — change the number of monsters, or have spillover encounters.
Spillover encounters are a great way to take a lower-level module and make it a challenge for competent PCs, BTW.
|
The average combat round is usually 3-5 rounds as stated by the designers and in my own experience.
Some tips you could suggest to your GM, use multiple weak monsters in encounters. Even if your fighter is throwing 30 damage a round he'll be one shotting mooks and burning actions. He'll feel mighty and your tougher monsters will be able to last a few round s... OR use the mooks on the non melee types and toss the bruiser at the fighter.
In either case make encounters more dynamic.
--Vrocket propelled grenade
Between surveys and even 3.5 designers, the rough assumption that the game is built around is that you have four encounters per day and each encounter is around five rounds total.
Worth noting that encounters per day can vary widely with campaign. The Kingmaker AP, in my experience, pretty much never has multiple encounters in a day except at key sites.
The DM, at the start of the campaign let us pick an addition plot wise "power" while I picked "Telepathy", he decided to pick the power that lets him do an additional 1d6 fire damage to all his attacks.
He was also given full plate adamantium armor.
Between the armor, and what amounts to two magic weapons, he has over 20,000gp in wealth right there (not including all his other gear). He should have 6,000gp.
Just from reading this, I can tell that things are totally off of the baseline assumptions that game balance is based on. It is possible to have a successful campaign with changes like that, but it isn't easy. Based on what you have written about how your GM is dealing with this, I'm guessing he is already regretting his decisions. As Evil Lincoln said, if it is this bad at level 4, I can't see how level 10 would work. Hell, I don't think this will go to level 5 before it becomes unplayable.
My advice is to either scrap this campaign and start a new one, or do a total reset. 15 or 20 point buy, standard wealth by level, and no super-powers. Don't allow ANY things not in the core rules. It may seem harsh at first, but it will result in a much better play experience in the long run.
Who cares how much damage, knock back, and prone you are taking. You are winning, right?
Pathfinder is one of the only games I've ever heard people complain about winning all the time. If you were playing any other game and just barely winning, but winning all the time, that would be exciting.
So the GM made you super powerful and he is having you fight super powerful stuff, but he is still letting you win. I don't see how he is failing.
If he was trying to beat you he could: have the bad guy turn into a dragon, have an earthquake cover you in lava, have a meteor hit, have you steal something belonging to a 10th level guy and then have that 10th level guy come back and kill you all...
This isn't strategy. Pathfinder isn't strategy. People don't usually go 20 for 20 in strategy.
Who cares if your team is winning when you're not having any fun? That's the point here. He probably spends 90% of these encounters unconscious after the first blow.
If I was playing in his game game and just barely scraping by with my victories each time, I'd be concerned too. Especially since D&D is essentially Hardcore mode from Diablo. One party death and the game is over. Restart from the beginning. No save points. Might be good to make sure you're playing on the right difficulty level for you before it gets too much.
|
Sounds like your fighter's too small for his britches.
By this I mean he has more power, more damage ability, more treasure, and more effectiveness than a character of his level is expected to have. But he doesn't have more HP.
It shouldn't be a surprise, then, that creatures large enough to match his power, damage ability, treasure and effectiveness are able to bring him down so quickly. I suggest you talk this out to bring an end to the arms race, because if it continues you'll be fighting at CR + 9 on a regular basis before long.
Long story short, your game has a lot more damage going on than is usual, and the DM is now seeing what kinds of effects that has on a game. Hopefully this can be a lesson learned by all.
With any luck, the player will stop making character so incredibly overpowered so that the DM can menace your party properly with near-CR foes.
Who cares how much damage, knock back, and prone you are taking. You are winning, right?
Pathfinder is one of the only games I've ever heard people complain about winning all the time. If you were playing any other game and just barely winning, but winning all the time, that would be exciting.
So the GM made you super powerful and he is having you fight super powerful stuff, but he is still letting you win. I don't see how he is failing.
If he was trying to beat you he could: have the bad guy turn into a dragon, have an earthquake cover you in lava, have a meteor hit, have you steal something belonging to a 10th level guy and then have that 10th level guy come back and kill you all...
This isn't strategy. Pathfinder isn't strategy. People don't usually go 20 for 20 in strategy.
Who cares if your team is winning when you're not having any fun? That's the point here. He probably spends 90% of these encounters unconscious after the first blow.
If I was playing in his game game and just barely scraping by with my victories each time, I'd be concerned too. Especially since D&D is essentially Hardcore mode from Diablo. One party death and the game is over. Restart from the beginning. No save points. Might be good to make sure you're playing on the right difficulty level for you before it gets too much.
Not to mention what skewing so far from the baseline is doing to the GM's nerves and attitude. It seems to have been clear to others here, as it is to me, that the GM already hates the situation he has created, and is going so far as to punishing one of the players for his own bad decisions.
Uber games like these are difficult to control even for highly seasoned GMs. This guy doesn't sound like one. The farther out of control it gets, the more miserable he will become, until he finally quits or explodes.
There are a great many reasons for paying attention to these things, and for following the line closely. It's not to kill fun, it's to help balance all of these situations so that the fun will last.
|
|
Note, this is an explanation for running one of my casual tables.
Depending on if you're going on the "One fight per session" method, or "multiple fights", you should expect your fighter to take a fair ammount of punishment.
As a DM, In the one fight method, I try to have my characters take a modest wound or two. Usually 40-70% of their HP. This is usually from a dynamic encounter so lesser mobs wittle a bit, and then the main mobs get their shot.
In the "multiple encounters" type of game, I want my players sitting on 30% health or so at the end of the night. Usually this is divided between a trap and a small encounter then a challenge appropriate for climax.
Basically, I run on the principle of keeping my players challenged and death real enough to keep them excited.
In the more serious games, I like to keep my party health low. It tends to make the players act smarter.
Who cares how much damage, knock back, and prone you are taking. You are winning, right?
I played in a 2E campaign where every fight was basically a near-TPK. It got pretty old after a while, IMO.
Who cares how much damage, knock back, and prone you are taking. You are winning, right?
By winning you mean surviving. about 3 to 4 of our recent fights we ran. "Remember kids a smart man knows when to RUN LIKE A B!TCH!".
As far as my character goes, his power is used for non combat situations, and most of those attacks would have 1 hit KOed him. When I tried it in combat, I generally got, "The large angry brute wants to hit you with his club", or something as equally as obvious. If it was ever against an intelligent creature, the will save is generally far too high. Another player is largely non combat, and I forget the last players, he rarely uses it.
I didn't even go into the actual hit ratio, one character actually rolled a 19 before stats, feats, and base attack. He got somewhere in the mid 20s, and missed. He pretty much wanted to quit right there. This has happened to me more often. His "bosses" generally have ridiculously high AC. I remember at level 3, I took great care to sneak attack someone, and rolled a high 21 and a 23 on a flat-footed opponent who didn't know I was there.... the 21 missed.....
He seems to be on the "One-two encounter per session" side of things. Although we have had more at times. Which maybe why he has "boosted" encounters.
Who cares how much damage, knock back, and prone you are taking. You are winning, right?
By winning you mean surviving. about 3 to 4 of our recent fights we ran. "Remember kids a smart man knows when to RUN LIKE A B!TCH!".
As far as my character goes, his power is used for non combat situations, and most of those attacks would have 1 hit KOed him. When I tried it in combat, I generally got, "The large angry brute wants to hit you with his club", or something as equally as obvious. If it was ever against an intelligent creature, the will save is generally far too high. Another player is largely non combat, and I forget the last players, he rarely uses it.
I didn't even go into the actual hit ratio, one character actually rolled a 19 before stats, feats, and base attack. He got somewhere in the mid 20s, and missed. He pretty much wanted to quit right there. This has happened to me more often. His "bosses" generally have ridiculously high AC. I remember at level 3, I took great care to sneak attack someone, and rolled a high 21 and a 23 on a flat-footed opponent who didn't know I was there.... the 21 missed.....
He seems to be on the "One-two encounter per session" side of things. Although we have had more at times. Which maybe why he has "boosted" encounters.
Is your DM new to DMing?
I can see the signs.
Last night's Serpent Skull game featured an encounter with a group of 5 degenerate serpentfolk (CR 4 each) versus our lv8 party. The GM commented that he needed to roll close to 20, if not 20, to hit the primary fighters, or the defense-boosted cleric at all.
The ENCOUNTER was CR 8, arguably CR 9 since the encounter started with them on top of battlements, with cover, shooting at us in a small boat, where we suffered squeezing conditions and had to roll acrobatics and spend actions rowing ashore while being pelted, then climb the wall, then fight them.
We spent a good bit of resources, but were never in any immediate or real danger. But we did use resources. My paladin blew 3 lay on hands and a potion of spider climb. The Arcane Trickster used Haste, Shield, Magic Missile and Shocking Grasp. The Magus cast Shield and used up some ammo. The cleric cast Magic Circle Against Evil, Spiritual Weapon, Sanctuary and spent a channel to heal. I took roughly 30 damage total, the others took somewhere between 10 and 20.
So spending of resource-wise it was about right. Somewhere between average and challenging, drawing 25-30% of our resources.
As for going down, I think my paladin has been knocked out once, maybe twice, in the entire campaign. But then again, I made him with survivability in mind, and paladins with their swift action healing can stand almost twice as long as a fighter.