|
I was thinking about the DPR Olympics and I had an idea.
DPR is one thing a build can do, but what other measurables can we assess on the same build to get an overall judgment of that characters effectiveness.
If we think of DPR as one event in the DnD Track and Field, what would the other events be?
In short, what are the top 10 measurable stats. And once we have those, what build can be the most versatile, keeping the same restrictions of point buy and level of the DPR Olympics.
Off the top of my head, a list to discuss. I think we can all agree on the first one, the rest we can discuss and decide what are the top 10 and how do we define them.
1. DPR (Any)
2. DPR (Ranged) (perhaps 80 ft?)
3. DPR (Nova) (What you could do in a single encounter, fully buffed for Min 5 rounds)
4. MIss chance (AC + any full time special enhancements)
5. Miss chance Buffed (AC + miss from spell enchantments including spells. All spells must be in effect for a minimum of 5 rounds, and casting time to put the buffs counts. So if you put on 5 spells, the first one you put on has been on for four rounds since you started buffing.)
6. Damage soak (How many rounds can you survive against a level equal attacking enemy. You can cast defensive [not healing] spells each round after the first.
7. Rounds to Kill. (Average number of rounds it would take you to eliminate a CR average enemy from combat.)
8. AVG Saving Throw/Spell resistance.
9. AVG Saving throw/Spell resistance buffed.
I wanted to also include some skill based ones, but those are harder. Maybe for example.
1. Enemy identification (% chance of knowing weakness of random equal CR enemy.)
2. Combat Avoidance (Perception + Diplomacy + Survival
Basically, I want this thread to hash out 10 categories and then create a separate thread for the Olympics.
It will be scored like golf. Points are awarded in each category based on your ranking. 1st gets one point, 10th gets 10 points. The person with the least points has the most versatile build.
Go!
I really, really, really think that Initiative modifier should be one of the categories, seeing as how that becomes one of the most important things in the game, especially at higher levels.
I'm also not sure which skills you should privilege, so perhaps just having one measure be overall number of skill points available to spend? Or how many fully maxed skills you can have?
I'm also curious how Flight fits in here, since it gives no mechanical advantage, but is probably the best defensive buff in the game. To a degree, same with improved invis.
|
|
I really, really, really think that Initiative modifier should be one of the categories, seeing as how that becomes one of the most important things in the game, especially at higher levels.
I'm also not sure which skills you should privilege, so perhaps just having one measure be overall number of skill points available to spend? Or how many fully maxed skills you can have?
I'm also curious how Flight fits in here, since it gives no mechanical advantage, but is probably the best defensive buff in the game. To a degree, same with improved invis.
I can get behind that.
So the definite categories so far (for me) are
1. DPR (Any)
2. DPR (Ranged) (perhaps 80 ft?)
3. DPR (Nova) (What you could do in a single encounter, fully buffed for Min 5 rounds)
and now
4. Initiative.
The rest I am just suggesting as options, and as I said for #2 the range is just a suggestions, I'm open for debate on that as well.
I'd suggest 2 ranges: 80 ft. for the bow-users, and 30 ft. for the throwers/sneak attackers.
|
|
I'd suggest 2 ranges: 80 ft. for the bow-users, and 30 ft. for the throwers/sneak attackers.
The only issue I have with that is you are getting a little too build specific. Every build should have a ranged option. For some builds, the ranged option will be the same as DPR any.
Throw builds can get the bonus DPR Any with the thrown, but should have the same penalties as everyone else at who is farther out. I definitely want it more than 40, so you are at more or less "high movement charge only" distance
Man....it would be time consuming, but the best way to do something like this might be to set up a rubric for all of the fairly important stuff in the game, with scaling point values for different character capabilities.
It's probably unreasonable, but in the end would be the best measure.
Something like:
75 DPR: 5 points
90 DPR: 6 Points
100 DPR: 7 points
etc.
Flight: 2 points
All Day Flight: 4 points
Ability to hover: +1 points
AC 40: 3 points
AC 45: 4 points
Miss chance 20%: 2 points
Miss chance 50%: 6 points
It would end up being a fantastically long list, but may, in the end, actually be able to really determine what the best overall characters are. Just a thought.
|
|
Man....it would be time consuming, but the best way to do something like this might be to set up a rubric for all of the fairly important stuff in the game, with scaling point values for different character capabilities.
It's probably unreasonable, but in the end would be the best measure.
Something like:
75 DPR: 5 points
90 DPR: 6 Points
100 DPR: 7 points
etc.Flight: 2 points
All Day Flight: 4 points
Ability to hover: +1 pointsAC 40: 3 points
AC 45: 4 points
Miss chance 20%: 2 points
Miss chance 50%: 6 pointsIt would end up being a fantastically long list, but may, in the end, actually be able to really determine what the best overall characters are. Just a thought.
Fighting over the values of each thing in the rubric would take as long as determining what was in it, I'm afraid.
At this point, I'm just looking for a top 10 things we can measure and going forward from there.
At this point I think we have 4 pretty solid candidates, 6 if we can figure out a good formula for miss chances.
The final 10 will exclude many, many, things. I can already hear the complaints from SoS casters...
But much like the DPR Olympics, it is more about the challenge of building a versatile character than determining specific real in game value.
|
|
I'm also curious how Flight fits in here, since it gives no mechanical advantage, but is probably the best defensive buff in the game. To a degree, same with improved invis.
Addressing these two issues separately from the Initiative question, I agree that there may be no way to address them in this format, much in the same way I'm unsure if we can address skills in this format.
This will likely turns into who can deal the most while at the same time who can soaking/avoid the most.
And I'm fine with that.
Trying to do all things generally turns into doing no things.
Maybe if you segregate the builds into functional areas?
Combat, Spellcasting, Hybrid, Skillmonkey, Social Butterfly, etc?
Then each functional area can have a rubric, and each build can be ranked in each one. you can make it a true decathlon by having 10 areas, but I think that's spread a bit thin. Maybe a pentathlon, heptathlon, or septathlon?
I think that would help a lot of people know where their character's strengths lie when you get into the nitty gritty. I could even see this as a GM's tool for NPC creation, or planning balanced encounters for his party.
Then it just needs and excel spreadsheet and a standardized input format, and you're rollin in gold!
I'm also curious how Flight fits in here, since it gives no mechanical advantage, but is probably the best defensive buff in the game. To a degree, same with improved invis.
Addressing these two issues separately from the Initiative question, I agree that there may be no way to address them in this format, much in the same way I'm unsure if we can address skills in this format.
This will likely turns into who can deal the most while at the same time who can soaking/avoid the most.
And I'm fine with that.
Trying to do all things generally turns into doing no things.
Economists have this problem frequently, when comparing apples to oranges. One person values apples more than oranges, while another person may value oranges over apples. The easiest way to handle that is to have weighted scores. Unfortunately that's incredibly complex. That doesn't mean it can't be done though.
Maybe if you segregate the builds into functional areas?
Combat, Spellcasting, Hybrid, Skillmonkey, Social Butterfly, etc?The exact idea of a decathlon (in athletics anyway) is to have everyone do the same tests.
So I think it's a bad idea to separate them.
Decathlons are separate athletic trials, that everyone attempts. I'm suggesting the same. Functional categories that each character is rated on for each. The only difference is that, if all the builds are balanced (unlikely!), you hope to see a dead heat once all the scores are compiled.
Anyway, as for categories, I think we should go broader (probably as broad that it will become ridiculous).anyway, categories I'm thinking about.
DPR short range.
DPR long range.
Initiative (with bonuses for high perception and other abilities that directly influence the start of a battle).
Saves
Skills (possibly separated in a few logic categories like social, survival, misc, knowledge,...)
Movement (including speed bonuses, acrobatics, fly, swim and climb (though with a small bonus as those are not that interesting in combat).
hitpoints
ac.
I only disagree here because I think that there should be overlap. Initiative should give benefit whatever Movement score results, Nova DPR, & defense ratings just as BAB benefits normal attacks and combat maneuvers. Skills (such as Knowledge and Perception) should benefit defensive ratings, maybe other stuff.
Otherwise, if you move to encompass everything, becoming more and more granular, you just have a character sheet. This is part of the reason I think things should overlap. The ratings should represent the actual factual benefits a character gets from the investments the player has made.
And I believe that the categories should be defined by the most common reasons people build characters. I'm talking about base character concepts here, like "I want a melee combat focused character"(Melee), or "I want a sneaky character that doesn't mind getting his hands dirty, and gets himself out of any situation"(Subterfuge/Skillmonkey).
So ideally you would have a category for every major character style.
Or perhaps this is just something that I want, and I'm completely off base from the original intent of the thread?
|
|
Maybe if you segregate the builds into functional areas?
Combat, Spellcasting, Hybrid, Skillmonkey, Social Butterfly, etc?
Then each functional area can have a rubric, and each build can be ranked in each one. you can make it a true decathlon by having 10 areas, but I think that's spread a bit thin. Maybe a pentathlon, heptathlon, or septathlon?I think that would help a lot of people know where their character's strengths lie when you get into the nitty gritty. I could even see this as a GM's tool for NPC creation, or planning balanced encounters for his party.
Then it just needs and excel spreadsheet and a standardized input format, and you're rollin in gold!
I think that work, but may be beyond the scope of this.
This could be the jumping off point for that, but at this stage this is a jumping off point from the DPR Olympics.
Once we get an agreed to 10 "events" we can built a thread from that.
At this point, using the same rules as the DPR, we have the following "events"
1. DPR
2. DPR ranged (distance To be determined but currently 80 ft)
3. DPR Buffed/Nova
4. Initiative.
5. Miss chance base (AC plus any constant enhancements.
6. Miss chance buffed
Proposed that need to be decided if they should be included, and/or worked out formula-wise
7. Damage Soak
8. Saves
9. Skills (and a number of subcategories of this)
10. Mobility
11. Caster save DC
12. Whatever else people propose.
I feel good about the 6, but we need four more that we can agreed to include, and we can go from there. If we decide to have others in different threads, fine. But for now we want 10 that are semi-equal in value to assess against each other.
So you're looking for purely mechanical measurements?
Saves, Spell Resist, Damage Soak should roll into a Defensive Rating, don't you think? Include AC, HP, DR, Evasion(maybe), Acrobatics(maybe)?
The DPR ranged almost begs for a close range. And not just for the rogue, either. the generic feat Point Blank shot works for everyone, and Gunslingers need to be considered as well.
|
|
So you're looking for purely mechanical measurements?
Saves, Spell Resist, Damage Soak should roll into a Defensive Rating, don't you think? Include AC, HP, DR, Evasion(maybe), Acrobatics(maybe)?
The DPR ranged almost begs for a close range. And not just for the rogue, either. the generic feat Point Blank shot works for everyone, and Gunslingers need to be considered as well.
Ranged focused builds will get those bonuses in the base DPR. The cost benefit analysis of being next to vs 30 ft away is debatable. Sure you can avoid most full round attacks by being 30 ft away, but you also don't provoke any AoO from than distance and have the feat tax of precise shot to be effective.
Adding that would basically make 4 of the 10 events DPR based, and that feels like to much.
I'm really liking:
1. DPR
2. DPR Ranged
3. DPR Nova
4. Initiative
I think that a few more that should absolutely be included are:
5. Overall number of effective skill points (benefits from headband of Int count towards this since you usually get to choose the skills you want to max)
6. Saves (though I'm not sure how you gauge this even...do you just add up all three and see who has the highest score? Do we weight Fort and Will over Reflex? It's too important to not be on here, but I dunno how to make it ONE category...ideas?)
7. Spellcasting ability (points equal to highest level spell you can cast? With wizards getting one extra point for having the best overall list? Or is that too controversial?)
8. Spellcasting DC
9. Elusiveness (AC, miss chance, flight, spell resistance, other factors that negate opponent attacks)
10. Elusiveness buffed
Ranged focused builds will get those bonuses in the base DPR. The cost benefit analysis of being next to vs 30 ft away is debatable. Sure you can avoid most full round attacks by being 30 ft away, but you also don't provoke any AoO from than distance and have the feat tax of precise shot to be effective.Adding that would basically make 4 of the 10 events DPR based, and that feels like to much.
Fair enough, but there should be some sort of consideration for the 'close range' ranged focused characters; they will be making full attacks more often than melee combatants. Unless the distinction is just outside of the scope of this exercise.
|
|
Fair enough, but there should be some sort of consideration for the 'close range' ranged focused characters; they will be making full attacks more often than melee combatants. Unless the distinction is just outside of the scope of this exercise.
Ranged focused builds will get those bonuses in the base DPR. The cost benefit analysis of being next to vs 30 ft away is debatable. Sure you can avoid most full round attacks by being 30 ft away, but you also don't provoke any AoO from than distance and have the feat tax of precise shot to be effective.Adding that would basically make 4 of the 10 events DPR based, and that feels like to much.
I would say beyond the scope, possibly something "Divisional", like "Best of the the close ranged attackers" division vs "Pure martial" or "Arcane caster" divisions kind of thing.
|
|
I'm really liking:
1. DPR
2. DPR Ranged
3. DPR Nova
4. InitiativeI think that a few more that should absolutely be included are:
5. Overall number of effective skill points (benefits from headband of Int count towards this since you usually get to choose the skills you want to max)
6. Saves (though I'm not sure how you gauge this even...do you just add up all three and see who has the highest score? Do we weight Fort and Will over Reflex? It's too important to not be on here, but I dunno how to make it ONE category...ideas?)
7. Spellcasting ability (points equal to highest level spell you can cast? With wizards getting one extra point for having the best overall list? Or is that too controversial?)
8. Spellcasting DC
9. Elusiveness (AC, miss chance, flight, spell resistance, other factors that negate opponent attacks)
10. Elusiveness buffed
Saves I agree, although this may also be a "buffed" vs "unbuffed" category.
The rest are more subjective. Skills are particularly hard.
I think flight and spell resistance are very specific and would be aside from "miss chance". I'm ok with having the math of blur, mirror image, etc...added as they have a clear percentage advantage, but the rest are too subjective.
If we want to have spell resistance as part of the save calculation, I would be ok with that. But you would have to figure out how to calculate it.
Basically DPR is a math equation that is not subjective. The other categories need to be the same way.
Ahh. Fair enough. So every category needs to be backed up by maths? Whether a complex formula or a simple number (like initiative)?
I still stand by Spell DC and Highest Level of Spell being categories that should be factored in.
|
|
Ahh. Fair enough. So every category needs to be backed up by maths? Whether a complex formula or a simple number (like initiative)?
I still stand by Spell DC and Highest Level of Spell being categories that should be factored in.
I think those are important, but I also think they are class exclusive.
If there was a way to calculate the saves relative to something all classes could do, that would be fine. I just can't think of one off the top of my head unless you can decide on specific values of specific impairments caused by spells.
Damage spells are easy, as it's avg damage against likelihood to make the save. Same with most defense spells.
Status effect spells, like flight, are harder to calculate mathematically.
You could have a "Caster" division for that, but for the base 10 I don't see a formula that works.
I think detection/stealth could be one category... for example:
For every full 10 points of Perception: 1 Point
Blindsight / See Invisible: 2 points
Scent/blindsight: 1 point
Darkvision: 1 point
For every 10 points of Stealth: 1 point
Hide in plain sight: 1 point
Invisiblity: 1 point
Improved Invisiblity: 1 point
I'm really liking:
1. DPR
2. DPR Ranged
I think those should be:
1. DPR Melee range (= if opponent can't do AoOs... hmm somehow your ability to AoO should be factored too)
2. DPR Ranged
I mean that if there are categories DPR and DPR ranged those can be easily the same.
Ahh. Fair enough. So every category needs to be backed up by maths? Whether a complex formula or a simple number (like initiative)?
I still stand by Spell DC and Highest Level of Spell being categories that should be factored in.
I think those are important, but I also think they are class exclusive.
If there was a way to calculate the saves relative to something all classes could do, that would be fine. I just can't think of one off the top of my head unless you can decide on specific values of specific impairments caused by spells.
Damage spells are easy, as it's avg damage against likelihood to make the save. Same with most defense spells.
Status effect spells, like flight, are harder to calculate mathematically.
You could have a "Caster" division for that, but for the base 10 I don't see a formula that works.
I think you might be thinking about it wrong. In your proposed system, I'm just saying that casting 9th level spells is worth 1 point and no spells is worth 10 points. You don't have to factor in anything else....it just is an easy way to give some numeric benefit to something that is otherwise, as you state, hard to measure. Regardless of your spell list or whatever, having spells increases your options and versatility as a character. This is a simple numeric way to gauge that without trying to actually assign math value to spells like flight or black tentacles.
It's not any more class specific than other measures, really. The majority of classes in the game get casting of some kind. Multi-class builds have it available to them. Prestige classes factor in. If you don't find numeric ways to gauge some other aspects of the game, then this just becomes the DPR contest with defense thrown in. If that's what you want, that's fine. I just thought the project was REALLY to develop some way of looking at overall usefulness of characters instead of just standing next to a bad guy whacking him over the head and being whacked in return.
OK how about this... after you decide the categories the builds get points with the formula:
(your record)/(Best build record in the category)
For example if the best build (DPR build) gets 152 DRP at the level 12 without boost and you get 120, you'll get 120/152 points from that category.
|
|
Ahh. Fair enough. So every category needs to be backed up by maths? Whether a complex formula or a simple number (like initiative)?
I still stand by Spell DC and Highest Level of Spell being categories that should be factored in.
I think those are important, but I also think they are class exclusive.
If there was a way to calculate the saves relative to something all classes could do, that would be fine. I just can't think of one off the top of my head unless you can decide on specific values of specific impairments caused by spells.
Damage spells are easy, as it's avg damage against likelihood to make the save. Same with most defense spells.
Status effect spells, like flight, are harder to calculate mathematically.
You could have a "Caster" division for that, but for the base 10 I don't see a formula that works.
I think you might be thinking about it wrong. In your proposed system, I'm just saying that casting 9th level spells is worth 1 point and no spells is worth 10 points. You don't have to factor in anything else....it just is an easy way to give some numeric benefit to something that is otherwise, as you state, hard to measure. Regardless of your spell list or whatever, having spells increases your options and versatility as a character. This is a simple numeric way to gauge that without trying to actually assign math value to spells like flight or black tentacles.
It's not any more class specific than other measures, really. The majority of classes in the game get casting of some kind. Multi-class builds have it available to them. Prestige classes factor in. If you don't find numeric ways to gauge some other aspects of the game, then this just becomes the DPR contest with defense thrown in. If that's what you want, that's fine. I just thought the project was REALLY to develop some way of looking at overall usefulness of characters instead of just standing next to a bad guy whacking him over the head and being...
But that is a subjective value.
DPR isn't subjective. There is no debate over what value should be assigned to what.
The project is to move closer to looking at the overall usefulness, but if we try to do it all at once we'll end up fighting over the margins.
At this point, subjective values are off the table, as we could have thousands of threads discussing what point value what should be assigned.
Once we add in defense, including saves, we can move on to more subjective questions.
We aren't ever going to answer the "best" class question. But we can broaden the question of what goes into a build.
I see what you're going for and will agree with what you are saying.
I can't, however, help myself from pointing out that DPR is still a subjective measure. Sure there is maths involved, but you're still creating a situation in a vacuum, which is never the case in the actual game. By arranging the scenarios and even applying boundaries with math, you are actually making it a subjective measure.
If DPR doesn't take flight into account, it is subjective (just to provide one example). Sure, it has a numerical basis....but it is completely unrelated to the actual game as it occurs in a vacuum. This is made perfectly clear by the need to even have three (already...not even including previous arguments in this very thread) categories of DPR measurements. So if you're willing to get subjective there...
Objectivity implies a lack of bias, but the way DPR is calculated and the weight it is given in your proposed decathlon is inherently biased agaisnt/for certain builds and classes, just because you ARE removing situational conditions.
Math might be objective, but its application is not. You've simply created a measure, which is all I was suggesting (albeit a far simpler one) in relation to magic.
I do get your worry about expanding in every direction all at once, however. So, in that sense, carry on, good sir!
|
|
Lets look at save formulas for saves (I'll do another one for miss chance)
What should the value we should have as the "average" to beat to determine value of Saving throws. Bestiary says avg high is 19, so let's go with that.
Should each of the three saving throws be equal value.
How much value do we give to evasion and improved evasion as a percentage, since reflex saves tend to be more damage based than SoS.
So we are looking at the
a) Odds you will fail or save for each vs expected save DC. Pretty easy math on this if we keep them equal value.
b) Increased value of evasion or improved evasion to making reflex save. I am thinking this is a bonus to the reflex save portion. What would be the % of damage this would negate.
c) % of times spell resistance will save you. Maybe as a baseline assuming 50% of saves will involve some kind of spell resistance. Assuming against a caster level of 10. This seems easy to calculate.
The whole thing should be the % of times you will make the save. The big three would be equal to 1/3 of the average, with spell resistance in addition at about 1/2 value (since it only effects 50% of the times it comes up)
Call this section "Resistance"
|
|
Now looking at Soak (Maybe call it tank)
Assuming again an attack of +18, and adding a secondary attack of +13 with the bestiary avg high damage at 45, how long do you survive.
This would be in rounds, with a % of round being the dividing line, since most wouldn't last more than a few rounds.
This would take in both the miss chance above, along with Damage reduction and other factors.
|
|
I see what you're going for and will agree with what you are saying.
I can't, however, help myself from pointing out that DPR is still a subjective measure. Sure there is maths involved, but you're still creating a situation in a vacuum, which is never the case in the actual game. By arranging the scenarios and even applying boundaries with math, you are actually making it a subjective measure.
If DPR doesn't take flight into account, it is subjective (just to provide one example). Sure, it has a numerical basis....but it is completely unrelated to the actual game as it occurs in a vacuum. This is made perfectly clear by the need to even have three (already...not even including previous arguments in this very thread) categories of DPR measurements. So if you're willing to get subjective there...
Objectivity implies a lack of bias, but the way DPR is calculated and the weight it is given in your proposed decathlon is inherently biased agaisnt/for certain builds and classes, just because you ARE removing situational conditions.
Math might be objective, but its application is not. You've simply created a measure, which is all I was suggesting (albeit a far simpler one) in relation to magic.
I do get your worry about expanding in every direction all at once, however. So, in that sense, carry on, good sir!
If we could have a formula that clearly defined what value the status effects had relative to hit points for a 10th level character, that would be fine. For example if we said that confusion was equal to removing 50% of hit points, we could evaluate it that way.
I think that could be a later goal, but I think if we get into that now it will bog down to the point where it never gets started.
Agreed on the bogging down problem. I've seen how things get on the boards when it comes to assigning value. This project still has a ton of merit, regardless of my earlier objections. Keep up the good work.
------
For initiative...I'm not great at math, but do diminishing returns come into play here? Is it better to calculate it as a % chance of going first versus an average initiative of CR appropriate monster or just a flat out whoever has a higher number....with no math needed at all? Does it make any difference?
I have a feeling it's probably best to just rank characters by their actual initiative score, but I'm not a math whiz and may be missing something (or many things).
|
|
Agreed on the bogging down problem. I've seen how things get on the boards when it comes to assigning value. This project still has a ton of merit, regardless of my earlier objections. Keep up the good work.
------For initiative...I'm not great at math, but do diminishing returns come into play here? Is it better to calculate it as a % chance of going first versus an average initiative of CR appropriate monster or just a flat out whoever has a higher number....with no math needed at all? Does it make any difference?
I have a feeling it's probably best to just rank characters by their actual initiative score, but I'm not a math whiz and may be missing something (or many things).
I think initiative is going to be more or less groupings, since there isn't a big variety gap here. I almost want to include some perception and stealth here, since it is also about who sees the enemy first, and who can sneak up on them. But then I would need a ratio of some sort.
I think initiative is going to be more or less groupings, since there isn't a big variety gap here. I almost want to include some perception and stealth here, since it is also about who sees the enemy first, and who can sneak up on them. But then I would need a ratio of some sort.
Unfortunately the best way to measure this would be a percentile distribution, which means you need a sample set. I don't think that would work for here, sadly. With Perception & Stealth, it's all comparitive to the enemies opposed skill check. The DPR gets away with this (vs AC) because AC is pretty standard at each CR. Perception and Stealth not so much. Still, I suppose the only option is to define a baseline average and go from there.