In most games where I see players and GMs complain of being broken are in the area of damage dealt through either magic or weapons, or armor classes that become absurdly high really quickly.
The goal here is to have a simple chart based off a combination of NPC codex stats and the monster creation chart. It's not a hard rule, and it's not supposed to be a means of making sure it's never surpassed for fallen beneath(that would be 4th ed, ick). The goal is to show everyone about what you expect out of the characters in areas where they focus and areas where they don't.
The assumption for armor class is that if you're a high defense character, the best of accurate monsters should be hitting on a 12-14 with their first attack of the round, before things like party buffs or circumstance bonuses such as dwarves against giants, etc.
The assumption for damage is pre-critical, but average per round, rather than per attack or spell.
This is in the rough stages, but I would love some feedback and suggestions to clean it up.
Google Doc, Expected Stat Averages by Level:
Edit: This url works, not the other one I posted.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wV18SRD_ThhX1yq8bOgjrMYM7Atk7xRcofBd1Ti bQ9Y/edit
Link says document not found.
[ URL=Address] What You Want To Name The Link [/ URL]
with the address and name inserted, and the extraneous spaces in the brackets removed, makes link. Sometimes, if you have Share with those who have link, you need to put the link up. This is not the issue though, because I tried to make the link.
Damnation. Let me try another way.
Damages average per turn, not per action.
Armor class at low levels variable because of basic armor/shield gaps.
If consistently going above or below these stats by level, consider reworking the build.
Duration buffs, selective items, and situational bonuses should be discussed with GM if easily and frequently replicable.
For intense party combinations, come to a gentleman’s agreement(such as saving it for boss-fights or popping that combo only after GM advises it beforehand for cinematic effect) or just make sure not to use the obviously overwhelming combos.
Level 1-20
High damage by level average
13
16
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Low damage by level average
7
9
12
15
18
22
26
30
33
37
41
45
48
52
60
67
75
82
90
97
High AC
18
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
42
Low AC
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your highs and lows seem to be wishful thinking instead of a possibility spread. In fact with a 'simple' straight two handed fighter you'll probably exceed that damage regularly, and if you are a 'high defense' character then being hit 40% of the time is still unacceptable -- maybe 15~20% on the primary attack.
The problem is for most monsters you are not going to see a reduction in attack bonus on a full attack, as such you'll be looking at eating about half of the incoming attacks on a regular basis -- if you are looking to actually live through your 3~5+ encounters a day that's not acceptable.
Honestly these combinations wouldn't work in any of our campaigns, your 'heavy high defense' would be too far on the low end.
Ah, I see what you are going for:
That's kind of the point, yeah. The idea is a guideline to let players know when they might be focusing too much in one area. We've been consistently driving our GMs bonkers by killing encounters too quickly, and being way too hard to hit.
Yes, I am well aware that it is -easy- to break beyond these numbers, making powerful concepts really doesn't require that much thought.
The idea is a willful restraint to make the game more fun without having to work hard to make subpar builds for someone's vague complaining that you aren't a real roleplayer unless your build sucks.
And yeah, I mixed numbers from the NPC codex, and the high monster attack recommended totals, trying to make a suggestion to where people can hold off on bumping the stats that make life hard for your GM.
There is definitely a middle ground between getting pwned because you're under-built, and playing a build that one-shots the encounter's heavier creatures while gleefully enjoying a near-zip likelihood of being affected in return.
I think the trick is finding what that middle ground exactly is.
18 AC is your High for 1st level? How in the world did you get that number?
Breastplate, a decent Dex and a Shield will get you 20 easy.
back of the bestiary tells you what to expect on 'average' -- very GM dependent though.
In most games where I see players and GMs complain of being broken are in the area of damage dealt through either magic or weapons, or armor classes that become absurdly high really quickly.
In most games where I see complaints of brokenness, the players and GMs aren't actually following the rules. Sometimes this is because they simply don't know the rules. Other times it's because they've house-ruled things without fully understanding them, breaking rather than fixing an aspect of the game.
I'd be curious to hear what "broken" things you've actually had happen in your group.
A first-level barbarian with 12 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack is overpowered under your guidelines and needs to scale back its offensive capabilities.
I don't know any standard builds that can afford good medium armors at first level, short of rich parents trait. Then again, that might be a sign to diversify your money.
Again, the point is not to mention how easy it is to go past the numbers, but rather to have a chart telling people where they should roughly aim to get at a particular level.
And yeah, this isn't perfect. But the idea is to help the GM know what kind of numbers to build his encounters around, and help new players know if they're keeping up, and experienced players to know if they're overdoing a stat.
A first level barbarian with a 12 str and greatsword averages 2d6 (7) + str and a half (6) and power attack (3). That's 3 over in a special ability as a relatively focused build during a rage while power attacking. That's hardly enough of a difference to cause concern. Guidelines, not a hard and fast rule.
You'll probably notice other stats falling on the lower end during the rage to more than make up for it. But yes, again, it's very easy to break the high average expectations, and yeah, maybe that level 1 barbarian really doesn't need power attack with everything else going for him or her. While 3 damage over isn't great cause for concern, it shows that some diversity is a safe bet since they have damage covered.
Ah, I see what you are going for:
Not really a good one. By that logic, a grand majority of monsters are power gaming. Seen several CR equivalent monsters take down chars from full to negative hp when all their hits land.
I don't personally think there is any such thing as broken, only over-specialization, and scales higher or lower, than what a GM wants to see. If they're following the rules that is.
One easy example of over-focusing is the 18 strength two-handed fighter with rage and power attack and hell if you're at it potions of this and that, maybe level-dipping for alchemist mutagens, maybe up your size category while you're at it.
I'm not impressed nor disgusted by the overly complex, highly specialized builds.
But if you're looking for average power-scaled, versatile type adventures roughly designed to parallel what's the bestiary and npc codex, this might not be a bad way to look at gauging. And yeah, it's just an idea.
One of the large points of the game IS the ability to specialize. Just a glance at the classes and archetypes makes that clear. Being able to go all in to something is an expected and intended part of the game.
Also 18 str with rage is in no way over anything. It is in fact what was intended for the class. You really think a barbarian was meant to have 12 str?
18 AC is your High for 1st level? How in the world did you get that number?
Breastplate, a decent Dex and a Shield will get you 20 easy.
Too be fair, if you go by the average starting wealth for any classes then none of them can actually afford a breastplate at level one.
Too be fair, if you go by the average starting wealth for any classes then none of them can actually afford a breastplate at level one.18 AC is your High for 1st level? How in the world did you get that number?
Breastplate, a decent Dex and a Shield will get you 20 easy.
Indeed. But I notice this high AC chart breaks down into well flat silliness at say lvl 5. 22? Just full plate with 12 dex and a shield hits that number.
This is not even counting class abilities, Armor/shield enchantments or other armor giving items/spells. The idea that ones full plate shield fighter should go out of his way to avoid AC when doing so would not even fall into mid-op range is just... Not even sure the word.
-Edit- My point here is a full plate and shield fighter that takes dodge or buys a ring of protection is in no way at all a powergamer and this post is showing just how ridiculously overused and under understood that word is anymore.
I feel these numbers are too low. I know you used the monster-creation table from the Beastiaries, but don't forget those monsters are made so they are relatively easy to hit.
You could probably give each level the AC/damage numbers from one or two levels above and get a better aproximation. As it is right now, most characters have to be rather underpowered to meet your standards.
16 Str and Power Attack at first level? Get out of my sight you dirty little munchkin.
Black Tentacles? I dunno, seems too weak, that damage looks kind of low for a seventh-level character to be dealing with a spell.