Sure. The assumption is that round one, when I get to act while they are flatfooted, I shoot them. This will happen 65% of the time assuming the CR1 monster has an average Dex Score. The other 35% I attack melee, whcih is where the composite 2.8 came from.
The second round I would get flanking and use a melee attack either way, so that number stayed the same.
Definitely weaker than the challenge still, but I think using the Initiative to counter the average DEX score of the level is a good way of determining first round sneak attack damage.
The sweet part about establishing a baseline is that since every Pathfinder player plays at the exact same skill level and knowledge base, we can easily make this happen.
what the-
oh wait, sorry, I forgot that players are different and varied, both in their levels of skill, their knowledge of the system and their preferences on how they want to play the dang game.
|
I like this idea as a thought experiment. That being said, it is now my bed time, and I have nothing to contribute except for advice.
First, define your roles, such as healer, single target dpr, skill monkey, etc. Thus, at the end of this all, you can say Character X fits the "Healer" role successfully.
Then set reasonably arbitrary guidelines. For example:
Healer: should be able to heal a single target 2xlevel in one round.
Single target DPR: should be able to deal an average of 5xlevel against AC 10+level in one round.
Skill Monkey: Should gain at least 8 skill points per level, and be able to perform at least 3 skills at over 5+level.
Once you have the base metric for testing, test it against a few builds.
Of course, if you want some builds to consider, you can always look here:Guide to the Builds
|
Sure. The assumption is that round one, when I get to act while they are flatfooted, I shoot them. This will happen 65% of the time assuming the CR1 monster has an average Dex Score. The other 35% I attack melee, whcih is where the composite 2.8 came from.
The second round I would get flanking and use a melee attack either way, so that number stayed the same.
Definitely weaker than the challenge still, but I think using the Initiative to counter the average DEX score of the level is a good way of determining first round sneak attack damage.
Maybe at low levels, but at high levels you would lose access to the multiple attacks moving in the 2nd round. Given you need to win initiative and then move into flanking to get both is unlikely, giving you one or the other seems a more reasonable baseline.
And either way, you are still under with that build. Want to take it up to 2nd level and see how it does?
|
|
The sweet part about establishing a baseline is that since every Pathfinder player plays at the exact same skill level and knowledge base, we can easily make this happen.
what the-
oh wait, sorry, I forgot that players are different and varied, both in their levels of skill, their knowledge of the system and their preferences on how they want to play the dang game.
Thank you for illustrating an example of the poster I was alluding to in the OP!
This is way beyond tricky.
I have seen encounters where a PC that did not do a single point of damage was the tipping point because (using delaying tactics and full defense) he kept two other bad guys off of another character long enought to turn the tide back to the party.
Without that PC, who again, did no damage in the encounter, it would have been a TPK.
I am sorry, but I must submit that DPR, To hit percentages, Min Caster attribute necessary to overcome save bonus X, these are yardsticks that have no use at all in determining a PC's ability to contribute. These are the tools of theory-crafters and simply do not hold up in play.
In-game play has a much more dramatic impact. Strategic positioning, clever use of spells and resources, and simple teamwork go farther than any build analysis alone can carry you in determining an indiviuals capacity to contribute.
The player is the most important part of the equation here, not the Character.
Just my $.02.
Very Best Of Luck To You,
Weslocke of Phazdaliom
|
|
It is intended as a way of saying "If you can do this, everyone needs to shut up about not being viable in combat"
So if you have the high skill build that does lots of non-combat stuff AND you can meet the baseline, there is no need to discuss combat viability.
I think the DPR olympics are silly as well. Harmless for the most part, but yes, silly.
EDIT: In case I was unclear, I agree with what you are saying, I just still think this could be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand your intent Ciretose. I would even go so far as to say I feel your pain. A little part of me dies each time our resident munchkin army goes to war over these things. I posted on the recent "Am I useless" thread too (on the first page), and I watched as you tirelessly refuted their claims in a manner that I found to be quite inspiring.
Theory crafting has its place and uses. Primarily as an encouter design tool.
I hate to say it, but there is no "yardstick" that will change their minds. There is no argument that will sway them. I have my doubts as to how many of them actually even play the game with other people, and in-game play is the only way to show them that, in the case of theory crafting, it just does not hold water beyond the white-board.
Pick your battles, man. Hearts and minds. One at a time.
I wish I had something to contribute that was more helpful.
Very Best Of Luck To You,
Weslocke of Phazdaliom
Relf, Level 2 Half-Elf Rogue
DEX: 16 (+3)|| AC: 17 (10+3+4[chainshirt])
CON: 12 (+1)|| FORT: 1
INT: 12 (+1)|| REFL: 6
WIS: 13 (+1)|| WILL: 1
CHA: 14 (+2)|| INIT: +8 (4[Improved Init]+3+1[Warriors of Old])
Gear: Shortbow, Rapier, Mithral Shirt
Melee: +4 (+3DEX; +1 Weapon Focus)
Feats:
-Improved Init.
-Weapon Focus (Rapier)
Rogue Talents:
-Finesse Rogue
Sneak Attack: 1d6
Evasion
Skills: (18 points)
Stealth +8 (2 point)
Sleight +8 (2 point)
Acrobatics +8 (2 point)
Perception +8 (+1 and class skill trait, 2 point, +2 elf)
K(Local) +6 (2 point)
Bluff +7 (2 point)
Diplomacy +8 (2 point)
Traits:
Warrior of Old
Eyes and Ears of the City
So now the melee attack on round 1 is 1d6+1, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit an AC 14. = 45%, so still 2.025
On round 2, it is 1d6+1+1d6, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit AC 12 (flanking) = 55%, so 4.4 damage.
6.425 total, from 20 hp = 32.125%
AC has not changed, though with an increased money I could get a chainshirt, bringing the AC to 17.
High Attack is +4, so it will hit 35%, for 10 damage, 3.5(x2 for round two) would be 7 damage, from 15 HP, or 46.667%
|
|
Relf, Level 2 Half-Elf Rogue
** spoiler omitted **
So now the melee attack on round 1 is 1d6+1, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit an AC 14. = 45%, so still 2.025On round 2, it is 1d6+1+1d6, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit AC 12 (flanking) = 55%, so 4.4 damage.6.425 total, from 20 hp = 32.125%
AC has not changed, though with an increased money I could get a chainshirt, bringing the AC to 17.
High Attack is +4, so it will hit 35%, for 10 damage, 3.5(x2 for round two) would be 7 damage, from 15 HP, or 46.667%
You are actually trying to hit AC 14 (CR 2 monster, I think you were looking at the CR 1 creature) so you are still only hitting 45%, meaning damage is basically unchanged (you went up 2, he went up 2.
I would have gone weapon finesse rather than weapon focus, as that would kick you up 2 more for your attack bonus, which would give you the scores you posted.
For comparison, the CR Creature against itself is
Round 1 10 X .50 = 5
Round 2 (10 X .50) + (7 X .45) = 8.15
Total is 13.15 or 66% of hit points.
Vs your 17 AC is would be doing 9.1 damage for 61%, so slightly better defensively than the baseline, but behind offensively.
So still lagging a bit at this point.
Relf, Level 2 Half-Elf Rogue
** spoiler omitted **
So now the melee attack on round 1 is 1d6+1, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit an AC 14. = 45%, so still 2.025On round 2, it is 1d6+1+1d6, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit AC 12 (flanking) = 55%, so 4.4 damage.6.425 total, from 20 hp = 32.125%
AC has not changed, though with an increased money I could get a chainshirt, bringing the AC to 17.
High Attack is +4, so it will hit 35%, for 10 damage, 3.5(x2 for round two) would be 7 damage, from 15 HP, or 46.667%
You are actually trying to hit AC 14 (CR 2 monster, I think you were looking at the CR 1 creature) so you are still only hitting 45%, meaning damage is basically unchanged (you went up 2, he went up 2.
I would have gone weapon finesse rather than weapon focus, as that would kick you up 2 more for your attack bonus, which would give you the scores you posted.
For comparison, the CR Creature against itself is
Round 1 10 X .50 = 5
Round 2 (10 X .50) + (7 X .45) = 8.15Total is 13.15 or 66% of hit points.
Vs your 17 AC is would be doing 9.1 damage for 61%, so slightly better defensively than the baseline, but behind offensively.
So still lagging a bit at this point.
Ummm, I had the 14 AC on round 1, but round two the flanking bonus brought it down to 12. Also, I added weapon finesse with the finesse rogue talent.
|
I do learn some interesting things from theory craft. Particulalry how mechanics can be used to make something overly broken. This has allowed me to tone down some things when I was DMing and now that im playing, has allowed me to not break the game accidentally with some combos of feats.
It has also shown me the amazing disconnect some people have with a roll play vs a role play game. Many of the previous get all sorts of irate when you place roleplay penalties on their min maxed device of ultimate doom, claiming "That's not RAW!, therefore has no place in the discussion".
If you want to discuss effectiveness in roleplay games, you need to consider all aspects. Combat is but one, and for a large number of scenarios and game sessions, isn't even the dominant aspect of the game.
Ciretose, I admire your goals. In fact, you and I are often arguing on the same sides in these discussions, but playing the numbers game with people who crunch numbers more than they play will never attain anything except a headache.
I had a player once who joined a PbP I was running. It was Kingmaker and he bult a ranger for maximum effectiveness at ranged killing. Dump statted nearly all the effective social aspects. It was in character, so no probs we ran with it. As a PbP though, the character development and interraction with NPC's was essential, especially for getting gear, and dealing with political aspects of the game. He didn't have the chance to "let others" deal with these, because the situations often evolved when he was alone with NPC's or when specific NPC's asked him directly rather than deal with the "Face". He quit the game. Every one else loved it. When the setting is played with a level of depth beyond roling dice. When characters are played to "Character and stats" rather than player skill, then min maxing is a doomed flaw.
You don't have to be optimized to contribute, you need to adapt the groups strategies to the situation at hand. The more spread your abilities, the greater the chance you'll succeed.
PFS is the best yard stick for this Ciretose. You don't know who you'll group with at all. Min maxed characters die a lot* in those games because the bases aren't covered for what the scenarios throw their way.
This will probably be fun for you, but ultimately I think its not going to net what you want.
* NOte - This is gleaned purely from anecdotal evidence from folks I talk to in PFS areas.
Cheers
|
|
Ummm, I had the 14 AC on round 1, but round two the flanking bonus brought it down to 12. Also, I added weapon finesse with the finesse rogue talent.Relf, Level 2 Half-Elf Rogue
** spoiler omitted **
So now the melee attack on round 1 is 1d6+1, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit an AC 14. = 45%, so still 2.025On round 2, it is 1d6+1+1d6, +3 to-hit
Trying to hit AC 12 (flanking) = 55%, so 4.4 damage.6.425 total, from 20 hp = 32.125%
AC has not changed, though with an increased money I could get a chainshirt, bringing the AC to 17.
High Attack is +4, so it will hit 35%, for 10 damage, 3.5(x2 for round two) would be 7 damage, from 15 HP, or 46.667%
You are actually trying to hit AC 14 (CR 2 monster, I think you were looking at the CR 1 creature) so you are still only hitting 45%, meaning damage is basically unchanged (you went up 2, he went up 2.
I would have gone weapon finesse rather than weapon focus, as that would kick you up 2 more for your attack bonus, which would give you the scores you posted.
For comparison, the CR Creature against itself is
Round 1 10 X .50 = 5
Round 2 (10 X .50) + (7 X .45) = 8.15Total is 13.15 or 66% of hit points.
Vs your 17 AC is would be doing 9.1 damage for 61%, so slightly better defensively than the baseline, but behind offensively.
So still lagging a bit at this point.
Missed that, sorry, you are correct.
|
|
Wait, actually you shorted yourself.
You have +3 from Dex, +1 from rogue and +1 from weapon focus for a total of +5, not +4.
So you hit 55% on first and 65% on second.
That means round 1 is 4.5 X .55 for 2.48
Round 2 is the total from round 1 plus 8 X .65 for 7.68
Total is 10.15, or .51 of 20, making you right about where you are supposed to be offensively, and as we looked earlier, ahead defensively.
nice :P
|
|
I'm sure the Devs have a tool of some sort they use, as these tables don't come out of thin air.
I think if we take it piece by piece we'll be able to come up with a plugable formula.
What we have now is a helpful shorthand tool to build from, I think. I still want to add Init as a consideration, and we'll need to look at how to value saves (calculating them relative to expectation should be easy, as we have the comparable numbers on the chart). But for now I want to test drive this part and see how it is working. The first build seems to be doing about what I expected.
Any other builds?
Ciretose will we be giving dedicated frontliners a different standard than a medium BAB class that can fight up front, but is not its primary function?
I think we also need to have different numbers for boss fights. When the AC is 3 or 4 points higher, and you are getting hit a lot harder it will change things.
PS:I did skip a few post.
|
|
Ciretose will we be giving dedicated frontliners a different standard than a medium BAB class that can fight up front, but is not its primary function?
I think we also need to have different numbers for boss fights. When the AC is 3 or 4 points higher, and you are getting hit a lot harder it will change things.
PS:I did skip a few post.
It is more based on action economy.
In the example above, the choice of the two actions was standard attack actions of a rogue (Move to position on first attack, optimal second attack)
If it were a Bard, the first attack could be activate performance and move to position (Player gets credit for how much additional damage would occur as a result of the buff, applied to three equal creatures making those attacks against equal CR creatures on the first attack, then that same number plus an attack on the second round)
Spell casters can get buff credit, damage credit, weakening credit (like the bard in reverse for how much more damage is done to the weakened enemy, as well as less damage done by the weakened creature), and removal credit.
This has to be done 4 times per day, so if you can do it all day, credit. If not, you have to say what you are doing each time.
Finally, all of this is applied for defensive purposes as well against an equal CR creature.
More may be added, and it is actually less difficult to calculate than it sounds written out.
What levels are you going to target. Choosing levels is more efficient than making a build every level.
1 6 and 12(also where PFS ends and sorcerers get thier 6th level spell) might work.
|
|
So here is how it works out running the bestiary.
CR High % Low % Rd 1 Rd 2 Total % of HP
1 0.5 0.45 3.5 5.75 9.25 61.67%
2 0.5 0.45 5 8.15 13.15 65.75%
3 0.55 0.45 7.15 11.2 18.35 61.17%
4 0.55 0.45 8.8 14.2 23 57.50%
5 0.6 0.45 12 18.75 30.75 55.91%
6 0.65 0.45 16.25 24.35 40.6 58.00%
7 0.65 0.5 19.5 30.5 50 58.82%
8 0.7 0.5 24.5 37.5 62 62.00%
9 0.7 0.45 28 41.5 69.5 60.43%
10 0.7 0.45 31.5 46.35 77.85 59.88%
11 0.7 0.45 35 51.65 86.65 59.76%
12 0.7 0.4 38.5 54.9 93.4 58.38%
13 0.7 0.4 42 60 102 56.67%
14 0.7 0.4 45.5 64.7 110.2 55.10%
15 0.7 0.4 49 69.8 118.8 54.00%
16 0.75 0.4 60 84 144 60.00%
17 0.75 0.4 67.5 94.3 161.8 59.93%
18 0.75 0.4 75 105 180 60.00%
19 0.75 0.4 82.5 115.3 197.8 59.94%
20 0.7 0.35 84 115.5 199.5 53.92%
As you can see, each level over two rounds the creatures do between 53% and 65% of total hit points if they were facing each other. These are the calculations that are adjusted.
So lets say you are a 1st level wizard with an 18 Int and you color spray in round 1.
The save will be 15, meaning against high you succeed 60% and again low 75% of the time. Average that out to 68% and in the first of your two rounds you automatically get 68% of the total damage the monster could do, making your score for round 1 6.29. In addition, if they are unconscious (as they likely would be in at first level with this spell vs a CR 1 opponent) everyone attacking gets a +4 bonus to hit them, or basically 20% more likely. So you also get 20% of average damage for round 1 (3.5 * .20 =.7) times 3 (2.1).
So your credit for round 1 is 8.40. Way over, but that is a large resource allocation for a 1st level wizard.
If you choose to do nothing else in the 2nd round, you can carry that to the 2nd round (as they would be stunned for two rounds. In that case you get credit for 20% of average round 2 damage (5.75 X .20 =1.15) X 3 (3.45) for a total of 9.74.
Your total damage is 17.87, or 119% of hit points. Impressive.
But then you also need to calculate the vulnerability of the wizard. Lets say they have a 12 AC. That is the same as the average CR 1, so we can use the same math.
Except wizards don't generally have 15 hit points at 1st level. Lets assume they have 9. Pretty reasonable.
So the CR 1 creature will do 9.25 damage, meaning you will be at risk for 103% of hit points.
So the color spray wizard can both go way over damage, but be way under defense.
Once we get this part ironed out, I'd like to work out saves and initiative for some % bonuses, but this formula is complicated enough as is without muddying the waters at this point.
|
|
What levels are you going to target. Choosing levels is more efficient than making a build every level.
1 6 and 12(also where PFS ends and sorcerers get thier 6th level spell) might work.
The idea is plug any build, at any level, into the formula.
This is a response to the "It is viable" question.
If it is as effective as an equal CR creature, it is viable. If it isn't, it may need work.
|
|
Looking at saves, would % from average work as a stand alone.
So for the rogue 2nd level rogue, the average save is 2.67 (1,6,1).
Bestiary average is 3 (5,1)
So the rogue is 89% of expectations for saves.
Initiative is tricky, as there is no real baseline. Any ideas? Conceptually you will have 5 parties involved (4 players and the enemy) so the questions are.
1. What is the average expected by level
2. What mathematical benefit should it be it to attack prior to the enemy, relative to the other criteria. How much value should we assign to it?
Initiative is hard to account for since it depends so much on the party. If some parties get jump on the bad guy(s) it basically ends the fight. Others, it would not help so much.
Maybe we can assess what a character that goes before the monsters can do. Maybe the caster dropping grease or fog cloud prevents a charge attack, and saves the frontliner from 20 points of damage.
Since we are doing a baseline of the average build we can't assume all builds will have improved initiative, even though my better player have made sure to go first over the years.
|
|
Initiative is hard to account for since it depends so much on the party. If some parties get jump on the bad guy(s) it basically ends the fight. Others, it would not help so much.
Maybe we can assess what a character that goes before the monsters can do. Maybe the caster dropping grease or fog cloud prevents a charge attack, and saves the frontliner from 20 points of damage.
Since we are doing a baseline of the average build we can't assume all builds will have improved initiative, even though my better player have made sure to go first over the years.
Agreed. I think it going to be somewhat subjective, but I do think having the bestiary set as the norm gives us something to work from.
For init, how about variance from a baseline of Init being equal to 1/2 level rounded down, with each point over the baseline being a 5% chance you go before the enemy?
Now how to calculate that advantage as part of the whole build is harder, as you point out, but some subjectivity is unavoidable.
That works for now...
Now back to character building. The average players won't always choose the best spells. Can we use NPC's from AP's as the default builds with regard to feats, skill ranks, and spell choices. They always seem to have something I want to replace.
your build must be this good to ride this ride
|
|
That works for now...
Now back to character building. The average players won't always choose the best spells. Can we use NPC's from AP's as the default builds with regard to feats, skill ranks, and spell choices. They always seem to have something I want to replace.
I think scrodinger is a risk, but I also think selecting spells needs to be part of the build. If it becomes obvious, that will expose itself in the discussion, since casters are going to need to burn spells for 4 sets of encounter, both on offense and defense.
Speaking of defense, what would we say is an average aventure day. For example if we say 12 hours, each casting of mage armor for a 3rd level character would have a 25% chance of being active in a given encounter if cast, or you can cast it multiple times for it to be more likely to be active.
I have always gone with 8 hours as an adventure day for the purpose of playtesting. 8 hours of down time, 8 hours of adventuring, and 8 hours of rest.
|
|
I have always gone with 8 hours as an adventure day for the purpose of playtesting. 8 hours of down time, 8 hours of adventuring, and 8 hours of rest.
I can live with that, although it removes after hours attack which is why I would prefer 12.
But that is more quibble than anything else.
Anyone have any builds they want plug in to take a look at. The rogue earlier came out somewhat underpowered (as expected) and the Wizard for the one encounter was great offense, no defense (as expected).