|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many times on these boards in threads where the OP expressed and intention to attempt a concept we see a group of people charge in seemingly saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU WILL GET YOUR PARTY KILLED, WEAK BUILD FOR CONCEPT IS WRONGBADFUN, ALL MUST OPTIMIZE, BUILD MOAR PYLONS!!!"
So once and for all, can we establish what the baseline to contribute is, and if anyone can meet that baseline with a concept, everyone who continues to attack the OP for wrongbadfun should then STFU and GTFO of the thread, unless they have something actually productive to contribute to making the concept work
My proposal for defining the baseline is this:
Look at the Bestiary Monster Creation Guideline for a creature of a CR equal to the level of the class.
If you would rather have those stats on an empty sheet that the proposed build at that level, you can say it is under powered.
Otherwise, it's not. It is viable and able to contribute in a normal game with normal expectations, and therefore not going to come into your home game and stab a baby.
Can we agree to this? And if not can we discuss what the baseline is and should be?
|
I'm on board with the idea of actually having a baseline for comparison.
I'm not sure this will get you a good result though; those are stats for a monster you have to defeat, but that doesn't mean they'll be good stats to play yourself.
For example; some monsters are meant to be killed by a whole party working together, but then they'll be killed swiftly. Is that a good base for evaluating your own character?
Also, monsters are generally built to be strong on one side, weak on another; so that a party will do better with one attack strategy than another. Some are weak on Will, others weak on Reflex, and so on. Monsters are often deliberately designed to have a big weak spot. Good base for PC evaluation?
The table is meant to be used the other way around; does your PC stand any chance against monsters of CR +/- 2 your level on this table? Can your attacks affect it? Can you survive the monster's attacks?
You would have to establish what your baseline is attempting to prove, first. For a damage-dealer the baselines will be quite different from a battlefield controller. I frequently see threads on what numerous "roles" exist within a party. If that's still debatable (which it is) then it is much more difficult to establish baselines.
Damage-Dealer Baseline: Able to contribute significantly to reducing an enemy's hitpoints.
While this may seem obvious... What's the baseline? 75% likely to hit a creature of appropriate CR? Minimum 15% hitpoint reduction on a successful hit? Does that include the obvious standard buffs, or can we only evaluate each character on its own? Can we reduce the minimum damage or the likelihood to hit if the PC has an extended crit range? Is the baseline altered if the creature is using melee or ranged? Should survivability be a part of the baseline?
I like the idea behind this... in theory. But, it's impractical in application. There are just too many variables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, the idea is that you will often hear someone say "by level N, this build will be able to contribute nothing to combat because of X,Y,,Z." Or you will hear "A rogue who focuses on skill-monkeying is dead weight in a fight" etc.
The goal (as far I can tell) is to figure out the baseline threshold for "competence", to determine when having 2 more STR is necessary, or what the safe baseline CON would be etc...
So... epiphany, maybe?
Instead of trying to establish a baseline for PC's, why not try and establish a baseline for creatures/NPC's?
You could create a "Training Dummy" at appropriate CR's and then measure someone's build against that in mock scenarios. If they are able to beat the Dummy's saves/resistances/SR then they will be effective as a caster. If they can beat its AC/evasion/DR then they will be effective in combat.
Oh I like a training dummy. Seems like one should just find the highest stats for monsters of a given CR and create that as the impenetrable shield. If you possess the spear sharp enough to pierce it you win. Performance will be graded based upon how you fair vs the impenetrable shield.
I'm not sure "highest" should be the measuring stick. I would say the goal is to find the average, across the board. Then if somebody posts a build, they can reference it to say "At 5th level, I'll hit CR5's 70% of the time, doing avg 13% damage to their total hitpoints." That becomes your measurement against the baseline.
It would still be a judgement call, but more than just "it's sub-optimal, so you die."
I do not have the link, but there is a spreadsheet with the AVG values for all relevant categories in at least MM1. This would be a good place I think to work off of.
1) The base equation is something like {damage party gives}/{enemy HP} >/= {damage enemy gives}/{party HP}. Simply, the party has to kill the enemny before the enemy kills the party.
For sake of example, lets look at a level one party: fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard.
Fighter: 13 hp, 1d6+4 damage +4 to hit
Rogue: 8 hp, 1d4 damage, +4 to hit (+1d6 for sneak attack)
Cleric: 10 hp, 1d6 damage, +0 to hit
Wizard: 8 hp, 1d4 damage, +3 to hit
41 HP total.
The Average CR1 monster has 14AC, so the fighter will hit on 50% of his rolls, as will the rogue. The Wizard will hit on 45%, and the cleric will hit on 25%.
The fighter will deal 7.5 damage per hit on average, the rogue 2.5, the wizard 2.5, and the cleric 3.5.
On the average attacking round, the fighter will deal 3.75 damage, the rogue 1.25, the wizard 1.2, and the cleric .875, for a total of 7.075 damage per round.
On average a CR1 monster has 12.3 hitpoint, so it is possible to kill this monster in two rounds. Therefore it is essential that it not be possible (for anyone) to be killed in 2 rounds.
While this is a very simple example, it shows how using some sort of baseline statistic can be used to determine a baseline performance, and everything else can be then compared.
In this small example, lets look at touch/FF AC. Average is 12 for CR1 encounters. so On a sneak attack the rogue will deal 2.5+3.5 = 6 damage, and will hit 60% of the time, for 3.6 damage on the first round instead of 1.25, raising the damage dealt to 9.325. Still not enough to kill it.
The wizard might choose to use acid instead of his bow, so the touch AC is 12 for him, and at +3 he will hit 55% of the time for 1d3 damage (2 average), or 1.1 damage from the spell. This is less damage than the shortbow. But if he uses MM he will deal 1d4+1 (3.5 average damage), raising it from 9.325 to 11.625 damage. If the cleric uses inflict light wounds, (1d8+1) the damage average is 5.5, and will land 40% of the time, making it's average damage 2.2.
So.. 3.6 + 3.5 +2.2 + 3.75 = 13.05 damage in one round. Enough to kill an average threat in one round; however it uses all the resources.
I think that a lot could be learned from this kind of evaluation, but setting the standard would be essential for anything large to come of this.
|
|
I'm on board with the idea of actually having a baseline for comparison.
I'm not sure this will get you a good result though; those are stats for a monster you have to defeat, but that doesn't mean they'll be good stats to play yourself.
For example; some monsters are meant to be killed by a whole party working together, but then they'll be killed swiftly. Is that a good base for evaluating your own character?
Also, monsters are generally built to be strong on one side, weak on another; so that a party will do better with one attack strategy than another. Some are weak on Will, others weak on Reflex, and so on. Monsters are often deliberately designed to have a big weak spot. Good base for PC evaluation?
The table is meant to be used the other way around; does your PC stand any chance against monsters of CR +/- 2 your level on this table? Can your attacks affect it? Can you survive the monster's attacks?
First, thanks for fixing the link.
Second I think the idea is that if you encountered an NPC of that class and level, they would be that CR (generally speaking) and the presumption is that 4 people of equal value to the one person they are fighting should reasonably be able to defeat that person (4 on 1 after all)
Having an individual person stand up against a +2 CR, presuming no advance planning and not knowing if that is the only encounter of the day so you can go nova, etc...should be above the expectation of an individual, but still within the expectation of a party of 4 (it is still 4 on 1 after all)
So logically to me, saying "If this guy is equal to the CR expectaions, they are a viable contributer to a party of that level.
|
|
So... epiphany, maybe?
Instead of trying to establish a baseline for PC's, why not try and establish a baseline for creatures/NPC's?
You could create a "Training Dummy" at appropriate CR's and then measure someone's build against that in mock scenarios. If they are able to beat the Dummy's saves/resistances/SR then they will be effective as a caster. If they can beat its AC/evasion/DR then they will be effective in combat.
I think that is basically what the Bestiary table is.
It gives the saves, the hit points, etc...
I would add it isn't just beating the training dummy, but doing so with a reasonable use of resources. If you have to nova to beat the dummy and can't contribute for the rest of the day, that isn't so great either.
|
|
A baseline for the process of establishing a baseline, perhaps? ;)Wouldn't the Heroic NPC stat array be a good "baseline"?I think most people would argue, fairly, that having an NPC be the baseline is too low an expecation. But it is a thought.
I'm just trying to cut off at the pass those who say "Being as good as an NPC" isn't Big Damn Hero enough.
So, going off of the table in the Bestiary, what likelihood of success (i.e. DC vs. Saves, to hit vs. AC, damage vs. hp, etc.) qualifies a PC as "Optimal", "Effective", or "Innefective"?
Establish that, and you have your baseline.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So many times on these boards in threads where the OP expressed and intention to attempt a concept we see a group of people charge in seemingly saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU WILL GET YOUR PARTY KILLED, WEAK BUILD FOR CONCEPT IS WRONGBADFUN, ALL MUST OPTIMIZE, BUILD MOAR PYLONS!!!"
So once and for all, can we establish what the baseline to contribute is, and if anyone can meet that baseline with a concept, everyone who continues to attack the OP for wrongbadfun should then STFU and GTFO of the thread, unless they have something actually productive to contribute to making the concept work
I must say that I do not see how you bashing "optimizers" in submission with your baseline is any better than their supposed bashing builds in submission with their "weak build is wrongbadfun".
I believe that more ideas and points of view is better for this game of imagination and creativity than less.
I see no value in inventing a new tool that aims at censoring posters.
|
|
So, going off of the table in the Bestiary, what likelihood of success (i.e. DC vs. Saves, to hit vs. AC, damage vs. hp, etc.) qualifies a PC as "Optimal", "Effective", or "Innefective"?
Establish that, and you have your baseline.
Agreed. And then you need to establish criteria of value for a given action economy use.
For example Color Spray does no hit point damage, but a given percentage of the time it will remove an enemy from combat.
What percentage does the spell need to be effect (and how many times a day) do you need to count it as an effective action.
Lets say we can agree to a 4 encounter day.
Lets us say that to be combat effective as a primary hitter you must average removing 1/4 of a given equal creatures hit points.
As a caster you must be able to have the spell succeed at fully disabling what % of the time, 25%? And or for control spells, what value do we assign them relative to utility. How many control spells spent per encounter, for example, at what level of effectiveness. Similar for buffs, what value is given for increasing others effectiveness, as a use of action.
Then for the switch hitters, we may not require they fully meet either standard, but rather must hit a number for both that is slightly lower, as they have the utility to do both.
A bard for example, may not meet the damage threshold, but can at the same time be using bardic performance.
So the criteria for me should be:
1. What do you need to establish a valuable action in combat (1/4 hit points, 25% disable, etc...)
2. How many times do you need to do this in an encounter (how many resources are being burned)
3. How many times must you do the first two things per day, and how many times are you able.
|
|
So many times on these boards in threads where the OP expressed and intention to attempt a concept we see a group of people charge in seemingly saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU WILL GET YOUR PARTY KILLED, WEAK BUILD FOR CONCEPT IS WRONGBADFUN, ALL MUST OPTIMIZE, BUILD MOAR PYLONS!!!"
So once and for all, can we establish what the baseline to contribute is, and if anyone can meet that baseline with a concept, everyone who continues to attack the OP for wrongbadfun should then STFU and GTFO of the thread, unless they have something actually productive to contribute to making the concept work
I must say that I do not see how you bashing "optimizers" in submission with your baseline is any better than their supposed bashing builds in submission with their "weak build is wrongbadfun".
I believe that more ideas and points of view is better for this game of imagination and creativity than less.
I see no value in inventing a new tool that aims at censoring posters.
Then go away :)
First we would need to eliminate as many situational aspects as possible. So, let's assume there is not "surrender option". You will need to either reduce a creature's hp to zero (if you are doing damage) or gain maximum benefit of save or suck/debuff abilities. A save for partial, is a save in other words. Buffers/healers don't apply, since all they are really concerned with is uses per day and survivability.
Seem reasonable?
|
|
Let’s play with math. Let us assume an encounter that will last two rounds.
First, perhaps a small bonus for Init, adjusted for level. The earlier you go, the more likely you will do something prior to your enemy. We could throw in some perception/stealth adjustments later, but for now we don’t need to muddy the water more than it is.
Now we have two actions.
For a melee, we can use as a baseline one moving attack and one full attack.
For ranged, two full attacks.
For damage spells, count the damage.
For buff, assume the buff is on a creature of the bestiary baseline level and measure the adjustment relative to what additional damage that creature would do. Do the same in reverse for spells that remove enemy actions (for example if the creature is made unconscious a percentage of the time, you get credit for removing the damage it would have done as well as any attack bonuses on the creatures for everyone else attacking it, times the percentage of time it would have happened due to failed save).
Similarly for control spells, remove or reduce the action of the enemy appropriately.
So for example a bard starts a performance with the first action (credit the Bard with whatever additional damage three other creatures equal to the bestiary numbers would do against a creature of the bestiary level) and moves into hypothetical full attack range. For the second round the Bard is credited for the bonus damage from the 3 people he is buffing (the damage they are doing above and beyond what they would have done) plus the damage the bard is themselves doing with an attack.
If this total is equal to greater that 25% of the creatures hit points, that Bard has contributed it’s part to removing a creature of that level in two rounds as part of a party of 4.
Part two is calculating survivabilty in reverse.
|
|
One thing to keep in mind is that the expected damage column for the monster creation chart does not take into account the chance to hit, it assumes that all attacks hit. This is a very poor assumption for a PC. If we compare a level 10 rogue and fighter where the rogue has taken the two-weapon fighting feats and is sneak attacking the average damage if all of the rogue's attacks hit would be around 96 for a strength 20 rogue. A strength 22 fighter power attacking with an elven curved blade only has an average damage of 63 if both of the fighter's attacks hit. We know that if we factor in the chance to hit the fighter comes out ahead so the chart would have to take the chance to hit into account.
That is an easy fix as it has the attack bonuses included which we can calculate against the AC listed.
In fact, we could use that baseline as the actual number to hit. I did a quick and dirty spreadsheet and came up with this. First column is how much damage on High attack (adjusted for miss chance), second column is for second attack (again, adjusted for miss chance) third column is total of column 1 and 2 (so the total damage for two rounds, and the last column is the percentage of hit points relative to a creature of that CR.
This reflects one moving attack (high) one full attack (High and low) which was the baseline.
R1 r2 Tot %
2.00 3.15 5.15 0.52
3.50 5.25 8.75 0.58
5.00 7.35 12.35 0.62
5.85 9.00 14.85 0.50
7.20 12.00 19.20 0.48
8.00 14.25 22.25 0.40
8.75 16.20 24.95 0.36
10.50 18.70 29.20 0.34
10.50 20.80 31.30 0.31
12.00 25.50 37.50 0.33
13.50 28.05 41.55 0.32
15.00 31.45 46.45 0.32
16.50 36.90 53.40 0.33
18.00 40.50 58.50 0.33
19.50 43.20 62.70 0.31
21.00 46.80 67.80 0.31
20.00 51.00 71.00 0.30
22.50 56.95 79.45 0.29
25.00 63.75 88.75 0.30
27.50 69.70 97.20 0.29
36.00 85.50 121.50 0.33
|
|
Looking at the numbers I am thinking 25% is to low. I would say meeting the % of the CR creature is a better measure.
So for a CR 10 Creature, using the above numbers, they should be doing 32% or 41.55 (the first listing is 1/2, so it's actually the 11th row above), which keep in mind the DPR olympics account for a full attack, which is only one of the two attacks.
And remember, they have to do it 4 times a day.
Looking at it another way for spells, lets take a 1st level wizard with an 18 Int and color spray.
Save is going to be 15, meaning the creature will fail most of the time (removing all damage the creature would do and adding it to the casters count) and if it fails and is unconcious, he would additionally get the bonus damage from that drop to the creatures AC by being unconcious.
Absolutely dominant and valuable for that encounter, without even using the 2nd round where they could cast another spell for even more.
Now what about the other 3 encounters for the day.
We can also do this in reverse for the creature attacking the PC, dividing that damage by 4 (since it is 1 in 4 the creature attacks the PC) and allow the PC to choose to buff or defend as one of the action economy (unless it is an extended us spell, which we can discuss how likely it is "on" at a given level)
The DPR doesn't need to be calculated, really. Neither do the stats in question, for the bard example. The goal is to create a formula for a player to use in any situation with any PC.
That way it doesn't matter if your build is high damage, or low miss, or high survivability, or high control. All of that gets factored against each other. That's what the "training dummy" is for. To demonstrate that your low hit, avg damage is weighed against your high survivability. In other words, will the creature still die before you will?
|
|
The DPR doesn't need to be calculated, really. Neither do the stats in question, for the bard example. The goal is to create a formula for a player to use in any situation with any PC.
That way it doesn't matter if your build is high damage, or low miss, or high survivability, or high control. All of that gets factored against each other. That's what the "training dummy" is for. To demonstrate that your low hit, avg damage is weighed against your high survivability. In other words, will the creature still die before you will?
I don't think that is the goal.
Removing the creature quickly, before it can do damage to you OR those who are with you is the goal.
It isn't a solo equation, which is why you need to be sure get the bonuses for buffing your party even if that has no effect on your personal DPR.
I would argue that you also calculate the survivability relative to the bestiary CR, which leads to the question of if a relative value should be assigned to saving throws when figuring out defense, or if that is just calculated separately.
But that is getting ahead, as we should probably establish the offensive guidelines first, as they will likely inform the defensive ones.
|
|
Actually if the archeologist used luck for one round, it gets six rounds of luck a day, the damage would be 41 which is right on the target value for the table.
Well, right at the baseline. Remember this is establishing minimums that if met, make them viable.
Plus, if the archeologist took any of the extender feats, they could do it more often.
|
|
So putting aside init and defense for now, lets look at the core.
We have Hit Point values established, so Melee, Ranged and Damage spell calculation is easy.
The Buff formulas are based off the increase in damage by adding the buff, so that is fairly easy.
The SoS spells would based off success of the spell (Maybe Average of failure vs High and Low save) and how much potential that would remove if successful, combined with added enemy vulnerabilty due to whatever condition, or just total hit point removal if it is a true SoS spell that succeeds.
Control spells are a bit trickier. The ones that cause effects (grapple) we can calculate ok, and maybe we remove the full attack with things like wall spells?
But as a baseline concept, I like it.
Unfortunately, I'm at work until late, so I can't expand on what I mean. I'll try and present something tonight, if I'm not too tired. What I would be interested in seeing is a ratio that allows variances in DPR, mitigation/survivability, and control. That way, if a PC really focuses in on one or two areas, he isn't penalized for suffering in another.
|
|
Unfortunately, I'm at work until late, so I can't expand on what I mean. I'll try and present something tonight, if I'm not too tired. What I would be interested in seeing is a ratio that allows variances in DPR, mitigation/survivability, and control. That way, if a PC really focuses in on one or two areas, he isn't penalized for suffering in another.
I think in the final calculus this will do just that, as when we look at how the player can stand up to the CR opponent, that is going to be part of the total package.
But I look forward to your comments and feedback later.
There is no baseline to contribute.
I must confess to not doing build things very well or often, but what level are we looking at and what point buy?
|
Is this only for combat effectiveness, or adventuring in general.
I ran a PFS scenario recently where 2 of the 4 missions had absolutely no combat at all. It was all problem solving and social interaction, where being optimised to destroy a creature had no effect.
I think this is always one of the problems in these "my character is better n yours" scenarios that pop up here.
Just checking what you're after here Coretose. If its pure combat, no probs, you could probably get a mathematical answer or baseline.
If your after more than that in terms of what it means to contribute, then I wish you luck, for that is far more subjective.
Cheers
|
|
Is this only for combat effectiveness, or adventuring in general.
I ran a PFS scenario recently where 2 of the 4 missions had absolutely no combat at all. It was all problem solving and social interaction, where being optimised to destroy a creature had no effect.
I think this is always one of the problems in these "my character is better n yours" scenarios that pop up here.
Just checking what you're after here Coretose. If its pure combat, no probs, you could probably get a mathematical answer or baseline.
If your after more than that in terms of what it means to contribute, then I wish you luck, for that is far more subjective.
Cheers
This is establishing a baseline for what is "viable" for combat, that once reached means anything else you can do for the party is gravy.
Or basically the point at which no one can say a given build doesn't contribute.
Relf; Elf Rogue 1.
The idea here is a completely unconcerned with optimization starting elf rogue who wants to do a little of everything. How better to begin that with the most reproached class at its weakest :P
DEX: 16 (+3)|| AC: 15 (10+3+2[padded leather])
CON: 12 (+1)|| FORT: 1
INT: 12 (+1)|| REFL: 5
WIS: 13 (+1)|| WILL: 1
CHA: 14 (+2)|| INIT: +8 (4[Improved Init]+3+1[Warriors of Old])
Gear: Shortbow, Rapier, Padded Leather Armor
Feats: Improved Init.
Skills: (9 points)
Stealth +7 (1 point)
Sleight +7 (1 point)
Acrobatics +7 (1 point)
Perception +7 (+1 and class skill trait, 1 point, +2 elf)
K(Local) +5 (1 point)
Bluff +6 (1 point)
Diplomacy (1 point)
Traits:
Warrior of Old
Eyes and Ears of the City
|
|
Melee or ranged.
If melee you are doing +1 attack bonus vs 12 AC.
First attack normal, second attack with sneak attack, hit on 11, so 45%
Quick and dirty (someone else can do the crit math)
Round 1 is 4.5 X .45 =2.03 (plus crit math)
Round 2 is 8 X .55 =4.4 (plus crit math)
Total is 6.43, which is less than the 8.75 offense expected from an Equal CR, according to the chart above. About 43% of total hit points (15)
On the defensive side, your AC is much better, but your hit points are much worse. The equal CR creature would hit you on 13 or higher, or .35
Round 1 is 7 X .35 = 2.45
Round 2 is 7 X .30 +5 X .30 = 4.4
Total is 6.4 vs your 10 hit points for 64% of hit points removed.
So basically, you don't match up offensively or defensively with that build.
Now there should be some consideration for Init in the final calculations, and that would help a lot, but we are in the early stages.
EDIT: Corrected for flanking on 2nd round.
|
|
Give him flanking advantage Ciretose, after all, that's what a rogue is going to try for. I'd advise you to paint them in the best light rather than the worst light if you want to a real feel for their effectiveness. Remember this is not a solo game.
In this case he gets an extra 4 damage on average per attack that hits. That will affect your results .
Given his stealth and acrobatics, he's very likely getting sneak attack on every attack as he can either catch flat footed or tumble to flank quite easily.
Also note, he can bypass traps and talk his way out of situations better than most given his skill selection so that needs to account for some baseline effectiveness.
Why don't you make the baseline, two combat encounters at cr, one trap and one social situation. That's four encounters for the day and represents something more like a real adventure day for baseline comparison.
Eg, combat as already stated, Trap with DC spot and DC disable appropriate, maybe with a chance to overcome that doesn't involve disarming. Social situation of opposed bluff and diplomacy or intimidate with an average DC for the level.
If this were the case, I feel this rogue would perform much better in baseline than some characters.
Cheers
|
|
Give him flanking advantage Ciretose, after all, that's what a rogue is going to try for. I'd advise you to paint them in the best light rather than the worst light if you want to a real feel for their effectiveness. Remember this is not a solo game.
In this case he gets an extra 4 damage on average per attack that hits. That will affect your results significantly.
Cheers
Good catch, I will correct, but only on the 2nd attack (the presumption is move first, best 2nd)
|
|
Good catch, I will correct, but only on the 2nd attack (the presumption is move first, best 2nd)Give him flanking advantage Ciretose, after all, that's what a rogue is going to try for. I'd advise you to paint them in the best light rather than the worst light if you want to a real feel for their effectiveness. Remember this is not a solo game.
In this case he gets an extra 4 damage on average per attack that hits. That will affect your results significantly.
Cheers
I edited my post with some more ideas Ciretose, after you posted sorry. Feel free to ignore if you want, but I think it might give better results for what you're after.
Cheers
|
|
Good catch, I will correct, but only on the 2nd attack (the presumption is move first, best 2nd)Give him flanking advantage Ciretose, after all, that's what a rogue is going to try for. I'd advise you to paint them in the best light rather than the worst light if you want to a real feel for their effectiveness. Remember this is not a solo game.
In this case he gets an extra 4 damage on average per attack that hits. That will affect your results significantly.
Cheers
I edited my post with some more ideas Ciretose, after you posted sorry. Feel free to ignore if you want, but I think it might give better results for what you're after.
Cheers
I think the presumption is the character will be built to have value out of combat, but there is a minimum baseline for value in combat.
Conversely, you can argue a character with little out of combat value would need to be much better in combat.
|
|
Ciretose, spoilered so as not to derail your thread more.
The trap though, he can potentially negate any damage from it completely with a perception roll. Unfortunately he took sleight of hand rather than disable, which makes him much less useful. Still, given he spotted the trap, and has a good reflex he's going to take less damage than most other classes. So he gets alas here.
Socially he can do as well as almost anyone else with 7's in two social skills. I'd give him a plus here.
So two negatives for combat, a token plus for trap/puzzle, and a solid plus for social. Even with my test he's not pulling his weight enough times at this stage. Maybe some tweaks in build.
Any way, its your thread, I'll stop trying to make it run the way I want it now. Cheers mate.
So, an equal CR thing is going to be taking on a whole 4 person party, right? so a level one PC should presumably not be taking on CR1 monsters solo four times a day.
I am not sure how to take that into account in calculations, but expecting every PC to be as effective as every equal challenge rating threat seems a little bit tough to pull off.
Some thoughts on Initiative. Most monsters initiative will be equal to their DEX rating, so it should be straightforward to figure out the percent of beating the average DEX rating. Considering a rogue gets a sneak attack that first round if it attacks first, that would also be a potential way incorporate the rogue's niche.
Average CR1 dex is 14, so +2 to Initiative. My +8 makes me 30% more likely to go first than it, so 65% chance of getting a ranged sneak attack first round.
So first round ranged sneak attack (if wins initiative)
1d4 +1d6 = 2.5 + 3.5 damage = 6 damage, and at +3 for dex I will hit 55% of the time, for 3.3 damage.
Round One 3.3 damage (65%) or 2.025 (35%) = 2.85375 damage.
Round Two 4.4 damage
Total damage would be 7.7 damage.
Still not high enough to reach that mark, but a little more respectable.
|
|
An equal CR encounter is supposed to be relatvely easy.
For Initiative the bigger question is what kind of bonus to give.
The issue with your assumption of sneak attack ranged would be that how then would you also get sneak attack the 2nd time when flanking? That adds a bit too much presumption, IMHO.
This isn't to say the rogue you made won't work at other levels (with weapon finesse at 2nd for example) but that it lags at 1st level as compared to the expectations of a CR 1 opponent.
Which is what your 1st level Rogue would be, as an NPC.