even you up thread mentioned that certain +X skill boost should be removed, but healsticks are good?
I was listing off the number of spells that make skills better, not endorsing their removal. Similarly, I don't like healsticks, I actually prefer healing surges or something built in rather than forcing the use of consumables.
No, it didn't work. People hated that book and the game that was derived from it. Not to edition war here but I think that 4e (imo) was a flop.
Not everything in 4E was awful, and not everyone hates it; best not to edition war here. I said I didn't mind healing surges because we otherwise use heal sticks anyway, making health a moderately renewable resource. I'm strictly against forcing people into healbot or skillmonkey roles personally.
Anyways... So casters and resource management, I dislike it. I think there are better targets for resource management that don't force the games narrative or deprive people of fun or force them into a position where they can do nothing.
Given how some players can be dicks and how PFS (if I'm not mistaken) requires GMs to not deny any player a seat, the recipe is a disaster.
In PFS any player can choose not to sit at a table and any DM can turn down a player actually. They literally cannot force you to play. That would require more chains than they could provide, I'm sure.
*confused* I didn't say a GM could force a player to play.Given how some players can be dicks and how PFS (if I'm not mistaken) requires GMs to not deny any player a seat, the recipe is a disaster.In PFS any player can choose not to sit at a table and any DM can turn down a player actually. They literally cannot force you to play. That would require more chains than they could provide, I'm sure.
Just covering my grounds! Didn't say you did say it. Even have a quote to prove it.
|
Anyways... So casters and resource management, I dislike it. I think there are better targets for resource management that don't force the games narrative or deprive people of fun or force them into a position where they can do nothing.
Pass - I much rather cut down casters at the legs and still discuss changes to casting, magic use, spell list and slots over hitting some "other" nebulous resource to control as a game fix.
You are more than welcome to pursue an alternate resource to control and post your game fix here.
After all, we can't have you change the narrative of this thread.
The answer is do what works for your game. In most games most of the problems are in theory instead of actual application. I see no reason to nerf them, but another GM might. There was another GM who thought caster could cast a spell based upon their BAB, and he had no issues in his games, BUT his players did not use spells as efficiently as many other players would either so it was not a problem.
if one nerfs HP and damage output across the board to 1e levels, wizard spells need to be nerfed too, because a 10th level wizard dropping a 10d6 fireball is unfair to the fighter who swings twice for 2d6+6
and even then, if you wished to cap PC attributes, you should cap NPC attributes as well, including monsters. it would be unfair to cap the human fighter at 18 strength unaugmented when the dragon can keep his 50-something strength without issue.
|
|
if one nerfs HP and damage output across the board to 1e levels, wizard spells need to be nerfed too, because a 10th level wizard dropping a 10d6 fireball is unfair to the fighter who swings twice for 2d6+6
and even then, if you wished to cap PC attributes, you should cap NPC attributes as well, including monsters. it would be unfair to cap the human fighter at 18 strength unaugmented when the dragon can keep his 50-something strength without issue.
Yeah...that's the idea.
That's a separate issue from the caster fix though.
You can change casting, spell slots, etc all as a fix without changing stats/hp and damage output.
I would like a total overhaul and flush the existing system down the toilet, but I really don't have the drive or focus to do a proper game re-write.
Yeah...that's the idea.if one nerfs HP and damage output across the board to 1e levels, wizard spells need to be nerfed too, because a 10th level wizard dropping a 10d6 fireball is unfair to the fighter who swings twice for 2d6+6
and even then, if you wished to cap PC attributes, you should cap NPC attributes as well, including monsters. it would be unfair to cap the human fighter at 18 strength unaugmented when the dragon can keep his 50-something strength without issue.
if the fighter is stuck with 18 strength
then the great Wyrm Dragon should have at most, a strength in the mid 20s.
if the fighter swings his greatsword twice for 2d6+6 with an 18 strength at 10th level
then the wizard should have at most, a 6d6+4 fireball with a reflex save for half at 10th level with an 18 int. and that would be a 3rd level spell.
What I do for my games is scaling PB
Fighters, monks, rogues, cavaliers, samurai get 25 pb
Battle casters(+ Barbarians and paladins), such as bards, inquisitors, etc. get 20
All full casters(People who get 9th level spells, which includes summoners) are 15 pb.
That helps a little bit imo.
Next thing I do is start banning / nerfing spells
I have opinions on this!... but I don't want to change subject.
You can pm if you want
Was half joking to be honest. I don't think it fixes things. Just punishes people who want to play casters. At higher level play sometimes a caster never goes into combat anyway so... yeah. Usually games never hit that point, so all it does it make them more fragile. Provided they never cast things like displacement or mirror image.
Honestly you can nerf casters to just cantrips and have the 1d3 spells do 1d3/caster level damage and I would still play them.
Prestidigitation is the best spell.
EDIT: Even if you did that, people on the forums will still call them OP.
Was half joking to be honest. I don't think it fixes things. Just punishes people who want to play casters. At higher level play sometimes a caster never goes into combat anyway so... yeah. Usually games never hit that point, so all it does it make them more fragile. Provided they never cast things like displacement or mirror image.Actually it doesn't punish people who want to play full casters, since being a full caster you are already better than anyone else.
Also, 15 pb is the paizo ap standard, I dunno how that is punishing
No. Fullcasters are not "better". They play differently and a majority of posters on the forums prefer their play style. This does not make them the only effective class.
No. 15 pb begs your players for multi-stat dumping. 20 is PFS standard. I don't play PFS, but our group uses that as the standard point buy.
15 pb begs your players for multi-stat dumping.
This. The thing is, people are already going to jack up what they're going to jack up when optimizing, more point buy just fills in what they're dumping really. The wizard wants 17 intellect, and he's going to get it. He's still going to increase con and dex, and likely dump str/cha(especially after they made a trait that lets him lie and convince people things better than other classes... yeah.) So the point buy doesn't actually fix things that much, just makes it a little more punishing.
|
|
Was half joking to be honest. I don't think it fixes things. Just punishes people who want to play casters. At higher level play sometimes a caster never goes into combat anyway so... yeah. Usually games never hit that point, so all it does it make them more fragile. Provided they never cast things like displacement or mirror image.Actually it doesn't punish people who want to play full casters, since being a full caster you are already better than anyone else.
Also, 15 pb is the paizo ap standard, I dunno how that is punishing
CWheezy, what Sin is trying to tell you is that stats don't make that much difference for casters since they don't need to deal or take hp damage if played right due to their spells. AC and hp are not an issue, reducing their stats does nothing if they negate the need to be in combat.
Yet he doesn't think that taking away spell slots, availability, use per day would be fair to casters.
Sort of the typical denner attitude, complain about how martials suck/caster edition, but when it comes time to offer a fix - you cannot touch casters!
Don't waste your time with PB variance for classes - you fix doesn't work anyway (everyone will just start out as a martial for the PB, then add other classes). Our brilliant caster posters failed to catch that one.
Just dump the way some spells work, make casting a little harder (damage = fail, full round action to cast) and reduce spell selection/slots and you have fixed around 80% of the problems.
Our brilliant caster posters failed to catch that one.
I don't appreciate that. Its bad karma.
Well... Flag and move on.
|
|
One change I've thought about is giving wizards the ability to cast as often as they wish. they have no spell slots. But, they have an activation roll. the higher the level of the spell, the higher the activation roll. Their class level is a positive modifier on the spell. If they fail the activation role, they do nothing for the casting
duration.An Option is that if they fail by a significant amount, they are nauseated until their next turn.
Without a measure of tracking use (either spell points or fatigue) that cumulatively reduces the bonus, your caster is going to try to cast a spell every encounter and will in fact cast more spells then what is allowed under the current rules.
Once they get higher level, their lower level spells effectively become SLAs since their chance of failure to cast goes down as the caster goes up (think along the lines of a Fighter trying to hit a lower AC as he goes up in level, just gets easier).
I'm sorry but I am comparing PF to 3.5 spells. Almost everything got the nerf bat.
If you really NEED to nerf casters for YOUR games to function, the easiest solution is to buff peoples saves.
Also ban spell perfection. blatant min/maxing. Casters should not be ignoring SR with a dazing blast spell of F-you.
Heck the most extreme caster nerf you should ever consider is limiting them to core, and letting other classes use splat books.
One change I've thought about is giving wizards the ability to cast as often as they wish. they have no spell slots. But, they have an activation roll. the higher the level of the spell, the higher the activation roll. Their class level is a positive modifier on the spell. If they fail the activation role, they do nothing for the casting
duration.An Option is that if they fail by a significant amount, they are nauseated until their next turn.
Without a measure of tracking use (either spell points or fatigue) that cumulatively reduces the bonus, your caster is going to try to cast a spell every encounter and will in fact cast more spells then what is allowed under the current rules.
Once they get higher level, their lower level spells effectively become SLAs since their chance of failure to cast goes down as the caster goes up (think along the lines of a Fighter trying to hit a lower AC as he goes up in level, just gets easier).
Here is a system idea. Your casting mod is lvl + mental score. The DC is to cast is the spell level plus your fatigue. After a successful cast your fatigue increases by the spell level. Failed rolls are just a waste of an action. Failure by 10 or more misfire like UMD checks. After resting your fatigue score resets to 0.
Such a system is open to the idea of mana potions.
|
|
Auxmaulous, nerfing spell slots would mostly make casters a lot less fun to play, and it would limit creativity in spell choice.
It is the spells themselves, really.
Also I enjoy people attacking my claim without understanding fully what I do, which is pretty nice. Going into every spell nerf would be pretty time consuming but that is the main thing.
I agree - somewhat.
Spell slots/allotment would also be there but not the highest priority.
- Spell description/function would be on the top of my list.
- The way spells are cast/function and interact would also be up there. Fail if damaged, full round action for most spells, etc.
And reducing the spell slots isn't really a big thing. People were playing casters for 25 years with limited spells and still had a blast with the game. Don't let what amounts to a marketing gimmick (to make casters more appealing, accessible and easier to play) from some Devs override your sense of class balance.
Casters had less spells in older editions and still were able to do things, defending inflated spell slots does nothing to help the problem.
|
|
Without a measure of tracking use (either spell points or fatigue) that cumulatively reduces the bonus, your caster is going to try to cast a spell every encounter and will in fact cast more spells then what is allowed under the current rules.In combat, what matters is how effective a character is, not how many spells they can cast before a rest. Since you have no idea what the activation role would be, you have no basis for saying that this rule change would make them more effective.
Yes I do, you never mentioned a diminishing value, just a static check. Which to me means = roll every time/every encounter multiple times in the encounter since there is no consequence or use tracker.
Any and every caster player would roll ever time to cast a spell unless the nauseated effect last for more that one encounter - yet your only control you listed (nauseated) last for one turn.
Once they get higher level, their lower level spells effectively become SLAs since their chance of failure to cast goes down as the caster goes up (think along the lines of a Fighter trying to hit a lower AC as he goes up in level, just gets easier).Yes, but not a problem since spells which are significantly lower than your highest level spell tend not to regularly be all that effective.
Ok, if that is your desired effect then you have achieved it - wrong thread though - this is about nerfing casters, not giving them extra unlimited lower level spells which are now SLAs.
Also, not sure what game your playing - but my players try to use their lower spells first unless the situation is so overwhelming that they need to bring out the big guns. 1st -3rd level spells are exceptionally fantastic in their versatility and use, so you want a mid to high level caster to be able to spam these. Again, great idea if you want wizards to cast more spells, wrong thread.
|
|
Here is a system idea. Your casting mod is lvl + mental score. The DC is to cast is the spell level plus your fatigue. After a successful cast your fatigue increases by the spell level. Failed rolls are just a waste of an action. Failure by 10 or more misfire like UMD checks. After resting your fatigue score resets to 0.
Such a system is open to the idea of mana potions.
Wouldn't be bad if you had a scaling fatigue system, otherwise the more spells you cast/higher level you get the harder it is to cast all spells.
Maybe the total fatigue points = negative for highest spell level on check, getting +2 better per level lower?
So a level 1 caster who is 4 fatigue points suffers a -4 to cast his highest level spell (level 1 spells) and -2 to cast his cantrips,
A 5th level caster with 6 fatigue points suffers a -6 to cast 3d level spells, -4 to cast 2nd level spells, -2 to cast 1st level spells and 0 for cantrips.
Or something like that.
|
|
roll every time/every encounter multiple times in the encounter since there is no consequence or use tracker.I consider 'lose a round of action while the enemy beats on you' to be a pretty hefty consequence. I'm surprised you don't.
No, I don't. There are so many ways to abuse your proposed system its hard to even take it seriously.
1st -3rd level spells are exceptionally fantastic in their versatility and use, so you want a mid to high level caster to be able to spam these. Again, great idea if you want wizards to cast more spells, wrong thread.You go right ahead and have your casters spam 5d4+5 while the enemy is pounding on you with significantly more damage and has significantly more hit points than you. Let's see how long that works for you.
And lets see how long it takes for out of combat spells to be spammed to break your system?
Cast Prot From Evil on every single party member before opening any door and do it every few minutes - everyone gets +2 on saves vs spells from evil and +2 AC. Here's another one - spam Resist/Prot. Energy so your party has permanent 10 point energy armor/12 point soak before every encounter, spam Locate Object throughout the dungeon, spam Invisibility for every party member every encounter, spam any number of stat boosters before every single encounter, always have the ability to Fly (whole party) or spam Keen Edge or Greater Magic Weapon - and have these effects for the entire party going at all times.And while the guys spamming is doing his 5d4+5, the guy using his higher level spells still needs to roll to get his effect off.
Let me know how all of that works out for you.
If all you can think about spamming is damage/blast spells and how they impact game balance, you probably shouldn't be designing spell systems.
the key to balancing casters, is not to nerf their spell slots and shorten the adventuring day further, but to rewrite the magic system entirely.
if Per Encounter Casters existed and had a few decent at will powers when they ran out of their encounter powers
it would be far more balanced than trying to shoehorn a once per week nuclear explosion that is OMG, once per week.
even if the nuclear explosion was once per week, as long as it was damned powerful enough to justify being a weekly spell, it might as well be a devastating effect saved for those once in a lifetime battles such as when you need to kill a legendary archdemon to save a country.
it doesn't matter that the caster can split nuclear atoms once a week, because they have the option to do it, and will save it for the big decisive fight of the week.
at will damage, at will out of combat healing, and at will minor buffs or debuffs aren't an issue.
it doesn't matter how many spells per day you can use if they have minor game changing impact.
it is the reason the 3.5 warlock was actually balanced as a class.
|
|
Please tell me how "lose a round of action while being beat on" can be circumvented.
No, I don't. There are so many ways to abuse your proposed system its hard to even take it seriously.
By shutting down the encounter with spammable spells.
lets see how long it takes for out of combat spells to be spammed to break your system?
Cast Prot From Evil on every single party member before opening any door and do it every few minutes - everyone gets +2 on saves vs spells from evil and +2 AC.That depends on too big of an 'if' to take seriously - namely that you know ahead of time when every encounter is going to start. Scrying? Your GM does use things like illusions and abjurations doesn't he?
And if you want to spam them ahead of time, you do realize, I hope, that a caster can't move while casting? So, you stand still for the entire day spamming spells while your enemies eventually figure out where you are and then circle around you.
Spells with durations don't care about your dungeon set up. Do you understand that? Seriously, do you comprehend that notion or are you just trolling?
You cast a spell with a duration of X minutes. You fail. One round later you cast a spell with X duration of minutes, you fail and are nauseated for 1 round. You try again a round later, you now have the spell for X minutes. Rinse and repeat for entire party.
Or in Justin Rockets PF world you are under constant attack from monsters every waking minute and turn of the dungeon? No? Oh ok, see my instructions above for casting spells under your system.
And while the guys spamming is doing his 5d4+5, the guy using his higher level spells still needs to roll to get his effect off.Obviously, your enemy doesn't have to be a caster. So, you're spamming 5d4+5 against nasty creatures with nasty SLAs and martial attacks that dwarf your 5d4+5.
Wow, you really don't get it.
NO ONE CARES ABOUT SPAMMING 5D4+5 SPELLS! NO ONE BUT YOU!Your creature is going to be assaulted by my entire party who is already invisible because I can do it an unlimited number of times a day. So every couple of minutes the caster will refresh everyone's Invisibility, Keen Edge, Protection From Arrows or whatever duration spell I have that serves as a buff/booster/defense - failing or getting sick for one round for a few rolls he will eventually succeed on his needed rolls before the spell durations run out.
And no - he doesn't have to stop moving to even do this, he just needs to slow down - he takes a standard action (cast spammable spell) and takes a move action.
So you make the party invisible or put whatever combination of spells that last for more than a few rounds on them as they surround your creature encounter and kill it dead with their first round of buffed up attacks.
Or they can all Fly over your encounter, or any number of stupid duration based spells that are spammed over your encounter.
You do know that there are spells that last 1min, 10min or 1 hour a level right?
|
|
You cast a spell with a duration of X minutes. You fail. One round later you cast a spell with duration of minutes, you fail and are nauseated for 1 round. You try again a round later, you now have the spell for X minutes. Rinse and repeat for entire party.I didn't realize you play old school DnD where monsters don't actually exist until you knock down the door of the room they are in. They don't respond to noise, have patrols/scouts, or set up ambushes. So, being dog ass slow makes no difference in your party's exploring.
That changes things.
I didn't know that you didn't run spells with durations longer than 1 round, you should have said so from the beginning.
That changes things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know that you didn't know that I didn't know.
There has to be a way that allows people to play non-supernatural fighters alongside powerful spellcasters and for both to be useful and fun. If Gandalf and Aragorn can manage it, so can Pathfinder!
Well, Aragorn's party involved a divine being who could play Deus Ex Machina(Gandalf), a Dwarven Fighter, An Elven Archer, a guy who had to have stacked a few templates(Aragorn wasn't just any man...), and quiet a few hobbits who couldn't fight. I don't think they were supposed to be on even playing fields fighting side by side in a dungeon.
Likely you could, but pathfinder isn't the best system for it. Its hard to balance the idea of a completely mundane fighter with a guy who can twist reality. At one point that fighter is going to become superhuman if that's who your comparing too, or the wizard bending reality itself is a DM fiat ritual only.
You might consider E6. You never reach higher levels where the wizard is bending reality over its back, or at least he doesn't have as much potential for shenanigans.
|
Some ideas.
3. Cap spell DCs at 20
Where are you going to cap saves? I have a fighter whose lowest save is her +20 reflex.
I once had a GM that ruled all monsters had 95% spell resistance. Your rule would effectively do the same.
7. Eliminate magic mart and item creation feats and use 2nd eds item creation rules. Wands of cure light wands etc do not exist. Makes cleric/druid types actually have to use resources from daily spells known.
I'm sorry Mr. Fighter, your going to die. I tapped out of healing 3 encounters ago
Essentially, your entire list of changes, most of which I won't respond to, result in an entirely different game. One that has about the same degree of resemblance to Pathfinder as 4.0 had to 3.5
If what you want is an entirely different game system, do so. Nothing stops from converting Golarion content.
|
|
CWheezy, what Sin is trying to tell you is that stats don't make that much difference for casters since they don't need to deal or take hp damage if played right due to their spells. AC and hp are not an issue, reducing their stats does nothing if they negate the need to be in combat.Was half joking to be honest. I don't think it fixes things. Just punishes people who want to play casters. At higher level play sometimes a caster never goes into combat anyway so... yeah. Usually games never hit that point, so all it does it make them more fragile. Provided they never cast things like displacement or mirror image.Actually it doesn't punish people who want to play full casters, since being a full caster you are already better than anyone else.
Also, 15 pb is the paizo ap standard, I dunno how that is punishing
If your casters never get hit, your DM is doing it wrong.
Intelligent opponents will target casters.
Even at low level, there are plenty of opponents that can simply bypass the front line to reach them.
|
|
No. Fullcasters are not "better".Actually they are flat better, and you have been shown multiple times that they are. I think everyone knows by now you hate thinking that things might possibly be too good, but actually it is possible EDIT: I know you disagree, but you disagreed when your criteria was "Has to fight 20 fights per day or is still no good" Or something like that.
I disagree.
A well built martial is just as effective in combat as a full caster. A well built martial with a moderate investment in anti-caster options can shut a full caster down on the first round.
Everyone is describing that the skill monkey role sucks.
Monks fall flat for being half skill monkey.
Rangers had a problem with his skills being useless.
Buffing the fighter was a very effective casting strategy. YOU KNOW WHY??? Buffs ALWAYS work. 1 haste spell does TONS more DPR than Meteor Swarm.
Martials are fine. They do damage. They do so much damage that if the BBEG lets them get off a full-attack then he is dead.
Casters are fine. Solid in combat and without. Limited slots prevent them from doing everything at all times.
Skill monkeys suck. Skills suck. An epic skill check isn't better than a low level spell. It's not the spells that are OP, it's the skills that just don't do much. Like Heal. Or Needing a +20 mod to stealth before it's better than a second level spell. Which the spells themselves are by no means game-breaking.
No one should have a problem with a caster using one of his highest slots to do something an equal skill couldn't. The illusion of broken OP-ness is when they use their lowest most worthless slots to do things an equal level skill can't yet.
|
|
A well built martial is just as effective in combat as a full caster. A well built martial with a moderate investment in anti-caster options can shut a full caster down on the first round.
Kind of like Uugg, with incorrect traits, to-hit numbers and assumed DRP and target AC for CR 1 opponents?
Uugg:He has a to-hit mod of +8 to +10 vs an armor class of 12 - 15.Uugg Human Barbarian 1
CN Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +4
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 14, touch 9, flat-footed 13 (+5 armor, +1 Dex)
hp 16 (1d12+4)
Fort +6, Ref +1, Will +2
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Greatsword +8 (2d6+13/19-20/x2)
Special Attacks rage (9 rounds/day)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 24, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 7
Base Atk +1; CMB +8; CMD 17
Feats Power Attack -1/+2, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Traits Adopted, Berserker of the Society, Elven Reflexes
Skills Acrobatics +2, Climb +8, Escape Artist -2, Fly -2, Knowledge (nature) +4, Perception +4, Ride -2, Stealth -2, Survival +4, Swim +8
Languages Common
SQ fast movement +10
Other Gear Kikko armor, Greatsword, 70 GP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Berserker of the Society +3 rounds of Rage a day.
Fast Movement +10 (Ex) +10 feet to speed, unless heavily loaded.
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Rage (9 rounds/day) (Ex) +4 Str, +4 Con, +2 to Will saves, -2 to AC when enraged.
Using average stats for a CR 1 opponent (AC 12, 15 hp) the barbarian has a 95% hit rate while charging and deals a minimum of 15 points of damage.
He can do this for 9 rounds a day before dropping down to a mere +8 to-hit and +10 damage on the charge (still one shotting CR 1 opponents on a roll of 6 or better).
He has more AC and more hit points than any full casters is going to manage without dumping his DC's or expending limited spells.
Even with the caster dumping all resources into boosting DC's, he's still going to have less than 95% success rate.
Plus tbh with you, the stats look sketchy. 3 traits? So you have to drop Elven Reflexes or Berserker of the Society or would you rather give up a feat? That or lose the Init bonus or the +3 rounds a day of Raging. Avg Barb wealth 105 gp, Kikko armor (30), Greatsword (50) with 70 gp left - idk, maybe the funds were randomly generated by the app?
He has a to-hit mod of +8 to +10 vs an armor class of 12 - 15.He has a non-raging to-hit of +7 (+6 while using PA)
He has a ranging to-hit of +9 (+8 while using PA)...so where are you getting his +10 to hit from - he never gets to +10.Using average stats for a CR 1 opponent (AC 12, 15 hp) the barbarian has a 95% hit rate while charging and deals a minimum of 15 points of damage.No, he doesn't. If using PA (non raging) he has a 75% rate and if using PA while raging it is 85%. Assuming you want that same damage output 15 min, otherwise you are doing 2d6+7:min 9 damage.
And where the hell are you getting AC 12 as an average CR 1 encounter? Page 291 of the Bestiary guidelines - which the devs don't even follow?
CR 1 Bestiary List AC values:Air elemental AC 17
Darkmantle AC 15
Earth Elemental AC 17
Fire Elemental AC 16
Ghoul AC 14
Giant Frog AC 12
Giant Spider AC 14
Gnoll AC 15
Goblin Dog AC 13
Homunculus AC 14
Horse AC 11
Hyena AC 14
Lemure AC 14
Lizardfolk AC 17
Octopus AC 15
Pseudo Dragon AC 16
Spider Swarm AC 17
Squid AC 13
Svirfneblin AC 15
Troglodyte AC 15
Snake, Venomous AC 14
Water Elemental AC 17
Wolf AC 14Avg AC 14.739
Throwing out the horse
Avg AC 14.90
No comment on all your mistakes, incorrect assumptions and to hit chances/DPR for your "well-built" martial?