It varies considerably from table to table. Most of what we fight in the game I'm currently playing are goblins. I mean, we're talking at least a 10-to-1 ratio of goblin-to-nongoblin. I'd almost consider getting a goblin bane weapon or taking a ranger level, but dropping single goblins isn't really an issue.
Other tables might have hordes of undead, aberrations, dragons, giants, or a healthy mix of different adversary types. I usually run this last choice in my campaigns simply because otherwise I get bored planning and executing combat encounters.
Naturally, the types of encounters in a campaign can have a drastic effect on how a particular character performs. A lot of builds decried as unviable end up shining at some tables, and carefully optimized builds may lack their supposed luster.
Table variation is awesome! It's one of the game's greatest features.
If the martial PCs are not capable of preventing or discouraging enemies from rushing past them, then they are explicitly not 'just as dangerous'.Well, "discouraging" is strictly in the GM's perogative, and that's part of the issue. In actual gridiron football, there are limits on what the linebackers can and will do to get to the quarterback (or when they get there), limits that if violated can result in significant problems. (That's why linebackers don't carry brass knuckles openly; the idea of being ejected from the game is a deterrent.)
If you've decided as the game master that the orc band will suicidally charge the front lines, eating all of the AoOs and dying in droves, so that a single orc can survive the gauntlet and inflict a relatively minor injury on the mage, that violates any sort of reasonable behavior on the part of the orcs. And of course if you decide that they can't be discouraged, then they can't be discouraged. But that's YOU deciding to reinforce the martial v. caster disparity, not the official written rules.
The Orc dont do that. But those 3 Orcs with longbows, the Orc shaman and the Orc gunslinger do stop and look for casters to take out. While others try to flank the party since they have numbers.
It varies considerably from table to table. Most of what we fight in the game I'm currently playing are goblins. I mean, we're talking at least a 10-to-1 ratio of goblin-to-nongoblin. I'd almost consider getting a goblin bane weapon or taking a ranger level, but dropping single goblins isn't really an issue.
Other tables might have hordes of undead, aberrations, dragons, giants, or a healthy mix of different adversary types. I usually run this last choice in my campaigns simply because otherwise I get bored planning and executing combat encounters.
Naturally, the types of encounters in a campaign can have a drastic effect on how a particular character performs. A lot of builds decried as unviable end up shining at some tables, and carefully optimized builds may lack their supposed luster.
Table variation is awesome! It's one of the game's greatest features.
For the most part I run Drow and human scum , both with tend to be of lower level but in larger number then the players. And both use a large number of range weapons with the Drow of course using poison on their range weapons. My players have learn trading missile fire with Drow guerillas is not a good idea
For the most part I run Drow and human scum , both with tend to be of lower level but in larger number then the players. And both use a large number of range weapons with the Drow of course using poison on their range weapons. My players have learn trading missile fire with Drow guerillas is not a good ideaIt varies considerably from table to table. Most of what we fight in the game I'm currently playing are goblins. I mean, we're talking at least a 10-to-1 ratio of goblin-to-nongoblin. I'd almost consider getting a goblin bane weapon or taking a ranger level, but dropping single goblins isn't really an issue.
Other tables might have hordes of undead, aberrations, dragons, giants, or a healthy mix of different adversary types. I usually run this last choice in my campaigns simply because otherwise I get bored planning and executing combat encounters.
Naturally, the types of encounters in a campaign can have a drastic effect on how a particular character performs. A lot of builds decried as unviable end up shining at some tables, and carefully optimized builds may lack their supposed luster.
Table variation is awesome! It's one of the game's greatest features.
Yeah, that sounds pretty nasty. At least you can actually affect drow with spells in Pathfinder. It was pretty rough in, say, 2E when magic resistance was high and difficult to bypass.
|
People have chosen to narrow their definition of martial after I demonstrated Power Attack as a DPR decrease for Rogue. Very well, here is a DPR decrease when Power Attack is chosen for a full BAB class.
Unnamed Hero
Female elf (taldan) swashbuckler 10 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 56)
CG Medium humanoid (elf)
Init +9; Senses low-light vision; Perception +16
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 28, touch 19, flat-footed 21 (+8 armor, +5 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection, +2 dodge)
hp 84 (10d10+20)
Fort +8, Ref +16, Will +6; +2 vs. enchantments
Defensive Abilities charmed life; Immune sleep
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft., deed: kip-up
Melee +2 keen scimitar +18/+13 (1d6+16/15-20+10 Precision)
Special Attacks deed: menacing swordplay, deed: opportune parry and riposte, deed: precise strike, deed: targeted strike, panache
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +12)
. . 1/day—comprehend languages, detect magic, detect poison, read magic
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 13, Dex 22, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 11, Cha 14
Base Atk +10; CMB +8; CMD 31
Feats Armor Proficiency (medium), Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Shadow Strike[APG], Slashing Grace[ACG], Weapon Focus (scimitar)
Traits extremely fashionable, resilient
Skills Acrobatics +18, Bluff +9, Climb +5, Diplomacy +15, Knowledge (local) +7, Knowledge (nobility) +7, Perception +16, Ride +9, Sense Motive +8, Sleight of Hand +10, Swim +4; Racial Modifiers +2 Perception, deed: derring-do
Languages Celestial, Common, Elven
SQ dare (), deed: dodging panache, deed: superior feint, deed: swashbuckler initiative, deed: swashbuckler's grace, weapon familiarity, swashbuckler finesse
Combat Gear jingasa of the fortunate soldier; Other Gear +2 mithral mountain pattern armor, +2 keen scimitar, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of incredible dexterity +4, cloak of resistance +3, cracked dark blue rhomboid ioun stone, cracked dusty rose prism ioun stone, ring of protection +1, 535 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Charmed Life (5/day) (Ex) Choose to add Charisma bonus to save before roll is made.
Combat Reflexes (7 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Comprehend Languages (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Comprehend Languages once per day.
Deed: Derring-Do (+6 extra dice) (Ex) Use 1 panache, +1d6 to Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, or Swim check. On a 6, roll another die.
Deed: Dodging Panache +2 (Ex) As an imm action when attacked, use 1 panache to move 5 ft. and gain +2 to AC vs. attack.
Deed: Kip-Up (Ex) While have 1 panache, stand up from prone as move action w/o AoO, or as swift for 1 panache.
Deed: Menacing Swordplay (Ex) While 1 panache, as a swift action when hit, attempt demoralize check.
Deed: Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex) 1 panache and 1 AoO to attempt to parry a melee attack, then counterattack.
Deed: Precise Strike +10 (Ex) While 1 panache, bonus to att/dam with light/one-hand piercing weapon.
Deed: Superior Feint (Ex) While 1 panache, as a standard action deliberatly miss foe to deny Dex AC bonus until next turn.
Deed: Swashbuckler Initiative (Ex) While have Panache, can use a free hand to draw a light or one-handed piercing weapon as part of the initiative check.
Deed: Swashbuckler's Grace (Ex) If have 1 panache, no Acrobatics pen when full speed through threatened areas.
Deed: Targeted Strike (Ex) Spend 1 panache as full-rd action to attack part of foe's body.
Detect Magic (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Detect Magic once per day.
Detect Poison (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Detect Poison once per day.
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to magic sleep effects.
Jingasa of the fortunate soldier (1/day) Activate to negate a critical hit or sneak attack as an immediate action.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Panache (Ex) Gain a pool of points that are spent to fuel deeds, regained on light/piercing crit/killing blow.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Read Magic (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Read Magic once per day.
Shadow Strike You can deal precision damage against targets with some concealment.
Slashing Grace (Scimitar) Treat chosen weapon as 1-handed piercing weapon and can had Dex instead of Str to dmg.
Swashbuckler Finesse At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having
--------------------
+2 Keen Scimitar +18/+3 (1d6+16+10/15-20/x2)
24 AC at APL
(.75*29.5)+(.75)(.3)(19.5) = 26.5125
(.5*29.5)+(.5)(.3)(19.5) = 17.675
44.1875
Unnamed Hero
Female elf (taldan) swashbuckler 10 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 56)
CG Medium humanoid (elf)
Init +10; Senses low-light vision; Perception +16
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 28, touch 19, flat-footed 21 (+8 armor, +5 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection, +2 dodge)
hp 84 (10d10+20)
Fort +8, Ref +17, Will +6; +2 vs. enchantments
Defensive Abilities charmed life; Immune sleep
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft., deed: kip-up
Melee +2 keen scimitar +22/+17 (1d6+14/15-20+10 Precision)
Special Attacks deed: menacing swordplay, deed: opportune parry and riposte, deed: precise strike, deed: targeted strike, panache
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +12)
. . 1/day—comprehend languages, detect magic, detect poison, read magic
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 9, Dex 24, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 14
Base Atk +10; CMB +9; CMD 30
Feats Arcane Strike, Armor Proficiency (medium), Combat Reflexes, Shadow Strike[APG], Slashing Grace[ACG], Weapon Focus (scimitar)
Traits extremely fashionable, resilient
Skills Acrobatics +19, Bluff +9, Climb +3, Diplomacy +15, Knowledge (local) +7, Knowledge (nobility) +7, Perception +16, Ride +10, Sense Motive +8, Sleight of Hand +11, Swim +2; Racial Modifiers +2 Perception, deed: derring-do
Languages Celestial, Common, Elven
SQ dare (), deed: dodging panache, deed: superior feint, deed: swashbuckler initiative, deed: swashbuckler's grace, weapon familiarity, swashbuckler finesse
Combat Gear jingasa of the fortunate soldier; Other Gear +2 mithral mountain pattern armor, +2 keen scimitar, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of incredible dexterity +4, cloak of resistance +3, cracked dark blue rhomboid ioun stone, cracked dusty rose prism ioun stone, ring of protection +1, 535 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Arcane Strike As a swift action, add +1 damage, +1 per 5 caster levels and your weapons are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Charmed Life (5/day) (Ex) Choose to add Charisma bonus to save before roll is made.
Combat Reflexes (8 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Comprehend Languages (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Comprehend Languages once per day.
Deed: Derring-Do (+7 extra dice) (Ex) Use 1 panache, +1d6 to Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, or Swim check. On a 6, roll another die.
Deed: Dodging Panache +2 (Ex) As an imm action when attacked, use 1 panache to move 5 ft. and gain +2 to AC vs. attack.
Deed: Kip-Up (Ex) While have 1 panache, stand up from prone as move action w/o AoO, or as swift for 1 panache.
Deed: Menacing Swordplay (Ex) While 1 panache, as a swift action when hit, attempt demoralize check.
Deed: Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex) 1 panache and 1 AoO to attempt to parry a melee attack, then counterattack.
Deed: Precise Strike +10 (Ex) While 1 panache, bonus to att/dam with light/one-hand piercing weapon.
Deed: Superior Feint (Ex) While 1 panache, as a standard action deliberatly miss foe to deny Dex AC bonus until next turn.
Deed: Swashbuckler Initiative (Ex) While have Panache, can use a free hand to draw a light or one-handed piercing weapon as part of the initiative check.
Deed: Swashbuckler's Grace (Ex) If have 1 panache, no Acrobatics pen when full speed through threatened areas.
Deed: Targeted Strike (Ex) Spend 1 panache as full-rd action to attack part of foe's body.
Detect Magic (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Detect Magic once per day.
Detect Poison (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Detect Poison once per day.
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to magic sleep effects.
Jingasa of the fortunate soldier (1/day) Activate to negate a critical hit or sneak attack as an immediate action.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Panache (Ex) Gain a pool of points that are spent to fuel deeds, regained on light/piercing crit/killing blow.
Read Magic (1/day) (Sp) With Intelligence 11+, cast Read Magic once per day.
Shadow Strike You can deal precision damage against targets with some concealment.
Slashing Grace (Scimitar) Treat chosen weapon as 1-handed piercing weapon and can had Dex instead of Str to dmg.
Swashbuckler Finesse At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having
--------------------
+2 Keen Scimitar +22/+17 (1d6+14+10/15-20/x2)
24 AC at APL
(.95*27.5)+(.95)(.3)(17.5) = 30.6375
(.7*27.5)+(.7)(.3)(17.5) = 22.925
53.5625
My rogues DPR was significantly higher than the Swashbucklers. Kiss his does-not-count-as-martial butt. :D
I fully expect the definition of "Martial" will be narrowed to 2HF barbarians in response. At this point, your argument would be irrefutably correct.
Thank you for showcasing another class with a large source of damage and no (or little) increase in accuracy. We've established that Power Attack doesn't function well in those situations, as presented above with the Slayer's Sneak Attack (though the effect was compounded with the deprecation caused by Two Weapon Fighting). Another example of the same thing wasn't prompted, but the additional data is appreciated.
Aside, your rogue had a DPR of around 25, which is significantly lower than the Swashbuckler's or the Slayer's. It dealt more damage on sneak attacks, which are not a guaranteed aspect of combat.
And... you got your math wrong again.
1st Swashbuckler:
Accuracy: .9+.65 = 1.55 (confirmation .775)
23.5 Damage (10 Precision)
30% Crit
(1.55*23.5)+(1.55*13.5*.3*.775) = 41.3 DPR
With PA
Accuracy: .75+.5 = 1.25 (confirmation .625)
29.5 Damage (10 Precision)
30% Crit
(1.25*29.5)+(1.25*19.5*.3*.625) = 41.45 DPR
2nd Swashbuckler:
Accuracy: .95+.7 = 1.65 (confirmation 825)
27.5 Damage (10 Precision)
30% crit
(1.65*27.5)+(1.65*17.5*.3*.825) = 52.53 DPR
Please stay on top of this, so we can produce as accurate of information as possible.
On Arcane Strike
I'm not sure Arcane Strike is an appropriate comparison point. It burns your Swift action each round, and only works for a few races* that come with SLAs, which heavily limits character potential. Power Attack works no matter what you are. The loss of your swift action each round is especially worrisome for Swashbucklers, who rely heavily on using their swift and immediate actions to function; for example, if you want to Riposte or use Charmed Life you use the ability to Arcane Strike the next round, or use any other Swift actions.
*Arcane Strike working off of SLAs is a debatable topic. The RAW says it doesn't work, since SLAs aren't spells, but Paizo posted an FAQ that says to allow it (which has some other side effects, like the weird thing with prestige classes). For the sake of argument, I'd assume it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have chosen to narrow their definition of martial after I demonstrated Power Attack as a DPR decrease for Rogue. Very well, here is a DPR decrease when Power Attack is chosen for a full BAB class.
** spoiler omitted **...
Any reason you are picking the worst classes?
I know! How about a CRB monk without dragon style next?
Aside, your rogue had a DPR of around 25, which is significantly lower than the Swashbuckler's or the Slayer's. It dealt more damage on sneak attacks, which are not a guaranteed aspect of combat.With Gang Up, sneak attacks are all but a guarantee unless your solo, which should never happen.
Having three people in melee on a monster may be rare for a lot of groups.
|
|
With Gang Up, sneak attacks are all but a guarantee unless your solo, which should never happen.I find it is less than guaranteed, as most times by the time you get into position with two of your allies, the enemy is dead.
And I've found it very simple to manage, even on the first round of combat, if I delay until other players have moved.
If combat is ending before the second round, the party is either hugely overpowered or the encounter is way below APL.
|
|
People have chosen to narrow their definition of martial after I demonstrated Power Attack as a DPR decrease for Rogue. Very well, here is a DPR decrease when Power Attack is chosen for a full BAB class.
** spoiler omitted **...
Any reason you are picking the worst classes?
I know! How about a CRB monk without dragon style next?
1. I have a dragon style monk Qinggong monk. He did have both PA and AS, but I was revising him for Pummeling Charge.
2. Broad statements were made as to Power Attacks effectiveness with all classes that fought in melee. When disproved the statement was revised to exclude 3/4 BAB classes. When PA was shown as the lesser choice for a full BAB class, that also is discounted. As predicted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Gang Up, sneak attacks are all but a guarantee unless your solo, which should never happen.I find it is less than guaranteed, as most times by the time you get into position with two of your allies, the enemy is dead.And I've found it very simple to manage, even on the first round of combat, if I delay until other players have moved.
If combat is ending before the second round, the party is either hugely overpowered or the encounter is way below APL.
They must all have power attack.
|
|
They must all have power attack.With Gang Up, sneak attacks are all but a guarantee unless your solo, which should never happen.I find it is less than guaranteed, as most times by the time you get into position with two of your allies, the enemy is dead.And I've found it very simple to manage, even on the first round of combat, if I delay until other players have moved.
If combat is ending before the second round, the party is either hugely overpowered or the encounter is way below APL.
And pounce
And two-handed weapons.
I agree; a full party of invulnerable ragers would be hugely overpowered.
Or a full group of zen archers, that would work, but no PA there.
Broad statements were made as to Power Attacks effectiveness with all classes that fought in melee. When disproved the statement was revised to exclude 3/4 BAB classes. When PA was shown as the lesser choice for a full BAB class, that also is discounted. As predicted.
Oh good you get to be technically correct! Have you notice that the classes who do worse or barely better with PA are also considered the weakest?
No one ever discounted 3/4 BAB classes, just the rogue. Magi, druids, alchemist, inquisitors, investigators, Bards, clerics, skalds, oracles, summoners, hunters, and warpriest all do significantly better with PA (if doing things optimally).
So as far as 3/4 BAB class go, rogues (and even then not TH strength rogues) and monks(in a lot of situations) forgo PA. Nothing else (and I'm not sure we can count the monk since flurry).
The statement was that it was effective on all martials. That your definition of martial is not the same as the definition most people are using is not everyone else's fault- it merely requires you to adjust your point of view when reading the statement.
The statement was improved to include exceptions as they've been proven. I'm pleased to learn and admit that Power Attack has reduced effectiveness for Two Weapon Fighters and classes with large sources of damage but no (or few) increases in accuracy. I can utilize these calculations and trends in future characters, and hopefully you and other people will also profit from that knowledge.
This is not an all-or-nothing discussion, here. We're trying to find what the best objective truth is, not prove or disprove any one claim. Proving and disproving things will occur as part of that process.
|
|
No one ever discounted 3/4 BAB classes, just the rogue. Magi, druids, alchemist, inquisitors, investigators, Bards, clerics, skalds, oracles, summoners, hunters, and warpriest all do significantly better with PA (if doing things optimally).
My magus being discounted as not counting is what started the argument.
No one ever discounted 3/4 BAB classes, just the rogue. Magi, druids, alchemist, inquisitors, investigators, Bards, clerics, skalds, oracles, summoners, hunters, and warpriest all do significantly better with PA (if doing things optimally).My magus being discounted as not counting is what started the argument.
YOUR magus may not do better with PA, that doesn't mean magi don't.
|
|
YOUR magus may not do better with PA, that doesn't mean magi don't.No one ever discounted 3/4 BAB classes, just the rogue. Magi, druids, alchemist, inquisitors, investigators, Bards, clerics, skalds, oracles, summoners, hunters, and warpriest all do significantly better with PA (if doing things optimally).My magus being discounted as not counting is what started the argument.
Magi, as a class, were categorically dismissed as not counting when I stated I played mine as a martial. It is for this reason I have avoided using any 3/4 BAB class with access to spells during my examples. It forces people to make increasingly narrow definitions to defend their position.
Excuse me? I didn't dismiss the Swashbuckler. I admitted that it was a case where Power Attack wasn't functioning effectively.
Stop assuming that people are trying to be in direct opposition to you. We're all trying to accomplish the same thing (hopefully). Read my posts. It seems like you're just glossing over them and assuming I'm attacking you or something.
And stop cutting up my responses and only responding to a tiny portion of them. There is more in that paragraph that is important for communicating with you, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assert that I was saying things I'm clearly not. Are you only reading the first couple sentences?
Magi, as a class, were categorically dismissed as not counting when I stated I played mine as a martial.YOUR magus may not do better with PA, that doesn't mean magi don't.No one ever discounted 3/4 BAB classes, just the rogue. Magi, druids, alchemist, inquisitors, investigators, Bards, clerics, skalds, oracles, summoners, hunters, and warpriest all do significantly better with PA (if doing things optimally).My magus being discounted as not counting is what started the argument.
Some people don't want to consider Magi martials because they do everything martials can do plus cast 6th level spells.
|
|
Some people don't want to consider Magi martials because they do everything martials can do plus cast 6th level spells.Magi, as a class, were categorically dismissed as not counting when I stated I played mine as a martial.YOUR magus may not do better with PA, that doesn't mean magi don't.No one ever discounted 3/4 BAB classes, just the rogue. Magi, druids, alchemist, inquisitors, investigators, Bards, clerics, skalds, oracles, summoners, hunters, and warpriest all do significantly better with PA (if doing things optimally).My magus being discounted as not counting is what started the argument.
The same can be said of Bards and Inquisitors. Yet, many spend most of their time on the front lines.
|
The statement was that it was effective on all martials. That your definition of martial is not the same as the definition most people are using is not everyone else's fault- it merely requires you to adjust your point of view when reading the statement.
The statement was improved to include exceptions as they've been proven. I'm pleased to learn and admit that Power Attack has reduced effectiveness for Two Weapon Fighters and classes with large sources of damage but no (or few) increases in accuracy. I can utilize these calculations and trends in future characters, and hopefully you and other people will also profit from that knowledge.
This is not an all-or-nothing discussion, here. We're trying to find what the best objective truth is, not prove or disprove any one claim. Proving and disproving things will occur as part of that process.
No, the statement was that it was "standard" for all Martials.
I then stated that no feat is standard.
Then you and pixie dust tried to prove me wrong with maths that doesn't relate to the game at the table as it doesn't account for variables or actions or player decisions or....well just about everything in a real game actually.
When you buy a car, some come as standard features. What that means is the every model has them, no matter what.
As has been demonstrated in this thread multiple times, by multiple posters, many Martials don't use or choose power attack. It doesn't matter if you think its useful, there are plenty of build options out there that don't need it to be effective. Therefore it isn't standard.
Martial is not full BAB, it is anything built by a player to be a front line fighter using melee weapons.
You keep changing the goal posts when shown not correct.
Additionally, since you didn't see fit to respond to my PM about data analysis, let me post it here.
Data is raw numbers collected through sampling. Sampling in this game comes from actual game play experience. You call them "anecdotes" to make it sound mathematically irrelevant. However, and this is the part to pay attention to, in statistics, the models are built from real life data when trying to make predictions about real life situations. The real life data takes into account all the variables you and the theory crafters ignore on these boards for the DPS calculations. Now, if the variables at the tables were constant, then you could just ignore them and use your calculations. However, they aren't constant. They change from table to table and group to group. Therefore ignoring them destroys your maths as a useful model for predicting actual events at a game.
As such, ignoring the maths as irrelevant is actually good mathematical reasoning. It distracts from the reality of events which is why so many people who come from these boards with their "builds" find them no where near as effective in a real game as the theory crafters tell them they are.
Now, if you want me and other experienced DM's and players to actually care about your posts on maths, go out and sample large numbers of games across many groups and play styles. Show us the data, graph it and then plot. I in order to come up with a mathematical model that represents actual game play inclusive of most variables.
This may sound dismissive, because it is . Not of you, but of the model you're trying to use to "prove a point". A point that you actually forgot about in your efforts to prove how great power attack is.
Cheers
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the statement was that it was "standard" for all Martials.
I then stated that no feat is standard.
This is accurate. The claim has since been reduced in light of superior evidence. Two weapon fighting diminishes its benefits (due to the reduction of accuracy), and a class with a large source of damage and no (or few) boosts to accuracy is unlikely to work well with Power Attack.
Then you and pixie dust tried to prove me wrong with maths that doesn't relate to the game at the table as it doesn't account for variables or actions or player decisions or....well just about everything in a real game actually.
How, exactly, do they not relate to the game? You still haven't explained why. All you've done is claim that they aren't relevant- that doesn't make them irrelevant. A model for DPR lets you see an average result, and identify trends. We can identify that a reduction in accuracy reduces Power Attack's impact, and we can identify that an increase in accuracy improves Power Attack's impact. Situations that affect that slider have a demonstrable effect.
When you buy a car, some come as standard features. What that means is the every model has them, no matter what.
As has been demonstrated in this thread multiple times, by multiple posters, many Martials don't use or choose power attack. It doesn't matter if you think its useful, there are plenty of build options out there that don't need it to be effective. Therefore it isn't standard.
I maintain my claim that it's standard on most martials. Seeing the evidence, I've admitted that it's reduced in effectiveness on Two Weapon Fighters and often rendered worthless for classes with large sources of damage and no (or few) accuracy boosts.
Martial is not full BAB, it is anything built by a player to be a front line fighter using melee weapons.
Your personal definition. The accepted definition is a full BAB class focused on fighting with weapons (natural or manufactured), and that's the one I will continue to use since I will be understood by the most people by speaking in that fashion. Refusing to use accepted definitions hinders communication.
You keep changing the goal posts when shown not correct.
You're confusing moving the goal posts with admitting faults and reducing claims. Moving the goal posts means changing the goal of a competition while it's in progress.
Additionally, since you didn't see fit to respond to my PM about data analysis, let me post it here.
I didn't see your PM, probably since Paizo.com has a fairly weak PM system that does a poor job of announcing when you've actually received one. But go ahead and assume it was a personal affront.
Data is raw numbers collected through sampling. Sampling in this game comes from actual game play experience. You call them "anecdotes" to make it sound mathematically irrelevant. However, and this is the part to pay attention to, in statistics, the models are built from real life data when trying to make predictions about real life situations. The real life data takes into account all the variables you and the theory crafters ignore on these boards for the DPS calculations. Now, if the variables at the tables were constant, then you could just ignore them and use your calculations. However, they aren't constant. They change from table to table and group to group. Therefore ignoring them destroys your maths as a useful model for predicting actual events at a game.
As such, ignoring the maths as irrelevant is actually good mathematical reasoning. It distracts from the reality of events which is why so many people who come from these boards with their "builds" find them no where near as effective in a real game as the theory crafters tell them they are.
Real life experience only makes the transition from anecdotes to data when you've quantified it. You have not done that. You've made nebulous claims about things that are true in your area, without real data from games and people. That is not useful information.
Now, if you want me and other experienced DM's and players to actually care about your posts on maths, go out and sample large numbers of games across many groups and play styles. Show us the data, graph it and then plot. I in order to come up with a mathematical model that represents actual game play inclusive of most variables.
This may sound dismissive, because it is . Not of you, but of the model you're trying to use to "prove a point". A point that you actually forgot about in your efforts to prove how great power attack is.
I can make the same exact claim to you. If you want me to care about your 'real life experience' go out and collect data based on it, because you haven't done that, and as such your claims are based on nothing concrete.
And yes, it is dismissive, because you're implying I'm an inexperienced DM, and making a fallacious claim that my data is totally irrelevant while your data is definitive. If me only having calculated numbers to back up my points makes my claims irrelevant, you only having unsubstantiated personal claims makes your claims irrelevant. Treat both sides of the argument with the same rigor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Data is raw numbers collected through sampling. Sampling in this game comes from actual game play experience. You call them "anecdotes"...
Anecdotes stop being Anecdotes, and start being data, once you're sampling an adequately large and accurately weighted sample size for your data. The size required for statistical significance varies based on proof of accuracy (if you can show your data to be 99% accurate with a smaller sample size a smaller sample size can be acceptable). A sample size smaller than 1000 is unlikely to ever be of statistical significance. In this case, you would be sampling adventuring days with 4 combats against different CR appropriate enemies, using a given build with and without PA, and recording the DPR you're able to achieve with both at least 1000 times (and 1000 is sufficiently low that most people will be skeptical of your claim).
Short of actual statistics (which, as you can see, take SIGNIFICANT effort to procure), your best bet is to come up with as accurate a mathematical model as possible, so you can see what to expect as the average of a million adventuring days.
Anecdotes are by no means accurate, but they're the best you have when you've got neither the math nor the statistics to inform your decision, and the human brain is wired to put a great deal (read: enough that many people will take their anecdotes over more accurate data that actually gives an accurate depiction of reality) of significance on anecdotes. They're much better than nothing, even though they can often be wrong, and it's much harder to evolve the ability to collect enough data for meaningful statistics as an animal in the wilderness.
Once you've run 10,000+ "adventuring days" of combats with your build, both with and without power attack, recording how much damage you did that round, and then you took the time to assemble all of that data and come up with a weighted average (the mean), then your anecdotes become data (and should be taken seriously), if you want to take the time to do and thoroughly document the 40,000 combats you will need to run for each thing you want to be able to compare, and have actual data, by all means, go ahead. I'm nowhere near that dedicated.
|
|
I can make the same exact claim to you. If you want me to care about your 'real life experience' go out and collect data based on it, because you haven't done that, and as such your claims are based on nothing concrete.
And yes, it is dismissive, because you're implying I'm an inexperienced DM, and making a fallacious claim that my data is totally irrelevant while your data is definitive. If me only having calculated numbers to back up my points makes my claims irrelevant, you only having unsubstantiated personal claims makes your claims irrelevant. Treat both sides of the argument with the same rigor.
I'm not the one demanding people respond to my posts though. You have done so in this thread multiple times. Since you are the one making the demand, the onus is on you to provide something worth responding to.
While I accept you have a point of view that differs to mine, I will not respond to parts of your posts that have maths that is incorrect. As I said, when you have a model based of recorded data and that data supports your claim, I will bow to the numbers and concede I was incorrect.
I don't mind if you care about my real life experience or not. That is completely in your prerogative. However, real life data based of anecdotes are as valid, if not more so than your incorrectly applied mathematics.
|
|
Data is raw numbers collected through sampling. Sampling in this game comes from actual game play experience. You call them "anecdotes"...Anecdotes stop being Anecdotes, and start being data, once you're sampling an adequately large and accurately weighted sample size for your data. The size required for statistical significance varies based on proof of accuracy (if you can show your data to be 99% accurate with a smaller sample size a smaller sample size can be acceptable). A sample size smaller than 1000 is unlikely to ever be of statistical significance. In this case, you would be sampling adventuring days with 4 combats against different CR appropriate enemies, using a given build with and without PA, and recording the DPR you're able to achieve with both at least 1000 times (and 1000 is sufficiently low that most people will be skeptical of your claim).
Short of actual statistics (which, as you can see, take SIGNIFICANT effort to procure), your best bet is to come up with as accurate a mathematical model as possible, so you can see what to expect as the average of a million adventuring days.
Anecdotes are by no means accurate, but they're the best you have when you've got neither the math nor the statistics to inform your decision, and the human brain is wired to put a great deal (read: enough that many people will take their anecdotes over more accurate data that actually gives an accurate depiction of reality) of significance on anecdotes. They're much better than nothing, even though they can often be wrong, and it's much harder to evolve the ability to collect enough data for meaningful statistics as an animal in the wilderness.
Once you've run 10,000+ "adventuring days" of combats with your build, both with and without power attack, recording how much damage you did that round, and then you took the time to assemble all of that data and come up with a weighted average (the mean), then your anecdotes become data (and should be taken seriously), if you want to take...
Agreed, I would indeed have to go out and collect large quantities of data to support my argument with math. I am not trying to support my argument with math though.
I have to say, trying to support an answer with maths that is bad is also not a good way to go about things.
Please note, I have never said Power Attack is a bad feat.
All I have stated is that not every martial takes it, therefore you cannot call it standard.
I will endeavour to collect some data from my region on the number of martial characters using Power attack and see if it does indeed correlate with the statement that it is standard (ie every martial has it).
I wonder if others could do likewise. It will indeed be interesting to see how much the combined experiences of myself, my regular gamers and the gamers I am In contact with differ from the rest of the pathfinder community. Especially given our experience extends from the Beta test till now. 3.5 power attack was a different kettle of fish entirely, since you could select how much your attack bonus dropped, unlike the fixed numbers you get now.
I will say though, since at least 4 other posters here have already stated their martials don't use power attack and are still effective, then I feel the point is made.
Now, as for sample size, 1000 plus is not needed. It would be great if we could get it, but realistically a number much smaller than that is going to be acceptable, assuming it is representative of the community. Especially since we are not dealing with mortality rates or toxicity levels.
I'm also sure that 95% acceptable deviation is more than adequate for what we are testing. Most likely, it isn't going to get that far as I suspect none of us actually have time to spare to run the data.
Unless you know someone doing a PHD on this?
I demand that people read my whole post when they're replying to me. It's disrespectful to take a tiny portion of what I'm saying out of context and not respond to the whole of a post (like you just did). I haven't demanded anything of people that haven't responded to me.
You do not respect that I have a different point of view. You're dismissively throwing out what I'm presenting without explaining why (you give nebulous reasons like "it doesn't work out in a real game" without detail).
Your real life anecdotes are not data. You have not quantified anything. You are being intellectually dishonest.
I demand that people read my whole post when they're replying to me.
TL;DR?
D:<
|
|
Wrath, I recommend to go look at the breakdown I posted purely for your benefit earlier, and you are now completely ignoring. Power Attack is a straight up damage buff for all martials, one and two handed, throughout the entire game. And a significant one.
If Power Attack is not standard in your "neck of the woods", it's not a matter of playstyle difference. It's a matter of people failing to understand the math behind why it's always a good choice to include on a melee focused character.
I didn't see your PM, probably since Paizo.com has a fairly weak PM system that does a poor job of announcing when you've actually received one. But go ahead and assume it was a personal affront.
Hypocrasy
Wrath, I recommend to go look at the breakdown I posted purely for your benefit earlier, and you are now completely ignoring. Power Attack is a straight up damage buff for all martials, one and two handed, throughout the entire game. And a significant one.
If Power Attack is not standard in your "neck of the woods", it's not a matter of playstyle difference. It's a matter of people failing to understand the math behind why it's always a good choice to include on a melee focused character.
I didn't see your PM, probably since Paizo.com has a fairly weak PM system that does a poor job of announcing when you've actually received one. But go ahead and assume it was a personal affront.Hypocrasy
?
Going to have to push a vanilla TWF breakdown to tomorrow. Had classes and work until around 7 PM, and I'm dead tired.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I demand that people read my whole post when they're replying to me. It's disrespectful to take a tiny portion of what I'm saying out of context and not respond to the whole of a post (like you just did). I haven't demanded anything of people that haven't responded to me.
You do not respect that I have a different point of view. You're dismissively throwing out what I'm presenting without explaining why (you give nebulous reasons like "it doesn't work out in a real game" without detail).
Your real life anecdotes are not data. You have not quantified anything. You are being intellectually dishonest.
<sigh> I absolutely respect your right to have a different point of view.
I don't have any respect for the methods you're trying to use to prove it.
Those are two different things. If you want myself, and many others, to come around to your point of view, you need to use something other than DPS calculations. You'd be surprised by the large number of people who don't find those things useful or accurate at all. Especially when the calculations you are using are completely irrelevant to the number of people who actually use Power attack. All your maths did was show that in a generic set of conditions, power attack can be useful.
You are correct in stating I haven't provided real data. However, the Quantification of anything is not essential in order to be academically honest. Especially when a claim that something is "standard" is made and I can tell you from experience that its not true.
So, What I'll do is ballpark some figures at the moment, based on my current knowledge of the players in my area playing melee types. I would say of the 40 or so that I know of with melee types (sticking to your proposed model of a melee type), about 22 of them don't have power attack. I will try to check those numbers for you, but I am confident I am within + or - 2 of the actual figure.
Now that is a small sample size to be sure. It may well be a regional thing. So, I would propose that you do something similar in your area. Maybe even others as well.
And on a more positive note, I will apologise now for any anger or angst this is causing you. I will apologise for being a dick, if that's how I am coming across to others. I will endeavour to tone my posts down a little and hopefully we can return this thread to the civil discussion it was before we started at each other.
Cheers
|
|
Agreed, I would indeed have to go out and collect large quantities of data to support my argument with math. I am not trying to support my argument with math though.
...
I'm also sure that 95% acceptable deviation is more than adequate for what we are testing. Most likely, it isn't going to get that far as I suspect none of us actually have time to spare to run the data.
Unless you know someone doing a PHD on this?
Haha. I don't know anyone who would run such a study for me, nor do I care enough to run such a study myself (it's a lot of work).
I was just making sure you understood that your personal anecdotes don't count as "statistically significant data" because the sample size is much too small.
I think math is the best option that's going to happen, and that good math is a much more reliable gauge than anecdotes; if you take issue with math that's being used, I'm interested in anything you have that you think would make such numbers more accurate.
I don't think that Power attack is good for every martial build - particularly those that are TWF focused or are otherwise already having a harder time with their to-hit bonuses. But if you have the to-hit bonus to spare, it's very likely worthwhile.
Civility
+1 for the attempt to get the thread back to a more civil tone, and trying to clear up some of the impressions some of your posts have given off.
|
|
Agreed, I would indeed have to go out and collect large quantities of data to support my argument with math. I am not trying to support my argument with math though.
...
I'm also sure that 95% acceptable deviation is more than adequate for what we are testing. Most likely, it isn't going to get that far as I suspect none of us actually have time to spare to run the data.
Unless you know someone doing a PHD on this?
Haha. I don't know anyone who would run such a study for me, nor do I care enough to run such a study myself (it's a lot of work).
I was just making sure you understood that your personal anecdotes don't count as "statistically significant data" because the sample size is much too small.
I think math is the best option that's going to happen, and that good math is a much more reliable gauge than anecdotes; if you take issue with math that's being used, I'm interested in anything you have that you think would make such numbers more accurate.
I don't think that Power attack is good for every martial build - particularly those that are TWF focused or are otherwise already having a harder time with their to-hit bonuses. But if you have the to-hit bonus to spare, it's very likely worthwhile.
Yeah mate, understood.
Good math is a nice gauge for comparing builds in static conditions. I read them from time to time as they sometimes give me insight into combinations of feats etc that work really well.
They also give me some good insight into whether things will fall outside of the power range of the AP's I run (I don't have time to homebrew any more).
This allows me to think of ways that situation will vary depending on encounters coming up and if those combinations will destroy the fun of AP for our entire group.
What I don't do is accept them as definitive evidence. The results are so swingy from table to table that the maths being used just isn't reliable.
I can't come up with better models, because there are way too many things that change in a game.
I'd like to see someone come up with some variation that accounts for HP of enemy and show that sometimes awesome damage output is actually irrelevant when the enemies don't have that many hit points.
Another anecdote, but it serves a point. I had a player who built a killer barbarian using the builds on this forum. This guy was obscene on damage output.
He could kill things so damn fast it was scary. However, so did the fighter and ranger.
We started tallying number of kills in the game, focusing only on ones that were pure kills, not assisted by others. It changed the playstyle even, as the competition got so fierce they wouldn't help each other for a while (hehe).
The end result was a near tie, with the ranger actually coming out ahead because of his bow (he was a TWF but carried a bow too)
This made us question why, so one game session we calculated how much damage output was done compared to how much damage potential was available in the enemies.
Turns out, the damage beast barbarian was overkilling in the extreme.
So, for the majority of situations he was no more effective than the fighter built for mage tagging, nor the ranger built for TWF.
However, against a single big hitter, he was awesome to watch.
|
|
Yeah mate, understood.
Good math is a nice gauge for comparing builds in static conditions. I read them from time to time as they sometimes give me insight into combinations of feats etc that work really well.
They also give me some good insight into whether things will fall outside of the power range of the AP's I run (I don't have time to homebrew any more).
This allows me to think of ways that situation will vary depending on encounters coming up and if those combinations will destroy the fun of AP for our entire group.
What I don't do is accept them as definitive evidence. The results are so swingy from table to table that the maths being used just isn't reliable.
I can't come up with better models, because there are way too many things that change in a game.
I'd like to see someone come up with some variation that accounts for HP of enemy and show that sometimes awesome damage output is actually irrelevant when the enemies don't have that many hit points.
Another anecdote, but it serves a point. I had a player who built a killer barbarian using the builds on this forum. This guy was obscene on damage output.
He could kill things so damn fast it was scary. However, so did the fighter and ranger.
We started tallying number of kills in the game, focusing only on ones that were pure kills, not assisted by others. It changed the playstyle even, as the competition got so fierce they wouldn't help each other for a while (hehe).
The end result was a near tie, with the ranger actually coming out ahead because of his bow (he was a TWF but carried a bow too)
This made us question why, so one game session we calculated how much damage output was done compared to how much damage potential was available in the enemies.
Turns out, the damage beast barbarian was overkilling in the extreme.
So, for the majority of situations he was no more effective than the fighter built for mage tagging, nor the ranger built for TWF.
However, against a single big hitter, he was awesome to watch.
Yeah, overkill doesn't help.
Here; try this on (I've been expanding on work other people have done and been running numbers for a while, and I may have something to help).
These numbers don't come from the table in the book, they come from 1293 different monsters across different paizo products. No Paizo NPCs though. (Also, it's nowhere near ALL of the monsters, but it's a decent collection of the buggers)
2 - 19.4
3 - 29.9
4 - 40.1
5 - 55.3
6 - 67.7
7 - 81.9
8 - 97.8
9 - 114.7
10 - 126.5
11 - 144.8
12 - 159.1
13 - 178.8
14 - 193.8
15 - 223.3
16 - 251.1
17 - 285.9
18 - 311.2
19 - 328.2
20 - 364.5
21 - 411.8
22 - 425.5
23 - 422.0
24 - 521.0
25 - 549.5
2 - 34
3 - 55
4 - 52
5 - 68
6 - 85
7 - 105
8 - 126
9 - 153
10 - 171
11 - 175
12 - 200
13 - 212
14 - 237
15 - 283
16 - 310
17 - 324
18 - 362
19 - 387
20 - 391
21 - 420
22 - 471
23 - 481
24 - 526
25 - 574
Now, if you would like, instead of expressing DPR in terms of damage, you can easily express them as either % of CR appropriate enemy HP, or # of rounds/actions/attacks/whatever to take down a CR appropriate enemy. You can also figure out how much damage is likely to be wasted on each enemy, since as mentioned, overkill damage is only helpful if you fight that rare boss enemy with a ton of HPs.
So for instance, if you're at CR 10, and you deal 80 DPR, 171/80 =2.13. So unless you roll better than average dpr, you're not killing it any faster than a character who does 57 DPR, since it's taking both of you 3 full attacks to do so. It isn't until 85.5 DPR that you can expect to reliably drop a CR appropriate enemy in 2 rounds. Of course, at 80DPR, with a somewhat decent roll you can drop them in 2 rounds, whereas if your DPR is only 57, you're pretty unlikely to drop them in 2 rounds.
Also, you could adjust the formula so that instead of just doing the math to factor in your odds to hit an average AC, you could calculate your odds of doing the average # of HP in a set number of rounds.
Formulas can be improved if they aren't proving sufficiently accurate to real-life. :)
Average AC by CR.
1 - 14.1
2 - 15.1
3 - 15.8
4 - 17.0
5 - 17.9
6 - 19.0
7 - 19.7
8 - 20.9
9 - 22.7
10 - 23.9
11 - 24.8
12 - 26.7
13 - 27.0
14 - 29.2
15 - 30.3
16 - 31.6
17 - 34.2
18 - 35.1
19 - 36.2
20 - 37.0
21 - 37.4
22 - 40.5
23 - 42.0
24 - 42.0
25 - 41.0
Max AC By CR.
1 - 18
2 - 22
3 - 25
4 - 20
5 - 21
6 - 26
7 - 23
8 - 26
9 - 25
10 - 28
11 - 30
12 - 31
13 - 32
14 - 34
15 - 37
16 - 39
17 - 46
18 - 41
19 - 41
20 - 42
21 - 38
22 - 45
23 - 44
24 - 42
25 - 42
Average FF By CR.
1 - 12.5
2 - 13.1
3 - 13.7
4 - 14.8
5 - 15.7
6 - 16.4
7 - 16.6
8 - 18.2
9 - 19.3
10 - 20.9
11 - 21.6
12 - 24.2
13 - 24.7
14 - 26.4
15 - 26.1
16 - 28.2
17 - 31.0
18 - 32.9
19 - 32.9
20 - 32.7
21 - 34.8
22 - 39.0
23 - 38.0
24 - 36.0
25 - 34.5
Max FF By CR.
1 - 17
2 - 20
3 - 24
4 - 19
5 - 20
6 - 22
7 - 22
8 - 22
9 - 23
10 - 27
11 - 29
12 - 30
13 - 31
14 - 34
15 - 37
16 - 39
17 - 40
18 - 41
19 - 41
20 - 42
21 - 38
22 - 45
23 - 42
24 - 40
25 - 37
Average Touch By CR.
1 - 12.2
2 - 12.6
3 - 12.2
4 - 12.2
5 - 11.8
6 - 12.2
7 - 12.7
8 - 11.9
9 - 12.2
10 - 12.5
11 - 11.8
12 - 11.5
13 - 11.0
14 - 11.5
15 - 14.3
16 - 10.9
17 - 10.4
18 - 9.0
19 - 8.6
20 - 12.9
21 - 3.6
22 - 4.8
23 - 12.5
24 - 8.0
25 - 13.5
Max Touch By CR.
1 - 18
2 - 16
3 - 19
4 - 18
5 - 20
6 - 26
7 - 23
8 - 21
9 - 24
10 - 25
11 - 25
12 - 21
13 - 26
14 - 21
15 - 35
16 - 21
17 - 20
18 - 21
19 - 17
20 - 25
21 - 12
22 - 9
23 - 14
24 - 12
25 - 22
Interestingly, if you target touch AC, you basically never need to beat anything higher than a 26 touch AC, and all the way up, a 12 will do you just fine most of the time.
Also, you'll notice the numbers are not that far off what the bestiary lists. They're higher on average when you crunch the numbers, but not by a ton.
|
|
*And of course, knowing that you take out CR appropriate enemies in an average of 2.13 rounds doesn't tell you what your odds of taking them out in 2 rounds is, nor what your odds of taking them out in 1 round, or three.If you do a flat 80 DPR and hit all of the time, your odds are 0, but the full range of your DPR and it's probability curve would have to be taken into consideration to calculate those things.
But those things *COULD* Be calculated from your combat stats and the average CR/HP for your level.
And arguably, that could be a more useful calculation than average DPR.
Additionally, if you change it from "damage per hit" to "chance to remove opponent from combat in 1 round", "chance to remove opponent from combat in 2 rounds", "chance to remove opponent from combat in 3 rounds" you would have a more useful comparator, since you could incorporate more than just damage. You could look at the probability of success on a save or suck to compare it to martial output. You could compare status effect abilities that take an opponent out of the fight to damage abilities. If you want it to be really good, you can factor in how often a given build gets access to sneak attack, or flank, or full attacks, or whatever.
|
|
Yeah, those numbers I could get behind. Especially if we start seeing the idea of factored feats other than just damage ones. Things such as positioning feats to allow for more flanking (acrobatics etc)
That's starting to get towards something that can reflect differences in combatants, on average.
It may also be useful for DM analysis like I try to do for AP's at times.
It could certainly become useful for high level CR adjustments to combat encounters. After level 14 or so, the CR system becomes way too swingy. Understanding the potential kill rate of a party is paramount to challenging encounters, and unfortunately party power accelerates way past the CR system at high levels.
I have experience that works for me. Years of playing and knowing my players and what they are capable of with the characters they've got. That's much harder with a pick up group or a one shot though. So some sort of mathematics to support it would be good.
I do believe the formulas need to be improved to better reflect what is occurring at the table.
They will never match the Nirvana of high predictability, but they can get closer than those currently used.
I suspect a computer game out there somewhere can do all of the stuff we're discussing with ease. Those things run numbers on game mechanics all the time. I remember the old Temple of Elemental Evil ran of the 3.5 system very closely. Having a program in the background telling you stats like we're discussing could easily be built into something like that. It happens in most MMO's now (usually as ad on programs by independent developers).
Any how, I'm too busy in my life to run the stats that really need to be done. Instead for the moment I'll work off my experience and the combined experiences of my players, and use what math there is to help where it can.
Cheers
|
|
I just had another thought.
There are feats within the book that can change combat situations fairly dramatically but don't contribute to damage directly. Grappling and other combat manoeuvres etc. Positioning feats and even some skills that can change the dynamic of a fight.
We would probably need to come up with an acceptable figure or percentage for those feats in the contribution of success or effectiveness in combat and how that can change the outcomes.
Something that allowed people to judge the difference in effectiveness when they can do their thing and when they can't.
I am positive there is an honours or PhD in here somewhere for a person in the right field.
Any way, glad this has swung back to a more civil discussion. I'll work at patching things back up with Aratrok when he's back on tomorrow.
Cheers
For this I would advise you to participate in some 5 vs 5 man sword fights (e.g. by participate in a LARP) and you will see how difficult it is to pass some swordfighter to get to the second row without being hit.
Sure in PF a Longsword hit is only 1d8+X dmg, but it's a roleplay and it also have effects beside this "1d8+x Dmg" e.g. pain.
So my advise is to roleplay not to rollplay here :D
Do your parties never fight monsters?Oh... and flight is a thing...Yes.
For everyone, of any class, who chooses to invest.
Unless your implying it is casters trying to blitz past the front line.
Is it weird if the party isn't mostly fighting monsters?
At least 50% of what my parties face (probably more) are NPCs or the sort of Intelligent Monsters (Goblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Lizardfolk, Minotaurs, Orcs, etc) which are inclined to also have class levels.
They don't run into that many dumb beasts, and I continue to make use of monstrous races all the way up. Minotaurs with levels in Barbarian or Fighter are fairly common occurrences, as are Hobgoblin Fighters or Lizardfolk Druids, or what have you.
I'm not really sure what percentages I would use as a DM (I'm working on preparing a probably heavily modified Shackled City campaign, but would have to go back over it to check the general breakdown of enemies).
Globally, I would assume it varies heavily group-by-group (and probably campaign-by-campaign within a group).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I demand that ...
I stopped reading at this point. There are, in fact, people in the world who are entitled to demand things of me.
Random nerds on an internet forum aren't normally in that select company.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I demand that ...I stopped reading at this point. There are, in fact, people in the world who are entitled to demand things of me.
Random nerds on an internet forum aren't normally in that select company.
TLDR of his post was;
If you're going to formulate an argument based on one passage from his post out of context despite that if you read the entirety of his post would have generally found the answer why your rebuttal didn't work(In regards to Wrath), not only is it a jerkish thing to do, but also quite clearly...how do I put this kindly? Not a smart thing to do or indicative of a person who isn't actually trying to discuss the game, just looking to megaphone their opinion despite data of contrary revelations.
There's lots of posters who do that frustratingly enough. So while demanding anything is kinda off, I don't believe it's that outrageous to want people to be a decent person and actually listen and hopefully understand your entire viewpoint before going off about a single sentence they only caught by skimming your post without reading/understanding the context it's in.