Is this not just a reinvention of the Same Game Test?
Not to be rude of course.
Also please note that the same game test was originally setup for 3.5 and not pathfinder so the Rogue was much better due to things like flasks and rings of blink. I prefer to call the Rogue tier the Inquisitor tier for pathfinder.
Hope this helps.
It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
Considering my magus has done that combo 0 times, I'm inclined to disagree.
I use spell strike regularly, but I've only used spell combat once. Dex-focus builds miss out on being able to swing a weapon two-handed (amoung other things).
So.... the tier list? Because that's essentially versatility that you are talking about which is precisely what the tier list measures.Hmmmm. I think a decent way to measure characters is in the amount of agency they have.
What can they do?
Can people stop them from doing it?
How much can they limit the agency of others?
Not exactly.
For example, the one-true barbar builds doesn't do a whole lot but does those things really well and basically nothing can prevent him from doing it. His only form of limiting agency is applying the "dead" condition (but he does this well). So he out classes all fighter and monk builds, comes up sort against wizards, clerics, and druid. But he could easily edge out the average(not borked) sorcerer (who needs to build very carefully have both good defenses, the ability to debilitate foes, and abilities that allow them to do interesting things).
What Darkholme was providing in the previous thread was a fairly comprehensive list of the HP as well as ACs. These will be useful for comparisons of people's effectiveness outside of the concept of DPR.
In the same vein, a list of the save values for opponents and the save DCs for enemy spell casters will also be useful. This means control based casters can get a good idea of how effective some of their spells can be.
I have those!
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Apologies if you haven't already posted these in another thread, but you wouldn't happen to also have average/maximum energy resistances would you?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure:
So far the numbers requested have all actually been ones from Here .
The Energy Resist stats you requested are there as well.
It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
Considering my magus has done that combo 0 times, I'm inclined to disagree.
I use spell strike regularly, but I've only used spell combat once. Dex-focus builds miss out on being able to swing a weapon two-handed (amoung other things).
Er ... what exactly in my post were you disagreeing with, then? Because it sounds like we're both saying the Magus has a lot more versatility than spell combat and spellstriking with a few metamagiced touch spells.
Several people have done similar in the past. :)
It seems like this model could throw up some false positives. Wouldn't classes that are decent on their own but truly shine when they have a full party around them (like bards and skalds) underperform in the formula?
|
|
Sure they would. But they would under perform less than if we were just using DPR.
We've actually already covered that. Force Multipliers (Buffs/Debuffs/Battlefield Control) Is not measured by the proposed formula described above; other formulae would need to be derived for them, and then we would have to have a way to convert the value of such a thing such that the numbers could be meaningfully compared.
Didn't someone already do something like this? I seem to recall a spreadsheet that graded each class from 1-x on about 20 different categories...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't someone already do something like this? I seem to recall a spreadsheet that graded each class from 1-x on about 20 different categories...
For 3.5 not pathfinder.
Didn't someone already do something like this? I seem to recall a spreadsheet that graded each class from 1-x on about 20 different categories...For 3.5 not pathfinder.
... this time.
EDIT: I see you have been trained well.
EDIT 2: I respect the skill of one who can recognize their own mistakes and fix them.
EDIT 3: This has bought you yet another reprieve...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't someone already do something like this? I seem to recall a spreadsheet that graded each class from 1-x on about 20 different categories...For 3.5 not pathfinder.
I was actually combining Person Man's ranking system and the class picker in my head - I really should go to bed soon. Thanks for the link!
Sure they would. But they would under perform less than if we were just using DPR.
We've actually already covered that. Force Multipliers (Buffs/Debuffs/Battlefield Control) Is not measured by the proposed formula described above; other formulae would need to be derived for them, and then we would have to have a way to convert the value of such a thing such that the numbers could be meaningfully compared.
Well, buffs count, in so much the capacity that one character can buff himself.
Bards don't really come out on their own until they can use performance as a swift action though (since spending a turn to set up buffs ruins damage per battle stats). Archaeologist bards do fine though, since their thing is swift from the get go.
So that is another thing to consider- how long does it take you to start up?
|
|
What?
I'm not sure what you mean, RDM42. I'm not suggesting discounting anything at all. I'm simply saying that not all things will be able to be evaluated using a single formula, even if that formula is complex. You might be able to use a couple of formulae and have them both spit out numbers in such a way that you could compare them to get an idea of effectiveness for builds that approach effectiveness in very different ways, but a formula that tracks the effectiveness of a character specifically for removing threats from the battlefield and tracking how quickly they can do so is not going to cover the effectiveness of a character who is effective without doing that.
That doesn't change the fact that removing threats is one of the more common approaches to being effective, or that focusing on removing threats is one good strategy for effectively contributing.
Also, for all the people who are suggesting various tier systems and alternate tier systems, those will not be helpful for evaluating a particular character build to see exactly how well it will hold up in level appropriate threats/challenges.
|
Sure they would. But they would under perform less than if we were just using DPR.
We've actually already covered that. Force Multipliers (Buffs/Debuffs/Battlefield Control) Is not measured by the proposed formula described above; other formulae would need to be derived for them, and then we would have to have a way to convert the value of such a thing such that the numbers could be meaningfully compared.
Well, buffs count, in so much the capacity that one character can buff himself.
Bards don't really come out on their own until they can use performance as a swift action though (since spending a turn to set up buffs ruins damage per battle stats). Archaeologist bards do fine though, since their thing is swift from the get go.
So that is another thing to consider- how long does it take you to start up?
I'm going to have to find the bolded part laughable. At the vary least a bard can start singing and let loose a damage spell at move start.
Honestly the hardest part of non-dpr evaluations is spell selcection/saves. After all pretty much any caster would have a duration on 1 round if you always assume a failed save on a save or lose. And that doesn't even count things like setting up a save or lose with debuffs. That said I doubt any caster would take more than three turns to remove an combatant.
It seems like this model could throw up some false positives. Wouldn't classes that are decent on their own but truly shine when they have a full party around them (like bards and skalds) underperform in the formula?
Honestly the biggest question is what does 'removed an enemy" entail under this metric. After all, bards have access to hideous laughter, a classic save or lose.
|
Sure they would. But they would under perform less than if we were just using DPR.
We've actually already covered that. Force Multipliers (Buffs/Debuffs/Battlefield Control) Is not measured by the proposed formula described above; other formulae would need to be derived for them, and then we would have to have a way to convert the value of such a thing such that the numbers could be meaningfully compared.
Well, buffs count, in so much the capacity that one character can buff himself.
Bards don't really come out on their own until they can use performance as a swift action though (since spending a turn to set up buffs ruins damage per battle stats). Archaeologist bards do fine though, since their thing is swift from the get go.
So that is another thing to consider- how long does it take you to start up?
I'm going to have to find the bolded part laughable. At the vary least a bard can start singing and let loose a damage spell at move start.
Honestly the hardest part of non-dpr evaluations is spell selcection/saves. After all pretty much any caster would have a duration on 1 round if you always assume a failed save on a save or lose. And that doesn't even count things like setting up a save or lose with debuffs. That said I doubt any caster would take more than three turns to remove an combatant.
It seems like this model could throw up some false positives. Wouldn't classes that are decent on their own but truly shine when they have a full party around them (like bards and skalds) underperform in the formula?Honestly the biggest question is what does 'removed an enemy" entail under this metric. After all, bards have access to hideous laughter, a classic save or lose.
And the problem is of course how many times can they use them? Which is why I'd like to see comparisons across an adventuring day of three standard encounters and a boss encounter. These will escalate in severity based on level.
Eg, for low levels, taking out a single opponent per encounter and engaging the boss solo for two rounds before party help comes into play seems reasonable.
At higher levels, we're talking two or three mooks per encounter, and a boss plus mook for final encounter.
Those are standard challenges. I also think two of the challenges need to include a save effect or skill challenge of some sort that could see you out of the standard three round fight for a significant time (such as the hideous laughter you suggested).
What I don't think as useful is vacuum style comparisons like the current DPR or the tier system stuff. Tier systems in particular over value large numbers of things and really bring out the schrodingers spell caster syndrome that just doesn't seem to happen in most real games. Entire sections of the roleplay community don't place any value in the tier system as, once again, they seem to fail the test of actual gameplay.
Comments like that upset some folks in a previous thread thou, so I should stop here :).
So are you discounting all buffing spells then for the same reason?Sure they would. But they would under perform less than if we were just using DPR.
We've actually already covered that. Force Multipliers (Buffs/Debuffs/Battlefield Control) Is not measured by the proposed formula described above; other formulae would need to be derived for them, and then we would have to have a way to convert the value of such a thing such that the numbers could be meaningfully compared.
Well, buffs count, in so much the capacity that one character can buff himself.
Bards don't really come out on their own until they can use performance as a swift action though (since spending a turn to set up buffs ruins damage per battle stats). Archaeologist bards do fine though, since their thing is swift from the get go.
So that is another thing to consider- how long does it take you to start up?
Not saying that they aren't good, or that they aren't essential to the game.
We are just looking at making a murder machine with the highest consistent DPR over an entire battle. Any turn you aren't murdering is a turn where the wizard is taking care of things with Save or Die spells.
I do not mean bards aren't good, but they aren't following the peculiar logic of the DPR obsessed (which is all about YOU and just YOU murdering everything). They don't come out on their own in that particular role until they have almost 0 startup.
I mostly was basing my statement off of the truisms you find spouted on this forum. I don't particularly think it is quite the way to go about making characters (I did go on earlier about how to make a reach user that gets plenty of full attacks, positions itself to do battlefield control, and even debuffs; versatility is fantastic), but it is the focus of this discussion.
|
|
We are just looking at making a murder machine with the highest consistent DPR over an entire battle. Any turn you aren't murdering is a turn where the wizard is taking care of things with Save or Die spells.
Hmm. "Looking at making a murder machine with the highest consistent CR appopriate kill count over an entire adventuring day (4 battles)".
A SoS focused caster (or even a blaster) could meet these criteria quite well, so long as they could do so for four fights per day.
But really, it's more about having a means of measuring how good any given character is at being a murder machine, based on these criteria.
Could you also come up with ways to precisely measure a character's capability to do other things? Absolutely.
This was mostly me taking a few gripes Wrath had with the assumption that DPR being the best way to measure martials, and tossing out some ideas for alternate ways to measure martial efficacy which might come closer to modeling at-table effectiveness, to see if anyone else could get something awesome out of it.
Anywho; I wish you luck Wrath. I gave a few ideas to try to get the ball rolling. I have some other things I am working on, and I cannot make this project a priority right now. I will check on this thread periodically to see what if anything other people do with it.
|
|
Thanks Darkholme.
I don't think there is an answer to this. What is important is more about getting this mindset away from DPR being the ultimate goal. I've found so many posters here dismissing others point of view by quoting a math system that is fundamentally flawed in its application to this game.
What's worse is the summary disregard of any ones experience as nothing more than "anecdotes" because "I have math and your anecdote doesn't."
It's a real mindset that pops up in the advice and general discussion threads, and it has turned off a number of people I know from using these forums any more.
I think if people want to use maths to support their stance, then at least make it relevant to the entire game, rather than just average damage in a complete vacuum.
It's this entire vacuum concept that leads to the always prepared caster, the always raging barbarian or the perfect scenario for maximum damage. The reality in a game is that rarely happens. Especially true for a campaign where characters and their gear grow organically through time rather than get specifically built to "show the awesome."
I think a challenge system is better. But that's really only going to come up on a case by case basis. And in a forum setting, still doesn't change the schrodingers wizard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, this whole thread is "I want the tier system, except I don't want the tier system." Because what people keep asking for is a measure of things other then DPR like say Versatility, which is exactly what is already covered by the tier list.
And the problem is of course how many times can they use them? Which is why I'd like to see comparisons across an adventuring day of three standard encounters and a boss encounter. These will escalate in severity based on level.
Eg, for low levels, taking out a single opponent per encounter and engaging the boss solo for two rounds before party help comes into play seems reasonable.
At higher levels, we're talking two or three mooks per encounter, and a boss plus mook for final encounter.
Take this suggestion. It's perfectly covered by the tier list. A caster can easily take multiple people out of the fight using only a standard action starting at level 1 and can do that at least 4 times a day without breaking a sweat. However the tier list measures versatility outside of just combat as well which is why the full casters get stratified into 2 tiers (tier and tier 2).
After that we have the more versatile martials, all of whom can defeat about the same number of enemies (usually 1 per full attack) as the lower tiers (3-4), but who have more options on getting said full attacks (like full attack) and also have versatility outside of combat.
Then in tier 5 we have the classes that are lacking in Versatility and have no special ability to defeat more then 1 enemy per full attack (if that) or any abilities to help them get those attacks. Does that sound like the Fighter and Rogue to you? Cause it sounds like the Fighter and Rogue to me.
So there we have. Problem solved. Thread over.
It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
While I dont agree that Magi are weak tier 3, they are definitely tier 3, probably right smack dab in the middle of it. Nowhere close to tier 2 though.
|
|
The Tier System is great as a way to gauge your expectations of a class before building a character.
It's not helpful at all at examining in detail, the capabilities of a specific character.
If someone could come up with a way to use the tier system to tell me precisely how long it will take a particular character to overcome a CR appropriate foe without help, or precisely how much benefit the party is getting from me casting wall of stone (or the like) to limit the number of monsters the party has to face simultaneously or precisely how much more effective I am making my allies when I cast buff spell Y such that I could mathematically decide if we get more benefit in a particular instance from the buff or from me making an attack roll, then the tier list would cover the premise of this thread. All while taking into consideration that I can expect to go through 3-5 encounters in a day, and therefore if I blow everything I have in the first fight, I'm going to struggle through the other 2-4.
Given that the tier list is just a generalized class-based list on what you can expect when building a generic build of a given class, I don't see that happening.
This is a thread about acquiring specific and helpful information about specific character builds. That's why all of the people who clearly have not been paying attention and have been suggesting general sortof kindof wishy washy nonspecific class generalizations have not answered the question of the thread.
That Niche Ranking system, however, could prove useful if ideas are taken from them. The Niche Ranking system gives a good idea of what things need to be measured,and the number of good scores on the individual Niches would show you exactly how versatile/one-trick-pony a particular build is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This might be a discussion you want to take over to the Giant in the Playground forum also. They will probably have some different perspectives to offer.
|
|
Ya, this whole thread is "I want the tier system, except I don't want the tier system." Because what people keep asking for is a measure of things other then DPR like say Versatility, which is exactly what is already covered by the tier list.
And the problem is of course how many times can they use them? Which is why I'd like to see comparisons across an adventuring day of three standard encounters and a boss encounter. These will escalate in severity based on level.
Eg, for low levels, taking out a single opponent per encounter and engaging the boss solo for two rounds before party help comes into play seems reasonable.
At higher levels, we're talking two or three mooks per encounter, and a boss plus mook for final encounter.
Take this suggestion. It's perfectly covered by the tier list. A caster can easily take multiple people out of the fight using only a standard action starting at level 1 and can do that at least 4 times a day without breaking a sweat. However the tier list measures versatility outside of just combat as well which is why the full casters get stratified into 2 tiers (tier and tier 2).
After that we have the more versatile martials, all of whom can defeat about the same number of enemies (usually 1 per full attack) as the lower tiers (3-4), but who have more options on getting said full attacks (like full attack) and also have versatility outside of combat.
Then in tier 5 we have the classes that are lacking in Versatility and have no special ability to defeat more then 1 enemy per full attack (if that) or any abilities to help them get those attacks. Does that sound like the Fighter and Rogue to you? Cause it sounds like the Fighter and Rogue to me.
So there we have. Problem solved. Thread over.
Darkholme has answered this already. However I'm going to do so in different words.
The so called "tier system" is designed around the potntial for a class to achieve something. It has extremely limited use outside of theory craft since it is impossible to have everything prepared for every situation, in a real campaign, particularly at high level, there are situations where your caster, for example, is so,restricted he can't get off his uber I win spell.
Of course, when these situations are presented in threads arguing against the tier system, they are done so in isolation, so everyone says "simple, I'd just do this and this, problem solved"
You're a classic one for doing this Anzyr.
The tier system has blinded people to the reality of experience the vast majority of players have. In particular, when foes can pass saves or counteract your versatile end the encounter spell etc. it makes you're top tier classes look like chumps.
In short, it regularly turns out that over the course do a real campaign, where encounters range from 1 to 10 per day dependent on level and scenario, top tier classes don't achieve any better than "low tier" classes.
What this thread is trying to come up with is a method of reliably checking builds for effectiveness of your build so it comes close to reflecting actual game play rather than Potential.
We are looking at removing overkill as false indicator of success.
We are looking at determining how non damaging or no SOS spells and abilities compare in aiding a party.
We are looking at the ability to not be removed from combat by damage or SOS abilities in wide situations.
We are looking at the ability to survive against things without foreknowledge and meta gaming a creatures abilities without appropriate skills.
Got more to say but need to sort an issue with my kids. More to come.
Edit - ok back.
At first it seems like casty mc cast a lot can do all of that, but they have limits in real games.
It also seems that fighty mc fights a lot can't achieve most of those, but often his single minded approach and careful skill choice will overcome most things anyway.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how you overcome it, as long as you can overcome it. That is something the Tier system doesn't account for.
|
|
That's not a bad suggestion, Gambit.
I just made This Thread at GitP, so that anyone there who wants to run with this can.
I mention this in case anyone here is interested in following the thread there.
|
|
Actually, I think some of us are looking for the opposite of this metric. Prepared casters can usually target saves, a well-built caster can even simply ignore SR, hello conjuration! I think any kind of model needs to be able to take all of these factors into account, but in terms of pure combat power, good spellbook construction and versatile options allows any caster the ability to dominate.
I agree on one thing, however, the tier folk are misunderstanding OP's original notion; the tier system cannot compare specific builds. However, any sort of system to compare builds are going to be incredible complicated. Chances of success when targeting lowest save/highest save will matter, and that will be spelled out on the character sheet.
However, assuming bad or good is a mistake, if you want to build a system to account for usefulness you have to take everything into account. However, most of the time well-built casters will likely still be very effect.
Also anecdotal evidence is bad. So is bad statistical evidence.
I agree for the most part. I'm hoping for something that will give players more info on how to build effectively for real games.
As for anecdotes. Anecdotes in isolation are bad. A collection of anecdotes that all show similar trends now become observations and deserve both respect and investigation. Particularly when said observations come from multiple people in multiple situations.
Unfortunately, these boards summarily dismiss them as useless way too frequently. Worse, the posters using those observations are regularly told they're playing wrong, or they don't understand the game, or the DM is using Fiat to make it not follow whatever model is being espoused at the time. That is both arrogant and insulting to many people. So much so, that many folks have left these message boards because of it.
|
|
Is this not just a reinvention of the Same Game Test?
Not to be rude of course.
Also please note that the same game test was originally setup for 3.5 and not pathfinder so the Rogue was much better due to things like flasks and rings of blink. I prefer to call the Rogue tier the Inquisitor tier for pathfinder.
Hope this helps.
Just checked this link. For me, that is getting close to what I would consider a yard stick testing system. I've never heard of it before now. Thanks.
A problem I see with it is fixed encounters though. If a random encounter generator was used each time it would stop people building for specific encounter wins.
I know 3rd ed had a random dungeon generator mechanic, but not sure where or how diverse it is.
For me at least, that is a model I could get behind. It still puts a player in a situation where he's dealing with things solo that a party normally handles though, so needs some tweaking.
The so called "tier system" is designed around the potntial for a class to achieve something. It has extremely limited use outside of theory craft since it is impossible to have everything prepared for every situation, in a real campaign, particularly at high level, there are situations where your caster, for example, is so,restricted he can't get off his uber I win spell.
Of course, when these situations are presented in threads arguing against the tier system, they are done so in isolation, so everyone says "simple, I'd just do this and this, problem solved"
You're a classic one for doing this Anzyr.
The tier system has blinded people to the reality of experience the vast majority of players have. In particular, when foes can pass saves or counteract your versatile end the encounter spell etc. it makes you're top tier classes look like chumps.
In short, it regularly turns out that over the course do a real campaign, where encounters range from 1 to 10 per day dependent on level and scenario, top tier classes don't achieve any better than "low tier" classes.
I'm genuinely confused what you actually want now. The opening post wanted to measure how many actions it take a class to remove someone in combat. Once again, the tier list gives an accurate breakdown of which classes can remove the people the quickest. At tier 1 and tier 2, we have swift action say... Mass Suffocation taking out multiple people and ending the encounter for example.
You talk about a situation where a caster cannot get off their "I Win!" button as though caster only have 1 of those. They don't. They have several. Once again the tier system accurately breaks down which classes are *actually* likely to be in a scenario where they cannot contribute an "I win." Casters with their wide variety of status conditions, control spells, save or dies, multi-save, and no save spells are much less likely to be in a scenario where they are "restricted" as compared to lower tier classes.
Finally you talk about the tier system measuring "only potential". What else do you propose we measure? Builds? That's a terrible idea, since it will come down to whose the better builder. In short measuring anything *besides potential* is a useless measurement that doesn't provide any real knowledge about the benefits and drawbacks of a class.
We are looking at removing overkill as false indicator of success.
This skews things even more in favor of casters, since they don't overkill with SoS/SoD. They just kill. Really measuring "highest DPR" makes only the lower tier classes look good. I know your tired of hearing it, but you know what measures the classes without overkill as a false indicator of success? The Tier list.
We are looking at determining how non damaging or no SOS spells and abilities compare in aiding a party.
Good luck. There's way to many to count and results are hard to determine, but having many different ones is better then having fewer ones. Once again. Tier list.
We are looking at the ability to not be removed from combat by damage or SOS abilities in wide situations.
You know who is able to have really good saves and get outright immunity to many conditions? Casters. This to is covered by the (all together now!) tier list.
We are looking at the ability to survive against things without foreknowledge and meta gaming a creatures abilities without appropriate skills.
You know what classes are the best at surviving things with meta knowledge? The classes that can get "Better then meta knowledge" (divinations). Also the ones that "Can change their abilities easily" (you know daily). Probably also the ones that can "target multiple types of defenses" (like you know saves/touch ac/completely ignoring defenses). Oh... that list will look a lot like the tier list.
Trust me. You want the tier list. Unless you want to measure Jim vs. John, in which case I must ask: What value does that contest have for determining metrics of power? (No really I want to know.)
|
|
Sigh, in theory you are correct. Unfortunately, your theory fails at the table for many, many many players and DM's and groups. There fore your theory fails the reality of the game world. In science we called that a failed hypothesis, however this isn't science. Also, many folks find the tier system useful for some things, so I'm not completely dismissing it.
While you can have some prepared options, you don't ever have them all.
Divination is thrown at these discussion all the time. So I've just gone to a site called donjon, (not the movie) where there's a random dungeon generator. I've generated a random dungeon, which includes all traps, rooms, details, monsters and treasure.
Your goal is to clear this dungeon of threats so the land around it can be settled.
Throw me your divination.
I'm actually seriously interested to see this used really well. Apparently I've never seen it used in a really effective manner in all my game time. The dungeon I've generated is level 5, but I can go higher if you want. Actually, let's do that. Level 10? Level 15 ( which is where most APs cap out)
Every day the dungeon remains uncleared, the creatures in the area raid or kill some folks nearby. More importantly 4 or 5 days of rooms being empty without the place being completely cleared may lead to other things coming in, unless you take steps to prevent this somehow.
This is a not uncommon situation for characters between levels 5 - 10. Level 15 tends to get a hell of a lot more complicated.
I want to see this in a non vacuum situation. Please don't do he the schrodingers thing though. Do have a character generated at a level we can use to check this?
When your ready I'll give feedback. I'll copy out the dungeon etc and PM it an impartial person if you want, or we can work on trust.
Consider it a thought exercise, and if it works well, you may actually swing me to this idea of the casters owning everything. I am actually open to convincing, and after a few conversations recently I am certainly aware that my experiences and those of the others I know may not in fact be the majority.
Divination is thrown at these discussion all the time. So I've just gone to a site called donjon, (not the movie) where there's a random dungeon generator. I've generated a random dungeon, which includes all traps, rooms, details, monsters and treasure.Your goal is to clear this dungeon of threats so the land around it can be settled.
Throw me your divination.
I'm actually seriously interested to see this used really well. Apparently I've never seen it used in a really effective manner in all my game time. The dungeon I've generated is level 5, but I can go higher if you want. Actually, let's do that. Level 10? Level 15 ( which is where most APs cap out)
Every day the dungeon remains uncleared, the creatures in the area raid or kill some folks nearby. More importantly 4 or 5 days of rooms being empty without the place being completely cleared may lead to other things coming in, unless you take steps to prevent this somehow.
This is a not uncommon situation for characters between levels 5 - 10. Level 15 tends to get a hell of a lot more complicated.
I want to see this in a non vacuum situation. Please don't do he the schrodingers thing though. Do have a character generated at a level we can use to check this?
When your ready I'll give feedback. I'll copy out the dungeon etc and PM it an impartial person if you want, or we can work on trust.
What you seem to want is a build discussion. Build Discussions are meaningless when discussing whether classes are good or bad. A caster run by me is going to perform very differently then a caster run by Joe. At best, the only relevant data this will gather is that either me or Joe is a better builder. A vacuum discussion is the best place for discussion about the metrics of a class' power. Otherwise when I show up with a powerful build, the discussion moves from "I want to see this in an actual situation." to "Using Explosive Runes like that is cheesy." or "Dazing Spell is cheesy." or "Master Summoner is cheesy" or "Razmiran Priest is cheesy." or "Blood money is cheesy." or "Command Undead (the spell) is cheesy." Been there, seen that. Got the T-shirt. Failed my Care Check.
|
|
What you seem to want is a build discussion. Build Discussions are meaningless when discussing whether classes are good or bad. A caster run by me is going to perform very differently then a caster run by Joe. At best, the only relevant data this will gather is that either me or Joe is a better builder. A vacuum discussion is the best place for discussion about the metrics of a class' power. Otherwise when I show up with a powerful build, the discussion moves from "I want to see this in an actual situation." to "Using Explosive Runes like that is cheesy." or "Dazing Spell is cheesy." or "Master Summoner is cheesy" or...
Divination is thrown at these discussion all the time. So I've just gone to a site called donjon, (not the movie) where there's a random dungeon generator. I've generated a random dungeon, which includes all traps, rooms, details, monsters and treasure.Your goal is to clear this dungeon of threats so the land around it can be settled.
Throw me your divination.
I'm actually seriously interested to see this used really well. Apparently I've never seen it used in a really effective manner in all my game time. The dungeon I've generated is level 5, but I can go higher if you want. Actually, let's do that. Level 10? Level 15 ( which is where most APs cap out)
Every day the dungeon remains uncleared, the creatures in the area raid or kill some folks nearby. More importantly 4 or 5 days of rooms being empty without the place being completely cleared may lead to other things coming in, unless you take steps to prevent this somehow.
This is a not uncommon situation for characters between levels 5 - 10. Level 15 tends to get a hell of a lot more complicated.
I want to see this in a non vacuum situation. Please don't do he the schrodingers thing though. Do have a character generated at a level we can use to check this?
When your ready I'll give feedback. I'll copy out the dungeon etc and PM it an impartial person if you want, or we can work on trust.
So....you can't show me anything but a theory with no real evidence to contradict my current evidence of experience in the game through multiple groups and hundreds of players. But you'll still tell me your stance is absolutely correct.
So regally, the tier system is worthless in a real game is the only conclusion I can make from this.
I wish you'd give it a go, as I would really like to see it in action as effectively as I've been told it can happen. None of the players I've seen (including myself after trying it all out having read build threads and tier threads a number of times), have ever seen this nirvana of awesomeness that separates the "tier 1" groups from the "tier 5" groups.
We've even run som all caster parties and watched them destroyed, despite following all the build advice these threads have offered.
I mean... I have been wanting to play my Half-Elf Sage Razmiran Sorcerer. I'd have to scale it up to... 10 sounds good. But we're going to need some better defined rules and a third party who can run the random dungeon under RAW. Because believe me, stockpiled Explosive Runes, Planar Bindings, Blood Money Zombies and Craft Wondrous Item are all going to be in it. I'll avoid anything contentious like Blood Money + Permanency though. But we're running Contact Other Plane RAW. I am very confident anything remotely CR appropriate will be completely steamrolled.
I'd suggest doing a multiple level challenge, instead of just having it all take place around a single level. IE, run a build at 5th, 10th, and level. While it would be more difficult/time consuming, it would limit characters custom built for a specific level, or ones that require many levels to set up/become effective.
|
I mean... I have been wanting to play my Half-Elf Sage Razmiran Sorcerer. I'd have to scale it up to... 10 sounds good. But we're going to need some better defined rules and a third party who can run the random dungeon under RAW. Because believe me, stockpiled Explosive Runes, Planar Bindings, Blood Money Zombies and Craft Wondrous Item are all going to be in it. I'll avoid anything contentious like Blood Money + Permanency though. But we're running Contact Other Plane RAW. I am very confident anything remotely CR appropriate will be completely steamrolled.
Anzyr, you're so buried in theorycraft and forum builds I don't think you even remember how real parties actually play the game.
|
|
I'd suggest doing a multiple level challenge, instead of just having it all take place around a single level. IE, run a build at 5th, 10th, and level. While it would be more difficult/time consuming, it would limit characters custom built for a specific level, or ones that require many levels to set up/become effective.
When I set build concepts up, I general look at numbers at 1, 5, 10, 15. First level is too early to make a meaningful assessment of anything other than a barbaian, so skip that level.
I mean... I have been wanting to play my Half-Elf Sage Razmiran Sorcerer. I'd have to scale it up to... 10 sounds good. But we're going to need some better defined rules and a third party who can run the random dungeon under RAW. Because believe me, stockpiled Explosive Runes, Planar Bindings, Blood Money Zombies and Craft Wondrous Item are all going to be in it. I'll avoid anything contentious like Blood Money + Permanency though. But we're running Contact Other Plane RAW. I am very confident anything remotely CR appropriate will be completely steamrolled.Anzyr, you're so buried in theorycraft and forum builds I don't think you even remember how real parties actually play the game.
Good sir, if you would kindly take a gander at your preceding proposal, I think you will find that perhaps you have either not played with my group and thus are unaware of its functioning, or perhaps believe your group to be the only one that is of consequence. Well I leave that decision to you, I merely wished to draw the matter to your attention. Tally-ho!
I'd suggest doing a multiple level challenge, instead of just having it all take place around a single level. IE, run a build at 5th, 10th, and level. While it would be more difficult/time consuming, it would limit characters custom built for a specific level, or ones that require many levels to set up/become effective.When I set build concepts up, I general look at numbers at 1, 5, 10, 15. First level is too early to make a meaningful assessment of anything other than a barbaian, so skip that level.
I think we can safely hand level 1 to Druids and Summoners and select Oracles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... I have been wanting to play my Half-Elf Sage Razmiran Sorcerer. I'd have to scale it up to... 10 sounds good. But we're going to need some better defined rules and a third party who can run the random dungeon under RAW. Because believe me, stockpiled Explosive Runes, Planar Bindings, Blood Money Zombies and Craft Wondrous Item are all going to be in it. I'll avoid anything contentious like Blood Money + Permanency though. But we're running Contact Other Plane RAW. I am very confident anything remotely CR appropriate will be completely steamrolled.Anzyr, you're so buried in theorycraft and forum builds I don't think you even remember how real parties actually play the game.
Generally speaking, the tier system and other such things don't measure how the class performs when operating a bunch of house rules or gentleman's agreements to keep them from breaking the game. Because the fact that casters have to agree not to break the game in any of the a dozen ways is, itself, indicative of how much power magic can bring to the table.
"Casters don't break the game if you remove all their game-breaking abilities" isn't much of a statement.
Precisely! "We'll only measure casters that fit our standards of what is ok." Is a terrible measuring system.
|
|
What level are we talking about with your random dungeon Wrath? Are we talking a single character soloing or a set of 4 characters, each contributing? What point value? Average WBL for level?
This site generates them completely at random for all levels for numerous party levels.
@Anzyr, I'm a very experienced DM and am quite willing to run it raw. I'll send the dungeon to a neutral three party so they can adjudicate if I'm doing anything dodgy. I am going to run it like a real dungeon though, with random wandering things and reactions to situations.
I am genuinely interested to see this thing in action against my style of GMing. It will be very enlightening to me to see if these things destroy us or not. I'd be interested to see numerous people try of they want.
Actually, I do a separate thread and we can do a weekly challenge if folks want. One week at different levels. Like the DPR threads but a little different.
I'll generate it as a single character dungeon of folks want.
Anzyr, as for crafting, I'll be using the rules in ultimate campaign for those. Those are raw options too, and much better reflect how an organic character growth works for characters built at levels over 1.
What level are we talking about with your random dungeon Wrath? Are we talking a single character soloing or a set of 4 characters, each contributing? What point value? Average WBL for level?
While doing 4 characters might make more since, it could also lead to issues of trying to gauge the impact a single class has. If we wanted to be obscenely methodical the best way to do that would probably be to:
- Have a "standard" party of Wizard/Rogue/Cleric/Fighter drawn up. Have that party be uniform across all tests.
- Run that "standard" party through the test, establishing a baseline.
- Have built characters replace one of the party members, and have that party run through the test. This would establish a character vs. [Replaced Class] Score or something of that nature.
- Repeat until the class has done the test while replacing every member in the party.
The idea of course being that we could get a rating system that is something like Class vs Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard. I don't know if it's really feasible, and it's an idea I'm coming up with as I type this, but I think it could be useful.
@Anzyr, I'm a very experienced DM and am quite willing to run it raw. I'll send the dungeon to a neutral three party so they can adjudicate if I'm doing anything dodgy. I am going to run it like a real dungeon though, with random wandering things and reactions to situations.I am genuinely interested to see this thing in action against my style of GMing. It will be very enlightening to me to see if these things destroy us or not. I'd be interested to see numerous people try of they want.
Actually, I do a separate thread and we can do a weekly challenge if folks want. One week at different levels. Like the DPR threads but a little different.
I'll generate it as a single character dungeon of folks want.
Anzyr, as for crafting, I'll be using the rules in ultimate campaign for those. Those are raw options too, and much better reflect how an organic character growth works for characters built at levels over 1.
Still need more information. What point buy? How much advance preparation do our characters have? Single character or group? Are you really planning on Planar Binding RAW? Any limit on what Skeletons I can start with? Any limit to how many Explosive Runes I can have stockpiled? (I think a weeks worth is fair.) I don't mind using Ultimate Campaigns crafting rules, though that does cut my WBL by about 30%. Metric being used to evaluate progress? Etc.