| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoyed reading it. Simple and to the point with good explanations. There was a thread a while back I started trying to look for suggestions for just this and you've done a great job on it.
My only concern would be that by setting the bench marks as a fixed number rather than a range you are effectively extending the 'green' figures to just below the 'blue' benchmark. For instance if AC 30 is blue for a 5th level character because blue to you is hitting on a 1 then AC 29 is only missing on a 2. This is still well above the 75% success criteria you gave for green, but because of the limits it appears to still be green.
I would either suggest a range i.e. AC 21-25 is green and apply the same principal to the other stats.
Another thing to remember is that most of the key stats you refer to AC, saves to hit etc. Can be influenced by choices in combat, as well as buffs like bardic performance, spells. Flanking is giving +2 to hit, Fighting defensively adds to AC, as does Cover (as well as reflex saves). I would definitely agree that green is powerful as described.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are afraid of math I made this :
Pathfinder benchmark
You just have to select a CR and fill the blank and it compute everything and show the colors.
I need to add an option for iterative attack ...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
For those who are afraid of math I made this :
Pathfinder benchmark
You just have to select a CR and fill the blank and it compute everything and show the colors.I need to add an option for iterative attack ...
Great work! A concise excel sheet explains it so much better than several pages of text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spreadsheet is currently protected, preventing people from doing anything other than commenting on it. That is why you can't change the values.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It won't let me select a CR, remaining stuck at CR 5, which sorta limits the utility.
Or I'm doing it wrong, which is possible.
I think it's because you don't have the right to modify the sheet, you have to create a copy to fill it with your values. (file -> create copy)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about including CMB/CMD for us maneuver build lovers?
I'll stick that in there if you like.
If you have a link with average cmb/cmd per CR I'll do that, but this values are not in the link in the original document
EDIT :
I've found This Document with CMD and CMB and I added it, using the same rules as AC/attack for the color.
I'm not really sure of the exactitude of this informations ...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are afraid of math I made this :
Pathfinder benchmark
You just have to select a CR and fill the blank and it compute everything and show the colors.I need to add an option for iterative attack ...
I'm gonna take a closer look at this later today. If you don't mind, I may well link it in my guide.
Also, Blue is a range. It's just that the range is X+ where X is the number you need to succeed on a 2. Anything above that is in the Blue range.
It just so happens that if you're continuing to put resources in beyond that point, you'd likely be better served allocating resources towards some other aspect of your character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
I might have missed this somewhere, but I had a question.
For determining if you meet the benchmarks, would you include limited use per day class abilities and/or spells the character can use for self-buffing? Or, do you only consider those basic aspects of the character that are pretty much always on?
That depends. If it's a 2/day standard action activation? No, I wouldn't include it. If it's a 6/day swift action? Yeah, I'd say that goes in.
It really just depends on how consistently it will be active during combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That depends. If it's a 2/day standard action activation? No, I wouldn't include it. If it's a 6/day swift action? Yeah, I'd say that goes in.
Well, it depends. If it lasts two hours and you can do it twice a day, the standard action almost doesn't matter.
It really just depends on how consistently it will be active during combat.
Agreed. That can be all the time with a long enough duration, though.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely love it. Added to the Guide to the Guides. Fantastic stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That depends. If it's a 2/day standard action activation? No, I wouldn't include it. If it's a 6/day swift action? Yeah, I'd say that goes in.Well, it depends. If it lasts two hours and you can do it twice a day, the standard action almost doesn't matter.
It really just depends on how consistently it will be active during combat.Agreed. That can be all the time with a long enough duration, though.
I think what he's saying is if you're going to have it every combat and the activation action economy doesn't matter to versus doing something else then count for it. Say high-ish level monks taking Barkskin and counting it as part of their AC. Sure count it. The duration is high and you can activate it with more ki. A Warpriest counting Divine Favor as part of their attack - yeah fervor making it so easy to cast count it. Your racial SLA of Alter Self getting you another +2 to STR, probably not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely love it. Added to the Guide to the Guides. Fantastic stuff.
I was about to suggest you add my Intimimancy guide, but seemingly you've already done that at some point since the last time I looked at your page.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a new player who purchased the extended humble bundle, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
I was worried with having time to develop two characters this weekend (one for pbp and one for live play) but you really gave me the last pieces I was missing to character creation. Saves me hours of time.
Thank you!!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was an interesting read. I don't build characters this way, but I agree that it is an interesting way to look at shoring up weaknesses.
I'll also admit that my sorceress, Zahra, recently retrained a feat so that she could get both spell focus conjuration and greater spell focus conjuration on herself because she was really tired of monsters saving against her DCs...
Now my DCs are in the blue zone and I'm hoping to be a bit more effective!
Hmm
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also admit that my sorceress, Zahra, recently retrained a feat so that she could get both spell focus conjuration and greater spell focus conjuration on herself because she was really tired of monsters saving against her DCs...
Now my DCs are in the blue zone and I'm hoping to be a bit more effective!
Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if monsters were consistently making their saves against DCs that were only 2 points below the top category, then I fear you might be in for a disappointing revelation about some of your GMs in the near future. I hope I'm wrong, but...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, you're right there is at least one GM locally who every time I play against him, all the monsters consistently save... I've upped my DCs to 21 in conjuration now in an attempt to quell this.
And yes, I plan to pick up Persistent Metamagic feat at Ninth.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, you're right there is at least one GM locally who every time I play against him, all the monsters consistently save... I've upped my DCs to 21 in conjuration now in an attempt to quell this.
And yes, I plan to pick up Persistent Metamagic feat at Ninth.
Hmm
It really depends on the monster type, it's CR relative to your level, and what its strong save is. For example, a CR 6 Girallon would save against a DC 19 Fort save 55% of the time.
One of my favorite questions to ask when I'm a Knowledge guy and want to hit with spells, "What's their weakest save?"
|
Liked the guide - I do something similar though usually comparing to actual monsters rather than standardised CR monsters. That way you pick up on things like DR and SR which become more significant at higher levels but aren't seen in the basic standardised CR monster.
Also I feel that the measurement of AC for defense is quite misleading as a low con wizard with a high AC could get false sense security till one shotted by lucky shot or totally under estimates barbarian with high HP and DR.
To counter this I think measuring survival time in rounds is better and more helpful estimate of defense as takes into account hitpoint; AC; DR etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Liked the guide - I do something similar though usually comparing to actual monsters rather than standardised CR monsters. That way you pick up on things like DR and SR which become more significant at higher levels but aren't seen in the basic standardised CR monster.
Also I feel that the measurement of AC for defense is quite misleading as a low con wizard with a high AC could get false sense security till one shotted by lucky shot or totally under estimates barbarian with high HP and DR.
To counter this I think measuring survival time in rounds is better and more helpful estimate of defense as takes into account hitpoint; AC; DR etc.
I don't disagree with you, but the explanation of how to estimate 'survivability' in a more holistic sense I felt was beyond the scope of this article. It may actually be the follow-up article.
|
|
Looking at your calculation for criticals below I think your formula maybe wrong?
For example, if I have a damage of 2d6+17 (24 average) on a 19-20/x2 crit range weapon, and +11 to hit the AMCREL’s AC of 18 (70% success rate), the formula is (24*0.7)*1.07 = 17.98. This final 1.07 multiplier is the crit adjustment; your chance of confirming a critical hit multiplied by the crit multiplier – 1. In other words, a 10% chance of rolling a 19 or 20 on a x2 weapon will add 7% average damage, as there is a 70% chance of confirming the critical and a 10% chance of having rolled in the crit range in the first place.
I would have calculated it as the average damage (24) times the crit value (1.1) times the chance of the attack/crit occurring (0.7)
(24*1.1)*0.7 = 18.48 (which is an easier formula)
PS I'm no mathematician so I did the calculation long hand - ie take 20 and got 18.48
|
Most GM won't let you ask that question on what's their worst save. Generally at higher levels - it's Reflex, because they're something enormous.
You actually have to metagame a bit to know which save to hit.
Usually the cloth wearing casters, and undead = Fort (good luck getting fort save stuff that hits undead)
Big guys = Reflex
Animals, magical beasts = Will
Non caster humanoids = Usually Will, not always.
Once you get beyond spell focus and greater it's hard to increase DC further, baring greater eldritch heritage, and maybe a few traits here and there (if fire and evocation are concerned - like worshiping a certain firelord).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I decided to run one of my PFS characters through this, just for fun. I picked my Paladin, because he's 5th level like the examples in the document,
Human (Keleshite) LG
Paladin 5 of Sarenrae
INIT: +3
STR 17 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 10 CHA 16
HP: 49
AC: 21 TOUCH: 12 FLAT: 17
FORT: +9 REF: +6 WILL: +7
Traits: Valamashti Veteran, Silver Toungued
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Greater Mercy, Power Attack
Attacks
+1 Adamantine Bardiche +9 (1d10+5 19-20/x2) reach
w/ Power Attack +7 (1d10+11 19-20/x2) reach
Mwk Scimitar +9 (1d6+4 18-20/x2)
w/Power Attack +7 (1d6+10 18-20/x2)
Skills: Diplomacy +12, Perception +6, Profession: Merchant +4, Sense Motive +4, Survival +2
Items of note: +1 Adamantine Bardiche, Mwk Scimitar, Mwk O-yoroi, Heavy Wooden Shield, Amulet of Natural Armo, Cracked Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone, Wand of CLW, Wand of Divine Favor, Wayfinder, 3x Potion of Enlarge Person, Potion of Enlarge Person (CL 3), Potion of Shield of Faith
So, here are his stats vs the benchmarks:
To-Hit: +7
Benchmark: +7/+12/+16 Looks like I'm orange.
EDV: 9.57 (If I calculated that right)
Benchmark: 55, 27.5, 13.75 Looks like I'm red
AC: 21
Benchmark: 30/25/21 Looks like I'm orange
Saves: +9 FORT +6 REF +7 WILL
Benchmark: +13/+9/+4 So Green Fort and Orange Will and Reflex
For skills, Diplomacy is Green.
That makes me feel pretty terrible about the build. He's wearing heavy armor, yet barely meets the orange qualifier. He's wielding a high damage two-handed weapon, but is Red for EDV (a lot of that has to do with to-hit, though). He's barely orange on to-hit.
What it doesn't take into account, though, are things like Smite Evil, which takes his stats to:
+10 (1d10+16 19-20/x2)
To-hit is still orange. EDV goes to 14.88 or just barely into orange.
AC goes to 24, just below green. Saves stay the same. This is all only against the target of the Smite, though.
It doesn't account for being Enlarged, which he can't always take the time to do. Enlarged with Smite boosts his to-hit to +11 (still orange) and EDV to 20.22... still orange.
Finally, it also doesn't account for the occasional extra attacks from Combat Reflexes and a reach weapon.
So where does this leave me? His only green combat ability is his Fort save. I imagine if HPs and self-healing were factored in, his AC wouldn't seem as bad. I don't know what else he's supposed to do to boost it, though. He can abandon two-handing and use his shield, dropping his damage even more and abandoning the focus of the build. I'll likely enchant the armor soon. All of that, though, and it's still only orange for, essentially, a tank character. Though it would become green against his Smite targets.
To me it feels like the benchmarks might be a little too high. I've certainly never felt like the character was ineffective, even if he can't one or two-shot everything.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ferious: I've got a few things to say here.
I think you've just fallen into a really common pitfall of the Pathfinder rules system. The concept of tanks.
You see, tanking isn't really MEANT to work in Pathfinder, like in-combat healing. The system devalues it in terms of opposed action economy for good reason: turns in a non-simulated rules system (ie, tabletop as opposed to computers doing the math) take a long time. So a character that serves to make combat take more turns ultimately slows down gameplay in an unsatisfying way.
Scaling AC is generally difficult to do in respect to enemy attacks rolls, especially if you use the (intuitive, but ultimately less effectual) Heavy Armor approach. Shields can hugely mitigate this, but unless you're two weapon fighting with your shield, your EDV takes a massive hit.
No, the real reason tanking doesn't work in Pathfinder is the inability to draw aggro. There's the compel hostility spell, Antagonize, and...I dunno, a couple of class abilities here and there.
Outside of that, you've gotta be threat on board or use positioning to absorb attacks. This means that if your EDV drops too low, you better have some other ability that pisses the enemy off but-good.
Your attack bonus is suffering because of you're starting at 16 STR, lacking Weapon Focus, and that you're 1 away from having an iterative. You've also seemingly not taken your human bonus feat, and some of your item choices seem...odd.
I have noticed that my EDV benchmarks are too high, and I think I've figured out why. I'll address that shortly. But honestly? Your character seems pretty meh. Self-healing does mitigate your low AC issue, and your high CHA helps your lack of cloak...but I just don't really see what you're going to accomplish in combat.
Except when you smite. Your character gets gud real quick in a pinch, and that's not to be discounted.
There's no one thing in particular that crashes the whole thing, your build choices just don't really seem to be heading anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, you're right there is at least one GM locally who every time I play against him, all the monsters consistently save... I've upped my DCs to 21 in conjuration now in an attempt to quell this.
And yes, I plan to pick up Persistent Metamagic feat at Ninth.
Hmm
If he not rolling openly it might not matter. You might have to go for spells with no saves or spells that so something, even on a failed save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So with should characters with Animal Companions, Eidolons, etc. just calculate the character and the pet separately?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you focused too much on the word tank. I didn't mean it in the mmo sense. Just that a Paladin is a character meant to be able to take hits. It's built into the class, and they naturally favor survivability over damage, with the exception of smiting.
The character is meant to place himself between the enemy and the rest of the group to take advantage of reach and AoO. That's been working fairly well, actually, in smaller groups (4 player) where he's the main melee, and it vastly increases his damage output when he can get AoOs off. What I was trying to point out is that your system has no way of accounting for that.
He's a Dual Talent Human, so +2 to two stats instead of a bonus feat. Not optimal, I know, but it made the MAD aspect of a Paladin that also needs Dex possible. I could have dumped Int, but I didn't want to do that.
As for the items, I'll admit the adamantine bardiche was a large investment for the level. He was heading into season 6 of PFS (robots and lots of hardness on things I can't Smite), so it was driven by that. Redistributing that 3,000 gold would allow the armor to be +1 and a Ring of Protection +1. That would put him at 23 AC. The ioun stone was also probably premature. It was bought to fulfill a faction goal. I figured I'd buy one eventually anyway, and the small boost to init helps. I didn't have the gold at the time for a cloak of resistance, but that's another item that will be on the list soon. Basically, im not sure what's odd about a martial investing most of their gold into weapons and armor, and that's where the vast majority of his gold has gone. The wand of divine favor was bought with prestige, so it doesn't really affect the other stuff, and gives a small boost for bigger fights. With the reach/combat reflexes build, round 1 is more about getting into the right position than charging directly into melee. So moving up and using the wand, then waiting for the enemy to come to me is a reasonably effective tactic when faced with melee opponents. The O-yoroi ultimately will work out about the same as full plate thanks to max Dex bonus.
At any rate, I don't want to spend more time justifying the build. Your reaction is kind of making my point for me. The guide is presented as what's necessary to be viable, but when shown a build with a couple of sub optimal choices, the reaction is that I should have built the character more optimally (ie should have had a higher strength, should have taken weapon focus)
I like the idea of general benchmarks. I think it's a useful approach. I just think 75% success is too high of a benchmark. It's fine for a specialist. But a character that meets your orange level in all categories, and isn't green in any, is perfectly viable. A character that succeeds at the thing they want to do more than half the time is fine. If that character also has the ability to turn it up to eleven when needed, then there's no reason to worry. Paladin has that built into the class with Smite.
I would rework your levels to put blue at 75-90%, green at 55%-70% and orange at 40-50%. If someone can contribute 40% of the time to something that is not the focus of their build (like a Bard stepping up into melee when their spells aren't helpful), then they are fine.
I would also put a note in about the importance of being able to boost effectiveness for a limited time, in the event they run into a more difficult fight. If a character can hit your orange levels reliably and can hit green once a day/scenario, they shouldn't have any problems.
Just saw your note about changing the EDV marks. Those numbers look much more reasonable now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ferious: I've got a few things to add too.
It looks like you are calculating your ac wrong for a start:
9 (Full plate) + 2 (Dex, requires mwk full plate) + 1 Amulet of nat arm + 1 ioun stone = 23
+3 for smite = 26
Combined with lay on hands, this would mean you are overall doing fine for AC, especially considering the biggest baddest guy is the guy who gets smitten.
My Paladin (who is approaching retirement) has AC23 at level 11, makes up for it with lay on hands, and smite bumps it up when it matters.
Second: Attack bonus -
Some quick fixes:
Belt of mighty strength (4k)
Furious Focus (That first smite hit hits hardest)
Pale Green Cracked Prism Ioun Stone (4k)
All things my paladin has, and this helps him get through.
Finally, saves:
cloak of resistance for 1k
upgrade it again for 3k
Headband of charisma for 4k.
If you pick all this up by level 7, you should be on track for greens across the board (except reflex saves, but I consider that the least relevant save).
As you pointed out, the benefits of a reach build are battlefield control and the ability to attack multiple enemies in a turn, so even if it is hard to directly calculate the benefit, don't discount it entirely.
A point on paladins: they are one of the few full martial classes with no bonus feats. That hurts the most at lower levels, when you are trying to get everything working together. You look like you have the core of the build up and running now, so focus on pulling up the central areas (attack, AC, saves) and you should be right.
My own paladin had a starting strength of 14, and would never have been anything but orange for most of his career offensively, but smite can do magical things. The combination of level to damage, doubled to the really big bads, and ignoring all DR, and increasing AC by Charisma, means that a smiting paladin can fight a demon, devil or undead monstrosity that would give any other optimized character a run for their money.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only place that build doesn't meet the goals is attack bonus. Well, and damage, but that's almost solely because of the attack bonus. With a +12 to hit and Combat Reflexes, it'd definitely manage it IMO.
And let's be honest here, +7 to hit at level 5 is a really low attack bonus. That's lower than some first level characters. Not very many, I'll grant, but a Human Barbarian can have +8 at 1st, just for example.I don't think I've ever seen a 5th level character who did melee primary with that low an attack, including TWF Rogues and the like.
If you're having fun with it, by all means stick with it, but I wouldn't advise a new player to play that character. They're likely to be singularly ineffective at offensive stuff in general unless smiting and get frustrated.
|
|
Zedorland - He's wearing O-yoroi, not Full Plate. And the ioun stone he has is for initiative, not AC. But yes, all of the items on your list are things I'm planning to buy. And the reason I went with the amulet of natural armor over the ring is because of the ring not stacking with smite.
Deadmanwalking- I agree, the attack bonus is low. The question is, how low? The benchmarks make it look like I need an extra +5 just to get to the low end of good. I don't think that's the case. I'd like another +2 or so, which I'll get out of the belt and the ioun stone when I can afford them. Also, keep in mind that bonus includes the Power Attack penalty.
A 20 STR Barbarian at 1st level, raging, would have a +8. But if you're going to give the Barbarian rage, which is very limited at 1st level, then you should give the Paladin Smite. Even granting the Barbarian rage, though, when you factor Power Attack in, the Barbarian goes to +7. Take that out to 5th level with power attack and a +1 weapon, and the Barbarian is at +11. Does that mean the Barbarian is only orange to attack and they should have spent a feat on Weapon Focus?
I'm not contending my build can't improve. I'm saying the amount at which the benchmarks say the build needs to improve are too high. All full-BAB martial characters should be able to fall into a green range without having to max strength and take weapon focus. If all martial characters fell into the green range presented here, there'd be no point in having buff characters in the group, because the martials wouldn't see enough benefit from spells like Bless and only a benefit to damage from Bardic Performance. There would be no point in charging or flanking. (That changes once iteratives enter the picture)
The target numbers I prefer are being able to hit a CR Level +2 creature at least 55% of the time. That means against the BBEG, you still succeed more than half the time. By the time buffs or positioning get factored in, you're more in the 75% range. That's plenty to be considered good at what you do, not just viable. I would put that at the middle of the "good" category, and that's exactly where the middle of the guide's orange, or "passable" category is. What the guide rates as green, I'd call "excellent" or "exceptional," and some martials will rightly want to be there. At that point, your iteratives are hitting half the time or better without any buffs. What the guide lists as blue, I would call "excessive."
The target for a CR 7 creature would be AC 20, or in other words you'd want a +9 at level 5, which is about where I'd like to be. The hypothetical Barbarian would be a little better than that... And that's ok. I would expect a Barbarian to hit better than a Paladin. With Smite, the Paladin would be about even.
None of this even starts to look at what a 3/4 BAB class would need to do if they wanted to meet the green to-hit mark. An 18 STR Magus with comparable equipment, and assuming adding +1 Keen from their Arcane Pool, would be at +9, +7 when using Spell Combat. That drops to +6 if power attacking, though the benefits of that aren't as good for a Magus.
What these benchmarks are essentially doing is saying all martials should start with an 18 strength and Weapon Focus if they want to get to the minimum level of being considered good at what they do (even at full-BAB, if you're going to power attack, those aren't enough to get to +12), and I just don't buy into that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the to-hit benchmark isn't meant to be counting Power attack, actually. Or not inherently anyway. Not if your damage is Orange without it. As a Barbarian's for example, might easily be.
Though I do feel like 5th is a bad level to do this for that exact reason. It's pretty much the worst level possible in a martial's build for most such characters. That second attack is just such a damage boost.
That debatably makes it a good level to check things on, but if you're a bit behind on damage, seeing how you do at 6th will almost always solve most of that.
As for mid BAB characters, it depends on the mid-BAB character. A Bard at 5th has potentially a +11 to hit pretty casually. A Magus can manage a +10 with little effort as well (+3 weapon from base plus Arcane Pool, +4 stat, +3 BAB). Ditto most mid-BAB characters, actually. That's not quite Green, but it's as close as most Full BAB characters get casually.
Still, dropping it from 75% required for Green to 70% might be a better barometer for what minimums a build really needs on attacks.
Are we saying that 70% to 90% success on save or suck spells is only green?
Similarly 70% to 90% of enemy attacks missing is only green.
APs frequently have one Enemy equal to APL against 4+ PCs. I can't see there is any kind of threat when the enemy is only 10 - 30% successful and then outnumbered 4 to 1.
The benchmark thresholds are definitely too powerful as i see it.
It brings to mind a conversation with a rogue PC in one of our games. He asked if eyes of minute seeing were available in the city. I asked what his Disable Device was currently (at 6th level) and it was +19. The goggles would put this up to +24 and this make traps under DC 25 pointless. I asked the question 'do you need to only fail on a 1 to feel competent?' And he agreed no. The end result of this conversation was that he isn't going to buy goggles and therefore traps are still relevant in our game - for a few more levels at least.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwalking, that's getting closer to what I'd see as reasonable.
I do think options that will be employed almost every round, like Power Attack or Spell Combat, should be accounted for. And things like a Magus using one of their +1s to go toward Keen instead of to-hit. That would put the Magus at +7/+7 like I said. If they have trouble hitting, then they could stop Spell Combat and switch up their Arcane Pool, sure.
The Bard getting to +11 involves taking a standard action at the start of combat to perform and having precast Heroism? And a 16 STR? All of those are fair to assume.
An 18 STR Warpriest would have Weapon Focus for free plus Divine Favor/Fate's Favored most fights to put them at +11 or +9 with Power Attack.
The 20 STR Barbarian, as mentioned, would be at +13 or +11 with Power Attack.
The Fighter in the example is at +13 or +11 with Power Attack (though he's counting a belt of STR +2, which I'm not in the other builds)
An 18 STR Ranger would be at +10, unless it's against a favored enemy, +8 with Power Attack.
A 20 Dex Rogue would be at +9 or +7/+7 TWF.
A 16 STR or DEX Investigator with Studied Combat would be at +9. If they really focus on combat and go 18 STR, a Mutagen, and Heroism through Alchemical Allocation, they're at +14. Investigators, thanks to Alchemist Buffs and studied combat, have some of the best accuracy in the game if they focus on it.
An 18 STR Monk would be +8/+8 on a flurry (assuming a +1 amulet). Probably best to avoid Power Attack here, but with it they're at +6/+6 which might be worth it sometimes.
An 18 STR Unchained Monk would be +10/+10 or +8/+8 with Power Attack
Do you see where I'm going with this? All of those builds are melee focused, with a high stat in their to-hit stat. With the exception of the Investigator, none of those builds hit the green level unless they stop doing something they'll want to do every round. For the 3/4 BAB classes, they match the full-BAB classes only when they are using their class abilities to buff, and that's how it should be.
So if the average full-BAB class is at +10 to +13 before power attack, and +8 to +11 after power attack, is that just passable? And what does it mean for characters that fall below that?
My Paladin above is a little low at +9 base. If he'd started at 18 STR, he'd be on par with the Ranger. But I wanted the higher DEX, and I didn't want to dump anything. My mistake was likely in not buying a belt of STR as soon as possible. Otherwise does he really drop to just barely passable because of 1 less on his to-hit bonus? Or does it only make him slightly below average? And does a character need to be at least average to be viable?
This guide seems to be assuming that anyone who wants to be effective in combat (better than passable) must have:
18 STR minimum
Weapon Focus
A Belt of +2 STR as soon as possible
Full-BAB and/or class abilities dedicated to boosting to-hit.
Heavy Armor
A DEX bonus to AC
Some other AC boosting item/trait/or feat
That's all fine for a Fighter like in the example, because they have plenty of feats, they don't have much else to spend gold on, they don't have much need for other stats (at least not two at 16+), Even then, in the example, the class most designed around being able to obtain a high to-hit and AC without buffs didn't reach green in either (counting Power Attack). He devoted a feat, a trait, and 3/4s of his available gold toward improving to-hit and AC and still didn't get there. Isn't that a sign that the benchmarks are too high?
I just really don't like seeing a guide that is aimed at making a viable character setting such high benchmarks and minimums for stats. I've seen too many people post asking for advice on their characters only to be told things like "Your physical stats are too low. You'll never be effective in combat," just because they have a 14 in STR. A 14 STR character can absolutely be effective in combat. They might not do what a character that started at 18 or 20 would, but telling them they'll never be any good isn't helpful. I feel like this guide is doing that unintentionally by setting the bar for effectiveness so high. Lowering the EDV numbers helped a lot. Lowering the to-hit and AC metrics as well would go a long way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was off in my EDV calculation for my Paladin. It's a little lower at 8.66, so a little below Orange. That, more than the to-hit, convinced me a Belt of STR +2 should be my next big purchase above prioritizing AC. That will bring EDV up to 10.73 before Smite or Enlarge Person, and I'm comfortable with that. It'll take me a scenario or two to get the gold, though, so I'm really aiming at a fix for 6th level. EDV then with the iterative should be 16.45, which puts me about a point below green. Easily compensated for when necessary by Divine Bond, Smite, Divine Favor, or Enlarge Person.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we saying that 70% to 90% success on save or suck spells is only green?
Similarly 70% to 90% of enemy attacks missing is only green.APs frequently have one Enemy equal to APL against 4+ PCs. I can't see there is any kind of threat when the enemy is only 10 - 30% successful and then outnumbered 4 to 1.
The benchmark thresholds are definitely too powerful as i see it.
Having read over the guide, I do like it. I didn't at first until I really got into it, but I realize the value of it.
But I do actually agree with The Sword here, I think blue being 'impossible to fail' is too high of a benchmark. I would probably have 5 ratings, with the highest being where blue is now, as at least in my guides, the fifth rating (purple) is reserved for character defining, and I think having something be an auto success would be pretty damn character defining to me.
Something more like
0-25 = Red,
26-50 = Orange
51-75 = Green
75-99 = Blue
100+ = Purple
Would be more fair in my estimation, as the way this guide is now, it feels like it's pushing characters to optimize a bit too much, which will mean if everyone's shooting for blue/green, they'll be buzz sawing through most ECL encounters. This way red is something you don't rely on still with absolute certainty, orange is a long shot but possible, green is an ideal, and blue is a well tuned character, while purple is probably overspecializing a bit.
Just my opinion here, the guide is quite interesting and well formatted, and the math all seems sound.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we saying that 70% to 90% success on save or suck spells is only green?
Similarly 70% to 90% of enemy attacks missing is only green.APs frequently have one Enemy equal to APL against 4+ PCs. I can't see there is any kind of threat when the enemy is only 10 - 30% successful and then outnumbered 4 to 1.
The benchmark thresholds are definitely too powerful as i see it.
Having read over the guide, I do like it. I didn't at first until I really got into it, but I realize the value of it.
But I do actually agree with The Sword here, I think blue being 'impossible to fail' is too high of a benchmark. I would probably have 5 ratings, with the highest being where blue is now, as at least in my guides, the fifth rating (purple) is reserved for character defining, and I think having something be an auto success would be pretty damn character defining to me.
Something more like
0-25 = Red,
26-50 = Orange
51-75 = Green
75-99 = Blue
100+ = Purple
Would be more fair in my estimation, as the way this guide is now, it feels like it's pushing characters to optimize a bit too much, which will mean if everyone's shooting for blue/green, they'll be buzz sawing through most ECL encounters. This way red is something you don't rely on still with absolute certainty, orange is a long shot but possible, green is an ideal, and blue is a well tuned character, while purple is probably overspecializing a bit.Just my opinion here, the guide is quite interesting and well formatted, and the math all seems sound.
Y'all are getting too focused on the color Blue. The guide explicitly states that Blue benchmarks are nearly unattainable, generally should not be strived for, and serve only as the 'point beyond which further investment is functionally useless'.
Green is actually the goal.
Also, Ferious: the guide also states that if you have certain abilities that increase your stats temporarily, those should be factored into your calculations. Once smite/Enlarge is factored in, you're well off as a character.
I think your mistaking me. Green is too good. 75-90% success for a goal is very powerful. It equates to 10-25 % failure by your enemies. your description of orange is that it is passable but actually 51-74% success is still good and something to aim for. Hitting your opponent 2 thirds of the time without buff spells, flanking, charging, inspiration etc is good. With these things your green category effectively turns blue.
|
|
Mort,
We're trying to tell you two things:
1) The goals you've set as green are too high for an unoptimized, but viable character.
2) You are missing a category. Your orange category is where most martials will fall, unless they devote extra resources. So you don't have a category for characters whose secondary combat role is melee/ranged. All you have is poor, which doesn't differentiate between a character that starts with a 14 and gets to +6 with a magic weapon, and a character who dumps combat entirely. There should be a category between your red and orange. Maybe it extends into orange a little, maybe not. So we're all tying to shift the colors down to create that category. Because there's a difference between a 5th level character with a +6 and one with a +1. By setting blue where you have, you essentially only have 3 categories. Poor, average, and exceptional.
- re Smite: I was not counting it in, because at 5th level that only covers two enemies per scenario. That's not available enough for me to count on. But I feel good about being able to turn things up when needed and know from playing the character that works.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm just going to go through why the benchmarks are where they are, because every poster on here seems to think I want every character to be Blue rated at everything.
"Having a Blue rated statistic is generally impossible until high level, and really should not be the goal of character building. One would have to pull some pretty serious shenanigans and min/max to achieve a blue rating (at least until level 10 or so). If you do have a Blue rated combat statistic, you might consider re-allocating resources to get some of your other stats higher. Generally well-balanced characters are more satisfying to play, and the character will be more useful overall."
The only purpose in having a Blue statistic was to have a 'cap' beyond which we don't even think about. It represents a 95% success rate, which is as high as the system goes.
Green represents a 75-90 success rate. This means that whatever the thing you are doing, you do a clear majority of the time against an AMCREL. If your schtick is to demoralize enemies and you fail half the time, you're a less than effectual ally. If your thing is doing damage, and you can't hit an AMCREL with greater than chance accuracy, there's an issue there.
Keep in mind that an AMCREL is pretty weak. A dangerous encounter has 4 of them for a party of 4.
I'm not encouraging min/max here. I'm saying the thing that you want to do the most in combat, you should be effective at. That means 'it works most of the time.' The things that keep you alive shouldn't go completely by the wayside or you'll die.