| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but 74% is stil Orange which is succeeding more than two thirds of the time. With area save or suck spells like confusion or at lower levels colour spray, 74% of your enemies are gone in one standard action. That is a sight better than passable.
We get that blue is undesirable you described that very well. But the way the thresholds are static numbers means that green is also undesirable at its top end and very very good at the bottom end.
Just in point an encounter of four creatures with a CR equal to your APL would be an epic encounter.
At the end of the day it's your system, just trying to give feedback.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@The sword: My save-or-X benchmarks do need adjusting for AoE effects. I'm thinking of getting into that. However, your math is off. The Green benchmark of DC 18 means that an AMCREL's weak save being targeted still gives it a 35% of succeeding against the effect. I was considering single target spells (such as Bestow Curse), meaning that where I draw the line of 'passable' as opposed to 'good' is a 40% chance of wasting your round.
Now, for AoE effects, things change. I'll need to get into that.
@Ferious: Simply by assuming that you get an AoO on 1/2 of rounds and that you are enlarged, your EDV goes to green.
So you've got green in your primary combat strategy, green Fort, at least orange in all other defensive measures.
Your character made quite a few non-optimal choices without going completely wonky, and the benchmarks reflect that he is a viable, but not optimal character.
Your character is practically the perfect demonstration of the benchmarks I've laid out working perfectly for a martial character.
Also, Orange is NOT considered 'poor'. That would be red. Orange is considered 'passable', so it is perfectly fine for a secondary combat strategy. You would want to benchmark whatever your primary combat strategy actually is to be Green in that case.
I don't think I'm being very clear explaining. The green benchmark may be 18 but there is also the space between green and blue which is still presumable considered green. 19, 20 etc. Do you see what I'm getting at?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I'm being very clear explaining. The green benchmark may be 18 but there is also the space between green and blue which is still presumable considered green. 19, 20 etc. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes, I just don't think it matters. I'm pretty sure anyone can figure out that the higher you go, the better you are even if the numbers still technically fall within one of my color categories.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't have this issue as much as others do, but where people seem to be coming from is less that Blue should be lower, and more that most characters won't hit Green on their primary combat strategy's to-hit unless really optimized. Not as a turn-in, turn-out, sorta thing at level 5, anyway.
Ferious's character, for example, only hits it when Smiting and Enlarged. A 5th level Fighter with Str 16 and a +1 weapon can't hit it at all without using buff spells (something he lacks native access to). His attack maxes out at +11 (3 str +1 Weapon +1 Weapon Focus +5 BAB +1 Weapon Training).
Nor can most other characters. A 5th level combat Bard with Str 16 and a +1 weapon maxes out at +11 as well (3 str +1 weapon, +2 Heroism, +2 Performance +3 BAB). And so on.
Really, you need a starting stat of 18 or a Belt and likely Weapon Focus or buff spells to get to Green to-hit at 5th level, and that's certainly an optimal choice, but probably not a good benchmark for 'minimum viability', which was the guide's stated goal.
Now, I certainly agree that you need significantly more than 50% odds of success in your particular strategy, but 75% seems a little too high to shoot for, at least at early levels. 70% costs enough less resources while being only 5% lower that it seems a better benchmark.
|
|
Well, I don't have this issue as much as others do, but where people seem to be coming from is less that Blue should be lower, and more that most characters won't hit Green on their primary combat strategy's to-hit unless really optimized. Not as a turn-in, turn-out, sorta thing at level 5, anyway.
Ferious's character, for example, only hits it when Smiting and Enlarged. A 5th level Fighter with Str 16 and a +1 weapon can't hit it at all without using buff spells (something he lacks native access to). His attack maxes out at +11 (3 str +1 Weapon +1 Weapon Focus +5 BAB +1 Weapon Training).
Nor can most other characters. A 5th level combat Bard with Str 16 and a +1 weapon maxes out at +11 as well (3 str +1 weapon, +2 Heroism, +2 Performance +3 BAB). And so on.
Really, you need a starting stat of 18 or a Belt and likely Weapon Focus or buff spells to get to Green to-hit at 5th level, and that's certainly an optimal choice, but probably not a good benchmark for 'minimum viability', which was the guide's stated goal.
Now, I certainly agree that you need significantly more than 50% odds of success in your particular strategy, but 75% seems a little too high to shoot for, at least at early levels. 70% costs enough less resources while being only 5% lower that it seems a better benchmark.
To be honest, I'm thinking of taking out attack roll benchmarks altogether. EDV is a more important combat metric, and is derived from attack bonus. That means high damage low hit characters don't get freaked out by their attack bonus being Orange. EDV can also be more easily adjusted to incorporate having extra AoOs and so forth more readily.
I was actually considering adjusting it down to 70% myself. I'm still weighing my options.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking: We don't have the Paladin's full stats, but +7 to hit at level 5 is really, really low. BAB alone is +5, that means he has either 14 strength and not even a masterwork weapon or even less srength.
@Le Petite Mort: Yes, having both to-hit and EDV is kinda redundant. The to-hit statistic can still be useful to identify the reason for a low EDV, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've made a few adjustments to incorporate feedback:
Green benchmarks have been lowered to a 70% success rate.
There is a note that EDV benchmarks are better indicators of success than attack roll benchmarks as a combat metric, and note a few examples of things one should consider with EDV.
I also made a note about support characters, and how they contribute.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking: We don't have the Paladin's full stats, but +7 to hit at level 5 is really, really low. BAB alone is +5, that means he has either 14 strength and not even a masterwork weapon or even less srength.
@EDV: Yes, having both to-hit and EDV is redundant. The to-hit statistic can still be useful to identify the reason for a low EDV, though.
Holy Salad Bar of Abadar, that is a mighty fine table!
Oh, brother, I'm gonna link that table so good. Mmm.
I changed attack roll, saves and AC to match 70%. Are the DCs and EDV unchanged?
|
|
I made a table.
That is very cool.
@Deadmanwalking: We don't have the Paladin's full stats, but +7 to hit at level 5 is really, really low. BAB alone is +5, that means he has either 14 strength and not even a masterwork weapon or even less srength.
We actually do have the Paladin's stats. He has Str 17, that number just includes Power Attack.
But yeah, his attack is really low. He's sort of a bad example in some ways. That doesn't change the basic point I was making, though.
I somehow only read the first two lines in his spoiler. My bad! I blame the Formula 1 race starting at 6AM. I clearly haven't gotten enough sleep last night.
Unless I'm missing something again, Enlarge Person shouldn't actually increase the to-hit (the bonus from strength cancels out with the penalty due to size).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow only read the first two lines in his spoiler. My bad! I blame the Formula 1 race starting at 6AM. I clearly haven't gotten enough sleep last night.
Unless I'm missing something again, Enlarge Person shouldn't actually increase the to-hit (the bonus from strength cancels out with the penalty due to size).
Yep. But he can still manage a +11 with Divine Favor + Smite.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made a table.That is very cool.
@Deadmanwalking: We don't have the Paladin's full stats, but +7 to hit at level 5 is really, really low. BAB alone is +5, that means he has either 14 strength and not even a masterwork weapon or even less srength.We actually do have the Paladin's stats. He has Str 17, that number just includes Power Attack.
But yeah, his attack is really low. He's sort of a bad example in some ways. That doesn't change the basic point I was making, though.
(sorry, was posting another longwinded response. Just now realizing you dropped the minimum to 70% for green. That's a step in the right direction, but see below for why I still advocate for introducing another category).
And my point is, even if I had an 18 STR, Weapon Focus, and I bought a +2 STR Belt, giving me 20 STR and a +10 to hit while Power Attacking, I wouldn't be hitting the green metric. Without Power Attack, I won't hit the green metric for damage. So I'd only be "passable" most of the time, even though I'd be hitting on 65% of my attacks. (I did have an error on the Enlarged stats. It should just be a +10 to hit. At any rate, I know I'm on the lower end with the character. I just don't think I'm +5 away from being good. I think it's more like +2).
Mort - Forget blue. Most of the posters have not been talking about the blue level, other than to say it's unnecessary. I'll break it down for you again, for a level 5 character:
Poor/Red <= +6
Average/Passable/Orange = +7 to +11
Exceptional/Green = +12 to +15
Earlier, I broke down examples of several of the classes with an 18 STR (or in the case of the rogue a 20 DEX), a +1 Weapon, and their buffs that are likely to be on every combat. The majority of them, on average, fail to meet your green criteria without picking up an additional feat or item to boost to-hit. In other words, a full-BAB class like Ranger is only "passable" when they aren't fighting their favored enemy, unless they pick up Weapon Focus and a STR belt on top of starting with an 18 STR and buying a magic weapon. Even though the Ranger would hit 65% of the time, or basically 2/3s of the time.
A Magus, while using Spell Combat, falls at the very bottom of your passable/orange category to-hit. Which means you are saying that a build that devoted half of its point buy to strength, plus a magic weapon, plus Arcane Pool buffs, is just barely passable at level 5. Can you not understand how that might send a message to a new player that they need to devote even more resources to the build? And that might not be a bad thing, but when the next target number they are given is +12, they need to devote a LOT of resources to get there, or they have to stop using their main class feature entirely.
So, what is the player who wants a Magus with an 18 Int instead supposed to think? All of a sudden, by lowering STR to 16, they fall into the poor/red category at +6/+6. The same category as the Wizard with an 8 STR and a +0 to-hit. So by default, you're telling a player that if you run a Magus, you must start with an 18 STR, and if you really want them to be effective, you need to find another +5 on top of having a magic weapon and using your class abilities. When finding just another +2 would mean they are succeeding 60% of the time, which is more often than not.
Your guide is called making a viable character. Is a Magus with a 16 STR really not viable, while a Magus with an 18 STR is?
And here's the kicker... all of this is before any party buffs. If the cleric throws out Bless, and the Bard performs, and the Wizard casts haste, that Ranger is at +14 to-hit, hitting 85% of the time. The Magus is at +11, hitting 70% of the time. How are those characters just passable?
A character at the top of your green category stops benefitting on to-hit after the Bless. They don't need a party to back them up. They are optimized to a point where they can take on a level appropriate encounter by themselves.
That is why we are saying green is to high. A 5th level character with a +10 after taking into account Power Attack or TWF or Spell Combat and their personal buffs is not just passable. That's a very good bonus. That means they are hitting on an 8 or better, or 65% of the time. But in your guide, it reads like they're just getting by.
That's why you need another category in there somewhere. Because you're classifying a viable character at +6 the same as a character with no chance at +0, and you're labelling a character that hits 65% or 70% of the time as "passable." That's 2 out of every 3 times. That's good, not passable. A character in your green category isn't just hitting more often than not. They're hitting almost every single time. 3 times out of 4 to 9 times out of 10. That's better than good. That's exceptional. Throw in party buffs, and your orange character is hitting 3 out of 4 or 9 out of 10. Your green character is hitting 19 out of 20 times.
I'll give up on trying to convince you after this, if this still isn't making sense. I just don't think a guide that is mostly aimed at beginning players should be pushing such a high threshold to be considered good at what you do. It effectively invalidates any martial build that doesn't devote half of its point buy plus stat bonus, it's starting feat, and a majority of its gold to boosting to-hit. Not to mention what it would take to get to your green AC number. The average build for a full-BAB class is more than viable, and the guide should say that somewhere instead of giving an unrealistic target to be considered more than passable (passable was a bad choice of word, especially with leading up to it with ellipses. It gives the impression you were trying to think of something nice to say, which translates to "not good enough." Solid or average would be a much better choice, and even then, an additional category would help).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, given that green damage at 5th is 13.75 at this point and it's explicitly noted that EDV is the important number, you're way closer than you think.
Your current build has Green EDV when Smiting, or when it gets an AoO. The Suggested Str 18 build has Green EDV all the time, and indeed is a bit above the necessary stuff for that.
Heck Str 18 and Weapon Focus alone get your current build to Green EDV when using Divine Favor even if you're neither Smiting nor getting an AoO.
So you're about 3 points from Green Offense all the time by the current benchmarks...and situationally there already. Just for the record.
|
|
Actually, given that green damage at 5th is 13.75 at this point and it's explicitly noted that EDV is the important number, you're way closer than you think.
Your current build has Green EDV when Smiting, or when it gets an AoO. The Suggested Str 18 build has Green EDV all the time, and indeed is a bit above the necessary stuff for that.
Heck Str 18 and Weapon Focus alone get your current build to Green EDV when using Divine Favor even if you're neither Smiting nor getting an AoO.
So you're about 3 points from Green Offense all the time by the current benchmarks...and situationally there already. Just for the record.
I'm really less worried about my build than I am the baseline in the guide. I know how to play mine to make it work to a point I'm satisfied, without boosting anything. I will boost to-hit when I can afford it, so that I don't have to jump through the buffing hoops every time, but I understand the character and what he's good at.
A newish player might be able to understand calculating EDV, but a to-hit number is a lot easier for them to look at. It's very easy for someone to see the +7 on their character sheet and the +11 (now) in the benchmarks and think they need to boost their to-hit considerably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that the way the CR system works, you aren't actually fighting many CR=APL+ enemies on a normal day. CR=APL (which is supposed to be the run-of-the-mill encounter) is a single CREL monster, with CR=AP+2 being a mere two of those. Because the action economy heavily stacks the odds in the player's favor agains just one or two enemies, CR=APL+ enemies are mostly bosses. So yeah, you can count in smite against those enemies. Also, if for instance your wizard hastens you every significant combat, that alone pushes your average DPR to 20 (33.1 with both haste and smite which is blue!).
But I kinda agree, a bit more distinction might be good. I made a table where I split the part between 50% and 90% threefold instead of twofold (although i kept the EDV values and added a 75% for the new purple rating). For level 5, the to hit values would be +7/+10/+13/+16.
80% chance of ending an encounter with one spell is pretty good odds to my mind.
APL+3 is described as an epic fight. A challenging fight is described as APL +1 which as often as not will involve multiple lower CR creatures. I just DM'd the second book of an Adventure Path and the first encounter was against 3x lvl3 rogues. by the rules that is a challenging encounter for that level 5 party.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really less worried about my build than I am the baseline in the guide. I know how to play mine to make it work to a point I'm satisfied, without boosting anything. I will boost to-hit when I can afford it, so that I don't have to jump through the buffing hoops every time, but I understand the character and what he's good at.A newish player might be able to understand calculating EDV, but a to-hit number is a lot easier for them to look at. It's very easy for someone to see the +7 on their character sheet and the +11 (now) in the benchmarks and think they need to boost their to-hit considerably.
Your character is far from optimal, but it is viable. It falls within the benchmarks I have outlined as green when using it's primary combat strategy, and orange as a minimum in its defensive metrics.
In other words, it isn't that I don't see your point, its that you don't have one. A character built non-optimally but with still mostly sensible resource allocations winds up exactly where I said they should.
Your magus example likely has a damage of roughly 6d6+3 (assuming shocking grasp) or so, yes? So average damage is 24, crit range is 18-20, so we're looking at a 15.6
Which is green. EDIT: Okay, I did my crit adjustment wrong. It's actually 13.8, which is just barely within our green. But that's with just a masterwork weapon, +3 stat modifier, and BAB going into our attack modifer. Weapon Focus alone takes us to 15.18 EDV, which feels a lot more comfortable for a front line damage dealer. Also note that Strength is the only source of damage beyond shocking grasp. So yeah, not optimal, but good enough.
Honestly, 50-65% success rate is passable, not good. Now, buffs will be flying around that'll help, but if your purpose is to be a front-line martial and you're squeaking by with a 50% hit rate, you better be hitting for a LOT of damage when you do to be good at your job.
It's not that I don't understand you think my standards are high, it's that I think yours are low.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
80% chance of ending an encounter with one spell is pretty good odds to my mind.
APL+3 is described as an epic fight. A challenging fight is described as APL +1 which as often as not will involve multiple lower CR creatures. I just DM'd the second book of an Adventure Path and the first encounter was against 3x lvl3 rogues. by the rules that is a challenging encounter for that level 5 party.
Note: 3 level 3 rogues is basically a CR=APL encounter. It is in no way challenging.
Assuming they are just straight NPC rogues with normal races, they are worth 600 EXP each (1800 total) and dividing by 4 players means each player is expected to contribute '450 EXP' worth of combat efficacy.
That is just above the amount a level 5 PC is expected to earn in a run-of-the-mill (CR=APL) fight.
Building for that isn't a fair assessment of character, because fights get much harder than that. I used AMCREL stats because while representative of an easy fight, I expect contributions to combat stats from other party members to generally keep pace (if not exceed) the difference between the easy fights and the tough ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m tired of "mechanical failings = flaws = good role playing"
Let’s clarify what this means, because it has come up several times. This guide is not recommending that every character is built on the same cookie cutter template. It is not saying that every character has to buy the same items, use the same feats. It is not saying that everyone wants to and should play superman.
Honestly it's a valid point for those of us that played 'back in the day' - but you have to take into consideration that the point swing was nonexistent then also - if you had a fighter with a 7 str, and a fighter with a 18 str - the difference in 'to hit' and damage was only 2.
Wisdom didn't matter at all for non-clerics. A wizard with a 15/16 intelligence could pretty much count on playing fine all the way up to high level without issues, and lower int still played fine for the majority of the 'common levels'.
When your max negative is -1 and your max positive is +1 playing a character with some horrible stats just didn't make you feel like a gimp. What did was rolling 1 for your level up hit point roll.
|
|
Now that green is at 70%, we're not that far off from each other on the high end. I prefer being able to hit CR +2 at 55%, which typically means hitting CR at a 65% rate. So it's a difference between +10 and +11 at 5th level. But I also think a point on either side of that is in the same category. So I would call +9 to +11 good. Anything above that as exceptional. And some melee characters should be exceptional. But it's down to semantics at that point. I'd feel better about recommending the guide to newer players if the bar weren't set quite so high. At least now a full-BAB martial can reach green without devoting their whole build to doing so.
I do still wish there was more division on the lower end, so that the guide would be useful to more players. As is, it only applies to pure martial characters and save DC based casters. I get that it's hard to quantify a buffer/debuffer. What I'm looking for are guidelines for those characters when they do step into melee and to separate those characters from the complete non-martials. A cleric with a 14 STR, for example, and a magic weapon would be at +6. If that's a secondary role for the character, is that acceptable, or should they sacrifice a feat or stats elsewhere to push it to +7?
Something to address when Power Attack or another ability makes it ok to drop to-hit below green might also be good.
80% chance of ending an encounter with one spell is pretty good odds to my mind.
APL+3 is described as an epic fight. A challenging fight is described as APL +1 which as often as not will involve multiple lower CR creatures. I just DM'd the second book of an Adventure Path and the first encounter was against 3x lvl3 rogues. by the rules that is a challenging encounter for that level 5 party.
Note: 3 level 3 rogues is basically a CR=APL encounter. It is in no way challenging.
Assuming they are just straight NPC rogues with normal races, they are worth 600 EXP each (1800 total) and dividing by 4 players means each player is expected to contribute '450 EXP' worth of combat efficacy.
That is just above the amount a level 5 PC is expected to earn in a run-of-the-mill (CR=APL) fight.
Building for that isn't a fair assessment of character, because fights get much harder than that. I used AMCREL stats because while representative of an easy fight, I expect contributions to combat stats from other party members to generally keep pace (if not exceed) the difference between the easy fights and the tough ones.
Apologies - I missed off the -1 CR for NPCs. That is instead an Average fight for a level 5 party. Level 4 rogues would be an challenging fight and Level 5 rogues would be a difficult fight, and level 6 epic. APL + 2 or +3 is not typical in Adventure paths, it is reserved for relatively few major challenges. Easy encounters with enemies 2 or more CR below APL are common.
The point I'm making is that monster CR is not the same as encounter CR. The viable stats you are advocating can effectively ignore many typical Adv Path challenges out of hand at even the lower end of their thresholds.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think APs hover around the EL = APL or EL = APL +1 point, with the occasional +3.
However, in PFS the EL tends to be closer to APL + 2, with the occasional APL +3 and scarce +4 fight. This is due to expecting a party of 6 PCs and about 3 instead of 4 fights per day.
Now, sometimes that high EL will be due to using multiple moderate-CR monsters, but you'll also run into solo bosses that are CR = APL +3 on their own. That boss might also have some cannon fodder that's just low CR enough not to raise the EL further, but will stand in your way for a round or two.
For a character to be PFS-viable, he's gotta be able to cope with that too. Your hit rate shouldn't plummet, enough PCs should be able to make saves that rallying after a nasty area SoS is still possible etcetera. So if your offense was solidly green vs. CR = Level, you'll still have a chance at hitting that boss.
This may be a bit of a derail, but I don't know where I would comment on the Intimimancy guide.
You say that giving a creature -2 to hit is equivalent to 10% of their turn but that is not accurate. Assuming that the creature hits you on an 11+, giving it -2 to hit reduces it's damage by 20%, as it will miss 20% of the attack that would have hit otherwise, the rest of the attack would be covered by your armor.
If your front-line has AC good enough that the enemies need 16s to hit, making the enemies shaken reduces their damage output by 40%, so you only need to intimidate 3 targets to have productively used your turn.
This is the reason that AC bonuses (and others) have exponential price scaling: each extra point is more valuable than the previous one. Its also why prone is such a brutally strong condition.
|
|
Demoralizing to reduce enemy to-hit is a bit underwhelming. But hampering concentration checks might stop the BBEG from going after you with his highest-level spells, or his teleport to safety; and hampering save DCs can send the BBEG into a death spiral.Yup. I have an Intimidate build Inquisitor with two levels of Viking Fighter to allow Move-Action Intimidate checks. At 7th level (2F/5In), a turn often looks like:
5' step out of melee range
Move Action: Demoralize (Shaken)
Swift Action: Attack from Hurtful with a +1 Cruel Bardiche (Sickened)
Standard Action: Casting Inflict Pain (-4 mods to stuff, save versus this spell is at -4 due to Shaken and Sickened)End of turn, the target is at -8 on to-hit, skill checks and ability checks, -4 on saving throws, as well as -2 to damage.
Sounds delicious. If you PM me the build I'll put it into the Intimimancy guide.
|
|
Demoralizing to reduce enemy to-hit is a bit underwhelming. But hampering concentration checks might stop the BBEG from going after you with his highest-level spells, or his teleport to safety; and hampering save DCs can send the BBEG into a death spiral.Yup. I have an Intimidate build Inquisitor with two levels of Viking Fighter to allow Move-Action Intimidate checks. At 7th level (2F/5In), a turn often looks like:
5' step out of melee range
Move Action: Demoralize (Shaken)
Swift Action: Attack from Hurtful with a +1 Cruel Bardiche (Sickened)
Standard Action: Casting Inflict Pain (-4 mods to stuff, save versus this spell is at -4 due to Shaken and Sickened)End of turn, the target is at -8 on to-hit, skill checks and ability checks, -4 on saving throws, as well as -2 to damage.
It's too bad Hurtful isn't PFS-legal anymore. It was just too nice to be true I guess.
My concern is that if you do it to the DM, the DM is well within rights to do it to you. Those penalties would not be much fun as a player. Its the stacking that takes reasonable balanced choices and turns them into a balance issue.
I went back and read the guide to see what changes had been made since I first looked at it.
Although I believe you are still setting a rather high bar, you have gone a long way towards making the goals more reasonable. I liked how you pointed out how anything higher than blue is overkill.
I would suggest you adjust the skills a little bit. It should probably be 6 + level for Green, 3 + level/2 for orange, and always consider +9 as blue if main intent is to Aid Another.
At a certain point (probably around level five, certainly by level nine) certain skills should always be considered red if they are below +5 -- Diplomacy (for Aid Another), Survival (Aid Another and common uses), Climb, Swim, etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's too bad Hurtful isn't PFS-legal anymore. It was just too nice to be true I guess.
Investigators can dabble in this tactic with Sickening Offensive. Tack on Blade of Mercy (or Bludgeoner) and Enforcer and anyone you hit is both Sickened and Shaken. Which is pretty fun.
These days, my interest on both sides of the DM screen is much, much more in story and narrative tension than in simulation and game mechanics. I'd rather spend time with players working out back stories to their PCs and interesting "soft rule" advantages and disadvantages than have them grapple with questions of "viability."
For the record, this is what I prefer as well. But it's not inconsistent with the basic principles of this guide. Being mechanically viable in combat means nothing to one's non-mechanical flaws or back stories. You can focus on that stuff almost exclusively, and it's actually easier for the GM if you're also mechanically viable, since when combat does come up, he doesn't have to worry about killing people accidentally.
For example, the Investigator I'm thinking of for Mummy's Mask I mentioned earlier? His name is Akif, and he's a young, exceedingly nerdy, Osiriani Half-Orc (actually, quarter-Orc, his mother is human, his father a Half-Orc), with a gangly build and arms that are a bit too long making him look...odd. His family are devotees of Khepri (another PC will be his cousin, a Paladin of Khepri), and basically work for the local Builder's Union, and he has extensive tattoos dedicated to Khepri. In furthereance of that and his intellectual interests, he went away to university in Sothis, where he learned math, philosophy, history, linguistics, and (most importantly from his family's perspective) engineering. He's working as a native guide and consultant for the tomb raiding PCs.
Personality-wise, he's friendly, charming in a slightly awkward way, and very intellectually curious about just about everything. He's also a nice guy, a hard worker, and enjoys practical jokes. In combat, he's extremely pragmatic and disinclined to think things like 'honorable combat' are very important, preferring to win (which might be a source of problems with his cousin).
I'm gonna have a lot of fun roleplaying him and his interactions with the other PCs (a drunken Dwarf Brawler who claims to be a Monk of Cayden Cailean, a Catfolk Oracle, an Earth Kineticist from the frozen north, and of course, his cousin the Half-Orc Paladin of Khepri). Especially he and his cousin demanding Union rules be followed at all times with how serious they are varying wildly.
And all of that is on a mechanically solid character to boot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mort, I think you're dismissing Ferious too quickly, and I think it's because you know what you're trying to say but don't realize what your audience is actually hearing. Using this post as an example...
Your magus example likely has a damage of roughly 6d6+3 (assuming shocking grasp) or so, yes? So average damage is 24, crit range is 18-20, so we're looking at... 13.8, which is just barely within our green. But that's with just a masterwork weapon, +3 stat modifier, and BAB going into our attack modifier. Weapon Focus alone takes us to 15.18 EDV, which feels a lot more comfortable for a front line damage dealer. Also note that Strength is the only source of damage beyond shocking grasp. So yeah, not optimal, but good enough.
I'm seeing two issues:
Range of categories: At level 5, the green EDV is 13.75 to just under 27.5. You're describing an EDV of 15.18 as "comfortable" here, but since it's much closer to the bottom of the range than the top, I see that as "barely meeting the standard." That doesn't feel comfortable to me. It's certainly not "a lot more comfortable" than 13.8 - I doubt I'd even notice that difference in play. On the other hand, a character at the upper range of the category is dealing almost twice as much damage as one at the lower range of the category. Treating a difference of 1.38 points of damage as significant, but a difference of 13.7 points of damage as basically the same category is really weird.
This is why several posters have suggested using five categories instead of 4 - you get a little more separation in the average to above average categories that are most relevant to most people. This also means it's sensible to move green a little lower since you're actually encouraging people to aim for blue.
Situational modifiers: You're assuming the magus uses Shocking Grasp here, but your guide (and your posts) say that you should only consider effects that are "pretty much always" available in combat. I would not consider Shocking Grasp something that's "pretty much always" available at level 5 - even if you prepare it in all your 1st level slots, you've got 5-6 rounds and you're out. Similarly, I've seen some posters suggest that you should include Smite in a paladin's EDV, but in my experience that's not reliable between situations where you fight a lot of opponents and situations where your foes aren't evil. You do mention in the guide that you can also calculate EDV using extra attacks from Haste or AoO, but I think it would really benefit from a little more discussion about how conditional modifiers or buffing (and their effect on where you fall relative to benchmarks) can affect a character's performance. For example, one of the big complaints with the core fighter is its lack of limited use powers to buff up for significant fights, while one of the big complaints with the core monk is its dramatic loss of effectiveness when it can't flurry. Looking just at a minimally-buffed full attack doesn't highlight these issues for people not already aware of them.
As an example, my current monk 2 /bloodrager 7 character has a raging EDV of 29, just barely green for level 9. This struck me as quite low for a functional melee specialist in a high-powered game (stat value ~30, encounters usually APL+2 to APL+5). But as a reach build I get, on average, about 1 AoO per round. That increases my EDV to 42, about halfway between green and blue, feeling comfortable for me. And if it's a boss fight and on top of that AoO I get Haste and enhance my attacks with Frostbite, my EDV is 91, triple my base damage output and well above the Blue line. Extra attacks from AoO also mean I don't sink my damage as badly if I can't full attack. This extra analysis gives me a much more optimistic (and accurate, given play experience) picture of how the character performs.
Combining these concerns: Green becomes a good benchmark for a "minimally buffed" offense while Blue is your goal for "moderately buffed" (like a Magus with Shocking Grasp or my character getting an AoO) and Purple is a good goal for a "highly buffed" character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been meaning to run the numbers on my paladin (L11). I think I'm somewhere green-blue on offense, healthy on saves and bright red in AC. Anyway, about Smite; it's not necessarily such a scarce resource. Before I retrained, Oath of Vengeance gave me three additional smites per day, to a total of 8.
Anyway, I think what's giving people the itch is your re-appreciation of the color scale. From all the other guides we've been conditioned to think that you generally shouldn't settle for anything less than green unless you really liked that orange option; that mostly you're aiming for more blue than green. Green is the color of "good enough", not of "quite good".
|
That, and I think that the other posters have a good point when they say that the guide would be useful if there were a level that amounted to "acceptable as a secondary combat mode." Something that distinguishes the 14 or 16 strength cleric who is not a purpose built battle cleric but has a respectable opportunity attack and can usefully spend his non-buffing/healing actions attacking in most combats and an 8 strength wizard with a dagger.
Now that cleric is not going to fill the fighter role in the party, but the party won't be TPKed because he's the last person standing and can't kill a single minion without his spells. On the other hand, if the wizard is the last man standing or if the cleric went all out on spells and tanked strength to 8, then the party might just be TPKed because he has no ability for that fight.
Likewise, it would serve to evaluate martials characters' secondary combat style capabilities. For example, I have an archer cleric who does all the archer things and is pretty good at that. But if he has to draw his sword and fight in melee, is he orange, red, or somewhere in between? For that matter, my battle herald primarily fights with his Lucerne Hammer and does pretty well in that mode of fighting. But if he has to pull out his longbow, is it even worth the actions?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been meaning to run the numbers on my paladin (L11). I think I'm somewhere green-blue on offense, healthy on saves and bright red in AC. Anyway, about Smite; it's not necessarily such a scarce resource. Before I retrained, Oath of Vengeance gave me three additional smites per day, to a total of 8.
It's not necessarily scarce, but it's also not necessarily plentiful, either. Without the archetype, you're looking at 2-3/day for most of a PFS career. And even if you had unlimited uses of smite, there are always neutral enemies. They make up maybe 1/5th to 1/3rd of challenging encounters in my group.
|
|
I consider Smite limited because it's a per enemy ability, not per fight. So when you do run into multi-enemy fights, you either fight without it once your smite target drops, or you burn through uses. Though, if I had 8 uses/day I would definitely feel less limited.
I also just had it pointed out to me in one of the GM threads that a recent BBEG is N and not evil. I know of at least one from season 4. My main concern was constructs/robots, which tend to be neutral, as my paladin was heading into season 6 just as he hit 3rd level. So that's why the adamantine bardiche. Can't smite my way through hardness.
@Ferious Thune: What do you think about my adjusted values? (for lvl5: Attack Roll: 7/10/13/16, AC 19/22/25/28, Saves 4/7/10/13, EDV 6,6/10/20/30; all values orange/green/blue/purple)?
Also, you're really overvaluing the attack roll statistic, the important benchmark is the EDV. Your to hit doesn't need to be green! It shouldn't be red, but if you have multiple attacks (or provide some other benefit), orange is totally fine. If your EDV and your defense stats are green, your character is more than fit for combat.
For instance, my Summoner's Eidolon I'm corrently playing in Carrion Crown (lvl5) has a blue EDV agains a CR8 enemy with an attack roll that's just berely orange against it (although it's green against CR5). Doesn't matter if two attacks miss if the other three hit.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the low end of your attack roll is still a little too high. If that is meant to represent a secondary melee character, I don't think they need to be able, unbuffed, to hit an enemy that is supposed to be equal to the party 50% of the time or better. I think if a secondary melee character can hit 40% of the time unbuffed, then they are perfectly viable. By the time Bless, Haste, etc. get thrown into the mix, they are hitting more often than not, and that is perfectly fine.
Also, what I'm looking at is not whether EDV or to-hit is more important. I'm looking at what expectations the guide sets for a player. It's fine to say EDV is more important, but if I'm playing a primarily melee character, and I see that my attack is only orange, the same as someone who only hits 50% of the time, then I'm going to try to boost it to green. With the green numbers where they are (or at least where they were), that means a minimum of an 18 in the to-hit associated stat, and likely Weapon Focus. I don't think a guide about making a viable character should set such high minimums. It's better at +11, as that allows full-BAB classes to be Green without Weapon Focus, or with a lower strength but with Weapon Focus, and allows Power Attacking characters to still be green when they do start with an 18 STR and Weapon Focus (like the example Fighter, who would not have had a green attack, despite heavily investing in melee).
I would set the cutoffs as 0%-35% Red, 40%-55% Orange, 60%- 70% Green, 75%-90% Blue, 95% and up Purple.
So +5/+9/+12/+16 for level 5.
If you're in the Green range, you're hitting CR=APL 2/3s of the time and CR=APL+2 more than half the time. If you're in Blue, you're hitting CR=APL 3/4s to almost 9/10s of the time and CR=APL+2 2/3s of the time.
If you're in Orange, you're hitting CR=APL a little less than half the time to half the time.
All of that is without party buffs. A "viable" character doesn't need to be able to solo an encounter. It needs to be able to contribute enough that, in cooperation with the team, they can overcome a difficult encounter. And it needs to have a chance to succeed when the rest of the party can't contribute. Some players will want a character that can take over an encounter when needed, and that's great. But it takes a level of optimization to have that kind of character. When that's set as the minimum, the minimum is too high.
And yes, I realize my numbers put my Paladin in orange. I've contended that he's probably +2 away from where he should be. A Belt of Strength will go a long way on that character, and he has temporary ways to boost his attack into the green range, so I'm not too worried about it.He can also forgo power attack if he's really having trouble hitting. With Smite, he'd still be doing decent damage. If I had a Fighter at +7 with no way to boost his own attacks, I'd be worried.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played that paladin in several of the heftier S6 robot adventures; an adamantine nodachi served me quite well. I've found that in PFS at least, smite evil is quite reliable. You rarely fight more than 2-4 times per day, enemy mobs are either small (SMITE!) or a lot of weak-enough enemies that you can get by without it. 90% of BBEGs are in fact evil, so that also works pretty well.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@BretI - I just paid lip-service to skills, because honestly that is a HUGE topic that I could talk about pretty much indefinitely. My benchmarks were purely to say where you're really freaking good at something for your level, good at it, okay, and well...you can try.
@Elder Basilisk: Orange is supposed to represent the benchmark for a secondary combat strategy. I had a paragraph about it, but I guess I must not have saved it in. Fixing that now.
@Weirdo, and pretty much everyone who keeps harping on my not making Blue into Purple and subdividing green into green and blue:
I'm not going to do that, and here's why: the upper range of a given category is inconsequential. Benchmarks, by definition, are meant to consider themselves with the point at which a category begins.
We need to know where 'passable' is, so we know what secondary combat strategies should look like numerically, what our minimum defenses should be, etc. We need to know what 'good' looks like so we can evaluate if our characters are within a range where they are effective with their primary strategies. We need to know where Blue is to know the point beyond which increased resource investment is largely pointless.
I can't think of a meaningful benchmark between the minimum of green and the minimum of blue. Green is good enough for a primary strategy, Blue is as high as we should really ever bother going. Anywhere in that range is a good place for a character.
If anything, dividing it into smaller ranges would encourage min-maxing in a way I think inconsistent with the tone of the article. Now instead of hitting 15 EDV at lvl 5 and seeing yourself nice and Green, you see only that to be a REAL combatant you should be getting to 21 or so.
I understand that my benchmark colors do not correspond semantically with the definitions most optimization guides use. That is because this is not an optimization guide, as it states. It is a viability guide. The next paragraph in this comment I may actually copy into the introduction to the guide.
To be viable, a character generally needs to fit the following criteria: (A) The character should be good (not passable, nor necessarily excellent) in their primary combat tactic. (Their combat tactic meets the green criteria.)
(B) The character should have no defensive measure that fails more than half of the time. (No defense should hit red. Common buffs count.)
(C) The character should have a secondary combat strategy at a passable level of efficacy (Orange) for when their primary will be ineffectual (ie, immunity to mind-affecting vs. an enchanter character, swarm traits vs. weapon damage characters) and/or a method of ensuring that their primary strategy works even in those unusual circumstances (such as a swarmbane clasp).
(D) The character should serve some function for the party when not in combat.
Any character that meets these criteria is a viable character. Whether they are 'good', 'optimal', 'broken', etc. is entirely beyond the scope of this guide.
EDIT: I've reworked the introduction section to define the purpose of the guide more rigorously. I've also put in a bit more info on secondary combat strategies. I also revamped the EDV formula to go from 'mostly accurate quick calculation' to 'the actual mathematically rigorous definition' a few days ago.
|
|
I understand this is not an optimization guide.
But the new introduction doesn't do anything to address the fact that when I first calculated the EDV for my very effective character, I got a "just barely viable" result. That is going to be very confusing for someone who doesn't (a) already know that the character is not just barely but very effective and (b) doesn't know how reliable AoO, buffs, etc will be as a source of extra damage.
I agree with Weirdo and would go on to say your viability guide is out of kilter with the basic assumptions of the game.
If soloing, or running with a DM/table that regularly increases challenges +1 or 2 higher than written in the adventure path then it may be reasonable.
However stating to new players that a character needs to be successful a [b]minimum[\b] of 75% of the time before before buffs, tactics etc against an average CR is simple power playing. I can't support a guide that says less than that is orange or red - generally considered dangerous our sub standard.
I am deliberately using the O word to avoid sparking yet another debate. So will instead say you are falling into the trap of expecting characters that can complete encounters on their own. When instead this is a cooperative game between multiple players each of which would like a go at doing things.
It's your guide. Keep it how you want. However you asked for our opinions so that's what you got. I like the principal but I could happily drop all your benchmarks down a colour and still have a viable green character for standard playing. Therefore your introduction, explanations and rational become less useful.