| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless someone is forcing the fight to be a face to face hand to hand combat, then you should consider all characters equal. 18th level wizards tend to defeat 18th level fighters. The wizard has a lot of spells which can end the fight in a single round.
Also on your list Bloodragers , Brawlers , Slayers and Warpriests (assuming they can use spells) should be a match for any other mellee combatant in a stand up fight. In fact I think a properly built bloodrager is one of the most powerful melee combatants
A balanced 1-1 fight would be a character of the same level that should give a 50/50 chance of winning or losing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so at high levels wizards and other caster classes should be in no danger of losing a duel.
With that being said the rules treat every class as if they are equal. Cr doesnt care what the class levels are. A 20th level straight monk is treated the same as a 20th level wizard, wizard 9 unchained rogue 1 arcane trickster 10, or sorceror 20.
If you are asking if you should balance a partial caster class by having them duel weaker oppenents it depends.
Some partial casters (summoners) are as strong as full casters while others are not much better than a beatstick.
Take a warpriest using a dagger and without power attack and a low strength and compare it to a RAGELANCEPOUNCE barbarian. That warpriest is gonna die.
You should look at the party and if anyones character is mechanically super weak send a monk at them. If y ok u want to challenge your full casters send full casters. If you don't send martials and watch the figthers die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At high level, assuming decent builds, he who wins initiative wins.
The fighter will not survive the wizards spells, the wizard will not survive the fighters damage output, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that the CR system is a rough guideline. A good GM will look at the character when he is designing an encounter not just go off the CR. What may be a good challenge for one character may be either a cakewalk, or totally overpowered for another character.
It also depends on the nature of the duel. Many cultures may consider the use of magic in a duel to be cheating in which case a wizard is pretty much toast. Other cultures may have something like arcane duels where a non-caster is helpless. Some cultures give the choice of weapon to the defender so this could also throw things off.
Also some classes and archetypes do better vs certain opponents or in certain situations. A paladin facing an evil opponent is going to have a lot easier time than if he is facing a neutral or good opponent. A cavalier whit the right feats who is able to get a lance charge is going to do a lot better than a rogue with a short sword.
Prepared spell caster who know in advance what they will be dealing with have a huge advantage over just about anything else, especially if they have a chance to prepare. A fully buffed cleric can actually match if not exceed most martials in combat. A wizard who can tailor his spells to his opponent is an incredibly tough opponent. This of course assumes that the use of magic is legal.
When I design encounters I look at what the party can do and compare it to what the opponent can do. The CR is a starting point not written in stone. Sometimes you have to adjust from that. I was writing up one encounter with a vampire and had originally thought to use an anti-paladin, but that proved to be way too tough for the party to deal with. The synergy of the ant-paladin and vampire was too good. It was way tougher than its CR indicated. I ended up changing out the anti-paladin to another class or it would have been a TPK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative is a big part of it, since the first to act tends to dictate the parameters of the fight. A wizard is at a huge disadvantage in hand to hand without a lot of talent in ignoring those rules and conventions that limit casters.
|
|
At high level, assuming decent builds, he who wins initiative wins.
The fighter will not survive the wizards spells, the wizard will not survive the fighters damage output, etc.
At the level in which a martial can consitently one shot a caster the caster can be immune to his attacks through proxies and certain spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mysterious Stranger
You are touching on some of the key issues I'm facing.
I'm preparing a small adventure supplement, basically 5 or 7 extra encounters that could be added, depending on the PCs inclination to the main adventure. It's first and formost, built for my own game, but I intend to share it freely to other GMs for the own running of said adventures.
So I'm doing the same balancing act as most RPG writers, creating an encounter that can be used in most cases (or with minimal GM modification) while remaining relevant.
For the duel I'm using in the above exemple, it target a specific race that, by it's nature, favors a martial built in a setting where arcane magic is frown upon and honor is important.
But that being said, I appreaciate all of the imput provided so far by all of you as it helps in my writing of those encounters.
If you want general use go straight figther. Build him as a two handed weapon user and call it a day. You cant really make a general noncaster character.
I've looked at the PRD and I just want to make sure I understood well.
When building an encounter the general guidline for an average encounter is tgat the CR of the encounter should be the APL of a party of 4 or 5 PC (6+ PC = +1CR, 3- PC = -1CR).
That's pretty clear.
So to build a duel for a high level (18th) martial character, I should be looking at an CR 17 (average) to CR 19 (hard) opponent (who would also be a martial opponent for story reasons). Correct?
A one-on-one duel? CR 18 vs. an 18th level character would (in theory) be a straight-up coin flip. Assuming intelligent play, the most likely outcome would be one character runs away, badly hurt -- and there's no easy way to predict which. Remember that a CR 18 monster is supposed to pose a survivable and fun challenge for an entire party of level 18 characters.
Level 18 is also straight into the realm of rocket tag, whee the side that wins initiative wins outright.
Also, as was pointed out upthread, CRs are crude, and it's very difficulty accurately to assess the difficulty posed by an opponent. In particular, although (theoretically) a CR 18 (chained) monk is just as difficult/dangerous as a CR 18 diviner wizard, in practice this is far from the case.
As a simple example, the giant with barbarian levels would be a semi-trivial encounter for the diviner wizard. With her initiative bonus, the wizard easily goes first, and then can cast time stop, fill the room with summoned beasts, make herself incorporeal, and then stomp all over her opponent's weak Will save. Or she could simply go first, note that the barbarian is not yet enraged, and stomp all over her opponent's weak will save. On the other hand, a bard or evoker wizard might have much more difficulty.
So my suggestion would be to ignore the math, get together with a friend, and playtest the hell out of the proposed scenario and see if it runs at all like you want it to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've looked at the PRD and I just want to make sure I understood well.
When building an encounter the general guidline for an average encounter is tgat the CR of the encounter should be the APL of a party of 4 or 5 PC (6+ PC = +1CR, 3- PC = -1CR).
That's pretty clear.
So to build a duel for a high level (18th) martial character, I should be looking at an CR 17 (average) to CR 19 (hard) opponent (who would also be a martial opponent for story reasons). Correct?
Now if the character is not a martial character facing a full martial opponent, such as a rogue, a bard/skald, a Bloodrager, a cleric/druid, a brawler, a hunter, a slayer, a warpriest or worse an oracle, sorcerer, witch of shaman, should I keep the same CR or should I reduce by 1?
The CR system was NOT designed to balance one on one arena duels. It was designed as a guideline to balance encounters vs a party of four. You can't simply just divide by four to balance on one PC.
The CR system was NOT designed to balance one on one arena duels. It was designed as a guideline to balance encounters vs a party of four. You can't simply just divide by four to balance on one PC.[...]When building an encounter the general guidline for an average encounter is that the CR of the encounter should be the APL of a party of 4 or 5 PC (6+ PC = +1CR, 3- PC = -1CR)[...].
I realized that it wasn't built for dual and I'm aware that you don't divide by 4. But I need to start somewhere and the rule even indicate that if the party is 3 or less PC (see bolded part) to reduce the CR by 1.
But I was still wondering, thus my question, if reducing my encounter base CR by 1 was enough of if I needed to lower it a little bit more.
Doing the math, a CR X monster is CR X.
Two CR X monsters are CR X+2Three CR X monster are CR X+3
Four CR X monsters are CR X+4
Reversing that, if CR Y is balanced for four players, Y-1 is balanced for three, Y-2 is balanced for two, and Y-4 is balanced for solo play.
Of course, as has been pointed out, challenge ratings are highly abstracted and error prone, and are designed with the assumption of a broad range of party capacities. But the math definitely supports the idea that a three character party is a lot stronger than a single character on her own.
the CR of the encounter should be the APL of a party of 4 or 5 PC (6+ PC = +1CR, 3- PC = -1CR).
That's pretty clear.
Clear, but wrong. Paizo tends to assume that all parties are of 3 to 6 PCs and didn't really balance the game for anything else. Do you really think 12 PCs should be facing exactly the same opposition as 6 PCs? Or that 1 PC on his own should be treated the same as a team of 3 PCs?
A more accurate (but more complicated) system for balancing for party size is to think in terms of XP budget, not CR. If you reduce the number of PCs by 50%, you should reduce the XP budget for your opposition by 50% too.
Doing the math, a CR X monster is CR X.
Two CR X monsters are CR X+2
Three CR X monster are CR X+3
Four CR X monsters are CR X+4Reversing that, if CR Y is balanced for four players, Y-1 is balanced for three, Y-2 is balanced for two, and Y-4 is balanced for solo play.
The CR equal to party level doesn't mean the party 50/50 chance of winning/losing. A well-built party should have no problem with making through several such encounters in a day.
If you want to know who to figure the CR/EL of an encounter then there are two ways to do it.
One is to add the XP of all enemies in the encounter, and then look at the total XP and compare it to the chart.
-------------------
If the party has an abnormally high number of people you have to beware of action economy. Increasing the CR by adding more enemies is going to be more accurate with regard to keeping the actual challenge level the same, but it also is more work for the GM, so some GM's will just buff the monsters.
If the party is small then reduce the number of enemies so that action economy does not overwhelm the party.
Later on you will also realize that certain features such as flight can make an encounter more difficult if the players do not have a counter for it. Swarms are another example of something that can be a problem without the right tool.
Also all classes are not equal when it comes to using them as single combatants against the party. A rogue is not going to defeat a barbarian or a full caster in a straight up fight barring something crazy happening.
A full caster such as a wizard or druid also has a better chance of taking on an entire party than a fighter will.
I would put my money on a level 13 wizard/sorcerer/witch/etc over a an 18th level fighter or even a ranger.
If you can synergize the enemies so they compliment each other you can put together more challenging combats without increasing the CR.
The CR equal to party level doesn't mean the party 50/50 chance of winning/losing. A well-built party should have no problem with making through several such encounters in a day.
Expanding on that:
An NPC built and equipped like a level 10 PC is a CR 10 encounter. For a party of level 10 characters, a CR 10 encounter is pretty routine.
Four NPCs built and equipped like level 10 PCs is a CR 14 encounter. For a party of level 10 characters, a CR 14 encounter has a 50/50 chance of defeating the PCs.
If there's only one level 10 PC, then a CR 10 encounter has a 50/50 chance of defeating that PC.
Battles with a 50/50 chance of defeating the PCs are a bad thing, as it leads to the campaign ending after (on average) two such battles.
Obviously, this doesn't take into account optimization, caster-martial disparity, preparation (a caster with no time to buff is a lot weaker), etc.
I would tailor it to that PC, so you dont make the fight too difficult or too easy. Depending on the skill of a player there can be a large gulf in the ability of a level ____ <insert class>. I've seen players build PC's that can take monsters equal to CR+3 or more in single combat. Others would struggle with a CR=PC level fight.
Basically, it is not so easy as just saying this CR ___ monster will be a good challenge for a PC that is level Y.
Use the environment.
Well the fighters Cr (the cr he should be fighting) is (roughly) two lower without his party.so if the fight is level 16 throw him up against something the whole party could fight at cr 14 I think it will be challenging enough without the +1 But if you want it to be life or death you could do 15. IMO anyways.
It seems like you want a formula that will do your work for you. This is actually a really poor design method. There is no formula that is going to do your work for you; you need to use some trial and error. If this is for commercial use then use the standards that Paizo uses and build some sample characters to compare to your encounter. Run through the combat a couple of times with each character and see how they do. If the encounter is to tough adjust it to be easier, if it is too easy make it harder. Put in place all the restrictions you are designing the encounter for on the characters. So if the characters are not allowed to use magic that factor that out of your sample builds.
This is basic good design that any GM should know. If you are looking to publish this is something you need to do. Do you really think that Paizo publishes adventure paths without play testing them? If you are looking to do this professionally you need to do the same.
The PC should be level 16-17 at this point and the encounter should be challenging (CR+1 as per the chart in the core book).What CR should my giant champion be to provide a suitable challenge?
A "Challenging" fight for a four-person party is CR = APL + 1
Subtracting 4 from that (see my math above for why "four") suggests that your giant should be CR = APL -3, which would be 13-14. The PC duelist will be expected to win that fight, but it shouldn't be a trivial encounter.
If you expect the rest of the party to engage in buffing and whatnot, you should also either allow pre-buffing of the NPC duelist (by his tame team of clerics) or raise his level somewhat.
|
There is far too much assumption here. A 1 v 1 with martials can potentially have a lot of strategy and question involved. Winning initiative does not instantly mean winning. Can the side that wins initiative close into melee and do a full attack in the opening round, if not, 1 hit is not likely to win the enounter, the opponent is now free to full attack. You may think of this and win initiative only to delay or ready an action and let your opponent go first. This could result in finding out that your opponent can pounce/pummeling charge and you get your readied action, but they still get a full round attack.
My monk in a duel with a giant barbarian/fighter might not be confident it can either win the duel or survive an opening pounce, so if I won initiative I might opt to ready a 5' step & grapple attempt when charged. This would at least give me shot at utilizing my greater grapple bonuses and a decent roll to grapple the opponent, on a moderate roll I'd be completely preventing them from hitting me at all with their massive 2 hander. Round 2 I would have the opportunity to Pin & Tie up the opponent. Fight over, and depending on the opponents reaction to being grappled on their charge possibly no attacks ever taking place. Certainly much less chance of them hitting successfully with massive damage from any secondary weapons or unarmed/natural attacks.
Or the monk could Nat 1 the Grapple and get turned into pudding.
****Alternative Combat Style****
I would say if I were doing a specific encounter such as this I'd tweak the combat rules (and inform the party what the changes are of course) I would say the combat will start with neither opponent flat footed (a sort of circling of opponents as they size each other up before engaging) once engaged to prevent the initiative winner wins all options. I would say combat rounds are settled by swapping attack bonus 'rounds' high initiative goes first, any bonus attacks (such as a haste attack) go last. To better explain here's an example
A Flurrying Monk might have 5 normal attacks a ki point attack and a haste attack (boots of speed). attack bonuses of +18/+18/+13/+13/+8 (Ki+18/Haste+18)
The Giant Barb/Fighter of the same level would have 3 attacks so say +28/+23/+18 and has an expensive weapon, so couldn't have afforded Boots of Speed.
The fight could start in melee range (give or take 5' steps). So the Monk wins initiative he would get both his full BAB attacks, Then the Giant gets his Full BAB hit, Then the monk gets his BAB-5 hits, The giant then takes his BAB-5, Monk gets his BAB-10, Giant his BAB -10, Finally the Monk can get his Ki Flurry, and Haste attack. So a round of combat would follow this sequence
Monk- +18/+18
Giant- +28
Monk- +13/+13
Giant- +23
Monk- +8
Giant- +18
Monk- +18/+18
Next round starts the sequence over at the top (assuming the fight isn't already over).
There is far too much assumption here. A 1 v 1 with martials can potentially have a lot of strategy and question involved. Winning initiative does not instantly mean winning.
Not always, no. "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,"... but that's sure-as-shootin' going to be the way the smart money bets. Especially since the ability to make a full attack on the first round of combat is one of the capacities that most competently-played martial characters build to.
Assuming that "the person who wins initiative is going to win" isn't quite as safe as assuming that the sorcerer has a high Charisma modifier, but it's up there.