| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like the title says.
Was having a discussion with a friend, earlier, and we disagreed, so I'm doing this for my own purposes.
Feel free to comment!
===================== =====================
===================== =====================
PC Level: Wealth
2: 1,000 gp
3: 3,000 gp
4: 6,000 gp
5: 10,500 gp
6: 16,000 gp
7: 23,500 gp
8: 33,000 gp
9: 46,000 gp
10: 62,000 gp
11: 82,000 gp
12: 108,000 gp
13: 140,000 gp
14: 185,000 gp
15: 240,000 gp
16: 315,000 gp
17: 410,000 gp
18: 530,000 gp
19: 685,000 gp
20: 880,000 gp
=====================
Weapon Bonus: Base Price
+1: 2,000
+2: 8,000
+3: 18,000
+4: 32,000
+5: 50,000
+6: 72,000
+7: 98,000
+8: 128,000
+9: 162,000
+10: 200,000
{A weapon can’t have an enhancement bonus higher than +5. Use values higher than +5 to determine price when special ability are added in.}
=====================
Armor Bonus: Base Price
+1: 1,000
+2: 4,000
+3: 9,000
+4: 16,000
+5: 25,000
+6: 36,000
+7: 49,000
+8: 64,000
+9: 81,000
+10: 100,000
{An armor or shield can’t have an enhancement bonus higher than +5. Use values higher than +5 to determine price when special abilities that count as additional bonuses are added in.}
=====================
Ring Bonus: Price
+1: 2,000
+2: 8,000
+3: 18,000
+4: 32,000
+5: 50,000
=====================
Amulet Bonus: Price
+1: 2,000
+2: 8,000
+3: 18,000
+4: 32,000
+5: 50,000
===================== =====================
===================== =====================
===================== =====================
===================== =====================
CR: Hit Points: AC: Attack Bonus High/Low
1/2 : 010 hp : 11 : 1/0
01 : 015 hp : 12 : 2/1
02 : 020 hp : 14 : 4/3
03 : 030 hp : 15 : 6/4
04 : 040 hp : 17 : 8/6
05 : 055 hp : 18 : 10/7
06 : 070 hp : 19 : 12/8
07 : 085 hp : 20 : 13/10
08 : 100 hp : 21 : 15/11
09 : 115 hp : 23 : 17/12
10 : 130 hp : 24 : 18/13
11 : 145 hp : 25 : 19/14
12 : 160 hp : 27 : 21/15
13 : 180 hp : 28 : 22/16
14 : 200 hp : 29 : 23/17
===================== =====================
===================== =====================
AC is mostly a function of 10 + relevant dexterity modifier + your armor value, plus your various bonuses. The below analysis is not particularly hunting for strong combinations, and the weapon bonus exists primarily to point out you can attack things well.
Attack is mostly a function of high/moderate/worst plus ability score plus weapon bonus.
Entirely mundane armor sets:
> Full plate AC is 18-19; leather AC is 15-17.
> A PC with high attack has +3-5, moderate attack has +2-4, low attack has +0-2.
3rd level
Getting a +1 weapon and armor at 3rd level.
Maybe delay it a level to buy wands of cure light wounds.
> Full plate AC is 19-20; leather AC is 16-18.
> A PC with high attack has +6-8, moderate attack has +5-7, low attack has +2-4.
> Of 3k, 2k goes into a weapon and 1k do other things.
4th level
+1 ring, +1 armor, +1 weapon
> Full plate AC is 20-21; leather AC is 17-18.
> A PC with high attack has +7-9, moderate attack has +6-8, low attack has +3-5.
> Of 6k: 2k for weapon, 1k for AC, 2k for ring, leaves 1k for other stuff.
5th level
+1 ring, +1 amulet, +1 armor, +1 weapon
> Full plate AC is 21-22; leather AC is 18-19.
> A PC with high attack has +8-10, moderate attack has +6-8, low attack has +3-5.
> Of 10.5k: 2k for weapon, 1k for armor, 2k for ring, 2k for amulet, leaves 3.5k for other stuff.
6th level
+1 ring, +1 amulet, +2 armor, +1 weapon
> Full plate AC is 22-23; leather AC is 19-20.
> A PC with high attack has +9-11, moderate attack has +8-10, low attack has +4-6.
> Of 16k: 2k for weapon, 4k for armor, 2k for ring, 2k for amulet, leaves 6k for other stuff.
7th level
+2 ring, +1 amulet, +2 armor, +1 weapon
> Full plate AC is 23-24; leather AC is 20-21.
> A PC with high attack has +10-12, moderate attack has +9-11, low attack has +5-7.
> Of 23.5k: 2k for weapon, 4k for armor, 8k for ring, 2k for amulet, leaves 7.5k for other stuff.
8th level
+2 ring, +2 amulet, +2 armor, +2 weapon
> Full plate AC is 24-25; leather AC is 21-22.
> A PC with high attack has +12-14, moderate attack has +11-13, low attack has +7-9.
> Of 33k: 8k for weapon, 4k for armor, 8k for ring, 8k for amulet, leaves 5k for other stuff.
9th level
+2 ring, +2 amulet, +3 armor, +3 weapon
> Full plate AC is 25-26; leather AC is 22-23.
> A PC with high attack has +14-16, moderate attack has +12-14, low attack has +8-10.
> Of 46k: 18k for weapon, 9k for armor, 8k for ring, 8k for amulet, leaves only 3k for other stuff which means it might have to wait a level or two.
10th level
+3 ring, +2 amulet, +3 armor, +3 weapon
> Full plate AC is 26-27; leather AC is 23-24.
> A PC with high attack has +15-17, moderate attack has +13-15, low attack has +9-11.
> Of 62k: 18k for weapon, 9k for armor, 18k for ring, 8k for amulet, leaves 9k for other stuff.
11th level
+3 ring, +3 amulet, +3 armor, +3 weapon
> Full plate AC is 27-28; leather AC is 24-25.
> A PC with high attack has +16-18, moderate attack has +14-16, low attack has +9-11.
> Of 82k: 18k for weapon, 9k for armor, 18k for ring, 18k for amulet, leaves 19k for other stuff.
12th level
+4 ring, +3 amulet, +4 armor, +3 weapon
> Full plate AC is 29-30; leather AC is 26-27.
> A PC with high attack has +17-19, moderate attack has +15-17, low attack has +10-12.
> Of 108k: 18k for weapon, 16k for armor, 32k for ring, 18k for amulet, leaves 38k for other stuff.
13th level
+4 ring, +4 amulet, +4 armor, +4 weapon
> Full plate AC is 30-31; leather AC is 27-29.
> A PC with high attack has +19-21, moderate attack has +17-19, low attack has +12-14.
> Of 140k: 32k for weapon, 16k for armor, 32k for ring, 32k for amulet, leaves 28k for other stuff.
14th level
+5 ring, +5 amulet, +5 armor, +5 weapon
> Full plate AC is 33-34; leather AC is 30-32.
> A PC with high attack has +21-23, moderate attack has +18-20, low attack has +14-16.
> Of 185k: 50k for weapon, 25k for armor, 50k for ring, 50k for amulet, leaves a mere 10k for other stuff, but is still affordable, albeit probably waiting for a couple more levels.
And, I mean, that's about it. Doing that on its own tends to keep about anyone on a mechanically-acceptable level. There are higher-end options, but those are the most obvious and largest ones and I have done exactly zero work or thought.
In each case, I've just gone, "Buy a higher bonus on the stuff I already got."
What isn't covered, here is any kind of deeper mechanical look. Feats, tactical options, Aid Another, spells that actually stack, increased ability scores, or items that help with those effects.
The point is not to show an optimized ideas or even very good expenditure of wealth, but just to show an extremely straight-forward use of cash wealth and how almost anyone - even if they're naturally not good at attacks or AC - can succeed at the math side by Core Rulebook choices.
Also, only tangentially related:
Creatures with Str of 30+ in the PF Bestiary: dire crocodile, thee demons (balor, glabrezu, nalfeshnee), two devils (horned devil, pit fiend), two dinosaurs (brachiosaurus, tyranosaurus rex), all the ancient dragons (black dragon, blue dragon, green dragon, red dragon, white dragon, brass dragon, bronze dragon, copper dragon, gold dragon, silver dragon) and two adult dragons (red and gold), three elementals (greater earth elemental, elder earth elemental, elder water elemental), two elephants (elephant and mastodon), froghemoth, three giants (cloud, fire, and storm), iron golem, kraken, three linnorms (crag, ice, tarn), neothelid, cauchemar, purple worm, roper, sea serpent, and dire shark, shoggoth, and tarrasque.
Creatures with Str of 30+ in the 3.5 MM: two demons (balor, glabrezu), two devils (horned devil, pit fiend), one dinosaur (triceretops), a lot of dragons of every variety across a multitude of ages (the MM is more space-efficient than the Bestiary, so it has more!), two elementals (greater and elder earth elementals), elephant, three giants (cloud, fire, frost giant jarl, and storm), greater stone golem, kraken, three cauchemar, purple worm, and tarrasque.
Anyway! This has been some ramblings and examination. Not much point to it, but it's good information for me to have at other times. Feel free to kind of do whatever you want with this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been happy with using the expected values when there's a spreadsheet of the actual average values of monsters as used in the Bestiaries out there, on d20pfsrd at least.
Thinking about what's out there - Derklord put together a spreadsheet with values to aim for and explanations why to do so in terms of the game math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool! What is EDV?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDV = Expected Damage Value. Your average damage times the chance you'll hit (based on average AC for your CR), basically. You can add crit chances in there too if you want.
The wordpress post listed at the top of Derklord's sheet goes into it some more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I use that spreadsheet a lot to assess the viability of characters I'm making/playing.
I like the premise behind it - if you want to be "good" at something you should succeed twice as often as you fail. You don't have to succeed 99% of the time, you don't have to be good at everything, you just have to be good enough at 1 or 2 things that you'll succeed 2/3 of the time.
This gives you a benchmark that can be used to help you feel successful, but also to help establish character. If you want your character to be a stone bulwark of unmoving resolve then you probably want the AC, HP and Will/Fort-saves to match. If you want to be a dead-shot with a bow AND a swordsman of great renown you have the numbers to aim for. Knowing that archery has a lot of feats involved but wielding a Greatsword only really needs Power Attack might help you plan your feats and similar choices accordingly.
I also like that it gives a high threshold - if your attack roll is higher than the blue number listed then you're overdoing it. You're also probably wasting resources on something you don't need, when you could instead put those feats/spells/item-slots to better use rounding out your character.
It's not a bible - you can make a character who doesn't meet any of the expected values but still helps the party in very meaningful ways (eg. Bard) - but it's a good guide for the numbers to aim for (and the doc itself says as much).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been happy with using the expected values when there's a spreadsheet of the actual average values of monsters as used in the Bestiaries out there, on d20pfsrd at least.
Thinking about what's out there - Derklord put together a spreadsheet with values to aim for and explanations why to do so in terms of the game math.
Because I am exceptionally lazy (and also literally unable to concentrate right now for some reason): is there a "TL;DR" of the comparisons between the CR expectations and what it's like in practice in the spread sheet?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I am exceptionally lazy (and also literally unable to concentrate right now for some reason): is there a "TL;DR" of the comparisons between the CR expectations and what it's like in practice in the spread sheet?
That's going to get complex, right? I mean, there's the usual things - a 1st level goon requires less work to meet the benchmarks than a 10th level goon - but a detailed answer isn't going to be short to make or to read, and a complete answer would take up several messageboard forums.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sheet uses the Bestiary reference values. I am a bit confused why it includes monster's "low attack" instead of "high attack", but IMO otherwise it's good guidance for a high-powered table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sheet uses the Bestiary reference values. I am a bit confused why it includes monster's "low attack" instead of "high attack", but IMO otherwise it's good guidance for a high-powered table.
I haven't read through it for a while, but from memory it's something like: "You're never going to get your AC high enough to negate their first attack, but you can get it high enough to negate their iteratives."
Basically if they only hit you once per round but you hit them 2-3 times per round then you'll win.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool! What is EDV?
Average DPR. I have a calculator for that.
The sheet uses the Bestiary reference values.
The Monster Creation gidelines in the Bestiaries, actually. Most of the average monster numbers are pretty similar, though - for example, HP averages throughout CRs 2-20 are all within 3% of the the guideline values.
I am a bit confused why it includes monster's "low attack" instead of "high attack", but IMO otherwise it's good guidance for a high-powered table.
I think it's indeed what MrCharisma said. Personally, I made a table of my own where I use the high attack value, but at lower benchmark values. I also added a fourth rating.
The original benchmarks for the ratings calculate to 95%/70%/50% chance of success for attack roll, AC, and saves, and 80%/65%/50% chance of success for DCs. Personally, I use 95%/80%/65%/50% for attack, saves, and CMB*, 80%/65%/50%/35% for AC** and CMD*, 80%/70%/60%/50% for DCs, and 75%/50%/25%/16.5% for "EDV".
*) I expanded my own spreadsheet to include these, drawn from Paizo monster averages (as there are no creation guidelines).
**) Calculated against the high attack.
If people are interested, I can upload my expanded spreadsheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, go for it. It's pretty solid thing to do!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I am exceptionally lazy (and also literally unable to concentrate right now for some reason): is there a "TL;DR" of the comparisons between the CR expectations and what it's like in practice in the spread sheet?
That's going to get complex, right? I mean, there's the usual things - a 1st level goon requires less work to meet the benchmarks than a 10th level goon - but a detailed answer isn't going to be short to make or to read, and a complete answer would take up several messageboard forums.
It can if you're asking for detailed versions, but I'm really not.
Mostly I'm simply asking for an extremely base comparison; something like:
- it is close to the expected values, but tends to fluctuate mostly in <category> or <category>- it is generally more powerful than expected values
- it is generally less powerful than expected values
- it averages out similarly to expected values
- unlike the expected values, it increases steadily, has a few spikes/dips at <levels, if reasonable to list them>, in <area, if applicable> and then continues from there
- it is too wildly divergent at each level to give an accurate impression
- there is no similarity between expected values and unexpected values
... or similar vague summaries. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if you were to do such a comparison there would be one and we would all benefit from it?
It'd probably take about as long as that last post did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the spreadsheet with my own numbers. If anyon wants to fiddle with it, click "File" -> "Make a copy". I've included (currently unused) alternate values for HP and AC that're based on the actual averages across Paizo monsters to be copy-pasted over the guideline values, and if you alter the little "3"s above the ratigns table for AC or CMD, you can alter the offset (e.g. if you make it a 4, purple rating asks for 75% chance to avoid a hit, instead of 80%).
Because I am exceptionally lazy (and also literally unable to concentrate right now for some reason): is there a "TL;DR" of the comparisons between the CR expectations and what it's like in practice in the spread sheet?
I honestly have no idea what you're asking for. What do you want to compare? The difference between the average mosnter stats and the monster creation guideline numbers? The difference between the target values form the spreadseet and the monster creation guidelines? Something else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if you were to do such a comparison there would be one and we would all benefit from it?
XD
So, in response to
is there a "TL;DR" of the comparisons between the CR expectations and what it's like in practice in the spread sheet?
... I'll take taht as a "no" then? Hahah!
It'd probably take about as long as that last post did.
I really don't know which post you mean!
Here is the spreadsheet with my own numbers. If anyon wants to fiddle with it, click "File" -> "Make a copy". I've included (currently unused) alternate values for HP and AC that're based on the actual averages across Paizo monsters to be copy-pasted over the guideline values, and if you alter the little "3"s above the ratigns table for AC or CMD, you can alter the offset (e.g. if you make it a 4, purple rating asks for 75% chance to avoid a hit, instead of 80%).
Cool!
Because I am exceptionally lazy (and also literally unable to concentrate right now for some reason): is there a "TL;DR" of the comparisons between the CR expectations and what it's like in practice in the spread sheet?
I honestly have no idea what you're asking for. What do you want to compare? The difference between the average mosnter stats and the monster creation guideline numbers? The difference between the target values form the spreadseet and the monster creation guidelines? Something else?
Averages you discovered vs. the monster creation guidelines. Basically reality vs. expected values. That's it! :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Averages you discovered vs. the monster creation guidelines. Basically reality vs. expected values. That's it! :D
The spreadsheet I linked last post contains both the guideline and the average values for HP and AC, so you can compare them yourself. Comparing the other stats would be much more complicated - the save values would require seperating the monster entries by their weak and strong saves, attack entries aren't easy to break down and the seperation between the high attack and low attack would have to be done entirely per hand, the latter with also applies to primary and secondary DCs.
If you want to try your hand at it, here is an up-to-date version of the Monster List spreadsheet with calculated averages.
Of course, the spreadsheet just averages the various different monster entries, with no notion of commonness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if you were to do such a comparison there would be one and we would all benefit from it?
It'd probably take about as long as that last post did.
Also!
lso literally unable to concentrate right now for some reason):
Example:
I've had a post idea for this thread since this post was nineteen minutes old (and the tab is still open there; I'm transferring the very little I've over-all written into a word document, now).
Fun times! XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Averages you discovered vs. the monster creation guidelines. Basically reality vs. expected values. That's it! :DThe spreadsheet I linked last post contains both the guideline and the average values for HP and AC, so you can compare them yourself. Comparing the other stats would be much more complicated - the save values would require seperating the monster entries by their weak and strong saves, attack entries aren't easy to break down and the seperation between the high attack and low attack would have to be done entirely per hand, the latter with also applies to primary and secondary DCs.
If you want to try your hand at it, here is an up-to-date version of the Monster List spreadsheet with calculated averages.
Of course, the spreadsheet just averages the various different monster entries, with no notion of commonness.
Thanks! I might just do that! :D
... eventually! XD