(Trying to) fix 3.5 - how to.

[Seikojin]

LOL. You should edit that. Not only because he said 'CR', and nothing 'level', but you're also wrong.

Bad liar. Stop lying.



Don't worry, he's just BSing. He will make random claims with no evidence or references provided, then as soon as you point out a case where he is wrong, he will attempt to divert the issue, or ignore it outright.

Or best of all, he'll attach some long-winded interpretation to a couple sentences in the rulebook in an attempt to justify his so-called 'facts' (after he's heard your arguments of course, so he can make sure you couldn't prove him wrong). If that fails, he'll attempt to troll you out of the thread with nonsensical posts while ignoring you, and pick a point or person that's easier to respond to in the mean time.

It's kinda funny how the thread progresses that way. Give it a quick glance from beginning to end.

Duely noted. Bummer. I thought it was going to be a real conversation. LOL

[Chai]

This entire block is made of fail.

This entire thread is made of fail.

The minute someone posts something that doesnt agree with the absolutism flowing out of you like rivers after a rainstorm, they either fail, or dont know what they are talking about. Like I said before - sit at one of our tables with this kind of banter, and you would be good entertainment for one session. Once the clowning ended, we would all convene at another location or at a different time, sans middle school style semantics banterers.

What are your characters optimized for? Having as many vulnerabilities as possible through having to dump certain stats in order to max out others? If you can metagame through knowing whats effective against each and every one of the mobs you face, why cant the REF or DM do the same? Mere paultry divination magic would reveal the plethora of weaknesses in min maxed toons. We do understand roll playing a weak stat and part of the characters struggle is having to compensate for that, however, tardbarians are unacceptable with full on phyiscal paragon stats when they are mentally ******** and cant even speak. Sorcs with 8 wisdom are a short round away from the abonomal zombie plant from hell eating their brains, and wizards with 8 str soon find that lifting that wand totally smacks of effort after that ray of enfeeblement hits.

By making a toon that can one round mobs, you are making a toon that can be one rounded as well, in many different ways.

[SquelchHU]

If your wizard took a point buy and got a high int and high con, their dex would be low and they would be hit all the time. Also their will saves would suffer, and they wouldn't be able to carry much in the way of gear (not that a spellbook, inks, papers, and components weigh much).

Lol, try again.

Wizards don't avoid attacks by AC, so their dex is quite irrelevant. Most of em end up having some anyways, simply because they have nothing better to do with their remaining stats, but it's a moot point. Auto hit AC is auto hit AC, and it's the non AC stuff that is actually keeping them safe.

Will saves are a non factor, because to get good saves you need one of the following:

Higher base progression + primary stat.
Higher base progression + spellcaster.

Oh look, Wizards have the higher base progression, and are spellcasters. So their will save is just fine.

As for carrying capacity, this is quite irrelevant to everyone. HHH, Bag of Holding, Wagons before level 4 or whatever when you get those things. Carrying capacity is not tied to Strength for all practical purposes.

As far as variations of the PB, you could make your AC higher with dex improvements. That would add some life to ya.

For who? The fighter? His armor is at the max dex cap. We've already established the wizard couldn't care less.

Skipping past more regurgitated falsehoods.

What edition of PnP DnD are we on again? I see alot of replies bouncing between 3.5 and 4th.

3.5 of course. 4th is only coming up to blast certain problematic individuals.

In 3.5 your typical lvl1 fighter will have d10+con+feat for HP. A well rounded fighter will have a couple of hp from con and toughness. So 1+2+3 on the low, or if your DM is favoring basic HP at max, would be 10+2+3. So 15. If your cr .25 (following cr = party of 4) swung at your fighter, it could do 2-5 damage. If it hit, yeah, three rounds it could drop the maxed fighter to 0. But the same .25 cr creature has less than 8 hp. A lvl 1 fighter with +3 from str would do at the lowest 1d3+3, so 4 to 6. I think .25 cr skeles have 6 hp. So it would be a dead skele before a dead fighter.

Fail, no one takes Toughness in PnP, because it's only 3 HP, and not 3 HP + 1 HP per level after + 20-40 more HP.

So he has 12 HP. And a CR one third or one half orc does 2d4+6 (that's 8-14).

But hey, you want to assume a skeleton instead? That's cool. It gets 2 attacks for 1d4+1, so it's actually doing 4-10, but nice try. And since it's only CR 0.25, by your own words a routine encounter is 4 of them.

8 attacks each doing 3.5 average, when 4 such attacks take you out? Uh huh, you're dying fast.

And wizards can't autowin without casting a spell. I was just pointing out that there are autokill or auto win options for everything out there.

Things that suck too badly to use might as well not be options at all. The melee's options are no tactics, HP damage only, FINAL DESTINATION.

I do know what it takes for CdG. You can make an enemy helpless without spell or neg hp. You can do nonlethal damage. You can trap them and nonlethal them. You can bind them. Or as the online srd says:
A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.

So more than two options.

Fail. If you can do enough non lethal to KO them, then you could have saved yourself +4 to hit by JUST KILLING THEM INSTEAD. Trap them in what? What trap makes them helpless, and how are you affording it, keeping in mind that even a basic pit trap is thousands of gold (hell if I know why, but it is) and wouldn't help with that anyways. You can't bind them, because they're fighting you. And if they aren't fighting you, that comes down to something the caster did, and something that wouldn't need binding for.

Sleeping = spell.
Paralyzed = spell.
Unconscious = spell.

Hi Welcome

I dunno, maybe? Maybe not? Do I care about them? No. They are part of a TEAM. It is not one persons decision alone to make the game or break the game (for publishing).

Given that they are the team, you should.

If you mean by raw stats, I dunno, depends on the two targets. I was just saying what use Overrun has in my perspective. I have used it and would use it in DDO if they included it.

No, when I say it is impossible that is exactly what I mean. The Tarrasque cannot overrun a 6 Str halfling. It's not about stats, it's about the action literally being made impossible.

Again, this is not a change delivered by one person, so I fail to see the validity of your point. Whereas making PA do more damage for two handed fighting makes real sense. Oh you know what? It is a framework of rules, make it in your games to where PA does offer 1:1 for all one handers and 2:1 for two handers. Problem solved, crisis averted.

Facepalm.

A rogues defense > than wizards without spells running. With spells, a wizard can get a higher ac, but at a cost of spells and exp (if they make scrolls or items).

AC is irrelevant. Both classes have that irrelevant AC, and then they have HP (probably about the same HP, or slightly more in favor of the wizard since 2 Con does as much as 1 HD size bump, and the wizard can more easily get his con up by various means). Meanwhile the wizard has defenses that actually work, and the rogue does not (unless he burns resources on inefficient items).

You can SA on a flatfooted opponent. When someone else has the creatures facing side, attacks from a rogue on the flank is treated as flat footed.
Again from the online srd:
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

You're doing it wrong. And in any case moving into position wastes a turn.

Thanks for repeating the link to intimi. You CAN shaken them, but that wasn't the direction I was going. I meant using it in a way to make the creature more hostile to you. It is above the shaken demoralization portion.

You're doing it wrong.

As far as AOO, my example is by pinning them so they are forced to take your attacks, or move through your square. If you are threatening the 5 in front, your square, and the 5 behind, then you can get 3 aoos as the target tries to follow that path. 2 if you can't strike the 5 you stand in.

And... you're doing it wrong. That is not how those things actually work.

Again, your viewpoint on CR is severely flawed. So in 1:1 combat, your attacker is going against something that is 1/4 your character level.

****** man, stop doing it wrong!

Casters cannot cast most of their spells without comps. So that costs money. Sometimes alot. Also they need materials and scrolls depending on the class, so there is those costs as well. BUT, that said, you can cast all your spells based the WBL model. Unfortunately for your argument, others have pointed out that even with WBL, a melee can gear up and be just fine on equal cr creatures.

Over 99% of spells come out of a 2 gp spell component pouch. There are a few that require specific and expensive components. Most of these are not worth casting, and wouldn't be that good even if they were free. Even so, there is still a very select few that justify their cost.

And no one else has pointed out anything, other than that they can take the worst melee enemies in the book, play them as no tactics auto attacks only FINAL DESTINATION, apply various house rules to a RAW discussion and then show that off as if it meant something. Hint: You should automatically disregard anything Djinn says.

I looked at your SGT information and found it invalid based on flaws in its execution compared to what the paper rules state.

SGT is based on the actual rules, but nice try.

The Same Game Test, or SGT, is a balance guideline used to gauge the level of power a character class or option brings to the table. It is derived from the definitions and explanations of encounter challenges in the Dungeon Masters Guide and Monster Manual. It states that a character of any given level should have, on average, a 50% chance to win an encounter against a creature with a CR equal to the character's level or a group of creatures in a single encounter whose EL equals the character's level. We have assigned this level of aptitude to the Rogue balance level. Characters who perform noticeably better than 50% on an SGT, especially at later levels, are generally considered to fall into our Wizard balance level. Characters who perform noticeably worse than 50%, especially at higher levels, are generally considered to fall into our Fighter or Monk balance levels.

The test was originally written to test 10th level characters, but has been expanded to also include levels 5 and 15.

Level 5 SGT:

* A locked door behind an arbitrarily high number of assorted CR 4 traps.
* A huge Animated iron statue in a throne room.
* A Basilisk in its desert burrow.
* A Large Fire Elemental in a mystic forge.
* A Manticore on the wing above a plain.
* A Phase Spider anywhere. They're tricky creatures like that.
* A couple of Centaur Archers in a light to medium wood.
* A Howler/Allip tag team in an abandoned temple to a dark god.
* A Grimlock assault team (4 members) hidden in a cavern.
* A Cleric of Hextor (with his dozen zombies) in a crypt.

Level 10 SGT:

* A hallway filled with magical runes.
* A Fire Giant.
* A Young Blue Dragon.
* A Bebilith.
* A Vrock.
* A tag team of Mind Flayers.
* An Evil Necromancer.
* 6 Trolls.
* 12 Shadows.

Level 15 SGT:

* A Marut.
* A Hullathoin (with its army of skeletons and bloodfiend locusts).
* A Nightmare Beast deep in a hedge maze.
* A Windghost in the sky.
* A Yakfolk cleric with a party of Dao.
* A Drow Priestess with an army of ghouls.
* A warparty of Cloud Giants.
* A Mature Adult White Dragon.
* A Death Slaad riding a Titanic Toad.
* A Cornugon.
* A Gelugon and his Iron Golem bodyguard.
* A Rube Goldberg series of contingent weirds triggered to a set of symbols of pain surrounding the artifact.
* A pair of Glabrezus
* A harem of Succubi.
* Twenty Dire Bears.
* A dozen Medusa archers mounted on Hellcats.
* A forest made out of lava and infested with hostile fire-element dire badgers.
* A pair of Beholders.

For classes, it is fairly easy to use the SGT to assign a balance level.

* Monk Balance Level - If a class wins less than 50% of the level 5 SGT, it is very likely a monk level class.
* Fighter Balance Level - If a class wins around 50% of the level 5 SGT but less than 50% of the level 10 SGT, it is very likely a fighter level class.
* Rogue Balance Level - If wins around 50% of the level 5 and 10 SGTs, and does not fall behind significantly on the level 15 SGT, it is very likely a rogue level class.
* Wizard Balance Level - If a class wins significantly more than 50% of the level 10 and 15 SGTs, it is very likely a wizard level class.

Now they're nice about it, but it's pretty clear Monks and Fighters are well below par.

[Seikojin]

Now that I have my manuals with me, the page for basilisk is 23. Its CR is 5 solitary. That means it is a proper challenge to a party of four lvl 5 players.

Looking at the SGT they say there is gray area and things are not perfect.

I will say the concept of a SGT is good, I won't doubt that. I will say however, the article on that DnD wiki page regarding a SGT for 3.5 is very innaccurate.

SquelchHU, you defend that article alot. Did you have a hand in making it?

Why not do a SGT around a the definitions in the books.

If we do a single lvl 1 character, their CR is 1/4 (because Challenge Rating is based on a party of 4 (add all levels up, divide by 4 = party CR).), no matter their class.

In the core book Monster Manual, here are some cr 1/4 monsters:

Cat
Size/Type: Tiny Animal 
Hit Dice: ½ d8 (2 hp) 
Initiative: +2 
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares) 
Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 Dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12 
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-12 
Attack: Claw +4 melee (1d2-4) 
Full Attack: 2 claws +4 melee (1d2-4) and bite -1 melee (1d3-4) 
Space/Reach: 2½ ft./0 ft. 
Special Attacks: — 
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent 
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1 
Abilities: Str 3, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7 
Skills: Balance +10, Climb +6, Hide +16*, Jump +10,
Listen +3, Move Silently +8, Spot +3 
Feats: Stealthy, Weapon FinesseB 
Environment: Temperate plains 
Organization: Domesticated or solitary 
Challenge Rating: ¼ 
Advancement: — 
Level Adjustment: — 

Monstrous Centipede, Tiny Monstrous Centipede, Small 
Size/Type: Tiny Vermin Small Vermin 
Hit Dice: ¼ d8 (1 hp) ½ d8 (2 hp) 
Initiative: +2 +2 
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft. 30 ft. (6 squares), climb 30 ft. 
Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 Dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12 14 (+1 size, +2 Dex, +1 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 12 
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-13 +0/-7 
Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d3-5 plus poison) Bite +3 melee (1d4-3 plus poison) 
Full Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d3-5 plus poison) Bite +3 melee (1d4-3 plus poison) 
Space/Reach: 2½ ft./0 ft. 5 ft./5 ft. 
Special Attacks: Poison Poison 
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., vermin traits Darkvision 60 ft., vermin traits 
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +0 Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +0 
Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int Ø, Wis 10, Cha 2 Str 5, Dex 15, Con 10, Int Ø, Wis 10, Cha 2 
Skills: Climb +10, Hide +18, Spot +4 Climb +10, Hide +14, Spot +4 
Feats: Weapon FinesseB Weapon FinesseB 
Environment: Underground Underground 
Organization: Colony (8-16) Colony (2-5) or swarm (6-11) 
Challenge Rating: 1/8 - ¼ 
Advancement: — — 
Level Adjustment: — — 
There were two entries in the SRD and they copy funky, the first set of values are for the tiny, the second for small.  Small is the CR 1/4.

Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny Monstrous Scorpion, Small Monstrous Scorpion, Medium 
Size/Type: Tiny Vermin Small Vermin Medium Vermin 
Hit Dice: ½ d8+2 (4 hp) 1d8+2 (6 hp) 2d8+4 (13 hp) 
Initiative: +0 +0 +0 
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares) 30 ft. (6 squares) 40 ft. (8 squares) 
Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 14 14 (+1 size, +3 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 14 14 (+4 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 14 
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-8 +0/-4 +1/+2 
Attack: Claw +2 melee (1d2-4) Claw +1 melee (1d3-1) Claw +2 melee (1d4+1) 
Full Attack: 2 claws +2 melee (1d2-4) and sting -3 melee (1d2-4 plus poison) 2 claws +1 melee (1d3-1) and sting -4 melee (1d3-1 plus poison) 2 claws +2 melee (1d4+1) and sting -3 melee (1d4 plus poison) 
Space/Reach: 2½ ft./0 ft. 5 ft./5 ft. 5 ft./5 ft. 
Special Attacks: Constrict 1d2-4, improved grab, poison Constrict 1d3-1, improved grab, poison Constrict 1d4+1, improved grab, poison 
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft., vermin traits Darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft., vermin traits Darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft., vermin traits 
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +0, Will +0 Fort +4, Ref +0, Will +0 Fort +5, Ref +0, Will +0 
Abilities: Str 3, Dex 10, Con 14, Int Ø, Wis 10, Cha 2 Str 9, Dex 10, Con 14, Int Ø, Wis 10, Cha 2 Str 13, Dex 10, Con 14, Int Ø, Wis 10, Cha 2 
Skills: Climb +0, Hide +12, Spot +4 Climb +3, Hide +8, Spot +4 Climb +5, Hide +4, Spot +4 
Feats: Weapon FinesseB Weapon FinesseB — 
Environment: Warm deserts Warm deserts Warm deserts 
Organization: Colony (8-16) Colony (2-5) or swarm (6-11) Solitary or colony (2-5) 
Challenge Rating: ¼ ½ 1 
Advancement: — — 3-4 HD (Medium) 
Level Adjustment: — — — 
Same with a tiny scorpian.  It is the first set.

Owl Celestial Owl 
Size/Type: Tiny Animal Tiny Magical Beast (Extraplanar) 
Hit Dice: 1d8 (4 hp) 1d8 (4 hp) 
Initiative: +3 +3 
Speed: 10 ft. (2 squares), fly 40 ft. (average) 10 ft. (2 squares), fly 40 ft. (average) 
Armor Class: 17 (+2 size, +3 Dex, +2 natural), touch 15, flat-footed 14 17 (+2 size, +3 Dex, +2 natural), touch 15, flat-footed 14 
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-11 +0/-11 
Attack: Talons +5 melee (1d4-3) Talons +5 melee (1d4-3) 
Full Attack: Talons +5 melee (1d4-3) Talons +5 melee (1d4-3) 
Space/Reach: 2½ ft./0 ft. 2½ ft./0 ft. 
Special Attacks: — Smite Evil 
Special Qualities: Low-light vision Low-light vision, darkvision 60ft., resistance to acid 5,
cold 5, and electricity 5, spell resistance 6 
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2 Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2 
Abilities: Str 4, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 4 Str 4, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 3, Wis 14, Cha 4 
Skills: Listen +14, Move Silently +17, Spot +6* Listen +14, Move Silently +17, Spot +6* 
Feats: Alertness, Weapon FinesseB Alertness, Weapon FinesseB 
Environment: Temperate forests Any good-aligned plane 
Organization: Solitary Solitary 
Challenge Rating: ¼ ¼ 
Alignment: Always neutral Always lawful good 
Advancement: 2 HD (Small) 2 HD (Small) 
Level Adjustment: — — 
Normal Owls are CR 1/4

Pony, not horse, they are tougher.
Size/Type: Medium Animal 
Hit Dice: 2d8+2 (11 hp) 
Initiative: +1 
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares) 
Armor Class: 13 (+1 Dex, +2 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 12 
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+2 
Attack: Hoof -3 melee (1d3*) 
Full Attack: 2 hooves -3 melee (1d3*) 
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. 
Special Attacks: — 
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent 
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +0 
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 4 
Skills: Listen +5, Spot +5 
Feats: Endurance 
Environment: Temperate plains 
Organization: Solitary 
Challenge Rating: ¼ 
Advancement: — 
Level Adjustment: — 

Ironically, War ponies too:
Size/Type: Medium Animal 
Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp) 
Initiative: +1 
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares) 
Armor Class: 13 (+1 Dex, +2 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 12 
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+3 
Attack: Hoof +3 melee (1d3+2) 
Full Attack: 2 hooves +3 melee (1d3+2) 
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. 
Special Attacks: — 
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent 
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +0 
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 4 
Skills: Listen +5, Spot +5 
Feats: Endurance 
Environment: Temperate plains 
Organization: Domesticated 
Challenge Rating: ½ 
Advancement: — 
Level Adjustment: — 

Weasel
Size/Type: Tiny Animal 
Hit Dice: ½ d8 (2 hp) 
Initiative: +2 
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft. 
Armor Class: 14 (+2 size, +2 Dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12 
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/-12 
Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d3-4) 
Full Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d3-4) 
Space/Reach: 2½ ft./0 ft. 
Special Attacks: Attach 
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent 
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1 
Abilities: Str 3, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 5 
Skills: Balance +12, Climb +10, Escape Artist +4,
Hide +11, Move Silently +8, Spot +3 
Feats: Agile, Weapon FinesseB 
Environment: Temperate hills 
Organization: Solitary 
Challenge Rating: ¼ 
Advancement: — 
Level Adjustment: —

Goblin (solitary) and small Skeleton and small zombie were listed as well, but they are considered 1/3rd which is stronger than 1/4, so they are not being included.

Looking over the entries, it is obvious anyone can defeat these beasts in terms of damage to their HP. Even your lvl 1 wizard. You just have to kill 52 of them to go from lvl 1 to 2, according to the formulas for level advancement (13 equal level challenges * 4 because it will take 4 of each to = 1 cr's worth of exp).

SO, can a cr 1/4 wizard take down a lvl 1 fighter? No lvl 1 spells there. Just cantrips.

BUT, the SGT has no relevance to the 3.5 books. The guidelines for it are not correct. If they reread the DMG about CR, they will understand that CR = a party of 4, therefore a party of 1 can fight something that is 1/4th its level.

Here, from the srd:
Challenge Rating
This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/i...hallengeRating

And here is their tool for determining rewards for challenges:
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d...calculator.htm
Of course it wasn't made by WoTC, but then again, their description fits right with the DMG.

Orc, 1st-Level Warrior
Size/Type: Medium Humanoid (Orc) 
Hit Dice: 1d8+1 (5 hp) 
Initiative: +0 
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares) 
Armor Class: 13 (+3 studded leather armor), touch 10, flat-footed 13 
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+4 
Attack: Falchion +4 melee (2d4+4/18-20) or javelin +1 ranged (1d6+3) 
Full Attack: Falchion +4 melee (2d4+4/18-20) or javelin +1 ranged (1d6+3) 
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. 
Special Attacks: — 
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., light sensitivity 
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +0, Will -2 
Abilities: Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6 
Skills: Listen +1, Spot +1 
Feats: Alertness 
Environment: Temperate hills 
Organization: Gang (2-4), squad (11-20 plus 2 3rd-level sergeants and 1 leader
of 3rd-6th level), or band (30-100 plus 150% noncombatants plus
1 3rd-level sergeant per 10 adults, 5 5th-level lieutenants, and
3 7th-level captains) 
Challenge Rating: ½ 
Treasure: Standard 
Alignment: Often chaotic evil 
Advancement: By character class 
Level Adjustment: +0 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm

Your Orc reference is a bit off the mark for hp.

So in the end, we have established that the SGT has a big flaw: Its basing 1:1 ratio for lvls of an individual player against a CR of a monster. Going by what SGT lines up, I would agree, Wizards probably have a better chance at defeating their foe. But then again, that SGT is wrong.

[Corebreach]

SGT is based on the actual rules, but nice try.

It is derived from the definitions and explanations of encounter challenges in the Dungeon Masters Guide and Monster Manual. It states that a character of any given level should have, on average, a 50% chance to win an encounter against a creature with a CR equal to the character's level or a group of creatures in a single encounter whose EL equals the character's level.

I don't see where they get the "should have a 50% chance to win" claim from the rules. The 3.0 DMG (I don't have the 3.5) says a single CR X enemy should take off 20% of the hit points of a party of 4 with an average level of X. This comes straight off pages 100-101. So using some math that's so rough it might give you splinters, a single level X PC soloing that creature should be expected to lose 80% of his hp. And that may or may not be equivalent to saying he should expect an 80% chance of dying.

The SGT people probably looked at the fact that an NPC of level X is CR X when used as an enemy, and made the understandable assumption that any two monsters of the same CR should be matches for one another. That makes sense, but it does not come directly from the rules as the above estimate does. It also highlights a mutual contradiction within the CR system, one that throws the system's usefulness at predicting any encounter outcome into doubt.

Ultimately though, that may not matter. Knowing how different classes fare in various fights at various levels is useful in its own right regardless of whether there is known and stable designer target data to compare it to.

[SquelchHU]

I don't see where they get the "should have a 50% chance to win" claim from the rules. The 3.0 DMG (I don't have the 3.5) says a single CR X enemy should take off 20% of the hit points of a party of 4 with an average level of X. This comes straight off pages 100-101. So using some math that's so rough it might give you splinters, a single level X PC soloing that creature should be expected to lose 80% of his hp. And that may or may not be equivalent to saying he should expect an 80% chance of dying.

The SGT people probably looked at the fact that an NPC of level X is CR X when used as an enemy, and made the understandable assumption that any two monsters of the same CR should be matches for one another. That makes sense, but it does not come directly from the rules as the above estimate does. It also highlights a mutual contradiction within the CR system, one that throws the system's usefulness at predicting any encounter outcome into doubt.

Ultimately though, that may not matter. Knowing how different classes fare in various fights at various levels is useful in its own right regardless of whether there is known and stable designer target data to compare it to.

Um no, it's much simpler than that. A creature of CR x is, supposedly an easy battle for 4 creatures of CR x (which is why it only consumes 20% of resources and not ya know, kills you). And given that you're fighting something theoretically equal to ONE of you, except that there is FOUR of you it makes sense you will easily defeat it.

A CR x + 4 encounter is theoretically equal to the entire party. Because ya know, it could very well be a mirror match of your party. And that's why the book tries to tell you that you should run, because winning is a 50/50 shot and of course lose = game over. Of course you can't actually run, but that's another matter.

So when a creature of level x is theoretically equal to a creature of CR x, guess what? You have a 50% chance to defeat yourself. And that's where the baseline comes from.

Of course there are plenty of weak classes that can't perform at par, and so will get sub 50% results and plenty of strong classes that will perform above par and will get greater than 50% results. But this is the easiest way to gauge the relative power of a class.

And that is how the SGT actually works, so I'm completely ignoring any further lies about it. If I see one more the perp can join the other idiots on my ignore list.

Because see, it's called the Same Game Test to gauge if you are capable of playing the same game as everyone else.

[Seikojin]

Um no, it's much simpler than that. A creature of CR x is, supposedly an easy battle for 4 creatures of CR x (which is why it only consumes 20% of resources and not ya know, kills you). And given that you're fighting something theoretically equal to ONE of you, except that there is FOUR of you it makes sense you will easily defeat it.

A CR x + 4 encounter is theoretically equal to the entire party. Because ya know, it could very well be a mirror match of your party. And that's why the book tries to tell you that you should run, because winning is a 50/50 shot and of course lose = game over. Of course you can't actually run, but that's another matter.

So when a creature of level x is theoretically equal to a creature of CR x, guess what? You have a 50% chance to defeat yourself. And that's where the baseline comes from.

Of course there are plenty of weak classes that can't perform at par, and so will get sub 50% results and plenty of strong classes that will perform above par and will get greater than 50% results. But this is the easiest way to gauge the relative power of a class.

And that is how the SGT actually works, so I'm completely ignoring any further lies about it. If I see one more the perp can join the other idiots on my ignore list.

Because see, it's called the Same Game Test to gauge if you are capable of playing the same game as everyone else.

The SGT has no bearing on the build of 3.5 dnd because it does not adhere to the mechanics the system places.

If they want to evaluate each class individually against a creature whose CR is the same as the level as the player, that is fine. But it goes against every single balance put in the books.

Actually, a creature of CR 5 is a moderate challenge to a party of 4 (fighter, mage, cleric, rogue) where each member is level 5.

If as you say SquelchHU, same as everyone else, then the people doing SGT are not playing the same game as everyone else. This thread proves that by the overwhelming rebuttals to the results on the SGT. Do over.

[SquelchHU]

The SGT has no bearing on the build of 3.5 dnd because it does not adhere to the mechanics the system places.

If they want to evaluate each class individually against a creature whose CR is the same as the level as the player, that is fine. But it goes against every single balance put in the books.

Actually, a creature of CR 5 is a moderate challenge to a party of 4 (fighter, mage, cleric, rogue) where each member is level 5.

If as you say SquelchHU, same as everyone else, then the people doing SGT are not playing the same game as everyone else. This thread proves that by the overwhelming rebuttals to the results on the SGT. Do over.

[Seikojin]

I am just pointing out the facts, like you wanted. If you didn't write the SGT for dndwiki, then you should have no problems understanding how it can be flawed. Especially with the 3.5 core books in your hand.


One of my biggest complaints for a while was the SRD never included what I felt were the important tools. You couldn't look up exp rewards, generate treasure, and for a long time, no monsters either. I thought about it for a bit and realized that in order for them to protect their IP, some of the mechanics would have to stay protected.

[SquelchHU]

I am just pointing out the facts, like you wanted. If you didn't write the SGT for dndwiki, then you should have no problems understanding how it can be flawed. Especially with the 3.5 core books in your hand.


One of my biggest complaints for a while was the SRD never included what I felt were the important tools. You couldn't look up exp rewards, generate treasure, and for a long time, no monsters either. I thought about it for a bit and realized that in order for them to protect their IP, some of the mechanics would have to stay protected.

Fail.

See, this thread has drawn the attention of more real experts. Here is what they had to say:

The 4 man "curb stomp a hobo" test isn't very good because it doesn't tell you anything. Firstly, since you're curb stomping a hobo, it's hard to say if you're batting over or under - since the expectation is that you're going to beat them like you were rolling over Poland. And secondly, it's hard to get any data. Even if the team is batting on par, you still don't know without a lot more analysis whether your aggregate success level is being achieved because one character is too strong and another is too weak.

Here's the thing: the tyranny of math has no place in marketing.

People don't want to be judged objectively, and they really don't want their work to be judged objectively. If you take someone's work and find a way to evaluate it objectively, they will fight it.

Skip didn't become The Sage because he's smart, or knows the rules, or is a good designer. He took the job so he could promote himself.

And people who have any stake in something are going market their work as grand, even if it sucks. This is why the SGT offends people.

I'll bet dollar to donuts that people who are offended by the SGT think of themselves as designers, or are sock puppets for designers, or are people who feel the need to defend their hero-worship of designers. These people must trash anything that might put the work of established designers in question because the mythology of greatness is quite fragile. I mean, people make careers on being stars, but that is seldom a reflection on the quality of their work.

But people who care about game design like the SGT because its a simple metric to make sure you are doing quality design. That's a simple truth, and everything else is posturing and theater.

Emphasis mine.

Here's some more:

Here's the rebuttal:

Not all games have the straightjacket of wizard, cleric, fighter, and rogue.

A party of four can shore up its weaknesses, sure. The wizard and cleric alone can do a lot. Enlarge Person is a pretty *****in' spell to put on a Fighter and gives him some extra punch.

But the fact is, the Fighter by himself wouldn't be able to cut it outside of a narrow cookie-cutter build to hype up one trick. By himself, he is not a threat to the opposition, and in a party he's sort of like attack dog. He's a tool the other players put some gas into and send at the enemies.

Also, the SGT does adhere to the mechanics the system places. Even better than the designers would like to admit. It admits that these do not exist in a vacuum. SRD Fighters and Barbarians live in a world where monsters are far better at fighting than they are, and don't have the chops to survive a constant barrage of save-or-lose spells thrown at them by the spellcasting monsters, leaving them no way to reliably contribute and do something to make the guy playing a wizard say "I'd like to play that sometime." There are second-level spells which can render feat chains obsolete. The melee classes expected to be 'realistic' in a game where you have sixty-foot high dragons and clerics who can fight even better than the Fighter starting at level 7 (Divine Power!), and was shooting honest-to-goodness lasers at people two levels ago (Searing Light). Not for nothing did a player in my first D&D group say he didn't want to be put on Melee Duty.

The WotC designers wrote much of the game like they weren't looking at what else was in the game. Oh, yes, let's make the Rogue bend over backwards trying to be able to hide and still sneak later on, but give the level 3 wizard the spells silence and invisibility, which make putting skill points into Hide and Move Silently irrelevant. Especially since the Rogue also gets UMD and can have those spells put into wands.

They didn't know what they were writing. Skip Smokes Crack, after all. And it's really disheartening to see people taking their word as the Holy Truth when they have been proven wrong on many an issue.

Emphasis mine again.

[Seikojin]

Fail.

See, this thread has drawn the attention of more real experts. Here is what they had to say:

Originally Posted by The guy who made the SGT
The 4 man "curb stomp a hobo" test isn't very good because it doesn't tell you anything. Firstly, since you're curb stomping a hobo, it's hard to say if you're batting over or under - since the expectation is that you're going to beat them like you were rolling over Poland. And secondly, it's hard to get any data. Even if the team is batting on par, you still don't know without a lot more analysis whether your aggregate success level is being achieved because one character is too strong and another is too weak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The other guy who made the SGT
Here's the thing: the tyranny of math has no place in marketing.

People don't want to be judged objectively, and they really don't want their work to be judged objectively. If you take someone's work and find a way to evaluate it objectively, they will fight it.

Skip didn't become The Sage because he's smart, or knows the rules, or is a good designer. He took the job so he could promote himself.

And people who have any stake in something are going market their work as grand, even if it sucks. This is why the SGT offends people.

I'll bet dollar to donuts that people who are offended by the SGT think of themselves as designers, or are sock puppets for designers, or are people who feel the need to defend their hero-worship of designers. These people must trash anything that might put the work of established designers in question because the mythology of greatness is quite fragile. I mean, people make careers on being stars, but that is seldom a reflection on the quality of their work.

But people who care about game design like the SGT because its a simple metric to make sure you are doing quality design. That's a simple truth, and everything else is posturing and theater.

Emphasis mine.

Here's some more:

Originally Posted by Someone else with a clue
Here's the rebuttal:

Not all games have the straightjacket of wizard, cleric, fighter, and rogue.

A party of four can shore up its weaknesses, sure. The wizard and cleric alone can do a lot. Enlarge Person is a pretty *****in' spell to put on a Fighter and gives him some extra punch.

But the fact is, the Fighter by himself wouldn't be able to cut it outside of a narrow cookie-cutter build to hype up one trick. By himself, he is not a threat to the opposition, and in a party he's sort of like attack dog. He's a tool the other players put some gas into and send at the enemies.

Also, the SGT does adhere to the mechanics the system places. Even better than the designers would like to admit. It admits that these do not exist in a vacuum. SRD Fighters and Barbarians live in a world where monsters are far better at fighting than they are, and don't have the chops to survive a constant barrage of save-or-lose spells thrown at them by the spellcasting monsters, leaving them no way to reliably contribute and do something to make the guy playing a wizard say "I'd like to play that sometime." There are second-level spells which can render feat chains obsolete. The melee classes expected to be 'realistic' in a game where you have sixty-foot high dragons and clerics who can fight even better than the Fighter starting at level 7 (Divine Power!), and was shooting honest-to-goodness lasers at people two levels ago (Searing Light). Not for nothing did a player in my first D&D group say he didn't want to be put on Melee Duty.

The WotC designers wrote much of the game like they weren't looking at what else was in the game. Oh, yes, let's make the Rogue bend over backwards trying to be able to hide and still sneak later on, but give the level 3 wizard the spells silence and invisibility, which make putting skill points into Hide and Move Silently irrelevant. Especially since the Rogue also gets UMD and can have those spells put into wands.

They didn't know what they were writing. Skip Smokes Crack, after all. And it's really disheartening to see people taking their word as the Holy Truth when they have been proven wrong on many an issue.

Emphasis mine again.

I looked through the thread and saw nothing that matched what you quoted. Links please?

I already said basing the challenge of the SGT on a 1:1 lvl against CR basis, then yes, the caster has a better chance then a fighter.

But I also showed the facts of the 3.5 system and then showed how SGT for 3.5 ignores those rules. It is the SGT team that chooses to ignore the rules and get invalid results.

In response tot he curbing a hobo part:
This suggests the founders of 3.5 SGT think that combat in pnp is easy. Again the DMG clearly states that a single creature of CR X is a moderate challenge to a party of 4 of lvl X (where X is the same). It didn't say it was a one round win, it doesn't even say how long it should take or how much damage the players should suffer BECAUSE it will be different for each encounter.

To the second quite:
I like the idea of an SGT. It is a good measure for something to find a flaw. The only problem is, it is not taking the black and white rules of PnP into consideration and then imporperly running tests on it. In a company, this is a fireable offense. All their results would be wrong because they are not following the rules in the game.

For quote three:
Yes, if you ignore the CR rule mechanic, the fighter will be hard pressed to win against something whos CR is equal to his level. That is why if you want to check combat metrics, you divide by 4. Again, the DMG clearly states that CR is a rating for a party of 4. Strip one out and the CR is too high for the individual to take on moderately.

See SquelchHU, the problem is not in DnD 3.5. The rules there are written, put together by hundreds of people over the course of years, and played by thousands of people-hours to determine and refine the final product.
But a few people say they think Melee is weak and then build a test scenario for it without following the most basic of rules; that is flawed.

Remember that code section up there where I posted monster stats? Use those for a lvl 1 SGT. Give me results.

[SquelchHU]

You did not see it in this thread because the relevant dialogue has been copy pasted onto another forum which contains the experts in question.

You could probably figure out which easily enough... provided, of course you lost the headgear.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...rouscranus.htm

Of course, given that it is a forum where you are expected to have 1: A clue. OR 2: A willingness to get a clue. I don't think you'd be at all welcome there.

It would be highly entertaining though.

[Aspenor]

I'm a bit lost, what's the topic again?

Oh yeah...

Guys with swords always lose, at every level, period.

[SquelchHU]

I'm a bit lost, what's the topic again?

Oh yeah...

Guys with swords always lose, at every level, period.

Yup, pretty much. Even at level 1 I'd still take a party of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard, or some combo thereof over Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard.

1: (insert one of: Color Spray/Command/Entangle)

2: Auto attack cripples.

3: End encounter.

Repeat. Easy, quick, and sustainable more than four battles.

Sure you'll die in 1-2 hits but so will anyone at this level, and as long as one of you goes before the enemies (not that hard, init is an easy to boost stat) you're good.

[Aspenor]

Now that I've caught up a bit on the SGT conversation a bit, let me throw this out there.

Despite the fact that a single character of level X against a monster of CR X doesn't follow the "design" of 4 characters of level X vs that monster, the test is still valid. In fact, it shows just by how large the margin happens to be between a spell caster vs. a non-spell caster.

Here is why:
A level X fighter/barbarian/rogue/non-TOB-sword-swinger-guy typically gets curb-stomped by a monster of CR X. If he doesn't get curb-stomped, he either almost dies or gets lucky.

A level X wizard/cleric/druid/whatever-spell-caster, played well, typically not only curb-stomps a monster of CR X, he typically curb-stomps a monster or encounter of CR X+2, all by himself. At mid to high levels, he stomps a CR X+3 or even 4 encounter.

The fact is, a pure sword-swinging character relies on a spell caster to win. He is, for all intents and purposes, an XP and loot mooch.

[SquelchHU]

Now that I've caught up a bit on the SGT conversation a bit, let me throw this out there.

Despite the fact that a single character of level X against a monster of CR X doesn't follow the "design" of 4 characters of level X vs that monster, the test is still valid. In fact, it shows just by how large the margin happens to be between a spell caster vs. a non-spell caster.

Here is why:
A level X fighter/barbarian/rogue/non-TOB-sword-swinger-guy typically gets curb-stomped by a monster of CR X. If he doesn't get curb-stomped, he either almost dies or gets lucky.

A level X wizard/cleric/druid/whatever-spell-caster, played well, typically not only curb-stomps a monster of CR X, he typically curb-stomps a monster or encounter of CR X+2, all by himself. At mid to high levels, he stomps a CR X+3 or even 4 encounter.

The fact is, a pure sword-swinging character relies on a spell caster to win. He is, for all intents and purposes, an XP and loot mooch.

And a party of 4 isn't mandatory. They assume that because that's what they used, and then they made the default encounter equal to one of you, except that they are four of you and one of them.

But because it is supposedly equal to one of you, enter the Same Game Test to see if it actually is. And the SGT takes into account that some match ups will be easier or harder by presenting a variety of encounters at those levels and counts your overall ratio of successes.

Which is why this comment makes perfect sense.

The 4 man "curb stomp a hobo" test isn't very good because it doesn't tell you anything. Firstly, since you're curb stomping a hobo, it's hard to say if you're batting over or under - since the expectation is that you're going to beat them like you were rolling over Poland. And secondly, it's hard to get any data. Even if the team is batting on par, you still don't know without a lot more analysis whether your aggregate success level is being achieved because one character is too strong and another is too weak.

Which, interestingly enough is exactly what happens in the assumed default parties. Cleric and Wizard drag dead weight of Fighter (the Rogue isn't too bad if he has a clue... most are trap gimps because that's what the game tells them they are, but he's still no substitute for another caster).

The funny thing is is that the high level Fighter at least has a good shot of failing the SGT even if held to the gimped out standards that make it four times easier... which means he has less than a quarter of what he needs to be at par. This is especially true if poorly built.

For example. Look at the Paizo designers demonstrating their incredibly awesome ability to design effective characters.

Seltyiel
Male half-elf wizard 5/fighter 5/eldritch knight 10
LE Medium humanoid (elf)
Init +9; Senses low-light vision; Perception +21
DEFENSE
AC 25, touch 19, flat-footed 20 (+6 armor, +4 deflection, +5 Dex)
hp 174 (15d10+5d6+70)
Fort +18, Ref +17, Will +12; +2 vs. enchantments, +1 vs. fear
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +2 keen axiomatic shocking burst longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (1d8+7/17–20)
Ranged ray +22 (by spell)
Special Attacks force missile (9/day), intense spells +2 damage
Spells Prepared (CL 15th)
7th—grasping hand, prismatic spray (DC 23), spell turning
6th—chain lightning (2, DC 22), disintegrate (DC 22), form of the dragon I, greater dispel magic
5th—cone of cold (2, DC 21), polymorph, teleport, wall of force
4th—dimension door, ice storm, stoneskin, wall of fire (2), wall of ice
3rd—dispel magic (2), fireball (4, DC 19), fly (2), haste (2)
2nd—invisibility (2), mirror image, scorching ray (3), see invisibility
1st—magic missile (3), shield (2), true strike (2)
0 (at will)—detect magic, mage hand, mending, ray of frost, read magic
Prohibited Schools: enchantment, necromancy
STATISTICS
Str 14, Dex 20, Con 16, Int 23, Wis 8, Cha 10
Base Atk +17; CMB +19; CMD 38
Feats Arcane Armor Training, Critical Focus, Critical Mastery, Disruptive, Empower Spell, Greater Weapon Focus (longsword), Improved Initiative, Improved Vital Strike, Lightning Reflexes, Penetrating Strike (longsword), Power Attack, Scribe Scroll, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Spellbreaker, Staggering Critical, Tiring Critical, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)
Skills Diplomacy +26, Fly +28, Intimidate +23, Knowledge (arcana) +29, Knowledge (planes) +29, Perception +21, Spellcraft +29, Stealth +25
SQ arcane bond (bat), armor training +1, bravery +1, diverse training, elf blood, spell critical, weapon training (heavy blades +1)
Combat Gear cube of force, potion of cure serious wounds (4), quicken metamagic rod, rod of cancellation, scroll of limited wish (2), staff of evocation, wand of lightning bolt (CL 10, 50 charges); Other Gear +2 keen axiomatic shocking burst longsword, +4 etherealness leather armor, belt of physical perfection +2, boots of teleportation, cloak of resistance +5, hand of glory, headband of vast intelligence +6, orange prism ioun stone, pearl of power (two spells), ring of protection +4, ring of regeneration, ring of wizardry (III), vibrant purple ioun stone (dimension door, shield)

Starting off, the eldritch knight prestige class works much as it did in 3.5, but we’ve added a few abilities to spice things up. The class provides Seltyiel with a fast base attack progression and nine levels of spellcasting (bringing his total caster level up to 14th, although the orange prism ioun stone puts his caster level at 15th). The class also grants three bonus feats, at 1st, 5th, and 9th. With these he can select any of the combat feats that he qualifies for (same as a fighter). In addition, starting at 1st level, Seltyiel gained diverse training, which adds his eldritch knight levels to both his fighter levels and his arcane spellcasting class’s levels for the purposes of qualifying for feats. This allows him to take feats that would normally be reserved for 15th-level fighters and wizards (but more on that later). Finally, upon gaining his 10th level in eldritch knight, Seltyiel gained the spell critical feature. Whenever Seltyiel scores a critical hit, he can cast any spell as a swift action without increasing the spell’s level. The spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity and must include the target of the critical hit as one of the spell’s targets or put him within the area of the effect. Its bad enough to be hit with a critical, but to add a cone of cold on top of it can truly be devastating.

Although quite capable in melee combat, Seltyiel has a wide variety of powerful spells at his disposal as well. Grasping hand can grapple foes with a +26 bonus on its combat maneuver check. Form of the dragon I allows him to take on the shape of a Medium dragon of any color, gaining its attacks, breath weapon, and a host of resistances and other abilities. Polymorph mimics a host of other spells that allow him to change shape, allowing him to become an animal, humanoid, or even an elemental. Although not incredibly powerful for a 20th-level character, four fireball spells are nothing to overlook.

Beyond spells, Seltyiel has a vast number of feats which increase his combat prowess. Many of these feats are for fighters only, but Seltyiel qualifies thanks to his diverse training class feature. Arcane Armor Training allows Seltyiel to spend a swift action to reduce his armor spell failure chance by 10%, which eliminates it altogether in his case. Critical Mastery is a fighter-only feat that allows Seltyiel to apply the effects of two critical feats to a successful critical hit. In his case, that means that anyone who is struck with a critical hit is both staggered (can only take a standard action each round) and fatigued, thanks to Staggering Critical and Tiring Critical. This is, of course, in addition to the 1d10 electricity damage from the sword and a free spell (thanks to spell critical). Seltyiel also possesses the Disruptive feat (another fighter-only feat), which makes it harder for spellcasters to cast on the defensive while he is adjacent (+4 to the DC). To top it off, he has Spellbreaker (fighters only, once again), which allows him to take an attack of opportunity against foes that fail on their check to cast defensively. Finally, Seltyiel has the Penetrating Strike fighter-only feat. This feat allows him to ignore 5 points of damage reduction with every attack made with his longsword (except for DR/—). Greater Penetrating Strike ignores 10 points of DR (and 5 points of DR/—), but Seltyiel couldn’t quite qualify for this feat, which requires you to be a 16th-level fighter.

I should also spend a moment talking about Seltyiel’s specialization. Being an evoker, he gains intense spells at 1st level, granting him a bonus on damage spells equal to 1/2 his wizard level (in this case, only 2 because the levels of eldritch knight don’t count). He also gains force missile, which acts like a magic missile that he can fire one at a time, up to 9 times per day, adding his bonus from intense spells to each missile. Seltyiel is also a half-elf, which comes with a +2 bonus to one ability score of his choice, the Skill Focus feat for free, and the ability to pick two favored classes (in this case, fighter and wizard).

Finally, lets take a look at Seltyiel’s potent magic items. At this level, Seltyiel has around 880,000 gp of magic items, but much of that is spent on a number of particularly expensive items. Both his armor and his sword take up nearly a quarter of his total value, but items like the quicken metamagic rod, staff of evocation, and ring of wizardry (III) eat up a fair amount as well. Of note is his ring of regeneration which now restores 1 hit point per round and makes him immune to bleed damage. It’s certainly useful, allowing it to regain all of his hit points in just over 17 minutes, but costs 90,000 gp.

There’s only one more preview left before the release of the Core Rulebook! Accordingly, next week on the day before the game releases, we’re going to take a look at the most important rule in the game...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

And here's brighter minds tearing it apart.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50125&start=0

Yes, that is a level 20 failing a level 10 SGT quite dramatically.

There is a reason why every intelligent player has nothing but contempt for anyone who could screw up that badly, ESPECIALLY if they are designers.

[TheDjinnFor]

You did not see it in this thread because the relevant dialogue has been copy pasted onto another forum which contains the experts in question.

My ass.

[Seikojin]

Now that I've caught up a bit on the SGT conversation a bit, let me throw this out there.

Despite the fact that a single character of level X against a monster of CR X doesn't follow the "design" of 4 characters of level X vs that monster, the test is still valid. In fact, it shows just by how large the margin happens to be between a spell caster vs. a non-spell caster.

Here is why:
A level X fighter/barbarian/rogue/non-TOB-sword-swinger-guy typically gets curb-stomped by a monster of CR X. If he doesn't get curb-stomped, he either almost dies or gets lucky.

A level X wizard/cleric/druid/whatever-spell-caster, played well, typically not only curb-stomps a monster of CR X, he typically curb-stomps a monster or encounter of CR X+2, all by himself. At mid to high levels, he stomps a CR X+3 or even 4 encounter.

The fact is, a pure sword-swinging character relies on a spell caster to win. He is, for all intents and purposes, an XP and loot mooch.

I know this and agree. But this margin is exposed in less than proper party play only.

What I find interesting is the need to have an SGT. Why should anyone who runs a game want to have one person with no group in a game designed around that format?

Here, instead of rewinding and replaying the same deficiencies in the two concepts (pnp's cr = party of 4 and SGT's 1:1), I will accept what the topic is really about:
Trying to find ways to improve melee so it can survive in the SGT scenario.

After rereading your intial post Squelch, I think those are some valid options.

I do not know the specific results from the SGT, like what were hits, close misses, etc.

What about offering doublers for certain melee classes. AC bonuses, HP, and damage bonuses through feats. Like a feat for AC doubling. Offering a feat bonus for insight based on knowledge of how to effectively use ablative armor (doubling AC from armor) and another for shields. Then Say Toughness for non casters and casters work differently, or make toughness offer different hp bonuses based on Con. It can act like additional con points, and melee can get double. Each toughness feat adds 1hp/lvl. For their PA, you can adjust that any which way. You can remove the 5 cap, you can double the value since hitting is pretty important. You can make a seperate feat that doubles it for single hand weapons (weapon insight), triple for two handed, or make different feats for each. You can sprinke free feats into combat classes to make sure they don't have to gear their feat selection towards it.

Do you think those would be viables?

[SquelchHU]

I know this and agree. But this margin is exposed in less than proper party play only.

What I find interesting is the need to have an SGT. Why should anyone who runs a game want to have one person with no group in a game designed around that format?

To see what classes are above, below, and at par. Testing vs a party is useless, because you don't know if say... a successful result is because all classes are at par, or two are above and two are below, or what.

It's also useful for testing new content, such as homemade classes, monsters, etc.

Here, instead of rewinding and replaying the same deficiencies in the two concepts (pnp's cr = party of 4 and SGT's 1:1), I will accept what the topic is really about:
Trying to find ways to improve melee so it can survive in the SGT scenario.

After rereading your intial post Squelch, I think those are some valid options.

I do not know the specific results from the SGT, like what were hits, close misses, etc.

You're not supposed to actually pull out dice and play the encounter (this would also be useless, unless you did so many times) but rather assess the situation and the options available and call it sure win, sure loss, probable win... whatever.

For example 'a hall of pit traps' would be a sure win to a flier, a probable win to someone with trapfinding, and a probable win to someone with a lot of HP. But someone that did not have those things would probably fail.

What about offering doublers for certain melee classes. AC bonuses, HP, and damage bonuses through feats. Like a feat for AC doubling. Offering a feat bonus for insight based on knowledge of how to effectively use ablative armor (doubling AC from armor) and another for shields. Then Say Toughness for non casters and casters work differently, or make toughness offer different hp bonuses based on Con. It can act like additional con points, and melee can get double. Each toughness feat adds 1hp/lvl. For their PA, you can adjust that any which way. You can remove the 5 cap, you can double the value since hitting is pretty important. You can make a seperate feat that doubles it for single hand weapons (weapon insight), triple for two handed, or make different feats for each. You can sprinke free feats into combat classes to make sure they don't have to gear their feat selection towards it.

Do you think those would be viables?

Facepalm. AC doubling makes no sense and would only manage to break the RNG. Improved Toughness already exists. There is no cap on PA in D&D (there is in DDO though). And there are plenty of charge multipliers already. Point is, feats are ****, and adding a bunch of RNG breaking stuff doesn't make them any less so.

[Seikojin]

To see what classes are above, below, and at par. Testing vs a party is useless, because you don't know if say... a successful result is because all classes are at par, or two are above and two are below, or what.

It's also useful for testing new content, such as homemade classes, monsters, etc.

True and that is why I was saying I think the SGT is fine and all, but I wish they had a more appropriate CR for their tests.

You're not supposed to actually pull out dice and play the encounter (this would also be useless, unless you did so many times) but rather assess the situation and the options available and call it sure win, sure loss, probable win... whatever.

For example 'a hall of pit traps' would be a sure win to a flier, a probable win to someone with trapfinding, and a probable win to someone with a lot of HP. But someone that did not have those things would probably fail.

By using percentages? They could get more granular results by processing the percentages in 3rds. 1 run where all the rolls are low er than average by the player, 1 run where it is average, and 1 run where it is high. You can add then divide those results out and get a better average of win/loss.

I didn't see any tools on the SGT site, but I could make something to do it.

Facepalm. AC doubling makes no sense and would only manage to break the RNG. Improved Toughness already exists. There is no cap on PA in D&D (there is in DDO though). And there are plenty of charge multipliers already. Point is, feats are ****, and adding a bunch of RNG breaking stuff doesn't make them any less so.

The acronym doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean by RNG. Break rangers?

Yeah, but you could make normal toughness like improved and make improved stronger.

Doh, yeah forgot abouts that. I don't think feats are ****. They are a great way to make your own diveristy without changing the core mechanics of the game. They also offer you a way to directly fix an issue that you have with your game.

To address the situation, you have a few options for melee. What do you consider their weak points?
Stats
Hp
AC
DMG output
Saves
Gear

Each of these things can be altered and rolled into the class. Since the SGT should have results per class, you can customize your package modifer for each class. This way you enhance the one class to an accepting level without altering the results of the other classes.

In your OP regarding stats: 32 point buy works, but in this setup your SAD class gets the maxed power stat and your MAD classes get less than maxed stats. If you offer class dependent bonuses, you can avoid this. You could include penalties as well if you think of the making of classes as a point formula. For eac plus, you have a minus. Or for each stat can be a severity. Con being a biggie for anyone. So for each con you lose, you can have 2 of most other stats. Or maybe 3 for mental/social stats and 2 for physical stats.

Addressing HP, again, you can offer a per class adjustment. Either by level or blanket.

Same with AC, Dmg output, and Saves. Gear can be linked to all of those.

So I guess this RNG is something important to your statement.