(Trying to) fix 3.5 - how to.

[RictrasShard]

So Bon the Squishy Caster could decide to pick his nose for two rounds while letting the Rockfist hump his leg and not be in any danger of dying. If you figure average damage (17) instead of max damage (still hitting every round) you get 4 rounds until the wizard falls down.

Four rounds is far short of the full minute mark that Squelch claims. This is also assuming it is a one-per-one fight, which usually doesn't happen.

[Montrose]

Four rounds is far short of the full minute mark that Squelch claims. This is also assuming it is a one-per-one fight, which usually doesn't happen.

I acknowledged that four rounds was considerably less than a minute, so I'm not sure why you are beating the poor dead equine there. It was obvious hyperbole, but the point still stands.

As to your other point, it is non-sensical. Fine, extrapolate it to a nearly infinite number X of brutes who full attack and hit for average damage versus a nearly infinite number Y (where X=Y) of wizards. It still takes four attacks per wizard (aggregate) to kill them all.

If you want to make X>Y, that's fine. but that's also an over-level encounter, and we were discussing "average" encounters.

[Corebreach]

So the logial real world idea that having two hands on a melee weapon doing more per hit damage than using one hand on a weapon makes no sense to you?

Two-handed weapons already do more damage per hit due to their higher base damage and larger Strength damage bonus. The question you should be asking is whether it makes sense for a two-handed weapon to gain proportionately more extra damage when swung extra-hard...

...to which the answer is probably also "yes", I'll admit. But there is still the question of how professional Andy Collins was in his reasons for changing Power Attack in 3.5. We know from his public comments that he considered verisimilitude. Did he consider game balance equally, or at all? See http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51175&start=47.

I see nothing nerfing PA for TWF. Unless you think flimsy light weapons should get the benefit of PA.

In 3.0, Power Attack was a simple -X to-hit for +X damage for all melee weapons. 3.5 complicated the feat by making it +2X damage for two-handed weapons and +0 for light weapons (more precisely, for actual handheld light weapons; unarmed strikes and natural weapons kept the normal +X). Irrespective of your definition of "nerf" — and I am NOT about to argue semantics here — this change decreased the damage output of many TWF characters since Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting is not in the core PnP rulebooks.

I thought the Cleric could heal while fighting as well. At least in PnP they can.

All the Cure and Heal spells I see take one action to cast. That means the Cleric can't cast one and throw out a decisive AoE save-or-lose spell or überbuffed attack in the same round barring some non-core trick or the Quicken Spell feat. And Quicken adds four levels to a spell for prep purposes, so a Cleric isn't quick-casting even Cure Light Wounds until he's level 9. Is 1d8+5 points of healing useful then?

And lastly, the Fighter was expected to tank. Even though he has no way of making enemies attack them,

Much like in DDO, intimidate the enemies into attacking them.

I don't see a rule for this in 3.5.

[Seikojin]

For the CR = party of 4... Look in your dmg, page 100 in the 3.0 DMG. I think it will be exactly the same in the 3.5 one as well and around the same page.

Page 145 of the 3.0 dmg also explains the wealth by level is a guideline, not a basis of facts, or a determination of ability.

[RictrasShard]

As to your other point, it is non-sensical. Fine, extrapolate it to a nearly infinite number X of brutes who full attack and hit for average damage versus a nearly infinite number Y (where X=Y) of wizards. It still takes four attacks per wizard (aggregate) to kill them all.

If you want to make X>Y, that's fine. but that's also an over-level encounter, and we were discussing "average" encounters.

In an average encounter, there are more enemies than characters. This is to what I was referring.

[Seikojin]

Two-handed weapons already do more damage per hit due to their higher base damage and larger Strength damage bonus. The question you should be asking is whether it makes sense for a two-handed weapon to gain proportionately more extra damage when swung extra-hard...

...to which the answer is probably also "yes", I'll admit. But there is still the question of how professional Andy Collins was in his reasons for changing Power Attack in 3.5. We know from his public comments that he considered verisimilitude. Did he consider game balance equally, or at all? See http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51175&start=47.


In 3.0, Power Attack was a simple -X to-hit for +X damage for all melee weapons. 3.5 complicated the feat by making it +2X damage for two-handed weapons and +0 for light weapons (more precisely, for actual handheld light weapons; unarmed strikes and natural weapons kept the normal +X). Irrespective of your definition of "nerf" — and I am NOT about to argue semantics here — this change decreased the damage output of many TWF characters since Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting is not in the core PnP rulebooks.


All the Cure and Heal spells I see take one action to cast. That means the Cleric can't cast one and throw out a decisive AoE save-or-lose spell or überbuffed attack in the same round barring some non-core trick or the Quicken Spell feat. And Quicken adds four levels to a spell for prep purposes, so a Cleric isn't quick-casting even Cure Light Wounds until he's level 9. Is 1d8+5 points of healing useful then?


I don't see a rule for this in 3.5.

I was just saying I think the 3.5 PA is just fine. I can logically and physically understand how light weapons don't get any benefit for PA because of their flimsy nature. I can understand how using two hands on a weapon will double the effectiveness of a swing.

I will agree that the change would upset a ton of people, but the change for PA makes physical, realistic sense. Logic would push for a more realistic mechanic for PA. So going from 3.0 to 3.5 the change makes sense.

I wasn't speaking on clerics casting with free actions or anything. I was comparing heal botting like some clerics in ddo play, versus a cleric in PnP who does some pre combat buffs, and can provide every other round heals. In most adventures I played in, healing was after combat to ensure we didn't need to rest right away. Sometimes it was used to bring someone from low hp to good to go if it was a difficult challenge or the party was needing to rest soon.

By using intimidate I delve into the more role playing aspect, less meta gaming or statistical gaming. In the PHB it says you can use intimidate to alter a targets mood. So you can essentially adjust it to be more hostile to you.

[Seikojin]

This whole topic reminds me of playing with John Pickens. Some minmax players in the group we were playing got really upset when our level 3 and 4 characters were just about decimated by a kobold ambush party. The group was a party of 6 or 8 as well. We had some serious numbers. But some people were a little egotistical in their builds and felt they would never fail.

That was the first time in that campaign I broke out of the character attitude I designed in order to stay alive, LOL

[Montrose]

In an average encounter, there are more enemies than characters. This is to what I was referring.

Well then you need to lower the level of the creature or it is not an at-level encounter. One level 10 wizard is 500exp worth of monsters (which is one level 10 standard brute).

If, instead, you would like to do two level 6 creatures (250 exp per) then I randomly (first one I saw) picked the Carnage Demon, who does 17 damage max (11.5 average). Two of them do an average of 23 points of damage per round versus our 56 hit point wizard. Which is still 3 rounds to kill him.

I'll pick another random level 6 brute (remember that brutes are the high damage creatures and I'm attacking a wizard, so I'm stacking the deck in your favor here).

Dire Boar does 9.5 damage per round. Ok, let's pick another one. Duergar shock trooper does 13.

Aha! Here we go! A giant riding lizard looks like he does an average of 14, so if you have two of the best damage creatures I could find versus the lowest hit point character class, and that character does absolutely nothing but stand there and get reamed, then the monsters can JUST manage to knock the wizard unconcious in two full rounds of attacking.

(edit: Note that to further stack the deck we are also assuming that the wizard is automatically hit on every attack and has a constitution of 10. Just for kicks I told the character builder to automatically generate a level 10 wizard for me. The auto-generated character with no equipment has an AC of 22 versus the lizards +9 to hit, meaning that the lizard actually misses 60% of the time against a naked non-optimized wizard. A realistic wizard has an AC closer to 26, which means the lizard only hits on a 17 or higher or only 1 in 5 rounds, which means our wizard actually lasts approximately TEN ROUNDS doing NOTHING.)

Have we proven that 4E has reduced lethality yet, leading to less importance on singluar character decisions?

[RictrasShard]

Well then you need to lower the level of the creature or it is not an at-level encounter. One level 10 wizard is 500exp worth of monsters (which is one level 10 standard brute).

Incorrect. The developers of 4E designed the game with the idea that an average party is five characters. Now, let's look at the number of creatures in some encounter groups:

Dragonborn (MM1, pg 87) Lvl6 - 9 creatures, Lvl13 - 5 creatures
Kruthik (MM1, pg 171) Lvl3 - 12 creatures, Lvl4 - 5 creatures, Lvl5 - 8 creatures
Medusa (MM1, pg 187) Lvl11 - 9 creatures, Lvl14 - 9 creatures, Lvl17 - 6 creatures
Firbolg (MM2, pg 111) Lvl13 - 6 creatures, Lvl22 - 6 creatures
Goblin (MM2, pg 132) Lvl1 - 5 creatures, Lvl6 - 5 creatures, Lvl6 - 6 creatures, Lvl13 - 9 creatures

I'm sure you get the point.

Have we proven that 4E has reduced lethality yet, leading to less importance on singluar character decisions?

Reduced lethality? I don't know. Less importance on singular character decisions? Most definitely no.

[RictrasShard]

This whole topic reminds me of playing with John Pickens. Some minmax players in the group we were playing got really upset when our level 3 and 4 characters were just about decimated by a kobold ambush party. The group was a party of 6 or 8 as well. We had some serious numbers. But some people were a little egotistical in their builds and felt they would never fail.

That was the first time in that campaign I broke out of the character attitude I designed in order to stay alive, LOL

Have you ever heard of Tucker's Kobolds? If not, you might find this an entertaining read:

http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=93582

[Montrose]

Incorrect. The developers of 4E designed the game with the idea that an average party is five characters. Now, let's look at the number of creatures in some encounter groups:

Dragonborn (MM1, pg 87) Lvl6 - 9 creatures, Lvl13 - 5 creatures
Kruthik (MM1, pg 171) Lvl3 - 12 creatures, Lvl4 - 5 creatures, Lvl5 - 8 creatures
Medusa (MM1, pg 187) Lvl11 - 9 creatures, Lvl14 - 9 creatures, Lvl17 - 6 creatures
Firbolg (MM2, pg 111) Lvl13 - 6 creatures, Lvl22 - 6 creatures
Goblin (MM2, pg 132) Lvl1 - 5 creatures, Lvl6 - 5 creatures, Lvl6 - 6 creatures, Lvl13 - 9 creatures

I'm sure you get the point.

No, I don't. Is your point that 5 creatures can kill a wizard 5 times as fast as one creature? If so, then yes. That is how math works. It is not, however, relevant.

Fine. Let's assume that you have 9 Level-6 Dragonborn. Let's even assume that all 9 can attack at range. They do 1d8+6, or 10.5 damage. They are +11 to hit, which means they need a 15 (30% chance).

Ok, so all 9 attack. 3 hit doing 31.5 damage. Our wizard is still alive and doing pretty well, all things considered.

Reduced lethality? I don't know. Less importance on singular character decisions? Most definitely no.

See above

Edit: How about this.

Suddenly, the highest level creature in the game appears! It is bahamut, a level 36 solo soldier huge immortal magical beast!

He spends his minor breathing, then does a bite attack. Total average damage is 29.5 for the bite and 36 for the breath for a total of 65 points of damage. He has just failed to kill a 7th-level barbarian (or a 6th-level barbarian with the toughness feat).

So the most powerful creature in the game, using their most powerful attacks, fails (on average) to kill someone 29 levels below them (who takes no immediate actions to mitigate any damage) with a full round of attacks. I'd call that less lethal than 3.5

[Corebreach]

Have you ever heard of Tucker's Kobolds? If not, you might find this an entertaining read:

http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=93582

This read more like an example of confused, almost inexplicably poor player decisions than staggeringly well-run enemies. Don't get me wrong; the kobolds were definitely well-run. I just don't see how they could have routed the party that decisively. Normal flames take many, many rounds to kill characters of that level. How long could it have possibly taken to fight their way back to the entrance through level 1 kobolds and some rough terrain? The door was 60' away. (And before someone mentions it was locked and barred, what party of level 6-12 characters enters a dungeon but can't open big locked doors?)

That story seems either nonsensical or simply an account of a play group that was more concerned with telling a wild, crazy adventuring story than winning challenging fights through tactics. Note! Playing that way is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with D&D! However, the results of those kinds of games cannot be used to prove the game is balanced mechanically.

[SquelchHU]

Using average wealth by level never was designed to determine the worth of a players gear. It was a way for a DM to quickly deliver some basic funds beyond gear to help over lvl 1 players start off. It even says so right in the DMG.

That is not how WBL actually works.

You are right, my bad. I meant same or higher. In the world of saves ties go to the defender. Optimized = minmax, so again overrated and underpowered. Your 20 int lvl 1 wizard will go only so far without help from other members. And by so far, I do mean dead before lvl 2.

Yes, 15 or better is 30%. I said that.

But optimization =/= min/max. Min/max is using limited resources in the most efficient manner possible, whereas optimization is about making your character good at thing x.

When it comes to stat points on a wizard, they aren't limited.

You take an 18, which is 16 points. And then you take 14 Con, which is 6 more. Total, 22. So even if you're on a gimpy 25 PB you have everything you need, and 3 points for useless fluff stats whereas all non top tier classes are completely and utterly screwed. And if you're on say, 32 PB so that everyone else is not automatically and permanently gimped, you have 10 extra points. Then you just make your character a race that adds to Int, and does not subtract from Con and you lose nothing.

I am a bit of a purist when it comes to the framework of the rules, so using a third party assumption tool does not help sway my view. My definition of CR comes from WoTC and the game designers for 3.5. I believe the DMG or the Monster Manual Spells it out like I said.

No, that's what the rules actually say. The Same Game Test is merely the way to facilitate that.

For the most part, true, anything with 0 hp dies. Spell slots per rest and components too are finite resources. Without those a caster is useless, spell wise.

A melee's HP will last 1-2 rounds, tops. Even a level 1 caster can make their spells last 3, and that's if they cast every round which they simply don't need to. Nice try though.

Oh ok. But that has nothing to do with PnP 3.5. It is DDO. Which is vastly different than PnP and not in the scope of my responses or discussion.

Doesn't matter. It only came up as an analogy. Quality > quantity is a universal concept.

Those were references to autokill melee options in the form of magical weapons. Other ones include Coup de Grace (spelling, not french enough) and using reach weapons with AOO.

Nope, try again.

In order to CdG something it has to be helpless, and not immune to crits. Everything level 15 or higher is crit immune (and quite a bit before that is) but let's ignore that.

To be helpless an enemy must either be at negative HP, or affected by a spell. If the former, 9 damage is guarenteed to kill them because they have at most 9 damage left in them (-1 to -10) which means wasting a full round on an interruptable action is inferior to just attacking them once at any and every level. If the latter, that's the spell doing the work. Not you. And being equal to or inferior than a hireling/minion/skeleton with a scythe is not something to brag about. Because ya know, those can pop held creatures a lot better.

Reach weapons are not an auto kill, so what are you talking about?

This here shows your Bias, perception shortfalls, and direction with your opinion.

Lol, you actually think Andy Collins and Sean K Reynolds have a clue? Wake up!

When? It is a combat option that is free to use or not. Are you saying changes in Overrun in 3.5 vs 4.0? I see it as a way to prone a target for others or myself to take advantage of. Risky move with a big payoff.

If you don't know what I'm talking about you have no say. It is literally impossible to overrun any target, ever by RAW.

So the logial real world idea that having two hands on a melee weapon doing more per hit damage than using one hand on a weapon makes no sense to you? I see nothing nerfing PA for TWF. Unless you think flimsy light weapons should get the benefit of PA.

3rd edition: 1:1 PA for all weapons.
3.5: 2:1 PA for two handed weapons, 1:1 PA for one handed weapons, attack penalty but no damage bonus to light weapons. It wasn't done for real or perceived balance reasons, it was done because the personal designer in his personal games was getting out dpsed by a Rogue (showing how badly he fails at making characters) so he decided to change the entire game around his dwarf fighter.

And these are the people you say I should listen to and respect? Lol, you're funny. You're quickly becoming another Chai (this is not a compliment).

I was using your words to point out that yes, 'bigger minds' did the work. Before they released 3.5 And that is why 3.5 rocks as much as it did.

How's that kool aid? No, I don't want any.

Really? I didn't see that. I thought the Cleric could heal while fighting as well. At least in PnP they can. Oh and they have buffs that are useful too.

Standard action, not swift. Try again.

Rogues are almost as much of a glass cannon as Wizards. Low hp and a slow increase in AC, but the big payoff is sneak attack rules. As long as someone else maintains aggro, a rogue can do more damage than alot of people would give them credit for.

Fail and fail.

Rogues are more of a glass cannon than Wizards. Wizards have the best defenses in the game. Rogues have even worse defenses than Fighters. And you don't get SA by 'not having aggro' (have you even played D&D?). You get it when enemies are flat footed (first round only, without Blink or Improved/Superior Invis, only the first of which he can provide for himself), flanked (sucker's game, you waste a turn getting in position), helpless (see CdG).

Much like in DDO, intimidate the enemies into attacking them. Or trap the enemy so they have to get through the fighter first. The sheer number of aoo's possible would drop an enemy fast if they tried to move through a players square to get to someone behind him. The enemies to hits are never too high to imbalance the encounter on an equal cr basis.

This entire block is made of fail.

First off, thanks for confirming you've never actually played D&D, and that's why you keep applying DDO standards to it.

Here's how intimidate actually works.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm

It's not a taunt, so you don't get aggro. In fact you just waste a round making one enemy 'shaken', and that's if it works. Yawn. The enemies attack whoever they want. Which means the greatest threat, which means not you... this perhaps is the only thing that will spare you from a death every session - you're too pathetic to kill.

And even if you manage to block (and there's far more ways to bypass a 5 foot square than there is to stand in one) you get... 1 AoO. That's it. No more, no less. Not scaring anything.

And 'enemy to hits are never too high at equal level'? Have you even READ the thread? At all? Because it neatly shows you getting auto hit every single time even at mid levels, by equal level stuff. I haven't even gotten into higher level stuff yet, because just stuff at your level can happily toss you around the room like a bouncy ball. And all you can do about it is bend over and ask for more.

Didn't say free, but then again, according to your weath generation methods, no one (not even casters) can equip themselves to handle the fantasy world of dnd.

Nope, casters can. Because see, most of their needs are covered by spells, so the stuff that needs items is few and far between. You get a casting stat item, and a con item and that covers your stat needs. You don't need a weapon, your weapon is your spells. Heavy Fort can come from an item, or all day spells. Your save boosts can come from an item, or all day spells. You have defenses that actually work, so you care **** all about AC (though, if you wanted to you can trivially top a non casters AC). And those utility things like flight? Yup, spells again. So you spend a fraction of your wealth, get everything you need and the rest goes towards non essential but useful stuff.

Anyways, I was trying to be nice to you and give you a chance. But since you're just going to be as dense as intellectual heavyweights (/sarcasm) like Chai, then I suppose that was a mistake. So I will keep this in mind for any future wrongness you spout off about and such.

I don't see a rule for this in 3.5.

He's never played PnP, only DDO. That is a DDO rule, but only because they completely revamped how the skill works there. This is also why he assumes super high priced, but super low proc effects like Vorpal and Disruption are helpful (they are in DDO, because you can afford the golf bag, and live long enough to use it), why he doesn't think WBL is an actual rule, and why he's still not getting the purpose of a Same Game Test.

[Aspenor]

I saw this a while ago, people talking about "play at a CON" or "playing with the designers."

Laughable. Most players at Con's, and especially the designers, play like INT 4 characters would.

A well-played level 1 wizard can easily solo encounters at his level. Sleep, Color Spray, CdG, take a nap. It only gets easier from that point forward.

[RictrasShard]

This read more like an example of confused, almost inexplicably poor player decisions than staggeringly well-run enemies. Don't get me wrong; the kobolds were definitely well-run. I just don't see how they could have routed the party that decisively. Normal flames take many, many rounds to kill characters of that level. How long could it have possibly taken to fight their way back to the entrance through level 1 kobolds and some rough terrain? The door was 60' away. (And before someone mentions it was locked and barred, what party of level 6-12 characters enters a dungeon but can't open big locked doors?)

That story seems either nonsensical or simply an account of a play group that was more concerned with telling a wild, crazy adventuring story than winning challenging fights through tactics. Note! Playing that way is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with D&D! However, the results of those kinds of games cannot be used to prove the game is balanced mechanically.

Uhm... it was just a story. It wasn't a diabolical plan on my part to put forward some kind of argument. It was just something that I thought people might like to read. I guess I won't do that again.

[TheDjinnFor]

Let's revive an old complete and under lie because it's not fair to let SquelchedHU get away with it.

Fail, fail, fail, fail, and fail.

Wow, this entire post... what a joke.

Let's look at a Bebilith, first evil CR 10 melee-based monster I found.

-Hp: 150
-Full Attack: Bite +19 (2d6+9 = 16), 2 Claw +14 (2d4+4 = 9)
-Full PA: Bite +14, 2 Claw +9
-Armor Class of 22

An AC of 34 protects you against power attack and any full attacks, and an AC of 39 does the same for any attack short of a hit on 20. It's also going to get hit by like every attack you make with an AC of 22. Assuming under 50k gold WBL,

Base = 10
+2 Full plate = +10 (5500 gp)
+2 Tower Shield = +6 (4000 gp)
Natural Armor Amulet (+1) = +1 (2000 gp)
Sheild of Faith (CL 10 Divine) = +3
10 Dex = +0
Cat's Grace (CL 10 Divine/Arcane) = +2
= 32 AC

Wow, 32 AC for about 12k gold and two 10 minutes long junk spells (level 1 and 2). I'm not even trying here with +1/+2 gear and 10 Dex, and not even considering build-specific stuff. A fighter can get Dodge, there's 33 AC, almost there. One more random +1, and it's over.

Substitute out the Tower Shield for a generic Heavy Shield, get +2 somewhere else, and you've got a more versatile build because it can go in with two weapons or a two hander with the shield on its back. Something gets cursed for -4 attack, problem solved. Prayer in the middle of a fight, problem solved.

With 34 AC, you're getting attacked for 16 damage 25% of the time (ooh, 4 damage per round, so threatening...), unless the thing tries to power attack or full attack, which is even dumber. Worst case you'll lose the dex bonus when you get grappled or webbed. You might lose the full plate through rend armor if it somehow full attacks and hits you with both claws, but that's a long shot.

Let's look at offense, now. With +10/+5 BAB you're guaranteed to hit most of the time for a 22.

BAB: +10/+5
STR 16 +2 levels +4 Bull's Strength = 22 (+6 mod, +9 dam)

Weapon Focus: Greatsword (+1 attack)
Weapon Specialization: Greatsword (+2 damage)
Improved Critical: Greatsword (x2 threat)
Power Attack (+10 damage, -5 attack)

Attack: +2 Greatsword +19/+14, 2d6+11 (18), 17-20/x2
Power Attack: +2 Greatsword +12/+7, 2d6+21 (28), 17-20/x2

Attack (+19):

3-16 = 18 dph x 14 = 252
17-20 (1-2) = 18 dph x 4 x 2/20 = 7.2
17-20 (3-20) = 32 dph x 4 x 18/20 = 115.2
= 18.72

Attack (+14):

8-16 = 18 dph x 9 = 162
17-20 (1-7) = 18 dph x 4 x 7/20 = 25.2
17-20 (8-20) = 32 dph x 4 x 13/20 = 83.2
= 13.52

Power Attack (+14):

8-16 = 28 dph x 9 = 252
17-20 (1-7) = 28 dph x 4 x 7/20 = 39.2
17-20 (8-20) = 52 dph x 4 x 13/20 = 135.2
= 21.32

Power Attack (+9):

13-16 = 28 dph x 4 = 112
17-20 (1-12) = 28 dph x 4 x 12/20 = 67.2
17-20 (13-20) = 52 dph x 4 x 8/20 = 83.2
= 13.12

Wow, I didn't even bother to optimize and it's already almost soloing it short of pre-buffs, dealing like 7 times the damage per round. Oh, that's 8050 gp for the greatsword and two more 10-minute buffs (align weapon [good] for DR and Bull's strength). So hard...

But let's be fair and go with a one-hander instead of the greatsword and, no proficiencies or feats on it, since I said he'd be carrying around a shield in case he needed it, and not as his main damage weapon.

Attack: +1 Longsword +17/+12, 1d8+7 (11.5), 19-20/x2
Power Attack: +1 Longsword +12/+7, 2d6+21 (28), 17-20/x2

5-16 = 11.5 dph x 14 = 161
19-20 (1-4) = 11.5 dph x 2 x 4/20 = 4.6
19-20 (5-20) = 23 dph x 2 x 16/20 = 3.8
= 8.47

So, let's see: the fighter wins automatically on average rolls, since he's got more than half of the bebilith's HP and deals more than double damage per round. Chances are the thing runs away just because of a random fighter backed with 4 level 1-2 buffs. And you know what? Out of all the demons CR 12 and under, this one is the highest attack bonus. He doesn't need the shield against anything else.

I suppose playing the Bebilith as semi-intelligent changes this with web and sneaky tactics, but no fighter is going to go around without a throwing axe or three, and he can always full-attack himself out of the web, so the web is more annoying than not. That's moot; and besides, it only hurts your argument otherwise when you say fighters can't handle high level tactics, because it's clear he's still in the game numbers-wise, without even giving him anything useful. The point is, CR 10 monster fights don't have mobs with attack bonuses of +30 and damage over 50.

And the 50 damage example uses a gimped enemy to do it. Normal enemies will do more. Optimized enemies will kill you in one hit.

Numbers or GTFO.

Fact: CR 10 fights do not 'always automatically' contain monsters with more than +30 to attack and +50 damage per round or else they are 'gimped'. They contain whatever the heck you want them to and whatever the heck the campaign calls for. Maybe you shouldn't throw 100 damage per full attack monsters at the players so often, that might be your problem.

Worst of all though, you say 'normal enemies will do more'. What, you mean CR 10 monsters? Imagine that, a Bebilith is CR 10. Don't tell me you're going to turn around and move the goalpost on me and say 'well, normal is fighting 8 CR 20 monsters at once at level 10 because blah blah blah not a challenge blah blah blah'.

Your continued absolutism is either an attempt to be assertive and convincing that clearly isn't working because it attempts to uphold an indefensible position (and flies in the face of common sense, the personal experiences of many players, and what's clearly written in the rulebooks), or your experience with PnP is so narrowly focused and limited (or you've made so much random extrapolations, like the Spellcraft example) that your opinion is hardly worth listening to.

Especially when you accuse people of changing 'the rules' when clearly, your 'rules' aren't even close to what's described in the core rules anyhow.

Plus, you're clearly wrong about level 10, as demonstrated.

[Seikojin]

Have you ever heard of Tucker's Kobolds? If not, you might find this an entertaining read:

http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=93582

Exactly, and I think he mentioned it after I made the retreat call before any losses were incurred on our side.

I remember one of the minmaxers complaining after the game and I told him as a GM that wasn't a hard encounter to make and would actually be pretty common. The minmaxer was not happy to see his perfect build get handed to him on a polarm weapon. LOL

Thinking about these past events makes me want to run my campaign more. LOL

[SquelchHU]

Let's revive an old complete and under lie because it's not fair to let SquelchedHU get away with it.



Wow, this entire post... what a joke.

Let's look at a Bebilith, first evil CR 10 melee-based monster I found.

Example automatically ignored because you picked the weakest melee you can find, and that it owns you anyways.

Base = 10
+2 Full plate = +10 (5500 gp)
+2 Tower Shield = +6 (4000 gp)
Natural Armor Amulet (+1) = +1 (2000 gp)
Sheild of Faith (CL 10 Divine) = +3
10 Dex = +0
Cat's Grace (CL 10 Divine/Arcane) = +2
= 32 AC

This is not how stats actually work. But even if it did, great. You get hit on a 2. You know, like you would without AC.

Leave it to a 4rrie to babble on for pages and not actually say anything.

Auto response: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=512...er=asc&start=0

[TheDjinnFor]

Example automatically ignored because you picked the weakest melee you can find, and that it owns you anyways.

"Nuuuuuuurrr, you proved me wrong, so I'm ignoring you, lalalalala. Can't hear youuuu!"

I picked the first CR 10 evil I could find. It's called searching in alphabetical order. And I still win one-on-one with a fighter. Want me to grab another CR 10? Fine. Next two CR 10 monsters I found with natural attacks:

Clay Golem. CR 10 with natural attacks. Can't hit AC 34, deals more damage, same AC, less hp (wow). Needs a simple adamantine hammer instead of a good weapon, and problem solved. Oh look! No "attack bonus is +30 with more than 50 damage an attack".

Hydra. 9-headed cryo-hydra is a CR 10; granted, the fighter isn't winning any time soon without some cold damage, but it can't hit AC 34 and with a resistance fire 20 (another low-level buff), the fighter isn't getting hurt. It's also Int 2 (an animal), so it's a heck of a lot easier to kill than the numbers say. Again, no "attack bonus is +30 with more than 50 damage an attack".

So we've got some monsters that are fine, other monsters that are tough. What's your point? This is business as usual. A fighter is not soloing those anyways. But you know what? Let's get back to reality: PCs don't just fight monsters. They can fight humanoids. You know, things that aren't immune to a fighters biggest asset, don't have 15 natural reach, aren't loaded with HP, etc. But no, they 'aren't a challenge' for some reason. Yeah. They aren't weighted completely against the mundanes greatest assets and can be given anti-caster qualities, and they're 'not challenging' and you 'can't use them'. Go figure.

This is not how stats actually work. But even if it did, great. You get hit on a 2. You know, like you would without AC.

LOL. Not how stats work? Hit on a 2? Can you add? 19+2 > 33? Are you just trolling for kicks?

Leave it to a 4rrie to babble on for pages and not actually say anything.

I've never played 4.
*Golf Clap*

Try again.

Auto response: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=512...er=asc&start=0

Not relevant.

What, did you quote the wrong post? Oh wait, you just ignored it by moving the goalpost over.

ignored

/thread, then

[Seikojin]

That is not how WBL actually works.

Really? I thought I pointed out where to find the black and white on it. And it specifically states it is a guidline of references. I don't mind that it is used, I see it's purpose, but making blanket statements about its relation to actual gameplay; that is the fail.

But optimization =/= min/max. Min/max is using limited resources in the most efficient manner possible, whereas optimization is about making your character good at thing x.

I dunno if there is a websters definition that seperates the two, I do however blanket those two definitions under minmaxing. Or, just removing the labelling alltogether and just say >classname<.

When it comes to stat points on a wizard, they aren't limited.

You take an 18, which is 16 points. And then you take 14 Con, which is 6 more. Total, 22. So even if you're on a gimpy 25 PB you have everything you need, and 3 points for useless fluff stats whereas all non top tier classes are completely and utterly screwed. And if you're on say, 32 PB so that everyone else is not automatically and permanently gimped, you have 10 extra points. Then you just make your character a race that adds to Int, and does not subtract from Con and you lose nothing.

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).

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

[quote]
No, that's what the rules actually say. The Same Game Test is merely the way to facilitate that.
[quote]

Looking at your definitions of CR and WBL, looking in the DMG that the topic is constantly referring to, I have to say that you are incorrect. I put page numbers for your reference up there. Pull out your DMG and take a looksee. CR is defined as a difficulty on a party of 4. It actually is a short passage because it is simple.

And as I said, being more of a purist, I would take a DMG over someone elses 3rd party app anyday. Well, unless I can fix all the flaws in its design and programming to actually do what the DMG says.

A melee's HP will last 1-2 rounds, tops. Even a level 1 caster can make their spells last 3, and that's if they cast every round which they simply don't need to. Nice try though.

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

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.

Again, this shows your basic misunderstanding of the core rules.

Nope, try again.

In order to CdG something it has to be helpless, and not immune to crits. Everything level 15 or higher is crit immune (and quite a bit before that is) but let's ignore that.

To be helpless an enemy must either be at negative HP, or affected by a spell. If the former, 9 damage is guarenteed to kill them because they have at most 9 damage left in them (-1 to -10) which means wasting a full round on an interruptable action is inferior to just attacking them once at any and every level. If the latter, that's the spell doing the work. Not you. And being equal to or inferior than a hireling/minion/skeleton with a scythe is not something to brag about. Because ya know, those can pop held creatures a lot better.

Reach weapons are not an auto kill, so what are you talking about?

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.

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.

Lol, you actually think Andy Collins and Sean K Reynolds have a clue? Wake up!

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).

If you don't know what I'm talking about you have no say. It is literally impossible to overrun any target, ever by RAW.

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.

3rd edition: 1:1 PA for all weapons.
3.5: 2:1 PA for two handed weapons, 1:1 PA for one handed weapons, attack penalty but no damage bonus to light weapons. It wasn't done for real or perceived balance reasons, it was done because the personal designer in his personal games was getting out dpsed by a Rogue (showing how badly he fails at making characters) so he decided to change the entire game around his dwarf fighter.

And these are the people you say I should listen to and respect? Lol, you're funny. You're quickly becoming another Chai (this is not a compliment).

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.

Standard action, not swift. Try again.

Before your post, after mine, I clarified that I was not trying to impossibly or illegally squeeze more into a standard action.

Fail and fail.

Rogues are more of a glass cannon than Wizards. Wizards have the best defenses in the game. Rogues have even worse defenses than Fighters. And you don't get SA by 'not having aggro' (have you even played D&D?). You get it when enemies are flat footed (first round only, without Blink or Improved/Superior Invis, only the first of which he can provide for himself), flanked (sucker's game, you waste a turn getting in position), helpless (see CdG).

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).

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.

This entire block is made of fail.

First off, thanks for confirming you've never actually played D&D, and that's why you keep applying DDO standards to it.

Here's how intimidate actually works.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm

It's not a taunt, so you don't get aggro. In fact you just waste a round making one enemy 'shaken', and that's if it works. Yawn. The enemies attack whoever they want. Which means the greatest threat, which means not you... this perhaps is the only thing that will spare you from a death every session - you're too pathetic to kill.

And even if you manage to block (and there's far more ways to bypass a 5 foot square than there is to stand in one) you get... 1 AoO. That's it. No more, no less. Not scaring anything.

And 'enemy to hits are never too high at equal level'? Have you even READ the thread? At all? Because it neatly shows you getting auto hit every single time even at mid levels, by equal level stuff. I haven't even gotten into higher level stuff yet, because just stuff at your level can happily toss you around the room like a bouncy ball. And all you can do about it is bend over and ask for more.

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.

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.

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.

Nope, casters can. Because see, most of their needs are covered by spells, so the stuff that needs items is few and far between. You get a casting stat item, and a con item and that covers your stat needs. You don't need a weapon, your weapon is your spells. Heavy Fort can come from an item, or all day spells. Your save boosts can come from an item, or all day spells. You have defenses that actually work, so you care **** all about AC (though, if you wanted to you can trivially top a non casters AC). And those utility things like flight? Yup, spells again. So you spend a fraction of your wealth, get everything you need and the rest goes towards non essential but useful stuff.

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.

Anyways, I was trying to be nice to you and give you a chance. But since you're just going to be as dense as intellectual heavyweights (/sarcasm) like Chai, then I suppose that was a mistake. So I will keep this in mind for any future wrongness you spout off about and such.

He's never played PnP, only DDO. That is a DDO rule, but only because they completely revamped how the skill works there. This is also why he assumes super high priced, but super low proc effects like Vorpal and Disruption are helpful (they are in DDO, because you can afford the golf bag, and live long enough to use it), why he doesn't think WBL is an actual rule, and why he's still not getting the purpose of a Same Game Test.

Nowhere in this debate of sorts have I assumed anything about anyone. I just looked at what the posts contain. My observations are based on that.

Several times I offer refference to where I have received my information.

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

I know ddo has different mechanics on how intimi works compared to pnp. That was not why I mentioned it. Later I put itno my response that even if they are different, that you can use intimi to adjust the targets hostility towards you.

If you know the rules as much as you claim, and others who think the game is flawed also say they know it well. Why are we lacking page numbers with reference?