Fair rules for forum-based PVP

[Kurald Galain]

Well, I've seen a few threads where people claim that class X can totally kick the butt off class Y in a PVP game; generally, somebody else responds with the exact opposite claim and a few justification posts follow from either side. To play this out in a PBP game on these forums would be an interesting experiment - or, possibly, just an excuse to munch popcorn.

But first, we should get some input on what rules are fair. I'm just drafting some suggestions here and would like comments on that.


Level 10. According to WOTC, the vast majority of D&D games are played in the heroic tier, so this is in order to keep builds representative of what happens in-game.
One-on-one duels, to keep the organization simple.
No action points. Sorry, but winning initiative followed by daily + AP + daily is just too swingy.
Standard character creation, i.e. 22 point buy, start with one item each of level 11, 10, and 9; and the gold value of another level 9 item.
Anything printed by WOTC is fair game, except for artifacts.
Consumables cost five times the normal price; a standard PVP rule.
Optional freebies from specific campaign worlds are not in use; e.g. no free wild talent, themes, arcane defiling, or weapon breakage. However, if you want to spend a feat on wild talent mastery, or a spellscar, or dragonmark, then go ahead.
In case of conflicting rules, the errata documents take precedence, followed by printed rulebooks (with the most recently printed going first), followed by the FAQ/knowledge base on the WOTC site. Anything else does not count.


Is there anything I've missed? Is there anything that should be different?

[evirus]

Starting distance? Some classes, effects and builds are based heavily on range.

[Sipex]

Environment. Are we looking at a plain room? Are there obstructions and terrain?

[Meta]

I'd randomize both starting position and terrain

[evirus]

I'd randomize both starting position and terrain

Randomizing distance is easy...

How would you randomize terrain? Have like 10-20 prebuilt "arenas" and select one at random?

[Sipex]

There are guidelines for randomizing a dungeon in the DMG1, just use those.

[Mando Knight]

Double HP. Even without Double-Daily + Action Point hax, a Ranger could easily take down even a Paladin or Warden in a couple of hits as-is.

[Shyftir]

As soon as you introduce something like double hp, you invalidate the point of whether the one class can beat the other normally.

Still though this environment heavily favors builds based on Dex and the feat Improved Initiative, due to the major advantage that going first is in 4e PVP (Rocket Tag, ho!)

[Kurald Galain]

Double HP.
I'm afraid that would invalidate whatever point people are trying to make in PVP. You claim that rangers will generally win, and you may well be right, but other people don't agree.

[Meta]

If you're cool with a 10X10 arena here's what I do:

Make the arena a grid:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11...



...99 10

and each number corresponds to a square. Both players roll a d100. Their result is their starting square.

Roll a d10 (or similar). That's how many pieces of terrain ya have. Roll a d100 to assign square.

Roll something like a d8 to see how many continuous squares the terrain takes up. I haven't yet come up with what's the most fair way to decide exactly how those squares are placed.

Roll a d4 for each piece of terrain. 1 = impassable and los blocking, 2 = impassable, 3 = hindering of some sort, 4 = difficult.

I don't know the best way to determine terrain types or heights but that's a start I brainstormed.

[Artanis]

You would have to make it a multiple-fight series (e.g. best 2 of 3 or best 3 of 5 or something) in order to take luck out of the equation as much as possible.

[ShaggyMarco]

You would have to make it a multiple-fight series (e.g. best 2 of 3 or best 3 of 5 or something) in order to take luck out of the equation as much as possible.

Combine this concept with the terrain idea: Pick 3, 5, or 7 standard arena maps, each built on a 20 by 20 grid, each built around a different theme. Roll 2d20 to determine starting position.

Themes:
0-1. Ancient Ruins (lots of walls, staircases, cover, and difficult terrain rubble)
2-3. Open Field (Pretty much nothing)
4-5. Deep Forest (Lots of trees, difficult terrain undergrowth, cover)
6-7. City Street (Clear road corridors, alleys, rooftops, balconies, etc.)
8-9. Dungeon (massive rooms with winding corridors between, catwalks over water, chasms, or lava)

Best 3 of 5 wins.

Better yet: make all of the 3-5 fights happen the same adventuring day.

[evirus]

Combine this concept with the terrain idea: Pick 3, 5, or 7 standard arena maps, each built on a 20 by 20 grid, each built around a different theme. Roll 2d20 to determine starting position.

Themes:
1. Ancient Ruins (lots of walls, staircases, cover, and difficult terrain rubble)
2. Open Field (Pretty much nothing)
3. Deep Forest (Lots of trees, difficult terrain undergrowth, cover)
4. City Street (Clear road corridors, alleys, rooftops, balconies, etc.)
5. Dungeon (massive rooms with winding corridors between, catwalks over water, chasms, or lava)

Best 2 of 3 wins.

You have 5 map settings... why not run them all? 3 of 5?

[ShaggyMarco]

You have 5 map settings... why not run them all? 3 of 5?

Because I originally had 3, added two more, and realized too late I forgot to change the ending of my post.

Oops. That's what I meant. 3 of 5.

[evirus]

Better yet: make all of the 3-5 fights happen the same adventuring day.

I know this sugestion might get some opposition, but I frankly love it.

Do you blow your dailies early? Do you blow them same combat? Do you use them only to win the 3rd battle? Excellent. However I think people want to remove "strategy" as much as possible and pit the builds straight against each other.

[ShaggyMarco]

However I think people want to remove "strategy" as much as possible and pit the builds straight against each other.

The thing is, there are classes/builds whose entire point is setting up strategic opportunities, that can only be judged by their possibilities.

[evirus]

The thing is, there are classes/builds whose entire point is setting up strategic opportunities, that can only be judged by their possibilities.

You're preaching to the converted. I love the idea that all the battles happen same day thus limiting your daily usage.

[Shyftir]

When you consider that Essentials builds don't always have dailies it makes even more sense to make them all happen same day. Though I would then change the extra cost on consumables to be 2x to reflect that spacing out your use of them now becomes a major strategic concern.

Basically the contest shouldn't be who is better at the 15 minute workday. Though the arguments of "this class would beat this other class" are often based on the 15 minute workday problem.

[ShaggyMarco]

Plus, 5 fights in differing terrain would do a few great things:

-eliminate the 15-minute workday, which is not the intended way the classes are designed to be played.
-Give martial essentials classes (fighter, rogue, ranger) the benefit of not having Daily powers t contend with-always being pretty good.
-Give martial essentials classes (mostly the fighter) the drawback of being far less versatile than other classes, so adapting to new terrains and situations becomes more problematic.

[RebelRogue]

Personally, I think PvP games are dull, but I'd still like to see the results of something like this.

Does the combat end once one combatant is reduced to 0 hp, or are we talking dead dead? What about healing surges? I suppose it would be rare to use all the surges in one combat, but if you have to replenish your hit points after each fight, few classes will get through an entire day of such fights. Maybe that's a good thing, balance-wise? It sure adds some oomph to the defenders!

[Sipex]

One thing which hasn't been addressed is yet player skill and play style.

A certain class/build combo might give you an edge in some situations but if you can't play the class effectively or are simply going up against a far more cunning opponent it will be hard to judge if the class is actually superior/inferior in PvP or if it's just in the hands of the player.

I'm thinking less obvious things, like the player who makes good on everything, including their skills. A rogue who abuses stealth properly mid battle is going to have an edge over the same rogue build which doesn't. The mage who AoE's every bush and conceivable hiding place is going to do much better than the mage who just makes perception checks.

[Leolo]

I would not remove action points. First they are part of the game, and if you remove them for the single reason that they could have impact on the result you could remove many other things, too.

And 2nd, there are so many things that avoid multiple attacks that action points are not really critical.

In fact they are part of the balance between defensive and offensive pvp builds. If you remove action points, defensive builds might be even better than now. For example there are items and powers that let you avoid an attack even if you would normally been hit. That's ok if the opponent can actually try it again next time.

But in a pvp without action points the chance is very high that there is no next chance. The enemy will be out of range, invisible or something like that. Defensive actions have the advantage to use minor actions more often than attacks do.

[Sipex]

To piggyback on Leolo's point, if the idea is going to be running 5 seperate encounters with the same person (using up resources each time) then it's a non-issue anyways. The action point is used up and will only come back if you're applying the 'mile stone after 2 encounters' rule.

[RebelRogue]

Also, at Paragon levels and up, use of Action points generally has some extra effects tagged on. So if multiple battles are to be made, maybe it's not such a big problem, after all? If you win initiative and nova in the first battle, you don't have the action point for the next, whereas your opponent does.

[Leolo]

The point that action points are less important in pvp due to interrupts affects also the ranger as a typical multiattacker.

It sounds great to have 4 or 5 attacks per round.

But if the opponent is teleported away after or even before the first attack it becomes much less powerfull. That's no problem during normal play, but in a pvp situation most combattants will have powers or items that let them avoid the first attacks to ensure the own character can act.

[Kurald Galain]

I think five battles is too much, three is better. Also, I'm not sure I like randomly rolling for starting positions, it's probably more interesting to fix them at some distance (e.g. 12 or 15 squares; frankly combats where enemies start farther away than that are pretty rare).

[Meta]

I think five battles is too much, three is better. Also, I'm not sure I like randomly rolling for starting positions, it's probably more interesting to fix them at some distance (e.g. 12 or 15 squares; frankly combats where enemies start farther away than that are pretty rare).

I don't think you're going to get a system where everybody is pleased with the fairness. Unless you step up and say "I'm making a final call and this is how I want the rules," you're not going to get unanimous or even majority agreement.

Of course if you do that, you might just get people blowing off the idea because it's Kurald rules for PvP not Forum rules.

Either way, I think getting a system in place that more than a handful of people will use will be tricky

[Leolo]

What about preparation time? While some classes would not benefit from this, others would.

How much preparation is allowed? For example: Can the wizard start with his phantom steed?

[Sinon]

I have a question about the 3-5 fights per day:

How are you dealing with healing surges?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of multiple bouts in a day, but I think this needs to be spelled out.

[Garwain]

How are you dealing with healing surges?
3 battles in one day without extended rest. No replenishment of healing surges or AP.

PS: To compare classes, PvP is not the way to go, as PvP is only interesting because of tactics. But you want to eliminate that. Therefore it feels very unnatural.

If you want to compare classes, let them fight the same monster and see who has the best survivability. Say: 3 battles on one day against increasingly difficuly monsters.

And compare only types of classes: leaders vs leaders, strikers vs strikers, etc. DnD 4e is a group thing, so comparing classes means comparing their utility within a group. And PvP does not do that at all.

[evirus]

DnD 4e is a group thing, so comparing classes means comparing their utility within a group. And PvP does not do that at all.

Although I agree with that, I think the point is that people still want a "steel cage" match for builds.

For the PVP side, are we really going to roll for damage and hits or apply average dmg?