How to make successful characters for fun and profit.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Perhaps you really want to drive the enemies before you and hear the lamentations of their women. Perhaps you want to cast the spells that make the enemies fall down. Perhaps even you are the faceless enigma behind the screen looking for respectable opponents to field against the party.

Whoever you are, whatever your reason you all have one thing in common. You need to be successful to get anywhere. If your characters can't do what they are intended to do they can only disappoint everyone.

Problem is not everyone knows how to do that. Even many people that are supposedly adept in optimization still fall far short of the mark.

So here are the hallmarks of a successful character:

AC high enough that level appropriate enemies need a 16 or better to hit OR ability to bypass AC (miss chances, mirror image, etc): A Lesser Displacement cloak alone is NOT sufficient.

Here are the target numbers vs stock enemies:

Level 5: AC 25-30.
Level 10: AC 40-45.
Level 15: AC 55-60.
Level 20: AC 70-75.

Or just +3 per level past 5.

If you are not fighting stock enemies the target numbers will be higher, easily 10-15 points higher or more.

Needless to say miss chances are your only real hope as you just won't get enough AC to make a difference without both heavy optimization and heavy houseruling.

Saves high enough to pass all level appropriate saves on a 5 or less (ideally, 2 or less): Low level characters cannot do this, and mid level characters have a hard time with it. High level characters can do it easily.

This one is obtainable, all you have to do is keep your cloak of resistance up to date, stack persisted save boosts, and most can manage it, unlike the previous entry which only some classes can manage.

Touch AC high enough to make rays only hit on a 16 or better: This one is in between the previous two as far as attainability is concerned. It's harder to pin down an exact number here as it depends on what is shooting the rays at you. Other forms of touch attacks such as Wraithstrike boosted attacks you won't be able to block this way, so don't try.

And the most important one...

Ability to consistently and quickly take out all level appropriate enemies: Consistently means > 99% of the time. Quickly depends on how you're doing so far. Does your character meet all three of the previous criteria, along with the rest of the party? If they do you have a bit more leeway. If people are falling short on one, two, or *gasp* all three categories you are forced more and more towards win init or die. In such a case you need to one round everything, it's the only way you can have a decent chance of success. Even then, anything that can one round you and that goes first wins.

Most groups are not going to hit these benchmarks. Especially if they aren't trying. And that is why win init or die is so prevalent - you just can't take a hit.

When you do get the entire party on board, you can get away with slower fights because they aren't just going to pop out and instant kill someone in a single round. At least, not unless they are a boss enemy and not even necessarily then. This is easier said than done though, as the numbers required to pull it off alone tend to provoke overreactions from people. Not to mention the results - entire party gets hit by a spell, everyone saves, Barbarian goes and hits him for a hundred twice... but Greater Mirror Image.

Instead they'd much rather have bad stats, often deliberately and insist someone or something else save them. That... just isn't viable.

Rather than get into that, I will instead say that this is just the basics. There are many more things required to be successful, from immunities to common effects to interrupt defenses, to a broad array of attack, support, and utility effects.

I'm not going to go into those now because I'd like to see how the basics go over first, and because while the basics are completely mandatory, exactly what you need on top of that depends on what you're dealing with. No point in Soulfire if you never fight incorporeal undead or Enervation users, etc. Also many of these are limited to specific classes, making it less useful as a general guide. Though there is one exception to this. Abrupt Jaunt, because a cheap item duplicates the same effect in a class independent manner, and because it's generally applicable enough to be worth mentioning here.

One more thing. I said this was meant for players and DMs and it is. For DMs though things work a bit differently. All the same principles apply, but the exact numbers don't. Instead the target numbers are a bit lower, both because monsters don't need to be near invulnerable to be successful and because monsters need less help to kill the PCs and not be killed by them than the reverse.

Except saves. Those should be jacked as high as possible, ideally to PC standards just to keep one spell from instantly winning the fight.

Instead, the main criteria is does it threaten the party? Does it make an impression? It has about 1-2 rounds to show its moves, so make them count.

If all it does is attack, this is a simple numbers game. Hit hard, hit fast, and they'll take it seriously.

If it has more options than that you have more options as well, but whatever they're doing needs to be potentially effective. It's ok if the action doesn't work, but not if it wouldn't matter if it did work. Slow good, Fireball bad. Maximized Empowered Fireball is ok at lower levels (not 15 or higher).

In other words, design and build enemies intelligently, and then play them intelligently as well. There are limits to this, wild animals =/= Einstein of course. But even a wolf pack understands focus fire, so there's no reason why anything else, barring a completely mindless creature with no instincts wouldn't. So that's golems and...?

All of this is soundly in the simple to learn, difficult to master category. The overview makes it sound easy, but once you get into it don't be surprised if it goes something like this:

"If I design it this way its numbers are a bit too low, but if I don't it misses out on this necessary offensive/defensive trick. How can I fix this..."

And then you spend a good bit of time trying to figure out how to fit Knockback in without sacrificing basic output. Only to realize derp, it already did that by default. I still feel dumb about that.

[Polarity Shift]

Wings of Cover definitely deserves a mention. It blocks all sorts of things, particularly other spells you'd really rather not be hit by. If you get the Dragonblooded subtype somehow you can even protect adjacent allies, such as an animal companion. Of particular interest is that you can block Dispels, something you can only do in a handful of other ways and since buffing directly equates to preparedness a Dispel can easily mean game over by virtue of making the fight Unwinnable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unwinnable).

[Slayer of Gimps]

Wings of Cover is limited to Sorcerers and people with UMD and a wand chamber. It's good, but also too class specific to go here.

[hex0]

Also, a Wilder would like to talk to you about touch attacks. Also, Rings of Protection?

[Slayer of Gimps]

Also, a Wilder would like to talk to you about touch attacks. Also, Rings of Protection?

I'm not sure what Wilders do for touch AC but class specific things are outside the scope of this discussion. Rings of Protection do help in the getting your touch AC up to par department, I just didn't mention the obvious things because I assumed everyone already knew them.

[Icestorm245]

Seriously? I have never had a character at 5th level with 25-30 AC. And my 22nd level character, a cleric, maxes out at like 62 AC with buffs. How is this possible?

[Slayer of Gimps]

Seriously? I have never had a character at 5th level with 25-30 AC. And my 22nd level character, a cleric, maxes out at like 62 AC with buffs. How is this possible?

Like I said, the AC part is practically unobtainable, especially if fighting harder than stock enemies who will just have +70 to hit or more, attack your touch AC, or attack your saves. That's why you need miss chances instead as otherwise physical attacks will really ruin your day.

Sure, non Pouncers are defeated by walking briskly but for the same reason no serious melee will lack Pounce, because they'd prefer not to be defeated by walking briskly.

[Helldog]

Seriously? I have never had a character at 5th level with 25-30 AC. And my 22nd level character, a cleric, maxes out at like 62 AC with buffs. How is this possible?
It isn't. Not without abusing rules, or extreme cheese.


Like I said, the AC part is practically unobtainable, especially if fighting harder than stock enemies who will just have +70 to hit or more, attack your touch AC, or attack your saves. That's why you need miss chances instead as otherwise physical attacks will really ruin your day.
I'd like to see a couple of examples of those "stock" enemies. At EACH of the levels you are talking about.

[hex0]

why you need miss chances instead as otherwise physical attacks will really ruin your day.

Won't DMs just give their encounters Blindfight/Sight or True Seeing or Mind Sight or something to negate miss chance?

[Helldog]

Won't DMs just give their encounters Blindfight/Sight or True Seeing or Mind Sight or something to negate miss chance?
Also there's Pierce Magical Concealment and Dispel Magic.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Won't DMs just give their encounters Blindfight/Sight or True Seeing or Mind Sight or something to negate miss chance?

They need actual abilities to that effect. With that said Blind Fight halves misses chances and doesn't work on Mirror Image or Blink type spells so it only stops Blur/Displacement. Blindsight and True Seeing go through everything, but very few enemies both have those and attack in that way (most of them are casters, so they could care less about your physical defense). Mindsight doesn't help vs any of those. It does go right through invisibility and such which is good, but it is also outside the scope of this discussion.

Even if the enemies do pack countermeasures, and they should some defense > no defense and AC and HP only = no defense.

[Wings of Peace]

It isn't. Not without abusing rules, or extreme cheese.


It's not nearly as hard as you're making it sound. It's just more of an arcane casters only thing. Abjurant Champion and some method of persistence makes this relatively easy at the high levels and somewhat challenging at mid levels. Off the top of my head:

Base AC: 10
Armor Bonus: +13 (Greater Luminous Armor + Abjurant Champion 5)
Deflection: +10 (Shield of Faith + Abjurant Champion)
Dodge Bonus: +1 (Haste)
Natural Armor: +18 (via Alter Self: Dwarven Ancestor)
Shield Bonus: +9 (Shield + Abjurant Champion)

Total: 61

And that's a non-optimized number. If we take levels in Legacy Champion and start using Power Components the number gets a lot bigger. Toss in Kung-Fu Genius and a monk belt and you're looking at an ac around 85.

[hisnamehere]

Seriously? I have never had a character at 5th level with 25-30 AC. And my 22nd level character, a cleric, maxes out at like 62 AC with buffs. How is this possible?

This may not be the place, but I feel the need to remind others like yourself that we should feel comfortable about NOT optimizing, 'cause not all DMs are out to kill us unabashedly.
If you shoot for these numbers with every character every time, yes, the DM is going to "AbChamp" and "JPM" and "DMM" you into oblivion...because you deserve, and at some level want, it.
If you take Mounted Archery because your character was in the army's cavalry for a few levels, but then needs to spend a few levels routing dark elves from beneath the city with (at least) one useless feat left over from your military days, your DM is going to make sure you still have memorable, and appropriate, encounters.

Sorry, that took too long, and sounds too judgmental. Play the game you (and the others in your gaming group) want to play, but don't assume others do the same, nor force them to think they are playing wrongly. There are no wrong play styles, only wrong groups for your play style. Find one that works, or work to make your current one work.

<end rant>

Happy gaming!! :smallcool:

[Edenbeast]

Based on the topic title, I had expected a different discussion.. Anyway a short reply.

I believe a succesfull and fun to play character starts with a good concept. Who is he, what does he want in life, personality, weakness, favorite colour etc.
The characters I remember the best, both from players and my own, are the well fleshed out characters. Nothing beats a character that is "real" and not some shallow min-maxed/I got my build from *random class* handbook.

[Helldog]

It's not nearly as hard as you're making it sound. It's just more of an arcane casters only thing. Abjurant Champion and some method of persistence makes this relatively easy at the high levels and somewhat challenging at mid levels. Off the top of my head:

Base AC: 10
Armor Bonus: +13 (Greater Luminous Armor + Abjurant Champion 5)
Deflection: +10 (Shield of Faith + Abjurant Champion)
Dodge Bonus: +1 (Haste)
Natural Armor: +18 (via Alter Self: Dwarven Ancestor)
Shield Bonus: +9 (Shield + Abjurant Champion)

Total: 61

And that's a non-optimized number. If we take levels in Legacy Champion and start using Power Components the number gets a lot bigger. Toss in Kung-Fu Genius and a monk belt and you're looking at an ac around 85.
Not everyone plays casters or gishes.

Oh, and how nice that my posts were totally ignored by mister RoySunic_FlamesBasket BurnerPolarity ShiftSlayer_of_Gimps.


Nothing beats a character that is "real" and not some shallow min-maxed/I got my build from *random class* handbook.
Those aren't exclusive you know. You can totally have a min/maxed character that's not shallow, or an non-optimized character that's bland and uninteresting.

[Edenbeast]

Those aren't exclusive you know. You can totally have a min/maxed character that's not shallow, or an non-optimized character that's bland and uninteresting.

True as it may be, they are usually the product of two different kind of players who have opposite ideas of what role-playing is.

Let's say you have one day to make a character. All books are allowed, including novels. What do you do?

[hisnamehere]

Let's say you have one day to make a character. All books are allowed, including novels. What do you do?

You went there, didn't you?

...good point, tho.

I will, however, defend the idea that an optimized character can be made by a roleplayer, as such is my goal with most of my characters. There are tonnes of great builds out there, but discovering the personality/history/goals that fit that build can be as fun as the build itself. And if I can't find a good reason for the pieces to all fit together into a theme beyond metagaming a win, a new build/character awaits.
Also, every good build will be destroyed by plot. How often do you get the time to research the forgotten lore that leads you to the remote combat school that teaches you the one feat you need to qualify early for a prestige class (taught in another remote school) that grants you the bonus to grappling that you feel your character needs to be complete? "Don't worry. I'll wait." - Kat Williams

Again. Not judging, just commenting. Built a cleric/rogue/ftr 1 because I wanted to make my own weapon with a +10 to Bluff checks used to Feint in combat, and fought the DM to have a kukri be an alternate elven exotic weapon treated as martial for elves to save a feat. So, optimizing (and badly), but still really like the character's personality (he's a cleric of the elven god of beauty and looks to perfect and demonstrate the beauty of combat).

Again, too long. Sorry.

[Manateee]

True as it may be, they are usually the product of two different kind of players who have opposite ideas of what role-playing is.
I want to play a wandering swordsman, divinely touched with the ability to do good and a reluctant '90s-comicbook-style obligation to follow through. I also want to mix in mannerisms that stink of spaghetti western themes, samurai movie hardboiledness and maybe a giant wolf mount.

Depending on group mentality and optimization levels, I can represent this as straight paladin, a sorcadin spinoff, or some action economy destroying mix of Sorcerer, War Weaver and Incantatrix. The concept remains essentially the same, only the mechanical details change.

Within the D&D system, the mechanics of gameplay and the focus of the narrative don't shift, even as the specific character build does.

If you were plugging a different game system or introducing some other factor that systematically reorients the focus of gameplay and player attention, I wouldn't disagree with you. But shifting builds within the system doesn't reflect very meaningfully on the character at all. The result is a false association of roleplay priorities with minmaxing interests in a game where the two are unrelated.

ETA:
Though it's definitely true that more optimization is not inherently desirable. Personally, I'd prefer to run with a slightly modified base Paladin for this.

[Circle of Life]

Based on the topic title, I had expected a different discussion.. Anyway a short reply.

I believe a succesfull and fun to play character starts with a good concept. Who is he, what does he want in life, personality, weakness, favorite colour etc.
The characters I remember the best, both from players and my own, are the well fleshed out characters. Nothing beats a character that is "real" and not some shallow min-maxed/I got my build from *random class* handbook.

Hell-o there Stormwind.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, yes, we all know the Stormwind Fallacy. But the reverse is also true. A character that is goobed to the gills, min-maxed to the point that every choice is made soley based on what is absolutely optimal game-wise isn't the only fun way to play.

[Tyger]

Yeah, I have to agree with Ravens_cry and Eden on this one. The character that is the most fun for me to play is the one that fits my concept and ideals, and that is in keeping with the level of optimization that my group and DM use.

For example, our group recently hit a wall because a couple of the players (including me) had over optimized for the campaign. The DM isn't a huge optimizer, and a couple of the players don't care to optimize at all. So my DFI Bard / Mindbender (complete with Mindsight) / Sublime Chord and another player's unholy mishmash of Cleric PrCs played havoc with them DM's game. Hell, three beholders went down in one round in our last session, and none of us have been significantly threatened is a half dozen sessions.

So we're backing off, and paring down. The two Leadership cohorts are leaving, and the players are taking looks at their characters to see where they can ease back a bit. At the same time, the DM is stepping up to the plate and bringing a stronger game to the table.

So the way to make a character for "fun" if not for profit, is to play whatever is fun for you and your group. What that means is different for your group than it is for mine and if everyone on the boards remembered that, the advice would be far, far better.

[Edenbeast]

I should get points for changing the direction of this thread. I know my argument was a rather black or white one, but it got us where we needed to be in line with the title: how to make a fun and succesful character?
It's not having XX AC at level Y and having my saves pass on a 5 at least at any given level :) I never start with a number. Unless it's 42.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, I have to agree with Ravens_cry and Eden on this one. The character that is the most fun for me to play is the one that fits my concept and ideals, and that is in keeping with the level of optimization that my group and DM use.

Exactly. I have nothing against good optimization, even fairly extreme optimization. I don't find extreme optimization personally fun, but I have nothing against it.
I just dislike some peoples insinuation that the higher levels of optimization are the only way to play that can possibly be fun or that you're doing something wrong if you don't.

[Slayer of Gimps]

It's not nearly as hard as you're making it sound. It's just more of an arcane casters only thing. Abjurant Champion and some method of persistence makes this relatively easy at the high levels and somewhat challenging at mid levels. Off the top of my head:

Base AC: 10
Armor Bonus: +13 (Greater Luminous Armor + Abjurant Champion 5)
Deflection: +10 (Shield of Faith + Abjurant Champion)
Dodge Bonus: +1 (Haste)
Natural Armor: +18 (via Alter Self: Dwarven Ancestor)
Shield Bonus: +9 (Shield + Abjurant Champion)

Total: 61

And that's a non-optimized number. If we take levels in Legacy Champion and start using Power Components the number gets a lot bigger. Toss in Kung-Fu Genius and a monk belt and you're looking at an ac around 85.

Abjurant Champion only works with armor and shield bonuses and I am not sure how you are getting Shield of Faith on an arcane caster. If it did work that way then that + Divine Companion = good stats. As it is though that's 56, which could be solid if you can get it at lower levels, but once you get past 15 even that won't be good enough and you'll need some more on top of that so that you can survive without having to be protected from yourself.

CoDzillas also manage decent AC numbers but you'd still be better off relying on miss chances as they are less likely to be shut down as a matter of course.

That's the only real hang up here. Getting your saves up to par is easy once you realize you need to, and getting your touch AC up enough to consistently block rays doesn't take much investment either. The offensive requirements are either easy or hard to meet depending on what you're playing but most classes have at least one build that can kill things properly even if it can't do anything else (like take a hit), which puts you back in win init or die land. You really don't want to be in win init or die land, as it literally will have you dying multiple times per session (because you lost init, obviously) or having to go to even greater lengths so that you always go first and always one round all enemies. Because again, if you don't you die.

None of the posts here other than yours are on topic.

[Wings of Peace]

Abjurant Champion only works with armor and shield bonuses and I am not sure how you are getting Shield of Faith on an arcane caster. If it did work that way then that + Divine Companion = good stats. As it is though that's 56, which could be solid if you can get it at lower levels, but once you get past 15 even that won't be good enough and you'll need some more on top of that so that you can survive without having to be protected from yourself.


We can get Shield of Faith fairly easily via Wyrm Wizard or a loose reading of Extra Spell. I missed the bit about armor and shield bonuses only but we can make up a lot of that with power components (Guardinal Feathers) anyways.

[Slayer of Gimps]

We can get Shield of Faith fairly easily via Wyrm Wizard or a loose reading of Extra Spell. I missed the bit about armor and shield bonuses only but we can make up a lot of that with power components (Guardinal Feathers) anyways.

Doesn't that lose CLs? In any case Divine Companion is much better for this purpose.

[Polarity Shift]

Doesn't that lose CLs? In any case Divine Companion is much better for this purpose.

Divine Companion: Giving level 8s 35 AC and 20ish all saves since 2010.

[Tyger]

None of the posts here other than yours are on topic.

Except your topic is "How to make successful characters for fun and profit" so a discussion of how to make successful characters for fun is certainly on topic. A purely mechanical discussion, as noted by a number of posters above, is only one facet of character making, and for many of us, it is the lesser of the facets.

I can appreciate that you disagree, but it is incumbent upon you to not belittle the comments of posters who disagree with your position of what constitutes "successful" and "fun", unless you didn't actually want a discussion that is.

[Slayer of Gimps]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Polarity Shift]

You say you don't want class specific stuff but mention Persisted buffs. I don't get it?

[Slayer of Gimps]

You say you don't want class specific stuff but mention Persisted buffs. I don't get it?

Being a certain class isn't the same as having a certain class. If you have a Persister your entire party is covered regardless of what the rest of them are, and there's enough room for diversity even among Persisters. Saying everyone has to be a Sorcerer or have UMD is much more limiting, because there are more viable characters than that.

[Polarity Shift]

Bard logic then. Fair enough.

[Tyndmyr]

So here are the hallmarks of a successful character:

AC high enough that level appropriate enemies need a 16 or better to hit OR ability to bypass AC (miss chances, mirror image, etc): A Lesser Displacement cloak alone is NOT sufficient.

Here are the target numbers vs stock enemies:

Level 5: AC 25-30.
Level 10: AC 40-45.
Level 15: AC 55-60.
Level 20: AC 70-75.

Or just +3 per level past 5.

I feel like your numbers are off. Average attack bonuses are just not that high for stock enemies. For instance, the best attack bonus for all CR 20 monsters in the SRD is as follows: +34, +31, +30, +29, +31, +18, +28, +19, +48.

Only the Tarrasque(with it's +48) is at all close to justifying the kind of numbers you suggest. Realistically, big T can easily be taken down by not charging in and trading hits. He's ground bound, so whatever. If you've got around a 50 AC at level 20, investing more heavily in AC is not really worth it.

Alternatively, lots and lots of DR can work, but it's harder to make scale nicely.


Saves high enough to pass all level appropriate saves on a 5 or less (ideally, 2 or less): Low level characters cannot do this, and mid level characters have a hard time with it. High level characters can do it easily.

Or you can stack immunities. Heavy fort is among my favorites. Incidentally, it combines very nicely with the aforementioned DR. The more immunities, the better.


Touch AC high enough to make rays only hit on a 16 or better: This one is in between the previous two as far as attainability is concerned. It's harder to pin down an exact number here as it depends on what is shooting the rays at you. Other forms of touch attacks such as Wraithstrike boosted attacks you won't be able to block this way, so don't try.

This is a rough thing to pull off. Other ways of just negating attacks are usually more preferable.

[Helldog]

None of the posts here other than yours are on topic.
You still didn't answer my question:

I'd like to see a couple of examples of those "stock" enemies. At EACH of the levels you are talking about.

[Tyndmyr]

Helldog, I listed all stock examples from the SRD. I think it's fairly clear that his idea of "stock" is a bit off. I agree that miss chances are more accessible than AC for many classes, but I think he's over-emphasizing the point.

Honestly, from the title, I had rather hoped someone had found a way to make money from building chars. Now THAT would be an intriguing read!

[Slayer of Gimps]

I feel like your numbers are off. Average attack bonuses are just not that high for stock enemies. For instance, the best attack bonus for all CR 20 monsters in the SRD is as follows: +34, +31, +30, +29, +31, +18, +28, +19, +48.

That is not even close to accurate. Even the 2 spellcasters that will never swing a weapon have around +30. The 7 enemies that will have mid 50s. Since you need to get to where only a 16 or better hits or your AC doesn't matter, that puts the target range at 70-75. What's more, beginning at level 5 enemy to hit increases steadily at the rate of 3/level, which is why AC needs to scale at the same rate to keep up.

Are you sure you are looking at the 20s, there? Because you just in no way described them even if you are falsely assuming dragons get BAB and Str and nothing else.


Alternatively, lots and lots of DR can work, but it's harder to make scale nicely.

You can't get enough DR to make a difference, especially since most of it is non stacking but even if it wasn't...


Or you can stack immunities. Heavy fort is among my favorites. Incidentally, it combines very nicely with the aforementioned DR. The more immunities, the better.

Heavy Fort is extremely useful, preventing many two round kills from becoming one rounders, stabilizing damage output, and shutting down entire subsections of enemies as an added bonus. However it has nothing to do with saves, I've already mentioned immunities, and Heavy Fort is one of those things I considered too obvious to mention.


This is a rough thing to pull off. Other ways of just negating attacks are usually more preferable.

It's easier to get a decent touch AC. The means of blocking rays are class dependent. Negating attacks only works until they shoot more than one ray at once, and most of the dangerous rays do come in volleys. Sure it's better to flat out be immune than merely resistant, but this is meant to be a general guide that is as class independent as possible (keeping in mind some classes will never have viable defenses).

[Tyndmyr]

That is not even close to accurate. Even the 2 spellcasters that will never swing a weapon have around +30. The 7 enemies that will have mid 50s. Since you need to get to where only a 16 or better hits or your AC doesn't matter, that puts the target range at 70-75. What's more, beginning at level 5 enemy to hit increases steadily at the rate of 3/level, which is why AC needs to scale at the same rate to keep up.

Are you sure you are looking at the 20s, there? Because you just in no way described them even if you are falsely assuming dragons get BAB and Str and nothing else.

I read the +x off the attack line. That is the attack bonus of a stock enemy. Yes, that can be improved by magical items, buffs, templates, etc...but if you pop up the monster filter on the SRD, select CR 20 only, that's what you get. That's a stock enemy. If you're relying on AC, you want to shut down the majority of those, but attack is always more buffable than defense, so there's little use focusing on playing that game.


You can't get enough DR to make a difference, especially since most of it is non stacking but even if it wasn't...

Really? Chaos shuffle + Roll With It can get you some pretty notable DR that stacks with any other sources. Bam. Instant DR stacking.


Heavy Fort is extremely useful, preventing many two round kills from becoming one rounders, stabilizing damage output, and shutting down entire subsections of enemies as an added bonus. However it has nothing to do with saves, I've already mentioned immunities, and Heavy Fort is one of those things I considered too obvious to mention.

AC wasn't too obvious to mention, yet other things were? This is looking like a cop out.

Also, yes, heavy fort does interact with saves. The assassin's death attack, for instance, just outright fails against heavy fort. No need for a save. The same is true of any number of immunities, which shows that a good list of immunities can decrease the importance of saves.


It's easier to get a decent touch AC. The means of blocking rays are class dependent. Negating attacks only works until they shoot more than one ray at once, and most of the dangerous rays do come in volleys. Sure it's better to flat out be immune than merely resistant, but this is meant to be a general guide that is as class independent as possible (keeping in mind some classes will never have viable defenses).

Negating attacks is a remarkably generic defense, though. It works on just about anything. A wand of Wings of Cover is sufficiently awesome that it's pretty worthy of mention.

Also, getting a class skill takes only a single feat, so yeah, it's class independent.

[Piggy Knowles]

I read the +x off the attack line. That is the attack bonus of a stock enemy. Yes, that can be improved by magical items, buffs, templates, etc...but if you pop up the monster filter on the SRD, select CR 20 only, that's what you get. That's a stock enemy. If you're relying on AC, you want to shut down the majority of those, but attack is always more buffable than defense, so there's little use focusing on playing that game.

Hrm, I just did exactly what you said and pulled up the first entry, the Black Wyrm dragon. Its BAB is +34, but even just BAB + Strength, that gives it a +58 to hit. The Ancient Brass dragon is BAB +31, but +50 when you add in its strength bonus.

So it looks like the numbers you have pulled for the dragons were actually BAB, not an actual attack roll. (Unfortunately, the SRD doesn't list the full attack routine and bonus on each.)

[Slayer of Gimps]

I read the +x off the attack line. That is the attack bonus of a stock enemy. Yes, that can be improved by magical items, buffs, templates, etc...but if you pop up the monster filter on the SRD, select CR 20 only, that's what you get. That's a stock enemy. If you're relying on AC, you want to shut down the majority of those, but attack is always more buffable than defense, so there's little use focusing on playing that game.

Even if you're stripping out nearly all class features all six dragons are still 36-42. Just from BAB and Str, not counting anything else (magic items, spells, etc, all of which they get). Big T is 57 or so, the other two are casters.

I now see the problem though. You think BAB = to hit. This is extremely bewildering. Why would you think that?


Really? Chaos shuffle + Roll With It can get you some pretty notable DR that stacks with any other sources. Bam. Instant DR stacking.

And Pun-Pun has DR Infinite/-. I don't think that's relevant.


AC wasn't too obvious to mention, yet other things were? This is looking like a cop out.

Many people insist they can get by with much lower numbers even though they objectively cannot. Illustrating exactly how much is required and how that isn't practical is non intuitive.

"However it has nothing to do with saves, I've already mentioned immunities, and Heavy Fort is one of those things I considered too obvious to mention."

I said three things and you responded to one. In particular the one right before that, where I mention immunities.


Also, yes, heavy fort does interact with saves. The assassin's death attack, for instance, just outright fails against heavy fort. No need for a save. The same is true of any number of immunities, which shows that a good list of immunities can decrease the importance of saves.

Death Attack is so weak that if you're at any risk at all of dying to it you have far worse problems. Low DC, long charge time... even if, for some reason you were not immune to it (and you would be, as a matter of course in blocking the dangerous attacks) and don't do anything about the guy doing absolutely nothing for three rounds (during which any decent character could have killed you twice over with much greater reliability) you'll still save easily even if you're not doing this so all he's done is waste his time and yours.

They are however a part of that subsection of enemies I just mentioned gets shut down.


Negating attacks is a remarkably generic defense, though. It works on just about anything. A wand of Wings of Cover is sufficiently awesome that it's pretty worthy of mention.

Also, getting a class skill takes only a single feat, so yeah, it's class independent.

And that works for UMD? If so we are getting somewhere.

[Tyndmyr]

Even if you're stripping out nearly all class features all six dragons are still 36-42. Just from BAB and Str, not counting anything else (magic items, spells, etc, all of which they get). Big T is 57 or so, the other two are casters.

I now see the problem though. You think BAB = to hit. This is extremely bewildering. Why would you think that?

I may have possibly grabbed the wrong numbers on some, I flipped through pretty fast. That said, dragons are notably over HD-ed for their CR, and are generally meant to be representative of a fairly hard fight. And even then, a mid 50s AC is going to do you pretty well. You have a really good chance of ignoring the primary attack, and the iteratives are basically just not going to hit.

In fights that consist of multiple weaker enemies, even less AC is necessary.


And Pun-Pun has DR Infinite/-. I don't think that's relevant.

Chaos shuffle is a few steps lower on the optimization chain than pun-pun. Even without chaos shuffle, the "stacks with everything" is remarkably notable as a defense. For instance, even a single instance of the feat on a level 1 crusader with Stone Bones up means you've got DR 7 for that round.


Many people insist they can get by with much lower numbers even though they objectively cannot. Illustrating exactly how much is required and how that isn't practical is non intuitive.

The number is somewhat subjective, depending on what kinds of encounters you face, how many hp you have(barbs, for instance, typically are built to have lower defenses in favor of higher offense/hp.) I would not consider a 70 AC to be at all standard to get by.


"However it has nothing to do with saves, I've already mentioned immunities, and Heavy Fort is one of those things I considered too obvious to mention."

I said three things and you responded to one. In particular the one right before that, where I mention immunities.

Yes, I didn't address everything...but the point is, sufficient # of immunities displaces other defenses. The undead player, for instance, can typically afford a lower will save, as he is at a lower overall risk to them.


Death Attack is so weak that if you're at any risk at all of dying to it you have far worse problems. Low DC, long charge time... even if, for some reason you were not immune to it (and you would be, as a matter of course in blocking the dangerous attacks) and don't do anything about the guy doing absolutely nothing for three rounds (during which any decent character could have killed you twice over with much greater reliability) you'll still save easily even if you're not doing this so all he's done is waste his time and yours.

Death attack is not a fantastic ability for a PC in a party. However, when optimized mildly for, it's an acceptably usable tool in the hands of a soloer. Ie, NPC assassins or the like. It is not on the higher end of threats, but immunities kill it without the need to pay attention to saves. It's an example of why immunities can be superior to save optimization.


And that works for UMD? If so we are getting somewhere.

Flexible Mind, Dragon 326. Treat two skills as class skills forever, gain a +1 on both.

It is....very handy.

[SleepyShadow]

I'm torn on this subject, really. Slayer of Gimps, I understand where you're coming from. Just taking a look at the Tarrasque, your target AC of 70 would only be enough to put the kibosh on its secondary attacks. Its bite will still hit on a 13.

On the other hand, since the title of this discussion is "fun and profit", I must question how cost-effective it is to get an AC that high, and get all of the other benefits you insist must be on a character. Not just gold, but feat investments, spell slots, and other things of that nature.

I've never been one to pretend to be the greatest optimizer in the world, so perhaps you could enlighten me on the matter at hand.

[Slayer of Gimps]

I may have possibly grabbed the wrong numbers on some, I flipped through pretty fast. That said, dragons are notably over HD-ed for their CR, and are generally meant to be representative of a fairly hard fight. And even then, a mid 50s AC is going to do you pretty well. You have a really good chance of ignoring the primary attack, and the iteratives are basically just not going to hit.

All of the dragons have 30ish HD. That's more than the casters, it's less than the singular melee. This is also about typical for the level. Since they have to hits in the mid 50s, an AC that only equals that isn't stopping them from hitting you at all. It might stop them from PAing you, but since they can probably one round you anyways that doesn't matter.

Or are you forgetting most of the bonuses they get again?


In fights that consist of multiple weaker enemies, even less AC is necessary.

In fights with multiple enemies you need the same AC, as otherwise they can easily one round you, well before running out of actions.


Chaos shuffle is a few steps lower on the optimization chain than pun-pun. Even without chaos shuffle, the "stacks with everything" is remarkably notable as a defense. For instance, even a single instance of the feat on a level 1 crusader with Stone Bones up means you've got DR 7 for that round.

It is nonetheless a TO trick and outside the scope of any practical exercise. Taking things only good at low levels is also not helpful.


The number is somewhat subjective, depending on what kinds of encounters you face, how many hp you have(barbs, for instance, typically are built to have lower defenses in favor of higher offense/hp.) I would not consider a 70 AC to be at all standard to get by.

If you never fight melee you don't need AC. But chances are you will. The point of the AC thing, once again is that you need to get something more effective instead as the numbers simply aren't reachable.


Yes, I didn't address everything...but the point is, sufficient # of immunities displaces other defenses. The undead player, for instance, can typically afford a lower will save, as he is at a lower overall risk to them.

Many Will effects still work, including all of the best ones.


Death attack is not a fantastic ability for a PC in a party. However, when optimized mildly for, it's an acceptably usable tool in the hands of a soloer. Ie, NPC assassins or the like. It is not on the higher end of threats, but immunities kill it without the need to pay attention to saves. It's an example of why immunities can be superior to save optimization.

A NPC is going to do even less with it, and you'll stop him in the natural course of stopping the actual threats. What it comes down to is that it's a lot easier to get immunity to common effects + high saves than immune to all effects. Yes, Heavy Fort is an immunity to a common effect. It also comes at 15... which is the level you stop encountering Assassins, after having dealt with them for several levels prior. A few classes can get it earlier yes, but again class specific.

Once again, Heavy Fort is useful, but it's not a justification to run around with terrible saves. That's just asking for any caster to make a fool of you.


Flexible Mind, Dragon 326. Treat two skills as class skills forever, gain a +1 on both.

It is....very handy.

Unbalanced Paizo material. Afraid I'm going to have to not count that one. I was hoping you meant from a credible source.

Shadow, most of that has already been answered either in the first post or after it but since it isn't all in one place...

A handful of builds can get the necessary AC, but miss chances are more reliable, especially given those are the target numbers vs stock enemies and harder enemies will be at least 10-15 points higher.

The rest are more a matter of logistics than anything else. It isn't affording them that's the problem. It's getting the party on the same page, getting someone to make a Persister so everyone's numbers are at par and level appropriate, getting people to not freak out about said numbers or go off on meaningless tangents to try to inflict the Checked status with Stormwind, getting the DM to understand you're doing this to avoid win init or die, and if he messes with that by not letting you buy that DotU cloak or something all he's doing is making the game worse for everyone... That's the hard part, because people just don't think long term. They make a character with all saves lower than their level and expect to be alive long enough to increment their level. Not. Going. To. Happen.

When it comes to actually doing stuff just Mass Conviction, Recitation, and a resistance cloak makes up for the bulk of the difference in saves, Magic Vestment + Ghost Ward + deflection bonus covers the bulk of the difference in touch AC and that just leaves you to pick up cheap utility and blocking items.

[SleepyShadow]

They make a character with all saves lower than their level and expect to be alive long enough to increment their level. Not. Going. To. Happen.


This bit made me laugh :smallbiggrin:

Just out of curiosity, are these tricks equally applicable against other PCs, or would we begin to see diminished results? I ask this because my players have recently developed a tendency to directly or indirectly kill each other off far more frequently than I ever killed the PCs as a DM. Sadly, the majority of deaths have been the innocent party members caught in the crossfire rather than the actual combatants, hence why I'm curious if I could help prevent them from being more casualties.

[Slayer of Gimps]

This bit made me laugh :smallbiggrin:

Just out of curiosity, are these tricks equally applicable against other PCs, or would we begin to see diminished results? I ask this because my players have recently developed a tendency to directly or indirectly kill each other off far more frequently than I ever killed the PCs as a DM. Sadly, the majority of deaths have been the innocent party members caught in the crossfire rather than the actual combatants, hence why I'm curious if I could help prevent them from being more casualties.

Yes and no. On one hand if you can avoid level appropriate save or loses from the enemies you also can from a PC. On the other, getting yourself set solidly requires cooperation, something you don't have if you're competing against each other instead of the enemies.

In a PvP game, my advice would be to only win by not playing. But if you insist you should go all out with an optimized, buffed, researched, honed, tuned, and amplified tier 1 train of invincible ultimate destruction. Because if you're going to do something that results in almost everything around being ruined, you want to be a part of the small subset of things still standing in that crater. You really do want to be immune to everything, or close to it. That isn't workable, which is why it quickly results in a crater.

[Polarity Shift]

That's the hard part, because people just don't think long term. They make a character with all saves lower than their level and expect to be alive long enough to increment their level. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Expect this to be yoinked.

[Tyger]

They make a character with all saves lower than their level and expect to be alive long enough to increment their level. Not. Going. To. Happen.

And yet in hundreds (if not thousands) of games around the world, these characters get made, played and enjoyed. Some of them even make it to level 20. Some even become epic level...

Optimization of this level is only "required" if your campaign and DM are optimized to this level as well. The general feedback on this forum is that such levels of optimization are usually completely wasted. So. Often. Does. Happen.

[Slayer of Gimps]

They might get made, sure. It explains why there are so many magic items lying around. They died and lost them. Beyond that though?

These numbers let you deal with normal opponents. If you lack them, you do not deal with normal opponents. If you are facing harder stuff you need better numbers, but as it is the only place D&D has for poorly made (especially that poorly made) characters is located south of Tombstone.

[Polarity Shift]

They might get made, sure. It explains why there are so many magic items lying around. They died and lost them. Beyond that though?

These numbers let you deal with normal opponents. If you lack them, you do not deal with normal opponents. If you are facing harder stuff you need better numbers, but as it is the only place D&D has for poorly made (especially that poorly made) characters is located south of Tombstone.

I think what he is trying to say is the real key to making successful characters is to ensure that the DM and your significant other are the same person, that way a desire to not sleep on the couch allows you to get away with anything.

Of course that's an invalid argument and even if you are DMing for your SO you shouldn't cheat for him or her, but the bribery approach is the only explanation I can think of that would make that true.

[Slayer of Gimps]

That would explain it. Cheating has no bearing on this discussion as it's assumed the DM is not cheating, and therefore if someone should die they will. Weak characters should die quite often, so that's what happens.

[Tyger]

I think what he is trying to say is the real key to making successful characters is to ensure that the DM and your significant other are the same person, that way a desire to not sleep on the couch allows you to get away with anything.

Of course that's an invalid argument and even if you are DMing for your SO you shouldn't cheat for him or her, but the bribery approach is the only explanation I can think of that would make that true.


That would explain it. Cheating has no bearing on this discussion as it's assumed the DM is not cheating, and therefore if someone should die they will. Weak characters should die quite often, so that's what happens.

No cheating is referenced, and your experience is clearly not everyone's experience. Polarity is quite right, what I am saying is that if you using standard, non-optimized and CR (for what that is worth) appropriate encounters, then the levels of optimization referred to in this thread are both unneccessary and highly inappropriate.

Now if your DM takes things to extremes, then the players will have to step up thier games as well.

But there is no "one true way" to build characters, as every game is different. If you want to go with a standard, then the only real measure would be WotC published adventures, and I would submit that these levels of optimization would reduce those adventures to gold and XP gathering systems, rather than anything that I personally would enjoy, as there would be no challenge, no danger, and no threat of failure.

[TuggyNE]

I may have possibly grabbed the wrong numbers on some, I flipped through pretty fast. That said, dragons are notably over HD-ed for their CR, and are generally meant to be representative of a fairly hard fight. And even then, a mid 50s AC is going to do you pretty well. You have a really good chance of ignoring the primary attack, and the iteratives are basically just not going to hit.

A belated addendum to the discussion on dragon attack bonuses: all of them include strength, since all of them have a greater attack bonus listed than their HD. Unless perhaps "stock enemy" dragons somehow have BAB of greater than +1/HD?

Obviously, most dragons in actual play will be given a fair amount of optimization, because they're intended to be tough to fight. In many campaigns, though, this probably still won't increase their attack bonuses that much.

[SleepyShadow]

But there is no "one true way" to build characters, as every game is different. If you want to go with a standard, then the only real measure would be WotC published adventures, and I would submit that these levels of optimization would reduce those adventures to gold and XP gathering systems, rather than anything that I personally would enjoy, as there would be no challenge, no danger, and no threat of failure.

Here here, I agree with you. No point in playing a game if victory is guaranteed.

What is the appropriate adulation around these parts? +1 Vote? Have an internet? Fu? Cookie? Regardless, have them all in a nicely wrapped gift basket.

[Slayer of Gimps]

If you're fighting normal enemies, and your stats are below these lines, expect to die a lot because you're stuck playing win init or die and you will not always act first. This could be anywhere from multiple times a campaign if you're only a point off to multiple times a campaign session if you really screwed up your character. Regardless, you need to think long term.

[Polarity Shift]

No cheating is referenced, and your experience is clearly not everyone's experience. Polarity is quite right

The second part contradicts the first.

This thread is designed to let you deal with level appropriate encounters. He's said as much himself.

Edit: Unseen Seered.

[Grelna the Blue]

They might get made, sure. It explains why there are so many magic items lying around. They died and lost them. Beyond that though?

These numbers let you deal with normal opponents. If you lack them, you do not deal with normal opponents. If you are facing harder stuff you need better numbers, but as it is the only place D&D has for poorly made (especially that poorly made) characters is located south of Tombstone.{{scrubbed}}but taking your post and comments above as serious, optimization that extreme is an arms race with the GM, and the GM can always win if the GM wants to do so because the GM always has exactly as much of an advantage as the GM wants to have. The kinds of characters you are discussing would never make it into any game I have ever run or played in because I (along with most GMs) do not set my players up for failure just because they don't feel like making fairly boring superheroes with no Kryptonite weaknesses. Those characters are only "successful" in the kinds of games you play.

It's true, far lesser degrees of optimization are useful for players with character concepts that are inherently weaker than other players in the same game with stronger character concepts. If you've got the old traditional cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard kind of party, the rogue and the fighter may have to step up a bit to stay even at higher levels with the spellcasters. In fact, when I play Tier 1 characters, I generally UNoptimize a bit to make it a bit easier on everyone else to keep up. No GM I've ever played with has decided to take advantage of the fact that his players aren't young gods, because they haven't had to.

{TLDR: Your idea of "success", "fun", and "profit" aren't universal.}

[Slayer of Gimps]

The previous post is an excellent example of what I meant when I said the primary difficulty wasn't getting the tools to survive campaigns, but to get everyone on the same page of want to do just that.

[Edenbeast]

The topic is "How to make successful characters for fun and profit."

All of the non numerical derailments do not help you to make successful characters. Most of it has the opposite effect. Dying all the time is not fun, and the only ones that will be profiting are the ones that did take this advice.

Therefore none of those posts in any way contribute to the topic and only serve to derail the topic. As I would like for my topic to be productive and helpful, as opposed to ruined by bad advice I must insist that people stop derailing my topic by being unhelpful.

I believe they do help to make a successful character. I laugh at all the number discussion going on here. You people are forgetting one very important aspect: the Gamemaster..
I've been GM many times, and if I would be out to kill my players, I'd kill them no matter how and what. As GM you decide the level of difficulty. If a player does something stupid, I pass him a note saying he should reconsider his action. Sometimes for a second time if I'm nice. I also use fortune points like in the warhamme fantasy rpg that are useful once in a while. Of course I've let characters die, when they really had it coming. After several wrong decisions and death would be the only outcome, then so be it.
I don't care about the rules that much. I use the books as a reference, as should the players. But in the end the most important thing is that we all, as a group of friends, have good time. If a player's character is sort of weak, but he really likes his character, then I'll be lenient. The players won't know what happens behind the board, all they know is that they're having fun. And that's what really counts..

[Ravens_cry]

The previous post is an excellent example of what I meant when I said the primary difficulty wasn't getting the tools to survive campaigns, but to get everyone on the same page of want to do just that.
Except, in almost any actual game, you know, one besides the game you and possibly Polarity Shift play, this level of optimization isn't necessary.
You also seem to think that this is the only True Way™ to play, considering any other way to be 'cheating'. Great, you just insulted 98% percent of 3.X gamers. Does that make you happy?

[Slayer of Gimps]

This level of optimization is necessary in any and all games in which normal enemies are used, which is to say all the ones that don't use harder enemies instead which you need higher numbers for.

Therefore, for this to not be true in most games, either most D&D games would have to be not using D&D enemies, or the DM would have to be cheating on their behalf (as Edenbeast has just admitted to doing directly).

Which means either I am correct, or you are insulting the vast majority of players by calling them cheaters.

Now I've seen those types of players before plenty of times. They stubbornly insist stats don't matter. Then they get flattened because their numbers were not up to the task due to them not regarding them as meaningful and disregarding them. Then they get mad and blame someone else because their own character was designed, played, and built poorly by them.

It's quite annoying and only gives good players and good DMs headaches.

Still, let the dice lay where they fall and they will fall into line soon enough. There is nothing player vs DM about it. Quite the opposite. If the party has solid defenses that means the DM won't accidentally kill them all. That means he or she can worry about other, more important things.

[Polarity Shift]

In summary, high defenses + high offenses = successful character.

High offenses without high defenses, or weak offense and defense = not successful character.

Would that be a fair assessment?

[Tyger]

This level of optimization is necessary in any and all games in which normal enemies are used, which is to say all the ones that don't use harder enemies instead which you need higher numbers for.


OK, lets look at “standard enemies” than shall we? And for ease of use, we’ll look at only one facet of your position – Armor Class. I took all the enemies from the first 90 pages of the first adventure I grabbed off the shelf - Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3.5 version) and which is for level 9-12 characters. According to your math, at that level, the characters need AC of “Level 10: AC 40-45.”

The Melee Attack numbers for the creatures in the first 90 pages are “8, 11, 9, 12, 6, 15, 14, 15, 15, 18, 11, 5, 6, 14, 11, 9, 9, 13, 13, 6, 18, 7, 15, 17, 9, 3, 15, 13, 10, 8, 5, 11, 5, 14, 14, 17, 2, 15, 12, 14”. These are not the BAB numbers, these are the numbers which account for enchantments and feat bonuses.

So, based on your minimum necessary AC, for standard encounters, not one creature in this WotC published manual can hit any of your supposedly “standard” characters on anything less than a 20. If it wasn’t for the auto-hit on a 20, not one creature in that portion of the module could even lay a finger on these “standard” characters.

That’s your math, your words, and while it may be your game, it is certainly not the way WotC intended balance to work, nor would it be fun for anyone that I game with… no risk at all equals no challenge equals no tension.

TL:DR version: Your suppositions are not based on a standard game, they are based on something other than that, and not something that the game was designed for, and many people run it as.

[Slayer of Gimps]

In summary, high defenses + high offenses = successful character.

High offenses without high defenses, or weak offense and defense = not successful character.

Would that be a fair assessment?

Yes it would. Everything else predicates upon those things. A character with a twenty page backstory and a base stat total that is also twenty is only so much scrap paper in any campaign. On the other hand a well designed character will survive a while, allowing for their story before, during, and after the game to be meaningful and expanded upon.

Edit: That module is known for two things: Being incredibly poorly designed and balanced, even before its conversion from 3rd edition rules that only knocked it further askew and being full of casters.

Your assessment is also completely false, as you fight Balors there who are casters that have melee numbers much higher than any of the numbers you claimed that enemies have. Not to mention it's a Balor in a low level module.

[Edenbeast]

Now I've seen those types of players before plenty of times. They stubbornly insist stats don't matter. Then they get flattened because their numbers were not up to the task due to them not regarding them as meaningful and disregarding them. Then they get mad and blame someone else because their own character was designed, played, and built poorly by them.

If they are inexperienced, I give them advise, or let one of the other players advice them. But the people I usually play with are all experienced players, so normally I see no poorly build characters. Just not fully optimized characters, so that is kind of balanced. The players might fiace a battle every two sessions, or four in one sessions, depending where they are in the story. I believe you would find that boring, but we have a great time.
I do not resort to "cheating" as much as my post implied. Maybe once in a hundred rolls. I also tend to give players a bonus depending on how colourful they describe their actions. Would you call that cheating as well? For instance if a player attacks, I might give them +2 to hit. The players know I do this, but not when. I believe it improves the roleplaying. Besides it's fun to listen to what they come up with :)

[SleepyShadow]

Edit: That module is known for two things: Being incredibly poorly designed and balanced, even before its conversion from 3rd edition rules that only knocked it further askew and being full of casters.

Your assessment is also completely false, as you fight Balors there who are casters that have melee numbers much higher than any of the numbers you claimed that enemies have. Not to mention it's a Balor in a low level module.

Clearly, the best solution is to convert the Queen of the Spiders adventure from 1st edition up to 3.5, that way you can tailor the encounters to suit your players' capabilities :smallbiggrin:

[Tyger]

Yes it would. Everything else predicates upon those things. A character with a twenty page backstory and a base stat total that is also twenty is only so much scrap paper in any campaign. On the other hand a well designed character will survive a while, allowing for their story before, during, and after the game to be meaningful and expanded upon.

Edit: That module is known for two things: Being incredibly poorly designed and balanced, even before its conversion from 3rd edition rules that only knocked it further askew and being full of casters.

Your assessment is also completely false, as you fight Balors there who are casters that have melee numbers much higher than any of the numbers you claimed that enemies have. Not to mention it's a Balor in a low level module.

Fine, pick five modules and we'll use those numbers. If you are going to make an argument based on "standard monsters" then we at least have to use a printed source as our base. You name the modules and we'll grab the numbers.

That aside, the fact that the argument is based on the fact that there is only ONE creature in this module that could actually be a threat just proves my point.

At the end of the day, it is simple - perhaps in your experience these sorts of things are required to enjoy your games. But to put those out as standards which everyone should adhere to is fallacious - you aren't playing in those games, nor are you in any way aware of what the content of those games is. To suggest that players are "doing it wrong" and aren't meeting some sort of arbitrary standard just because they are not doing it your way, is not a fair treatment of the hobby or its members. And it gives a very negative view for prospective new players.

So many people come here for advice, and nearly always the advice is based upon some extraordinarily high standard of optimization. Those same people giving the advice frequently note that they don't play at that level of optimization though - which is ironic.

The very first question anyone seeking to offer advice here ought to be "what is the op-level of your group, and what are the other folks playing", which frequently gets left out. And that ought to be the starting point - when we are talking mechanics.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Needless to say miss chances are your only real hope as you just won't get enough AC to make a difference without both heavy optimization and heavy houseruling.
Monk 2 (kung fu genius), Factotum 8, duelist 10 (just saying. it can be done much better)
Buy gloves of the balanced hand, use iaijutsu focus and knowledge devotion to make up for damage.
Drop STR and use swords of graceful strikes if allowed.

10 base
DEX (+11 is easy with WBL, a good starting score, assuming the use of a Tome)
INT monk (+7 is easy with WBL and a decent starting score)
INT duelist (another +7)
Fighting defensively will grant you +12 to AC
Factotum gives +7 (with 1 insp. point)
+5 deflection
+8 bracers
+5 amulet of natural armor

= 57 touch
= 70 normal AC

(+1 if boots of haste)

just an example. It can be optimized better.
A luck bonus to AC is possible. Morale and sacred are, too.
If your party has buffs that provide those bonus, or can create items that will, it's a good thing.
Defending weapon is always possible (just pay buy a +1 defending off hand weapon and ask any caster to cast magic weapon on it at the beginning of the day)
Combat Expertise wasn't counted in.
Invisible Blade wasn't counted in.
LA and special races can help greatly in going far beyond.
(etc)

[T.G. Oskar]

From all I've seen, I've noticed a slight concept which really bugs me.

The very first post insists that a "successful" character requires defenses that force the enemy to roll on a 15 or higher, while one should have a bonus to attack rolls that succeeds on a 5 or higher. Normally, I would understand a 10/10 split, but I definitely need to understand the importance of planning 5 points above, if the average roll is 10.5 (thus, either a 10 or an 11).

I'd like to understand this because this seems an exaggeration. Only four points shy of "auto-success", where only a 1 or a 20 would suffice to fail an attack or succeed on one (for the character and the enemy, respectively).

Another concern is that the OP is aiming for high-level play, but I'd wish to see his concerns within the 6-10 level range. Before going any forward, I'd like to see which is the general range of play, because aiming to play up to the 15-20 level range is a bit far-fetched.

I'd also like to point one further thing: the following is assuming the DM behaves like a machine, where the rules surpass the DM's determination. I feel this is crucial, because the entire point of the OP bases upon the DM constantly rolling over 10 (disregarding actual fumbles), that the DM always plays his enemies smart; exactly HOW smart is another point of concern, particularly on what is the OP's perception on what a DM should be given that I perceive the DM as a machine which can be played with, instead of something ranging from a fellow player to an awesome storyteller to a tactical genius who lacks a military rank.

In any case, here's a word to the OP; much like on the earlier thread, a condescendent tone isn't welcome, and this is getting dragged to a similar path of discussion. I could agree in that, when someone sees itself not collaborating in a party, they might despair, but I believe that is absolutely necessary in the learning process, and no amount of mathematical proof will make them change, so trying to act like a smart-aleck won't help your point. The player will learn through trial, error and failure, and will work correspondingly; that implies deaths, anger and possibly questioning, but at least they'll understand. They won't understand if you insist your point is "right", since you'd have to assume a perfectly uniform way of playing the game, and that is unfortunately not the case, no matter how much you attempt to adhere to logic, because you can't be on the thousands of tables running around.

[Gotterdammerung]

You are basically saying "play an all powerful character, and if you can't do that then TRY to play an all powerful character, and if you CAN'T do that then quit playing the game."

I suppose being a dynamic game, D&D is a different game for everyone. But I can't help but feel sorry for you that your version of D&D has all the soul of a boring console game.

[gourdcaptain]

...Okay, you say that to play a successful character you have to have these numbers. And when you propose how to get these numbers it involves numerous non-core spells and Abjurant Champion for AC. Or Wings of Cover.

How is anyone supposed to get characters to this in core 3.5e? And while the math is a bit funky in d20 at higher levels, that's slightly ridiculous.

And for the reference, I play in a group of people where I'm running the most deadly character at LV 9 with a PF Ranger with a two handed weapon power attacking. Building to these standards would be complete and utter overkill to compete with the rest of the game, so no thanks.

[TuggyNE]

How is anyone supposed to get characters to this in core 3.5e?

I believe that was in fact the intended point: that it is highly impractical for anyone to make effective use of AC, even against "stock enemies".

I happen to disagree, but on the grounds that "stock enemies" in many campaigns aren't actually anywhere near as powerful the OP assumes. (Presumably the most basic enemies in the OP's games are conventionally rather heavily optimized; that's fine, but it's not a playstyle choice everyone makes.)

[MukkTB]

Can we renegotiate the opening post for mid level optimization. Not total optimization but practical optimization?


Or lets try this. If survival and winning are all that matter to you then you should roll up a tier 1 caster and chase total optimization. You then stop just short of the cheese that will piss off the DM. For the best possible chance of winning you should put on a show that makes it look like you're in trouble now and then so the DM doesn't feel the need to send really hard challenges at you.

That's not exactly fun.

The thing is that the DM's job is to challenge you, but not to crush you. A DM can't kill you every 5 minutes after you roll a new character. The players will leave and he won't be DM any more. That's not to say that the DM won't give you a minimum difficulty. It means his minimum difficulty should be within your ability to reach even with a lower tier character.

So you should expect to die when the DM accidentally sets the difficulty a bit high, or when he decides to give you a real challenge, maybe when the dice turn on you. From there you could try to determine what numbers you really need.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I mean, I get that you are a person that says that optimization is important but Its just not in all games.

My characters are fine taking on large opponents even though I didn't know this level of customization existed. Their level 1 Arm values are 14 and 17.

Their fine.

Heck I even fixed the wizard. You know how?

"Hey bro, can you please make sure that most of your spells are of your focus school? Like 90%? to ensure fun balance?"

"Sure, why not."

I understand you and polarity ray insist that optimization is what matters. It doesn't as much as you insist that you do if my characters can still have fun without it.

[Telasi]

Ok, so an ECL 20 PC needs an AC of 70-75 to be hit on at worst a 15? Let's have a look at some CR 20 standard monsters and see. I'm only using the most accurate attack here to save time.

Balor
A fairly common (in my experience) CR 20 demon. With only 20 HD, he's on the weak end of CR 20 monsters. Stock from the SRD/MM I, he comes with:

+1 Vorpal Longsword +33/28/23/18 for 2d6+13 slashing, 19-20 crit.

That assumes he's not TWFing or Power Attacking, as the standard Balor comes equipped to do. As an outsider, he's full BAB on his 20 HD, plus a Str of 35. That adds up to +32 to hit. His +1 sword makes it +33, and Weapon Focus (Longsword) throws on another one. That's +34. Subtract one if he's fighting Medium PCs, since he's large, and the SRD/MM gives you an accurate to-hit. He can only hit AC 70 on a 20, so hardly a threat at that point.

Tarrasque
Big T is a bit scarier with his 48 HD. Standard, he's got:

Bite +57 for 4d8+17 damage, crit 18-20/×3

Now then, we have an actual chance to hit an AC 70. He needs a 13, but he can do it. Overcomes DR as an epic attack, too. Checking the math: 48 (BAB) + 17 (45 Str) - 8 (Colossal vs. Medium) = +57. Checks out just fine.

Dragons
Time to hit the iconic guys. Unfortunately, they also don't have a convenient breakdown, so I'll do the math myself. All of the following are the CR 20 versions. We'll start with the 34 HD Black Wyrm since he's the first on the MM I chart:

34 (BAB) + 12 (35 Str) - 4 (Gargantuan vs. Medium) = 42

Not terribly shabby, but he needs a 20 to hit the 70 AC the OP recommends. Let's look at his cousin, the 31 HD Brass Ancient:

31 (BAB) + 11 (33 Str) -2 (Huge vs. Medium) = 40

He's even worse off than the black wyrm. No credible threat there. Maybe the Very Old Copper, Very Old Bronze, Old Red, and Old Silver will fare better?

Copper (29 HD): 29 (BAB) + 10 (31 Str) - 2 (Huge vs. Medium) = 37
Bronze (30 HD): 30 (BAB) + 11 (33 Str) - 2 (Huge vs. Medium) = 39
Red (28 HD): 28 (BAB) + 12 (35 Str) - 4 (Gargantuan vs. Medium) = 36
Silver (28 HD): 28 (BAB) + 10 (31 Str) - 2 (Huge vs. Medium) = 36

Not impressed. The best of these still can only hit our 70 AC on a 20.

Pit Fiend
Our devil friend here is the last MM I CR 20 monster left. Can he make the grade? Let's see how this terrible... Wait, 18 HD? 37 Str? Not happening. Still, I'm going to do the math just in case:

Claw +30 for 2d8+13

That's 18 (BAB) + 13 (37 Str) - 1 (Large vs. Medium) = 30. Yup. No real danger to our AC here.

And that's the CR 20 list for MMI. Of them, only the Tarrasque can hit the 70 AC we're talking about on anything but a natural 20. The average is closer to the mid-high 30s, meaning an AC in the 50s is sufficient to meet the standard set by the OP. If you happen to be fighting a bunch of Tarrasques, more power to you, but you don't need a 70+ AC for any of the other core monsters.

For the sake of completeness, I'm gonna have a look at MM II and MM III. Maybe there's something in there. Still just CR 20s so far.

Here are the MM II ones.
Gray Linnorm: +18 just doesn't cut it.
Megapede: +32 is better, but still only on a 20.
Orcwort: only +30. Not there yet.
32 HD Ancient Crystal Dragon: +40 (32 + 12 - 4) gets closer.
31 HD Very Old Topaz Dragon: +40 again. (31 + 11 - 2)

Now on to MM III.
Ancient Night Twist: +33 just can't hit.
Eldritch Giant Confessor: +42. Respectable, but still too low.
Greater Ssvaklor: +32 is the worst of the CR 20s in this book.

And now I'm out of Monster Manuals. Exactly one CR 20 monster can hit AC 70 on anything other than a 20. Given that CR 20 is the standard for level 20 parties to be fighting, I'm not impressed. Still, I can just hear the cries of foul play for only checking monsters of exactly CR 20, so I'm going to just breeze through my Monster Manuals and list the names of anything CR 21+ that can reasonably hit AC 70.

41 HD Great Wyrm Gold Dragon (CR 27): At +51, he can hit on a 19. At CR 27.

That's it. I checked all three Monster Manuals I've got, and there are only two creatures capable of hitting AC 70 without rolling a 20. One of those only hits on a 19-20. So yeah. I think that pretty much says what needs to be said.

Now, that's not to say that it's impossible for some of these monsters to buff themselves up. The Green Dragon example has True Strike on his spell list. So does the Gold Dragon. I'm willing to accept those as valid examples of a couple standard monsters who could conceivably get the spells off in a fight. Unfortunately for them, they're spending a standard action to make a single attack have a chance of hitting. Meanwhile, the entire party is doing their best to kill it as fast as possible. That's not a winning strategy.

I think I've beat this one over the head enough. Even by the OP's standards, you only need a 60-odd AC to be untouchable or nearly so to most monsters physical attacks. If you like building to ACs in the 70s, more power to you, and I hope you have fun doing it. I love my opti-fu tricks too, though on a lower level than that. Just don't tell everyone else that the numbers say something they don't, please.

[Polarity Shift]

Monk 2 (kung fu genius), Factotum 8, duelist 10 (just saying. it can be done much better)
Buy gloves of the balanced hand, use iaijutsu focus and knowledge devotion to make up for damage.
Drop STR and use swords of graceful strikes if allowed.

And have fun doing zero damage while everything ignores you.

I think it goes without saying you have to also pose a threat, something you absolutely cannot do with duelist levels.

[Slayer of Gimps]

If they are inexperienced, I give them advise, or let one of the other players advice them. But the people I usually play with are all experienced players, so normally I see no poorly build characters. Just not fully optimized characters, so that is kind of balanced. The players might fiace a battle every two sessions, or four in one sessions, depending where they are in the story. I believe you would find that boring, but we have a great time.
I do not resort to "cheating" as much as my post implied. Maybe once in a hundred rolls. I also tend to give players a bonus depending on how colourful they describe their actions. Would you call that cheating as well? For instance if a player attacks, I might give them +2 to hit. The players know I do this, but not when. I believe it improves the roleplaying. Besides it's fun to listen to what they come up with :)

A hundred rolls is about... every third fight. About as often as those not taking this advice would die. Coincidence? I think not.


From all I've seen, I've noticed a slight concept which really bugs me.

The very first post insists that a "successful" character requires defenses that force the enemy to roll on a 15 or higher, while one should have a bonus to attack rolls that succeeds on a 5 or higher. Normally, I would understand a 10/10 split, but I definitely need to understand the importance of planning 5 points above, if the average roll is 10.5 (thus, either a 10 or an 11).

I'd like to understand this because this seems an exaggeration. Only four points shy of "auto-success", where only a 1 or a 20 would suffice to fail an attack or succeed on one (for the character and the enemy, respectively).

No, it doesn't say anything about attack rolls. Though to meet the offensive criteria, you'd need somewhere high into the negatives, so that you can PA for large numbers and still hit on a 2. Even weak melee hit on a 2, they just don't hit hard enough to make any difference (due to not having that PA allowance).

If they can hit you on a 10, your AC is worthless, just cast Displacement.


Another concern is that the OP is aiming for high-level play, but I'd wish to see his concerns within the 6-10 level range. Before going any forward, I'd like to see which is the general range of play, because aiming to play up to the 15-20 level range is a bit far-fetched.

The OP covers all levels from 5 up. Once you hit 5, things scale at a mostly linear rate. Before 5, things scale a little slower, but since 1 and 2 will always be unworkable, no matter what that leaves only 3 and 4... levels at which you can do something about being OHKOed and 2HKOed all the time, but not a whole lot and therefore they have little relevance to a thread discussing how to avoid making characters that are one or two rounded as they are, by definition not successful.


I'd also like to point one further thing: the following is assuming the DM behaves like a machine, where the rules surpass the DM's determination. I feel this is crucial, because the entire point of the OP bases upon the DM constantly rolling over 10 (disregarding actual fumbles), that the DM always plays his enemies smart; exactly HOW smart is another point of concern, particularly on what is the OP's perception on what a DM should be given that I perceive the DM as a machine which can be played with, instead of something ranging from a fellow player to an awesome storyteller to a tactical genius who lacks a military rank.

Wrong. What the OP assumes is all of the following:

The DM is playing by the rules, without cheating.
The dice are falling where they may.
You are fighting normal enemies (harder enemies again are already addressed).
That the enemies are intelligent (the only correct assumption you made... because they are). Though it doesn't even assume that much intelligence, as the only express or implied tactic mentioned is focus fire, something that everything except golems can work out.


...Okay, you say that to play a successful character you have to have these numbers. And when you propose how to get these numbers it involves numerous non-core spells and Abjurant Champion for AC. Or Wings of Cover.

How is anyone supposed to get characters to this in core 3.5e? And while the math is a bit funky in d20 at higher levels, that's slightly ridiculous.

And for the reference, I play in a group of people where I'm running the most deadly character at LV 9 with a PF Ranger with a two handed weapon power attacking. Building to these standards would be complete and utter overkill to compete with the rest of the game, so no thanks.

Core is broken, this is a fact. AC is also broken. That is the point.

PF is even more broken, and if the best character you have is one of the ones that got nerfed hard that party is broken.

The goal of this thread is to create successful characters. A part of that involves fixing them and not breaking them.


I believe that was in fact the intended point: that it is highly impractical for anyone to make effective use of AC, even against "stock enemies".

Exactly.


I happen to disagree, but on the grounds that "stock enemies" in many campaigns aren't actually anywhere near as powerful the OP assumes. (Presumably the most basic enemies in the OP's games are conventionally rather heavily optimized; that's fine, but it's not a playstyle choice everyone makes.)

As has been stated before, optimized enemies are harder. +30 to hit at level 8, etc. Which means you need even better stats or more stat bypasses to get by them, as the stock enemies benchmark of 34-39 gets you hit on a 4-9, which is too low to make any difference. However the thread is primarily aimed at stock enemies, in which you do need the stated numbers to survive.

Most of these posts are just off topic derailments and/or repeating things that have already been addressed. They have no relevance to the discussion.

[Polarity Shift]

As has been stated before, optimized enemies are harder. +30 to hit at level 8, etc. Which means you need even better stats or more stat bypasses to get by them, as the stock enemies benchmark of 34-39 gets you hit on a 4-9, which is too low to make any difference. However the thread is primarily aimed at stock enemies, in which you do need the stated numbers to survive.

Or near 40ish at 11. Thing is, the weak characters are going to die regardless. They'll die if they face optimized enemies, they'll die if they face stock enemies, they'll die if they face Warrior 2s that do a whopping 1d8+1 damage and have absolutely nothing going for them, not even numbers due to Stormtrooper syndrome. Designing the game to prevent the inevitable is both impossible and pointless.

So why even pay them any mind? What matters is how the capable people are doing.

And in such a case, those without solid defenses are going to lose init and then die sooner rather than later. As in sometime this session sooner. Those without solid offenses are walking dead men, because they can't threaten anything. Those with both? You might as well divvy their loot now, it will save you from pausing the game later.

The stated numbers withstand the test of math vs stock enemies and if you add 10-15 they hold up to optimized enemies. That makes the claims of this thread objectively valid, whereas proofless claims that contradict it are proven invalid.

Objectivity > subjectivity.

In order to keep this topic productive and useful, what would you say the baselines for saves are? Yes you should be able to save on a 2-5, but what numbers do you need to hit that point?

[Slayer of Gimps]

In order to keep this topic productive and useful, what would you say the baselines for saves are? Yes you should be able to save on a 2-5, but what numbers do you need to hit that point?

Standard baseline progression, which is to say max casting stat, all level ups into that stat, stat boosting item gotten and upgraded as soon as possible and casting highest level spell available.

Which gives us:

Level 5: DC 17.
Level 10: DC 22.
Level 15: DC 26.
Level 20: DC 31.

For the target numbers just subtract 2-5. Of course these are for casters with zero optimization of their casting, aka stock enemies. DC optimization will raise the target numbers either slightly or significantly depending on how far you take it.

VS Stock enemies you should have all saves of:

Level 5: 12-15 or greater.
Level 10: 17-20 or greater.
Level 15: 21-24 or greater.
Level 20: 26-29 or greater.

The level 5 benchmark is nearly unreachable, so don't worry if you don't hit it. The others are quite doable, provided you overcome the biggest obstacle of getting the party on the same page instead of wandering in random directions like cats in need of herding.

[Polarity Shift]

VS Stock enemies you should have all saves of:

Level 5: 12-15 or greater.
Level 10: 17-20 or greater.
Level 15: 21-24 or greater.
Level 20: 26-29 or greater.

At level 10 you'd have 7 from persisted buffs and at least 3 resistance so that's just 7-10 from base, stats, and other effects. You'd likely need another buff somewhere but it's quite manageable.

15 is much easier since you'd have 8 from the persisted buffs and at least 5 resistance, so just 8-11 from the other stuff which is much more easily managed at this level.

20 seems annoying though. You still only get 13 from the typical buffs and effects, but that leaves 13-16 that has to come from the rest. Of course the game isn't really playable at 20 so I don't think that matters too much.

[Slayer of Gimps]

At level 10 you'd have 7 from persisted buffs and at least 3 resistance so that's just 7-10 from base, stats, and other effects. You'd likely need another buff somewhere but it's quite manageable.

15 is much easier since you'd have 8 from the persisted buffs and at least 5 resistance, so just 8-11 from the other stuff which is much more easily managed at this level.

20 seems annoying though. You still only get 13 from the typical buffs and effects, but that leaves 13-16 that has to come from the rest. Of course the game isn't really playable at 20 so I don't think that matters too much.

The main thing that helps make up the difference here is that +2 save bonus at first level. Since every effective character not named Druid or Artificer is multiclassing or PRCing heavily that makes up the bulk of the difference. There are also cap breaking effects, which is to say things that give a standard bonus type greater than +5. Everything from Superior Resistance to Divine Companion (which unfortunately is class specific). They can help get your saves up to benchmark values, and are the only ways possible to get your AC up to benchmark values. Most of them are Deflection or Resistance bonuses though so they don't stack with themselves unfortunately.

The other method is stat to AC that stacks with everything else you're doing, meaning not Monk AC bonus or similar. Most of those come with substantial penalties and/or opportunity costs though, so just stick to miss chances. The saves benchmarks are quite reachable though.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I think it goes without saying you have to also pose a threat, something you absolutely cannot do with duelist levels.
I said it wasn't optimized. But let's do a little math :smallsmile:
Sword (1d8) of Graceful Strikes adds dex to damage (+10)
Knowledge Devotion let's say +4
+5 from "magic weapon" spell
+5 from "collision" (costs +2)
+3 from str
=
about 29 damage/hit
Not too shabby if you manage to do multiple attacks. Ok, it's no frenzied berserker.

Now let's optimize it a little and take the damage up to a decent level. There are so many options it just makes the problem trivial.
Choose one or more of the following:

A) Use Gnome Qickrazors. Max out Iaijutsu Focus.
Now you can add an average of 6d6 on any attack in the first round (you have +17 on initiative just from stats, that's likely to happen) or if you succesfully hide (again, +17 just from stats, and it's not fully optimized)
B) Change Monk, some Factotum, or a couple of levels in Duelist with Swordsage 2. Get Shadow Blade. Make your weapons "aptitude". Another +10 damage. More mobility (maneuvers). Free weapon focus. Diamond mind counters (saves problem partially solved). average +14 damage with Burning Blade. It's a pretty good dip.
B.2) Use Assassin's Stance + Craven for an extra average of extra 27 precision damage
C) Change 2 levels of Duelist with 2 levels in the fighter variant "hit & run". You have now 10 more damages (competence) that will kick in with Iaijutsu Focus
D) Swashbuckler3 instead of some Factotum Levels. Precision based damage unfortunately, but it's a +7.
E) Situational bonus to hit and/or damage with factotum (+7 from int)
F) Use a 2 handed finesseable weapon. Spiked Chain is a wonderful one. You can now double power attack with it. Now an inspiration point can be converted to 14 damage.
G) Charge. Get 1 level of Barbarian (ofc remove monk and use swordsage instead) possibly the Ferocity variant, and make your weapons "valorous". Double damage, full attack, you can improve it greatly with the proper feats (battle jump is the best by far)
H) Warblade (monk2, factotum3, warblade8, duelist7, for example) more damage on flat footed or flanked opponents, powerful maneuvers (just delay some levels of warblade at the end) gives lots of good stuff. Also great for charging.

The build is perfectly viable. You can have 70 AC and deal significant damage.
With duelist. And monk.

While all of this is indeed optimized, it's not insanely optimized yet. It would take a lot of minmaxing, but the ceiling is much higher for AC, damage, saves and general versatility.

[TuggyNE]

I would like to repeat the previous requests for sources of stock enemies that exhibit attack bonuses of e.g. +30 at level 8, to take one example. Tyger's idea of pulling listed attack bonuses from an accepted module seems a good one; Polarity Shift, Slayer of Gimps, I think we would all appreciate a detailed breakdown, rather than simply being brushed off with "oh yeah everyone knows that stock enemies can do +30 at level 8, never mind optimized".

[Tyndmyr]

All of the dragons have 30ish HD. That's more than the casters, it's less than the singular melee. This is also about typical for the level. Since they have to hits in the mid 50s, an AC that only equals that isn't stopping them from hitting you at all. It might stop them from PAing you, but since they can probably one round you anyways that doesn't matter.

Or are you forgetting most of the bonuses they get again?

Let us consider one of the more potent dragons at CR 20, the black wyrm. With BaB and strength, it's primary attack is a +42.

If you have mid 50s AC(let's use 55 for the math), odds are about even that it'll connect with you with it's primary attacks if it does not power attack. Power attacking rapidly reduces it's hit chance to minimal levels, and thus, is not efficient. Secondary weapons are much less effective. Note that on a dragon, everything but a bite is a secondary weapon.

Bite: +str
2x Claw:(secondary) +half str
2x Wing:(secondary) +half str
Tail: (secondary) + 1.5 str

Str mod: +12

This gives us damage on hit as follows:

Bite: 4d6+12 -Average: 26
Claw: 2d8+6 -Average: 15(each)
Wing: 2d6+6 -Average: 13(each)
Tail: 2d8+18 -Average: 27

Now, let's calc the miss chance for 55 AC.

Bite: Hits on 13+, 40% hit chance.
Everything else: Hits on 18+, 15% hit chance.

Expected average damage after armor:

Bite: 10.4
Claws: 2.25(each)
Wing: 1.95(each)
Tail: 4.05

Total: 22.85

That is, at level 20, pretty trivial. Now, the dragon can be given feats, templates, spells, etc to buff that up if desired, but a reasonably AC focused char can handle tanking one at level 20.


In fights with multiple enemies you need the same AC, as otherwise they can easily one round you, well before running out of actions.

Typically, their attack bonuses are somewhat lower than yours, and thus, "only hits on a 20" comes up more and more often. A tank can easily get by with less AC as a result.


It is nonetheless a TO trick and outside the scope of any practical exercise. Taking things only good at low levels is also not helpful.

Chaos shuffle may or may not be allowed depending on optimization level of the table. I would think it a bit odd to assume AC 70 is perfectly fine, but spell shenanigans are not. Usually people who dislike the latter also disapprove of the former.


Many Will effects still work, including all of the best ones.

Against undead? I think the single best one is mindrape, which is, of course, mind affecting. In fact, rather a lot of will saves are mind affecting, including basically all of the "I now control your char" variety. Are those not among the most powerful of will effects?


A NPC is going to do even less with it, and you'll stop him in the natural course of stopping the actual threats. What it comes down to is that it's a lot easier to get immunity to common effects + high saves than immune to all effects. Yes, Heavy Fort is an immunity to a common effect. It also comes at 15... which is the level you stop encountering Assassins, after having dealt with them for several levels prior. A few classes can get it earlier yes, but again class specific.

You can pick it up all day via the Heart of X buffs, which basically opens up any arcane caster to having it. Hell, the truenamer gets it at level five. Warforged can have it from level one. There are a number of options for this.


Unbalanced Paizo material. Afraid I'm going to have to not count that one. I was hoping you meant from a credible source.

It is RAW. It is not traditionally regarded as a broken feat. There are also a number of other ways to gain a skill as a class skill, this is merely the most generally applicable of them.


They might get made, sure. It explains why there are so many magic items lying around. They died and lost them. Beyond that though?

These numbers let you deal with normal opponents. If you lack them, you do not deal with normal opponents. If you are facing harder stuff you need better numbers, but as it is the only place D&D has for poorly made (especially that poorly made) characters is located south of Tombstone.

Nah. Consider your ludicrous saves claim, for instance. Good save bonuses accumulate faster than save DCs increase without either party investing notably in them. Going from 1 to 20, with no investment, the caster goes from casting level 1 spells to level 9 spells, for a total of +8 to DCs. Meanwhile a good save gets +10 to the bonus.

That's...pretty close to balancing out. Weak saves are rather more problematic, and benefit from a bit of care, but you need not have a save bonus equal to level to avoid falling behind. That would be becoming mostly immune to saves.

Edit: I should note that I allow rather high amounts of PC optimization, and run monsters almost purely by RAW(mistakes do happen on occasion, but I try to keep them strictly legal), and I don't see the effects you're complaining about. I've never had a 70 AC PC, for instance, yet party wipes are not a worry, and deaths are not common in general. Not even everyone utilizes miss chances heavily.

[Polarity Shift]

I said it wasn't optimized. But let's do a little math :smallsmile:
Sword (1d8) of Graceful Strikes adds dex to damage (+10)
Knowledge Devotion let's say +4
+5 from "magic weapon" spell
+5 from "collision" (costs +2)
+3 from str
=
about 29 damage/hit
Not too shabby if you manage to do multiple attacks. Ok, it's no frenzied berserker.

29 damage a hit. At level 20. As I said. Not a threat.


Let us consider one of the more potent dragons at CR 20, the black wyrm. With BaB and strength, it's primary attack is a +42.

And with all the other bonuses it's mid 50s (normal dragon) or 70 or so (optimized dragon).

That is also not how math works, and even a mid 50s character (who actually gets hit by every attack) is going to have a hard time getting mid 50s.


Against undead? I think the single best one is mindrape, which is, of course, mind affecting. In fact, rather a lot of will saves are mind affecting, including basically all of the "I now control your char" variety. Are those not among the most powerful of will effects?

Somehow I don't think enchantment effects - things blockable by a simple first level spell are the most powerful.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

29 damage a hit. At level 20. As I said. Not a threat.
I said it myself that it was not optimized. It was just an example to prove a point. But I provided effective solutions.
You'd notice if you didn't intentionally skip the biggest part of my post.

[Slayer of Gimps]

I would like to repeat the previous requests for sources of stock enemies that exhibit attack bonuses of e.g. +30 at level 8, to take one example. Tyger's idea of pulling listed attack bonuses from an accepted module seems a good one; Polarity Shift, Slayer of Gimps, I think we would all appreciate a detailed breakdown, rather than simply being brushed off with "oh yeah everyone knows that stock enemies can do +30 at level 8, never mind optimized".

Here is the quote you are responding to:

"As has been stated before, optimized enemies are harder. +30 to hit at level 8, etc."

Why would you assume I was referring to stock enemies with that when the context clearly indicates harder than stock enemies have those numbers?

Particularly when the rest of that is:

"Which means you need even better stats or more stat bypasses to get by them, as the stock enemies benchmark of 34-39 gets you hit on a 4-9, which is too low to make any difference. However the thread is primarily aimed at stock enemies, in which you do need the stated numbers to survive."

Clearly the stock enemies benchmark is not sufficient for harder enemies, which is entirely consistent with what I've said from the beginning. This just illustrates exactly how far an optimized creature pulls ahead of a stock one since stock ones would only have enough so that 34-39 = only hit on a 16 or better. Which a simple reverse engineering shows to be 18-23, putting the optimized creature 7-12 points ahead of stock. Which again is consistent what I've said from the beginning.

I'm assuming the near +40 at 11 is also an optimized creature either following the standard progression of +3 to hit per level or just copy pasted from the attack line of the creature itself.


Let us consider one of the more potent dragons at CR 20, the black wyrm. With BaB and strength, it's primary attack is a +42.

And then you give it all the things other than BAB and Str that it gets and you have mid 50s, at least.


Typically, their attack bonuses are somewhat lower than yours, and thus, "only hits on a 20" comes up more and more often. A tank can easily get by with less AC as a result.

Synergy + fewer attacks needing to hit overall means you die faster.


Chaos shuffle may or may not be allowed depending on optimization level of the table. I would think it a bit odd to assume AC 70 is perfectly fine, but spell shenanigans are not. Usually people who dislike the latter also disapprove of the former.

AC 70 = surviving campaigns at level 20. TO tricks = destroying campaigns at all levels. If you can't see why one would be allowed and one would not...


Against undead? I think the single best one is mindrape, which is, of course, mind affecting. In fact, rather a lot of will saves are mind affecting, including basically all of the "I now control your char" variety. Are those not among the most powerful of will effects?

I'm talking about the ones that will actually get cast on you.


You can pick it up all day via the Heart of X buffs, which basically opens up any arcane caster to having it. Hell, the truenamer gets it at level five. Warforged can have it from level one. There are a number of options for this.

At level 9, but that's class specific. Warforged cannot have it from level 1. At most they can get it at 4, but since it means no healing it's not worth it. No point in preventing yourself from being one rounded by spike damage if you can't mitigate the normal output, causing you to die a lot faster. Truenamers are Truenamers.


It is RAW. It is not traditionally regarded as a broken feat. There are also a number of other ways to gain a skill as a class skill, this is merely the most generally applicable of them.

Are there some published by a credible source? Because no one can take anything published by a company that made casters much better and everyone much worse seriously.


Nah. Consider your ludicrous saves claim, for instance. Good save bonuses accumulate faster than save DCs increase without either party investing notably in them. Going from 1 to 20, with no investment, the caster goes from casting level 1 spells to level 9 spells, for a total of +8 to DCs. Meanwhile a good save gets +10 to the bonus.

...And... the caster increases his casting stat by 16 points, for another +8, and the spells are going to be aimed at the lower saves. I know you know better here.


That's...pretty close to balancing out. Weak saves are rather more problematic, and benefit from a bit of care, but you need not have a save bonus equal to level to avoid falling behind. That would be becoming mostly immune to saves.

If your save bonus is only equal to level that'd be very weak. At most you'd only pass saves half the time, which means you're failing them in every single fight. Despite this some people stubbornly insist on making their characters as ineffective as possible which among other things means even lower stats. Then insist they are fine anyways, something that is proven wrong the instant they get hit with a spell as they will then fail that save against that spell.


Edit: I should note that I allow rather high amounts of PC optimization, and run monsters almost purely by RAW(mistakes do happen on occasion, but I try to keep them strictly legal), and I don't see the effects you're complaining about. I've never had a 70 AC PC, for instance, yet party wipes are not a worry, and deaths are not common in general. Not even everyone utilizes miss chances heavily.

Yet you're claiming dragons get nothing but BAB and Str and made a number of very obvious mathematical errors.

Can people kindly stop getting hung up on the AC? Miss chances are better and easier to get, I think we've established this already.

[Polarity Shift]

I said it myself that it was not optimized. It was just an example to prove a point. But I provided solutions.
You'd notice if you didn't intentionally skip the biggest part of my post.

To prove what point? That ineffective characters are ineffective? You're preaching to the choir. I stopped reading once you described 29 a hit at 20 on someone that does nothing but damage as anything other than a waste of time and space.

Do you hit the numbers you should hit on a practical and reliable basis?

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I stopped reading.
Your problem. As I said, that was just an example to prove that 70 AC does not require house rules or extreme optimization.
Yes the damage was low, but I provided effective solutions on my second post.
You want 1K damage/round? It's possible.
If you refuse to fully understand a point of view, you are not in the position to argue against it.

[Tyndmyr]

29 damage a hit. At level 20. As I said. Not a threat.

And with all the other bonuses it's mid 50s (normal dragon) or 70 or so (optimized dragon).

That is also not how math works, and even a mid 50s character (who actually gets hit by every attack) is going to have a hard time getting mid 50s.

Nah, that's a bog standard enemy. Straight out of the monster manual. One of the best attack bonuses for that CR, too(only better is big T). The silver dragon, for example, musters only a +36, and is basically useless against a 55 AC.

As for "that's not how math works", please show the errors.

And a 55 AC is *much* more achievable at level 20 than a 70 AC is. Still takes some investment, true, but the payoff is quite decent. You are quite capable of being an effective tank, despite taking the occasional damage, and can reliably survive a couple rounds of being beaten on by level appropriate encounters.


Somehow I don't think enchantment effects - things blockable by a simple first level spell are the most powerful.

So, you are defining most powerful as "not blockable", and then claiming that the not blockable spells are the most powerful? Circular definition.

Mindrape is indeed one of the most powerful spells of the game, if you can get it through, and enchantment would be an extremely strong school if it were not counter-able. Thus, getting counters to it is fairly important on a char you want to be strong.

[Polarity Shift]

Nah, that's a bog standard enemy. Straight out of the monster manual. One of the best attack bonuses for that CR, too(only better is big T). The silver dragon, for example, musters only a +36, and is basically useless against a 55 AC.

And then it adds all the other stuff it gets and also hits mid 50s.


As for "that's not how math works", please show the errors.

The proper way of calculating survivability has already been discussed. Weighted averages are dishonest statistics.


And a 55 AC is *much* more achievable at level 20 than a 70 AC is. Still takes some investment, true, but the payoff is quite decent. You are quite capable of being an effective tank, despite taking the occasional damage, and can reliably survive a couple rounds of being beaten on by level appropriate encounters.

55 is automatically hit by anything that targets AC. Not only did you put in a bunch of extra effort, you wasted that effort. You might as well go for the easy to get 30-45, which is also automatically hit but saves resources for things that actually help you. Either way though, without defenses that actually are effective that is only true if you redefine reliably to mean almost never or redefine a couple to mean one as such a character is guaranteed of death in two rounds and can die in one.


So, you are defining most powerful as "not blockable", and then claiming that the not blockable spells are the most powerful? Circular definition.

Mindrape is indeed one of the most powerful spells of the game, if you can get it through, and enchantment would be an extremely strong school if it were not counter-able. Thus, getting counters to it is fairly important on a char you want to be strong.

I'm defining in terms of practical value.

[Slayer of Gimps]

I'd just like to add that that is what tends to happen when level 20 characters only hit the target numbers of level 13-15 characters. They are for all intents and purposes mooks.

[Heliomance]

True as it may be, they are usually the product of two different kind of players who have opposite ideas of what role-playing is.

Let's say you have one day to make a character. All books are allowed, including novels. What do you do?

I come up with a character concept, probably some personality. I use my knowledge of the books to work out what classes would mesh well with that character concept. Then I go to gleemax/BG, find the handbooks on those classes, and find out what works well with those classes, what pitfalls to avoid, and any interesting and relevant feats or PrCs that I didn't know about. Then I build a strong character around my original concept, and flesh out the personality partly based on what they end up being able to do. Problem?

As an example, I'll talk you through the last character I made. I decided I wanted to play an illusionist - I've always wanted to try out the Shadowcraft Mage class. So I rolled up a gnome. I went and looked up the Shadowcraft Mage handbook, and found out about things like the Shadowcrafter, Gnome Illusionist racial sub levels, and Unearthed Arcana ACFs. I put most of them in the build, along with the Spellgifted trait, and ended up with a character that was insanely good at illusion, but couldn't cast evocation, conjuration or necromancy spells at all, and was really bad at the other schools, especially transmutation. So I started to think about why that would be.

Tabitha is a gnome with a secret. She hides who she is at all times, and turned to illusion to help her hide better. She has a driving need to not be found out, and threw herself into her illusion studies with passion, at the expense of the other schools.

She discovered that she was something of a prodigy, a savant. Illusion came to her even more easily than others of her race, and she aced every illusion class at university. The other schools though, she finds a lot harder. Conjuration, evocation, necromancy - she just can't get her head round how you call energy or matter across the interplanar boundaries. No matter how many times it was explained to her how to summon fire or negative energy from the inner planes, or open up a portal from the Prime and bring a creature through, she could not make a dent on the boundaries of the worlds (Conjuration, evocation and necromancy barred for focused specialist).

She very nearly failed transmutation as well, but luckily her lecturer for that course was incredibly patient with her. He eventually got her to think of the physical form of things as just another illusion that could be manipulated. She still finds it hard, but she can manage the basics (mechanically, she has -2 caster levels for transmutation spells, thanks to Spellgifted and the Gnome Illusionist sub level).

The other schools - abjuration, enchantment and divination - she had less trouble with, dealing as they do with intangibles from the Prime Material, but she neglected her studies, and so scored poorly on them (-1 caster level due to Spellgifted).

As soon as she graduated from university in Sharn, she moved across the continent, changing her name, and developing her own new spell so she could hide her old face at all times. She lives in fear of her disguise being dispelled, and refuses to be seen each morning until she's prepared her spells and recast the disguise.

Mechanically, she's going to be a highly optimised Killer Gnome, whose illusions will end up more real than reality. I've pored through every book I can think of, and added in all the abilities to make her a better illusionist. I've already planned her build up to level 20, despite the fact that the campaign almost certainly won't get that far. At level 3, she had a Colour Spray DC of 18, which turned an ambush by bandit warlocks into an absolute cakewalk. She is a strong, powerful, optimised character. She's also one of the most fun characters to roleplay I've ever had.

[Ezekiul]

I agree with a couple of people and would like to reiterate some of their points.

1. Not everyone has the same view of successful/fun characters.
2. Not everyone is a power-gamer. There are those that don't optimize still manage to adore and love their characters
3. The group controls the power level. One shouldn't worry about having 25-30 AC at level 5 if everyone in the group has 16 AC, and the DM pays attention to that.
4. Numbers aren't everything in a successful and fun character, the characters I had the most fun with had a very heavy role play element (and still managed to be successful because of the DM).

:smallbiggrin:

[Slayer of Gimps]

1: Dead characters are by definition unsuccessful.
2: Characters that are not optimized at all are by definition dead in the short term, so they don't even make it to the long term. See point 1.
3: If everyone in the group has 16 AC at 5, then either everyone in the group has Mirror Image or something, or everyone in the group gets easily, if not automatically hit by attacks and quickly dies as their HP just aren't up to the task of taking hits.
4: Dead characters are by definition unsuccessful. If the DM must cheat for you to make you not die all the time, you are not successful. Oberoni.

[The Glyphstone]

Stormwind, not Oberoni. If you're going to accuse people of fallacies, make sure you're accusing them of the right one.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Stormwind, not Oberoni. If you're going to accuse people of fallacies, make sure you're accusing them of the right one.

I think it's a bit of both.

[Ezekiul]

Stormwind talks about min/maxing (optimization) and roleplay coexisting and being independent, not that only min/maxing makes successful/fun characters and roleplay/non-power gaming makes dead and unsuccessful characters. I am more of a power gamer than I care to admit, but I do always keep my group in mind. My goal isnt to outshine everyone at every possible moment but to be on the same level as the group so everyone can enjoy the game just as much as the person sitting next to them. My characters do not "die" because I play them in a different way.

[The Glyphstone]

Oberoni applies to Rule 0 being a panacea for everything. A DM isn't cheating by supplying easy fights - there is no rule that says you must fight equal-CR monsters or higher.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Oberoni applies to Rule 0 being a panacea for everything. A DM isn't cheating by supplying easy fights - there is no rule that says you must fight equal-CR monsters or higher.

It would be more accurate to say Oberoni is it's not a problem because the DM can fix it. Which is exactly what he is describing. Apparently, if the party runs around with 16 AC all enemies have only +0 to hit at level 5 so they can stay alive. Nevermind even level 1 enemies are several points higher than that. Nevermind you'd have a hard time making enemies that weak if you tried.

Apparently if the party runs around at 1 HP while blinded all enemies commit seppuku on the spot, so as to avoid overly threatening them.

Even if that is exactly what he's saying, then the game is still punishing you with low XP, low loot, and characters that weak are STILL going to die a lot.

[The Glyphstone]

Pushing fringe cases here, but I'd be hard-pressed to see a Toad kill anyone. And you could technically level up by genociding toads, it would just take a long, long time.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Pushing fringe cases here, but I'd be hard-pressed to see a Toad kill anyone. And you could technically level up by genociding toads, it would just take a long, long time.

Some of the characters I've seen people like that make could probably manage it. Still, the weak party is off grinding toads because it's all they can handle while the capable one is going on proper adventures. I think that speaks for itself.

[Helldog]

1: Dead characters are by definition unsuccessful.
Make them undead. Solved.


2: Characters that are not optimized at all are by definition dead in the short term, so they don't even make it to the long term. See point 1.
False. Characters that are not optimized simply don't encounter optimized or overCRed opponents and are totally fine.


3: If everyone in the group has 16 AC at 5, then either everyone in the group has Mirror Image or something, or everyone in the group gets easily, if not automatically hit by attacks and quickly dies as their HP just aren't up to the task of taking hits.
Then the DM just doesn't send after them opponents that can easily or automatically hit and kill them. kobolds and goblins are a staple low level enemy for a reason.


4: Dead characters are by definition unsuccessful. If the DM must cheat for you to make you not die all the time, you are not successful. Oberoni.
Dead characters are unsuccessful. That's not fun. So in order to have fun, the DM makes it is PCs don't die just like that. Simple.


Even if that is exactly what he's saying, then the game is still punishing you with low XP, low loot, and characters that weak are STILL going to die a lot.
Level appropriate XP and loot is not low.
It's the DMs job to make the game fun for everyone. If PCs die a lot, he makes it so they don't die a lot. And not optimizing encounters is hardly Oberoni.

[IP Proofing]

{{scrubbed}}

[Polarity Shift]

It would be more accurate to say Oberoni is it's not a problem because the DM can fix it. Which is exactly what he is describing. Apparently, if the party runs around with 16 AC all enemies have only +1 to hit at level 5 so they can stay alive. Nevermind even level 1 enemies are several points higher than that. Nevermind you'd have a hard time making enemies that weak if you tried.

Wouldn't that be +0?


I find it interesting that so many object to such a basic and simple optimization tactic. Characters with average defenses will die every second or third fight. Characters with merely good defenses will be hard pressed to gain more levels from the XP they gain than they lose to Raise Dead. Which is why you have to go beyond good and even great to survive campaigns. You have to proof yourself against Iterative Probability, that simple thing that says as time goes on your chance of failure approaches 1, so if you want to survive campaigns it must advance very very slowly.

Even a character with an only 5% chance to be affected by a spell is still going to have it land on them eventually. And when it does? You might be a deadneck.

Know what the best part of all this is?

Basket Weavers - those guys who hate being held to any sort of objective standard as they know that they will never meet those standards and regard the mere existence of said standards - much less having their attention drawn to them as offensive are the ones raging about it and ruining this and any other thread about the subject with irrelevant, empty, and false statements to mislead the masses. They claim IP Proofing grants invincibility. It doesn't, it just makes you really hard to kill. And yet, what they actually want is invincibility. They really do want to never, ever die even though they don't deserve that at all. It requires all manner of mental contortions to pull off though, from nerfing the enemies well below stock stats to playing them stupidly to blatantly cheating to turn death into not death.

If IP Proofing was as they thought it was though, why not embrace it? It gives them exactly what they want. A character that never dies no matter what. Of course IP Proofing doesn't work that way, and that'd require them to acknowledge objective standards exist and then design to those standards. That will never happen, and if it did it'd be a catch 22 since they'd no longer qualify as Basket Weavers.

Instead what happens is every time someone tries to make a thread about the subject they come under attack. That's exactly what's happened here.

QFT. Unfortunately they're not going to stop attacking the idea no matter what.


Pushing fringe cases here, but I'd be hard-pressed to see a Toad kill anyone. And you could technically level up by genociding toads, it would just take a long, long time.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100913012413/chrono/images/3/3c/Chrono_Trigger_Frog_Squash.png

[Tyndmyr]

Oberoni applies to Rule 0 being a panacea for everything. A DM isn't cheating by supplying easy fights - there is no rule that says you must fight equal-CR monsters or higher.

This is correct.

I would assume that an average campaign fights encounters roughly as advised in the DMG, which has a nice little proportional mix of tough fights, normal fights, easy fights...something roughly akin to that would be average and normal, and can be considered the basic level that people need to optimize for.

Classes and builds that reliably fail to contribute in such circumstance are problematic, but rather less pervasive than the OP would seem to imply. I dare say I could get any class functioning decently in an average party with reasonable effort, and he'd have a good chance on surviving to level 20.

Yes, you *can* make a char such that he won't reasonably live to 20, but that does not seem typical, or commonly desired.

[Gotterdammerung]

1: Dead characters are by definition unsuccessful.

This is a false statement. Success of a character is defined by the characters goals. Therefore a blanket definition of character success is insufficient. A cleric of Ilmater whose life goal is to ease the suffering of the world rushes without a thought to personal safety into mortal combat with a great demon in order to give his friends and the townsfolk time to escape. You say this character is a failure. You are wrong, he is a success.


2:Characters that are not optimized at all are by definition dead in the short term, so they don't even make it to the long term. See point 1.
3: If everyone in the group has 16 AC at 5, then either everyone in the group has Mirror Image or something, or everyone in the group gets easily, if not automatically hit by attacks and quickly dies as their HP just aren't up to the task of taking hits.

These statements are absurd. You are implying that the strongest probability will always come true. And if it doesn't work out that way then there must be some kind of DM intervention going on. In my own life experience, I can think of lots of times where life did not choose the most probable outcome. In my own D & D experience I can think of plenty of times where the game did not choose the most probable outcome. The risk of death alone is not enough to auto-kill you. You also have to ignore everything outside of math to even come close to this faulty conclusion. 3 characters ago I played a beguiler with very low fort and reflex low hp almost no AC and very little immunities. By your criteria I should have auto-died. I didn't. By your criteria the DM must of been soft playing. He wasn't, we fought many optimized creatures often times 4-5 CRs above party lvl and sometimes as high as +9. He did not softplay these creatures either. So your next question must be.. well how did you live then because that sounds impossible? That is an easy answer. The game is not all about the math. Our group focused heavily on teamwork and built characters to cover each others weakness. We used sound tactics in and out of combat to ensure advantages over stronger foes. We used political arts to gain powerful allies and information.

The point is there are many things in this game that can not be quantified by the simple mechanical mathematics. It is absurd to assume that an unoptimized character is a walking dead man.



4: If the DM must cheat for you to make you not die all the time, you are not successful. Oberoni.

The DM can't cheat. The point of the game is to tell an interactive story. That is what makes D&D so revolutionary and why it is the great grandfather of the gaming world we know today. It is the DM's job to moderate that story. Anything he does for the sake of the story is part of the game. Players with concrete mindsets often take up the sword of math and viciously attack the DM screen like it is some wall of oppression. Sadly, these players strip away the beauty of the game and as a result miss out on its most fundamental merits.

[Slayer of Gimps]

This is correct.

I would assume that an average campaign fights encounters roughly as advised in the DMG, which has a nice little proportional mix of tough fights, normal fights, easy fights...something roughly akin to that would be average and normal, and can be considered the basic level that people need to optimize for.

When you do that, you find there are five categories. One of them composes half of the total. Even leveled enemies. Which is what the baselines are meant to meet. Another 40% belong to one of the three categories in which you fight higher level encounters, so more and/or harder enemies. If you're not even hitting benchmarks for your basic fights, you have no chance against bosses.

Only 10% are lower level. They're not meant to be a threat at all even by the skewed design standards.

I'm glad we're in agreement though on what is required.


Classes and builds that reliably fail to contribute in such circumstance are problematic, but rather less pervasive than the OP would seem to imply. I dare say I could get any class functioning decently in an average party with reasonable effort, and he'd have a good chance on surviving to level 20.

Yes, you *can* make a char such that he won't reasonably live to 20, but that does not seem typical, or commonly desired.

It's more likely than you think.

Edit: Dead characters do not achieve their goals.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Edit: Dead characters do not achieve their goals.
The success of a character is determined by the fun you have playing it.
It's not strictly relating with the in-game success of the character.
imho

[IP Proofing]

IP Proofing (the concept, not me personally) > Gotterdammerung.

[Polarity Shift]

Something I just thought about. If normal enemies hit only on a 16 or better, since to hit scales at the rate of 3/level doesn't that make mini bosses hit most of the time and bosses automatically hit anyways? Seems still too low then. Fortunately save DCs won't improve by nearly the same extent so it's easier to deal with things on the magic side of the equation.

[IP Proofing]

Something I just thought about. If normal enemies hit only on a 16 or better, since to hit scales at the rate of 3/level doesn't that make mini bosses hit most of the time and bosses automatically hit anyways? Seems still too low then. Fortunately save DCs won't improve by nearly the same extent so it's easier to deal with things on the magic side of the equation.

Yes, this is the other main reason to IP Proof, so that bosses don't rock your face off.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Something I just thought about. If normal enemies hit only on a 16 or better, since to hit scales at the rate of 3/level doesn't that make mini bosses hit most of the time and bosses automatically hit anyways? Seems still too low then. Fortunately save DCs won't improve by nearly the same extent so it's easier to deal with things on the magic side of the equation.

Yes. This is where most deaths will come from. If you can get better so much the better, but often only so much is possible. The lower your defenses though, the more you are forced to rely upon win init or die. Offenses, at least are easier to get up to par.

Edit: Or that.

[T.G. Oskar]

No, it doesn't say anything about attack rolls. Though to meet the offensive criteria, you'd need somewhere high into the negatives, so that you can PA for large numbers and still hit on a 2. Even weak melee hit on a 2, they just don't hit hard enough to make any difference (due to not having that PA allowance).

Perhaps, but the concept of "Ability to consistently and quickly take out all level appropriate enemies" and the corollary "99% of the time" pretty much begs the question in a great amount of situations (barring no attack roll spells or abilities, in which saves are important instead). 99% is far too high, IMO, and perhaps the opinions of many others, because of how the line of thought implies this "should" be done (emphasis on should, instead of "must" or "can", since the first and second imply an imperative but the first has less pressure than the second).

Also, I see far too much reliance on Power Attack, without measuring any other stacking bonuses to combat. I will agree that static damage is far more important than dynamic damage unless the average of your dynamic damage supersedes the static (i.e., when stuff like sneak attack supersedes the combination of Strength and PA, which can be possible if you build for it but it will have less applications). From what I see, most of the times you'll overflow in damage, which is against optimization because you're not remaining within the appropriate range of damage to annihilate the enemy in one blow, or two blows, or whichever blows are necessary. Every point of damage you exceed in terms of the target's HP are, sadly to say, wasted beyond belief. If taking 10 points in PA deals just as much damage as taking 20 points on killing an enemy in a single blow, those 10 points could be used to ensure that you get enough attack bonus to actually land the hit, or enough AC to survive in the unlikely case the enemy falls into the highly improbable 5% that it survives the attack. That, mathematically speaking, is optimization. Likewise, if you're pouring 20 points of your BAB (or AC) on a pounce, you could calculate whether dividing your maximum damage within 2 blows is more effective than pouring all into one that might fail, if the amount of BAB is just around enough to land the first blow without fail, because the other blows will be wasted.


If they can hit you on a 10, your AC is worthless, just cast Displacement.

Mind explaining that besides "just because"? Besides, wouldn't it be more effective to say "rely on non-AC defenses regardless of your AC" (of which saves are one, but DR and miss chances are others), if only because Displacement works unless all enemies suddenly have Blindsight (and most enemies only have blindsense, at least the dragons do). A 50% chance of failure is not worthless, or else Displacement would also be worthless were it not because it applies separately. I need to understand why the arbitrary choice of "hitting on a 15" or "missing on less than 5" that's not just assuming everyone knows, or else your point won't be taken seriously, and I don't mean out of pettiness but out of dismissal by lack of proof.


The OP covers all levels from 5 up. Once you hit 5, things scale at a mostly linear rate. Before 5, things scale a little slower, but since 1 and 2 will always be unworkable, no matter what that leaves only 3 and 4... levels at which you can do something about being OHKOed and 2HKOed all the time, but not a whole lot and therefore they have little relevance to a thread discussing how to avoid making characters that are one or two rounded as they are, by definition not successful.

I'd say it covers incompletely, since instead of assuming the result, you could show your proof. You know, just like every scientist does. You could make a stronger point if you decide to take the average of every monster of said CR and explain why. You could do it via mathematical induction, but since you're assuming a 1-20 play, you could do it through exhaustion and you'd have the same results nonetheless.

I also see a lot of reliance on "the enemy WILL always come pre-buffed", which aside from spellcasters might not always be the case. Enemy mooks might not even have the time to be buffed, or else you'd have to assume that there are no surprise rounds (which are part of the rules), because that wouldn't be "playing smart". Playing against spellcasters, on the other hand, imply that your recommendations are pointless because spellcasters will, if played indeed smart, use no-AC, no-save spells with rider effects to cripple the enemy in a single blow, which defeats the purpose of a "successful character with a successful build".


Wrong. What the OP assumes is all of the following:

The DM is playing by the rules, without cheating.

The dice are falling where they may.

Besides fudging rolls (which is something you're ardently against, but that developer's anecdotes state as a fair tool of the DM if used constructively), what else do you consider cheating? I could consider cheating if, at the first moment someone steps into a dungeon, every single creature becomes alert, prepares all of its necessary buffs and makes the battle harder than usual (which is what I assume are the "harder" enemies). I could accept that of the BBEG and perhaps some select monsters, but if you make a random roll to determine which enemy will appear, or if the module's stock enemies don't mention "if the PCs reach within 100 ft. of distance, assume that they spend their time following Table 12-1's list of buffs per turn", instead of...you know, attacking or setting up an ambush, or maybe even fleeing (hey, being smart doesn't define your bravery or cowardice!!), then I'd assume the DM is cheating in order to make the battles harder than they might seem.


You are fighting normal enemies (harder enemies again are already addressed).

Exactly how a DM plays a "normal" enemy is something you can't quantify (and you can't really qualify precisely and accurately, either), unless you're going through a machine with precise and accurate algorithms. The DM may always use enemies of the right CR, or maybe set up enemies with lower CR (Tucker's Kobolds are an example of how low-CR enemies can be a challenge, and that includes smart playing, buffing and whatnot; that also assumes the DM knows about these options, because the DM isn't infinitely smart either), including enemies that are so weak, they deliver no XP for their deaths (but are completely viable to place, unless you consider that DM cheating the players out of their XP).


That the enemies are intelligent (the only correct assumption you made... because they are). Though it doesn't even assume that much intelligence, as the only express or implied tactic mentioned is focus fire, something that everything except golems can work out.

If the enemy is intelligent, how about wise? Is it safe to assume they're wise as well? A character with high Int and low Wis might spend its time figuring the best course of action...in the middle of battle. Or maybe figure that ganging on a single opponent that seems the weakest is the best course of action...without regarding that the others might gank up on them. Someone with low Int and high Wis might know that it's best to follow the orders of someone else, but if something seems wrong, they won't (that's a concept of perception, not cold logic).

Besides, what about mindless oozes or undead? Plants? Immovable targets? Golems are not the only ones that aren't smart, and that can be fooled. It also assumes that the enemies are smart because the DM that plays them is smart and plays by the rules, which is a pretty strict assumption (which is not always correct, and not always wrong either).

[Ezekiul]

Yes. This is where most deaths will come from. If you can get better so much the better, but often only so much is possible. The lower your defenses though, the more you are forced to rely upon win init or die. Offenses, at least are easier to get up to par.

Edit: Or that.

This is correct if you are playing solo. You can't win initiative all the time. I believe, however, that playing in a group is far more common. And within a group you typically have roles (i.e big stupid fighter, glass cannon, healer, battlefield controller, tank etc). If the big stupid fighter can keep his wizard alive for long enough, the wizard will eventually be keeping him alive and making him better later on.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Perhaps, but the concept of "Ability to consistently and quickly take out all level appropriate enemies" and the corollary "99% of the time" pretty much begs the question in a great amount of situations (barring no attack roll spells or abilities, in which saves are important instead). 99% is far too high, IMO, and perhaps the opinions of many others, because of how the line of thought implies this "should" be done (emphasis on should, instead of "must" or "can", since the first and second imply an imperative but the first has less pressure than the second).

99% is a bit low, actually. 99.5% would be ideal.


Also, I see far too much reliance on Power Attack, without measuring any other stacking bonuses to combat. I will agree that static damage is far more important than dynamic damage unless the average of your dynamic damage supersedes the static (i.e., when stuff like sneak attack supersedes the combination of Strength and PA, which can be possible if you build for it but it will have less applications). From what I see, most of the times you'll overflow in damage, which is against optimization because you're not remaining within the appropriate range of damage to annihilate the enemy in one blow, or two blows, or whichever blows are necessary. Every point of damage you exceed in terms of the target's HP are, sadly to say, wasted beyond belief. If taking 10 points in PA deals just as much damage as taking 20 points on killing an enemy in a single blow, those 10 points could be used to ensure that you get enough attack bonus to actually land the hit, or enough AC to survive in the unlikely case the enemy falls into the highly improbable 5% that it survives the attack. That, mathematically speaking, is optimization. Likewise, if you're pouring 20 points of your BAB (or AC) on a pounce, you could calculate whether dividing your maximum damage within 2 blows is more effective than pouring all into one that might fail, if the amount of BAB is just around enough to land the first blow without fail, because the other blows will be wasted.

In regards to mundane characters, Power Attack is the only way to hit hard enough to contribute. Nothing else works. Sneak Attack is blocked by too many things and wouldn't do enough damage even if it wasn't. Not to mention the class that gets it is the squishiest in the entire game, and absolutely nothing will prevent them from being squishy.

Likewise you go for overkill to make things more likely. If you need 3 attacks to hit to win, and you have 5, you lose if at least 3 miss. If you only have 3 attacks you lose if any miss. Much less leeway, much more room for things to go horribly wrong.


Mind explaining that besides "just because"? Besides, wouldn't it be more effective to say "rely on non-AC defenses regardless of your AC" (of which saves are one, but DR and miss chances are others), if only because Displacement works unless all enemies suddenly have Blindsight (and most enemies only have blindsense, at least the dragons do). A 50% chance of failure is not worthless, or else Displacement would also be worthless were it not because it applies separately. I need to understand why the arbitrary choice of "hitting on a 15" or "missing on less than 5" that's not just assuming everyone knows, or else your point won't be taken seriously, and I don't mean out of pettiness but out of dismissal by lack of proof.

Simple math. If you cast Displacement they hit half the time. If they hit on a 10 they hit more than half the time. It's easier to cast Displacement than to invest a lot, but not enough into AC. Saves block a different sort of attack, so while they are important they don't help vs physical attacks. Miss chances do and have been mentioned many times by many people here.

If enemies need a 16 or better to hit you, that's twice as good as Displacement. That is the minimum number for useful AC.


I'd say it covers incompletely, since instead of assuming the result, you could show your proof. You know, just like every scientist does. You could make a stronger point if you decide to take the average of every monster of said CR and explain why. You could do it via mathematical induction, but since you're assuming a 1-20 play, you could do it through exhaustion and you'd have the same results nonetheless.

Averages are misleading. Depending on the context this could be for one of several different reasons but preparing for the average is not sufficient. However you can easily get the math via reverse engineering. This has already been done for saves and can easily be done for AC, just take the target numbers, subtract 16, that's what to hit enemies have.


I also see a lot of reliance on "the enemy WILL always come pre-buffed", which aside from spellcasters might not always be the case. Enemy mooks might not even have the time to be buffed, or else you'd have to assume that there are no surprise rounds (which are part of the rules), because that wouldn't be "playing smart". Playing against spellcasters, on the other hand, imply that your recommendations are pointless because spellcasters will, if played indeed smart, use no-AC, no-save spells with rider effects to cripple the enemy in a single blow, which defeats the purpose of a "successful character with a successful build".

If you assume they aren't, then you are forced to always surprise enemies or die... which is even more foolish than relying upon win init or die as you can at least boost init to very high levels, whereas you cannot make yourself immune to being jumped at all times.

Even if you're not jumping them, you start a fight in one room and those in other rooms hear it and start buffing. Unless the party can be omnipresent and omniscient, they will face buffed enemies.

As for spells, the ones that are no AC and no save are almost always rays... and the OP addresses those. There's a handful of exceptions, mostly at high levels but if you're following this guide the party can deal with one person being lost in a Maze for a fight.


Besides fudging rolls (which is something you're ardently against, but that developer's anecdotes state as a fair tool of the DM if used constructively), what else do you consider cheating?

Anything relating to altering dice obviously.
Playing enemies dumb, especially if it's very sudden (such as an enemy who stops attacking someone once at low health to attack someone else when by all rights they should finish the job) but even if not (if the enemies aren't even focus firing, that's close enough to cheating to qualify in my books as not using basic tactics is the same as having them kill themselves).


I could consider cheating if, at the first moment someone steps into a dungeon, every single creature becomes alert, prepares all of its necessary buffs and makes the battle harder than usual (which is what I assume are the "harder" enemies). I could accept that of the BBEG and perhaps some select monsters, but if you make a random roll to determine which enemy will appear, or if the module's stock enemies don't mention "if the PCs reach within 100 ft. of distance, assume that they spend their time following Table 12-1's list of buffs per turn", instead of...you know, attacking or setting up an ambush, or maybe even fleeing (hey, being smart doesn't define your bravery or cowardice!!), then I'd assume the DM is cheating in order to make the battles harder than they might seem.

Good thing no one is doing that.


Exactly how a DM plays a "normal" enemy is something you can't quantify (and you can't really qualify precisely and accurately, either), unless you're going through a machine with precise and accurate algorithms. The DM may always use enemies of the right CR, or maybe set up enemies with lower CR (Tucker's Kobolds are an example of how low-CR enemies can be a challenge, and that includes smart playing, buffing and whatnot; that also assumes the DM knows about these options, because the DM isn't infinitely smart either), including enemies that are so weak, they deliver no XP for their deaths (but are completely viable to place, unless you consider that DM cheating the players out of their XP).

It can be quantified to a point, and it's easy to tell the difference between an enemy being played properly and not.


If the enemy is intelligent, how about wise? Is it safe to assume they're wise as well? A character with high Int and low Wis might spend its time figuring the best course of action...in the middle of battle. Or maybe figure that ganging on a single opponent that seems the weakest is the best course of action...without regarding that the others might gank up on them. Someone with low Int and high Wis might know that it's best to follow the orders of someone else, but if something seems wrong, they won't (that's a concept of perception, not cold logic).

Most are both, but even then... talking is a free action, and thinking is faster than talking, so wasting turns would classify as cheating. Ganging up on the weak guy is the best course of action... sure, the others will gang up on you, but that'd happen anyways and this way you're most likely to kill them.


Besides, what about mindless oozes or undead? Plants? Immovable targets? Golems are not the only ones that aren't smart, and that can be fooled. It also assumes that the enemies are smart because the DM that plays them is smart and plays by the rules, which is a pretty strict assumption (which is not always correct, and not always wrong either).

Mindless undead are not a factor at any level of the game that works (and if they were, see golems). Oozes are hazards and not creatures, same for plants. If you're dealing with one of those either the controller tells them what to do or they are easily beaten by any number of things and are not a factor.

[SleepyShadow]

Personally, I find optimization to be akin to salt. Too much and you overpower the other ingredients characters, too little and you end up being quite bland dead. The right amount, however, will enrich the delicious food game experience.

Just my two cp.

[IP Proofing]

This is correct if you are playing solo. You can't win initiative all the time. I believe, however, that playing in a group is far more common. And within a group you typically have roles (i.e big stupid fighter, glass cannon, healer, battlefield controller, tank etc). If the big stupid fighter can keep his wizard alive for long enough, the wizard will eventually be keeping him alive and making him better later on.

Fighters cannot protect anyone, not even themselves and the Wizard has better defenses than him anyways.

You are losing init, so the enemies are going first. Since you lack the defenses to take hits they start killing people.

You can fix this by boosting init or boosting defenses, either so you always win init or can afford to lose init. You cannot fix this by making a weak and ineffective party. Well you can, if you define fixing as dying.

[Tyndmyr]

Perhaps, but the concept of "Ability to consistently and quickly take out all level appropriate enemies" and the corollary "99% of the time" pretty much begs the question in a great amount of situations (barring no attack roll spells or abilities, in which saves are important instead). 99% is far too high, IMO, and perhaps the opinions of many others, because of how the line of thought implies this "should" be done (emphasis on should, instead of "must" or "can", since the first and second imply an imperative but the first has less pressure than the second).

Also, I see far too much reliance on Power Attack, without measuring any other stacking bonuses to combat. I will agree that static damage is far more important than dynamic damage unless the average of your dynamic damage supersedes the static (i.e., when stuff like sneak attack supersedes the combination of Strength and PA, which can be possible if you build for it but it will have less applications). From what I see, most of the times you'll overflow in damage, which is against optimization because you're not remaining within the appropriate range of damage to annihilate the enemy in one blow, or two blows, or whichever blows are necessary. Every point of damage you exceed in terms of the target's HP are, sadly to say, wasted beyond belief. If taking 10 points in PA deals just as much damage as taking 20 points on killing an enemy in a single blow, those 10 points could be used to ensure that you get enough attack bonus to actually land the hit, or enough AC to survive in the unlikely case the enemy falls into the highly improbable 5% that it survives the attack. That, mathematically speaking, is optimization. Likewise, if you're pouring 20 points of your BAB (or AC) on a pounce, you could calculate whether dividing your maximum damage within 2 blows is more effective than pouring all into one that might fail, if the amount of BAB is just around enough to land the first blow without fail, because the other blows will be wasted.

This is correct. Dumping BAB into power attack can definitely go too far. Normally, minimum damage on decently built chars is sufficiently high that power attack is a trade off you'll want to make with care(shock trooper aside). Overkill is a waste, overkill that reduces chance of hitting is definitely sub-optimal. A hit that doesn't quite kill is unfortunate, but far superior to a miss that would have killed if it had hit.


Mind explaining that besides "just because"? Besides, wouldn't it be more effective to say "rely on non-AC defenses regardless of your AC" (of which saves are one, but DR and miss chances are others), if only because Displacement works unless all enemies suddenly have Blindsight (and most enemies only have blindsense, at least the dragons do). A 50% chance of failure is not worthless, or else Displacement would also be worthless were it not because it applies separately. I need to understand why the arbitrary choice of "hitting on a 15" or "missing on less than 5" that's not just assuming everyone knows, or else your point won't be taken seriously, and I don't mean out of pettiness but out of dismissal by lack of proof.

Agreed. Enough AC to reduce attack chance to about 50% is valuable. It's not the only valuable defense of course, but calling it "worthless" is indicative of mis-valuation. Just because miss chances are the easiest way of getting defenses for a number of chars does not mean they are the only right way. Good optimization embraces whatever works.


I'd say it covers incompletely, since instead of assuming the result, you could show your proof. You know, just like every scientist does. You could make a stronger point if you decide to take the average of every monster of said CR and explain why. You could do it via mathematical induction, but since you're assuming a 1-20 play, you could do it through exhaustion and you'd have the same results nonetheless.

Average primary attack bonus of all CR 20 monsters is +38

If we discount Big T, since he's an individual, the average is only +35.625

Secondary attacks, iterative attacks, are less effective. BaB and strength were considered, buffs were not.

A 55 AC is more than enough to handle CR 20 fights with ease. 70 AC is definitely overkill, as the additional investment nets you decreasing payoff(only for the optimized monsters and the like).


I also see a lot of reliance on "the enemy WILL always come pre-buffed", which aside from spellcasters might not always be the case. Enemy mooks might not even have the time to be buffed, or else you'd have to assume that there are no surprise rounds (which are part of the rules), because that wouldn't be "playing smart". Playing against spellcasters, on the other hand, imply that your recommendations are pointless because spellcasters will, if played indeed smart, use no-AC, no-save spells with rider effects to cripple the enemy in a single blow, which defeats the purpose of a "successful character with a successful build".

I admit I've seen little in here which deals with a truly optimized high level caster. Maw of chaos is a bit hard to defend against, and mere miss chances do nothing.

On the flip side, I do not assume prebuffing of spells like True Strike, since they are significantly situational, and cost notable action advantage to use frequently.


Besides, what about mindless oozes or undead? Plants? Immovable targets? Golems are not the only ones that aren't smart, and that can be fooled. It also assumes that the enemies are smart because the DM that plays them is smart and plays by the rules, which is a pretty strict assumption (which is not always correct, and not always wrong either).

I assume that, whenever possible, a DM will play a monster according to description. There's a certain degree of room for interpretation in there, of course, but I would expect a certain level of ruthlessness from a Balor, but also a bit of intelligence. On the flip side, if you're playing that gelatinous cube as intelligent, you better have a good reason for it.

[Slayer of Gimps]

This is correct. Dumping BAB into power attack can definitely go too far. Normally, minimum damage on decently built chars is sufficiently high that power attack is a trade off you'll want to make with care(shock trooper aside). Overkill is a waste, overkill that reduces chance of hitting is definitely sub-optimal. A hit that doesn't quite kill is unfortunate, but far superior to a miss that would have killed if it had hit.

The same measures that get your damage up to par get your accuracy high enough to deal out that damage reliably.


Agreed. Enough AC to reduce attack chance to about 50% is valuable. It's not the only valuable defense of course, but calling it "worthless" is indicative of mis-valuation. Just because miss chances are the easiest way of getting defenses for a number of chars does not mean they are the only right way. Good optimization embraces whatever works.

No, it is worthless. You can waste a ton of resources getting your AC up. Or you can just cast Displacement. Or you can use a bit more to get another 5 points and hit the target number.

Stopping at enough AC to be hit half the time is like leaving everything alive at low health. It still can and will kill you.


Average primary attack bonus of all CR 20 monsters is +38

If we discount Big T, since he's an individual, the average is only +35.625

Secondary attacks, iterative attacks, are less effective. BaB and strength were considered, buffs were not.

So Str and BAB only, not counting the only pure melee creature but counting the two casters that never attack? You don't see the problem with that? This is why averages are misleading. If you actually took that seriously and assumed that was the standard you needed to hit you'd burn a bunch of resources, get 51 AC, then get your AC either automatically hit or bypassed by everything, often while PAing for multiple points.


A 55 AC is more than enough to handle CR 20 fights with ease. 70 AC is definitely overkill, as the additional investment nets you decreasing payoff(only for the optimized monsters and the like).

Burning a ton of resources on physical defense just to have your physical defense automatically hit is not at all optimal.


I admit I've seen little in here which deals with a truly optimized high level caster. Maw of chaos is a bit hard to defend against, and mere miss chances do nothing.

Maw of Chaos has a save, it's covered in the saves section.


On the flip side, I do not assume prebuffing of spells like True Strike, since they are significantly situational, and cost notable action advantage to use frequently.

True Strike is worthless. Other buffs are not.

[IP Proofing]

Just throwing this out there. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure)

[Helldog]

True Strike is worthless. Other buffs are not.
Stock enemies don't come pre-buffed.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, this is the other main reason to IP Proof, so that bosses don't rock your face off.

Is...this account a sock puppet to support your view? Given that he didn't exist until today, has literally done nothing but post to agree with you, and has a name apparently custom made for his argument(whatever it is...the term "IP Proof" means nothing to me")...it seems a touch suspect.

[IP Proofing]

Is...this account a sock puppet to support your view? Given that he didn't exist until today, has literally done nothing but post to agree with you, and has a name apparently custom made for his argument(whatever it is...the term "IP Proof" means nothing to me")...it seems a touch suspect.

Iterative Probability was explained in my first post. IP Proofing - the act of countering Iterative Probability is the proper name for what Slayer of Gimps is describing. That's why I joined in.

Here it is again.


I find it interesting that so many object to such a basic and simple optimization tactic. Characters with average defenses will die every second or third fight. Characters with merely good defenses will be hard pressed to gain more levels from the XP they gain than they lose to Raise Dead. Which is why you have to go beyond good and even great to survive campaigns. You have to proof yourself against Iterative Probability, that simple thing that says as time goes on your chance of failure approaches 1, so if you want to survive campaigns it must advance very very slowly.

Even a character with an only 5% chance to be affected by a spell is still going to have it land on them eventually. And when it does? You might be a deadneck.

[Tyndmyr]

I was under the impression that this was called a limit. Iterative probability is not a normally used term for this, and frankly, it looks quite suspect. Your name, your writing style, your posting times, and that fact that you're quite literally just agreeing with him on everything.

I'm quite ok with a reasonable discussion on the probability of say, a char surviving to level 20, but the numbers you have used thus far have been entirely unsupported.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Dude this is getting kinda over concidental.

two accounts that both apear to comment (and sare the exact same opinion and general writing style) of Polarity shift.

In addition you ONLY comment on things Posted by polarity shift.

Also polarity shift has slayer of gimps as his profile signature.

This looks very, very fishy.

[IP Proofing]

I was under the impression that this was called a limit. Iterative probability is not a normally used term for this, and frankly, it looks quite suspect. Your name, your writing style, your posting times, and that fact that you're quite literally just agreeing with him on everything.

I'm quite ok with a reasonable discussion on the probability of say, a char surviving to level 20, but the numbers you have used thus far have been entirely unsupported.

Iterative Probability is the term originally assigned to the concept. I registered to join because of this discussion.

What it amounts to is this: 13 and a third fights per level * 19 levels = even a 99% chance to win every fight will still have you dying a whole lot. About 50% likely to die over 5 levels. And that's for the normal fights, you will be less likely to win the harder ones. You can say what about raises, well those only work if you're gaining more than you lose. At those odds getting to the levels you can raise the dead is unlikely.

Go too much lower than that...

[Polarity Shift]

I was under the impression that this was called a limit. Iterative probability is not a normally used term for this, and frankly, it looks quite suspect. Your name, your writing style, your posting times, and that fact that you're quite literally just agreeing with him on everything.

I'm quite ok with a reasonable discussion on the probability of say, a char surviving to level 20, but the numbers you have used thus far have been entirely unsupported.

I agree with you. You must be me. It isn't possible for two people to share the same view, ever.

In all seriousness, knock it off.

[Helldog]

I agree with you. You must be me. It isn't possible for two people to share the same view, ever.

In all seriousness, knock it off.
Sorry, but all evidence is against you.

[NinjaStylerobot]

But Two new accounts apear, to share the exact same writing style, knowledge of information, opinion and all to only comment on posts by polarity shift.

Your not giving much reason to trust you.

[Slayer of Gimps]

All of you stop it.

A rose by any other name...

[NinjaStylerobot]

Alright though. In case you want to make this a bit more believable take a look at this (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-cheaters-guide-to-winning-online-arguments/). Might be usefull.

[Friv]

And then it adds all the other stuff it gets and also hits mid 50s.

And with all the other bonuses it's mid 50s (normal dragon) or 70 or so (optimized dragon).

And then you give it all the things other than BAB and Str that it gets and you have mid 50s, at least.

I'm actually super curious. What are these "other things" that provide an additional +12 to hit reliably, and are generally given to a non-optimized monster? This is not sarcastic, I'm actually trying to parse the argument and coming up a little blank.

[ahenobarbi]

You know what's best way not to get your character killed? Live somehow to get teleport then run away from everything. Get metamagic rod to quicken it (and lot's of defensive buffs in case you loose initiative). Get contingent true resurrection + teleport/planeshift in case of death. Later on you can create your own plane and just astrally project out of it if you really need it (better avoid it though). Don't forget to get hikikomori-cube ASAP.

Seriously... guys as already posted a few times you are wrong about hit bonuses and ACs of"stock enemies". If you think numbers are as high as you claim post your sources not just "all the other things they get"...

Also it's responsibility of DM to adjust game to players. So no one should care about some made-up "benchmarks" (there is possible inside-party balance but it's not related to your "benchmark").



What it amounts to is this: 13 and a third fights per level * 19 levels = even a 99% chance to win every fight will still have you dying a whole lot. About 50% likely to die over 5 levels. And that's for the normal fights, you will be less likely to win the harder ones. You can say what about raises, well those only work if you're gaining more than you lose. At those odds getting to the levels you can raise the dead is unlikely.


Not really. Ifyou have 99% chance of winning fight so you have probability (99%)^(13*19) = 8,4% of not loosing a single fight. And loosing is not equal to dying (it can for example mean running away, being captured). Far from dying a lot.

Also not every one gets all XP for fighting :smallamused:

[Slayer of Gimps]

I'm actually super curious. What are these "other things" that provide an additional +12 to hit reliably, and are generally given to a non-optimized monster? This is not sarcastic, I'm actually trying to parse the argument and coming up a little blank.

Dragons have their BAB, their Str, the wealth of an NPC of their level and spellcasting ability for buffs. Once you account for all four the numbers go up. If you only account for the first 1-2 the numbers seem much lower than they actually are.

You wouldn't fight itemless featless Fighters, would you?

[Helldog]

Dragons have their BAB, their Str, the wealth of an NPC of their level and spellcasting ability for buffs. Once you account for all four the numbers go up. If you only account for the first 1-2 the numbers seem much lower than they actually are.

You wouldn't fight itemless featless Fighters, would you?
Could you count them all by name?

[IP Proofing]

You know what's best way not to get your character killed? Live somehow to get teleport then run away from everything. Get metamagic rod to quicken it (and lot's of defensive buffs in case you loose initiative). Get contingent true resurrection + teleport/planeshift in case of death. Later on you can create your own plane and just astrally project out of it if you really need it (better avoid it though). Don't forget to get hikikomori-cube ASAP.

You run from everything. You get no XP, and eventually you fail to run away and die. You stand to gain nothing and lose everything.


Not really. Ifyou have 99% chance of winning fight so you have probability (99%)^(13*19) = 8,4% of not loosing a single fight. And loosing is not equal to dying (it can for example mean running away, being captured). Far from dying a lot.

Also not every one gets all XP for fighting :smallamused:

So about 1:12 chance you make it through the campaign at best? You don't consider that low? Running only makes you suicide barring Teleport which you'd be lucky to even get to the level to since it becomes available at the same level Raise Dead is. Capturing is a fate worse than death as it forces immediate delete and rerolling, whereas death is something you could come back from as long as it doesn't happen too often.

[Tyndmyr]

Losing a fight does not invariably equate to death.

[IP Proofing]

Losing a fight does not invariably equate to death.

No, but it is the best possible outcome.

[Seerow]

Losing a fight does not invariably equate to death.

In addition to this, a single character can be taken out of the fight (ie 'die') and still be brought back immediately after. At low levels you may just be knocked to -5 instead of -10 hp. At higher levels you'll get a resurrection. At any level, you might get taken out by spells/effects that aren't lethal in nature, but are otherwise debilitating.

[Friv]

Dragons have their BAB, their Str, the wealth of an NPC of their level and spellcasting ability for buffs. Once you account for all four the numbers go up. If you only account for the first 1-2 the numbers seem much lower than they actually are.

Dragons get NPC wealth?!

Wait, wait wait wait.

Dragons don't have NPC wealth at all. As monsters, they have a treasure listing of "Triple Standard". That means that a dragon has three chances for magic items, each chance of which is going to give them some medium items and some major items. According to the magic items table, an awful lot of those are going to be weapons and armor that they've stolen from adventurers, and can't actually use. Only a handful of their treasure will be useable, and the chances of any of it convienently boosting attack bonuses is pretty slender if you're going non-optimization.

[NinjaStylerobot]

No, but it is the best possible outcome.

And your not always playing for the best possible outcome.

Just because you don't "win perfectly" doesn't mean you failed.

[Ravens_cry]

No, but it is the best possible outcome.
Really? I would consider oh, being taken prisoner or left for dead or left alive as a display of the baddies power would be a better outcome than basically having to restart the campaign in a such jarring fashion.

[Tyndmyr]

No, but it is the best possible outcome.

How is death the best possible outcome?

[Slayer of Gimps]

Dragons get NPC wealth?!

Wait, wait wait wait.

Dragons don't have NPC wealth at all. As monsters, they have a treasure listing of "Triple Standard". That means that a dragon has three chances for magic items, each chance of which is going to give them some medium items and some major items. According to the magic items table, an awful lot of those are going to be weapons and armor that they've stolen from adventurers, and can't actually use. Only a handful of their treasure will be useable, and the chances of any of it convienently boosting attack bonuses is pretty slender if you're going non-optimization.

Dragons get exactly as much as an NPC of their level. That is what Triple Standard is, calculate it yourself. Difference is NPCs are entirely dependent on their equipment unless a spellcaster but only get a fraction of the gear a PC would. Dragons are dragons. So if you want to loot a dragon horde you kill the barkeep.

Not to mention they can use every sort of equipment except weapons and non barding armor.

They also have spells as well as items.

[Tyndmyr]

No, but it is the best possible outcome.

How is death the best possible outcome?

[SleepyShadow]

Am I the only one that thinks the "fun and profit" part of this thread has long since vanished?

Let's try something to remedy the situation and perhaps curb the senseless arguing that has ruined what could have been a worthwhile discussion.

Instead of benchmarks that every character must meet or be immediately deemed worthless, why not have a few general guidelines for the various character archetypes? For example:

- Are you the primary melee damage dealer? Find ways to put your damage output as high as possible (shock trooper, sneak attacking, etc.) to ensure that things die as quickly as possible.

- Are you trying to be a tank? Sod the damage output, work on your AC and HP. However, first and foremost be sure to have a way to make the enemies attack you, or at least not get to your buddies. Goad, tripping, stand still, bull rushing, anything you can think of to get the baddies away from your pals.

- Are you the arcane caster? Congratulations, you've won! Unless you are an evoker, then you have been reduced to the status of a magical fighter.

- Are you the divine caster? Congratulations, you've won! Unless you are a healer, then you have been reduced to a reusable potion.

- Are you the skilled one? Be sure to have Trap Finding, or your friends will hate you forever!

And remember kids, Use Magic Device is your friend! :smallbiggrin:

[IP Proofing]

And your not always playing for the best possible outcome.

Just because you don't "win perfectly" doesn't mean you failed.

Except for the part where it does.


Really? I would consider oh, being taken prisoner or left for dead or left alive as a display of the baddies power would be a better outcome than basically having to restart the campaign in a such jarring fashion.

The enemies that had no trouble beating you when you were at full power and they were holding back have now stolen all of your gear, removed your ability to cast spells, put even more guards around you and to begin again you have to get out of that. Of course that will never happen (if it could, you would have beat them the first time and not gotten into this mess), so you are forced to delete and reroll as your current character is completely unplayable.


How is death the best possible outcome?

If you fight and you die, you can recover from that as long as it isn't happening too often, meaning you continue with the same character. If you run, if it's by any means other than teleportation you die and accomplish nothing. Perhaps you can continue with the same character but you set yourself back for no reason. If you are captured you are not able to continue with the same character. You must make a new one, even if you have otherwise played flawlessly and therefore could afford to take a death. If the rest of the group doesn't realize this, and instead expects you to play out your forced uselessness that makes things even worse.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Except for the part where it does.


Ugh. I guess games to you are "Must kill everything with surgeon perfect precision. anything else is a failure. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a failure"

Have fun playing with your puppets. Im done.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Am I the only one that thinks the "fun and profit" part of this thread has long since vanished?

Some parts have drawn more attention than others, particularly the AC part which is the least interesting anyways.


Let's try something to remedy the situation and perhaps curb the senseless arguing that has ruined what could have been a worthwhile discussion.

Instead of benchmarks that every character must meet or be immediately deemed worthless, why not have a few general guidelines for the various character archetypes? For example:

This isn't enough to be useful.


- Are you the primary melee damage dealer? Find ways to put your damage output as high as possible (shock trooper, sneak attacking, etc.) to ensure that things die as quickly as possible.

This is incomplete. Everyone knows melees are there to do damage and only damage, the hard part is getting past the win init or die phase. That's what this thread is meant to help with.


- Are you trying to be a tank? Sod the damage output, work on your AC and HP. However, first and foremost be sure to have a way to make the enemies attack you, or at least not get to your buddies. Goad, tripping, stand still, bull rushing, anything you can think of to get the baddies away from your pals.

This is terrible advice. There is no such thing in D&D.


- Are you the arcane caster? Congratulations, you've won! Unless you are an evoker, then you have been reduced to the status of a magical fighter.

- Are you the divine caster? Congratulations, you've won! Unless you are a healer, then you have been reduced to a reusable potion.

This is incomplete.


- Are you the skilled one? Be sure to have Trap Finding, or your friends will hate you forever!

This is completely wrong.

[SleepyShadow]

Ugh. I guess games to you are "Must kill everything with surgeon perfect precision. anything else is a failure. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a failure"

Have fun playing with your puppets. Im done.

+1 Internet Cookie for this. I'm out too.

EDIT: Just to point out to Slayer that the Goad feat does in fact exist, and the Knight class essentially has it as a class ability at level 4.

[ahenobarbi]

You run from everything. You get no XP, and eventually you fail to run away and die. You stand to gain nothing and lose everything.

Ouch.... I didn't think it would be necessary to write that... it was a joke.



So about 1:12 chance you make it through the campaign at best? You don't consider that low?

No. 1:12 chance you will not loose a single fight. There are spells like resurrection/stone to flesh/... to keep character going after being killed/petrified/... Also loosing a fight doesn't mean your character is dead.


Running only makes you suicide barring Teleport which you'd be lucky to even get to the level to since it becomes available at the same level Raise Dead is.

No. Just summon whatever to block way/ use tangle foot bag/ caltroops/ cast grease/... behind you to slow down pursuit.


Capturing is a fate worse than death as it forces immediate delete and rerolling, whereas death is something you could come back from as long as it doesn't happen too often.

Red any books (Lord of the Rings, Harry P.,... )/played any games (BG2 I don't really play much of those these days)/ watched any movies (J. Bond...) where main character gets captured and you know... wins in the end? That's how it's supposed to be.

[Friv]

Dragons get exactly as much as an NPC of their level. That is what Triple Standard is, calculate it yourself. Difference is NPCs are entirely dependent on their equipment unless a spellcaster but only get a fraction of the gear a PC would. Dragons are dragons. So if you want to loot a dragon horde you kill the barkeep.

Not to mention they can use every sort of equipment except weapons and non barding armor.

I may have mispoken, or you misunderstood. What I meant was, you don't determine how much wealth a dragon has by giving him equipment like an adventurer if you'd building him standard. You give him a huge amount of unspent gold and an array of items, many of which are going to be weapons, armor, and single-use effects that he's not using for pre-buff, and none of which are geared specifically for his combat style. The total value of his stuff is the same, but it's way less useful to him, and the chances that any of it specifically bypasses adventurer defenses is very low.


They also have spells as well as items.

Yeah, but I really don't have the desire, or probably the skill, to get into an argument over what consistutes "non-optimized but valid" for a 13th-level sorcerer. I'm just accepting that a portion of their buffs are here and bumping their attacks up by +4 or so in my calculation-head.

[IP Proofing]

No. 1:12 chance you will not loose a single fight. There are spells like resurrection/stone to flesh/... to keep character going after being killed/petrified/... Also loosing a fight doesn't mean your character is dead.

All of which have already been mentioned.


No. Just summon whatever to block way/ use tangle foot bag/ caltroops/ cast grease/... behind you to slow down pursuit.

Summon: You begin casting a 1 round action spell. Meanwhile, the enemy moves up and hits you, both disrupting the spell and delaying you further.

Tanglefoot Bag: At most you stop a single, low level enemy. More than one enemy, or not low level?

Caltrops: You spend a round setting out caltrops. They walk over them and suffer no effect and then kill you.

Grease: If you could save or lose them, why run from them?


Red any books (Lord of the Rings, Harry P.,... )/played any games (BG2 I don't really play much of those these days)/ watched any movies (J. Bond...) where main character gets captured and you know... wins in the end? That's how it's supposed to be.

Books and movies have no bearing in any serious discussion. In single author fiction you can make up whatever BS you want, typically involving throwing people in prison cells with a very obvious hole in the wall you can immediately escape from and not even being stripped of your gear first, and the only difficulty in doing this is that the hole is not obvious from the perspective of the player even though the characters are looking right at it.

In any remotely serious story that does not happen.

[Ravens_cry]

The enemies that had no trouble beating you when you were at full power and they were holding back have now stolen all of your gear, removed your ability to cast spells, put even more guards around you and to begin again you have to get out of that. Of course that will never happen (if it could, you would have beat them the first time and not gotten into this mess), so you are forced to delete and reroll as your current character is completely unplayable.

Your character isn't useless, it's just that the initial method you chose, and got you beaten, didn't work.
Give a rogue dagger, and and a good slight of hand check means they can keep it even when searched, and they can coup de gras a sleeping guard. There's no way they are making that save except on a 20.
From the guard, the Fighter-type can pick up some gear and armour. The Wizard is out of luck with out their spellbook, but the psion or the Sorcerer with Eschew Materials can use most of their abilities except for spells/powers with costly material components.
Then, working to avoid confrontation, using stealth and care, most parties can escape imprisonment.
If you were left for dead or as a message, well, just get back up and gain a few levels before you try beating the Ancient Red Dragon, m'kay?

[Slayer of Gimps]

I may have mispoken, or you misunderstood. What I meant was, you don't determine how much wealth a dragon has by giving him equipment like an adventurer if you'd building him standard. You give him a huge amount of unspent gold and an array of items, many of which are going to be weapons, armor, and single-use effects that he's not using for pre-buff, and none of which are geared specifically for his combat style. The total value of his stuff is the same, but it's way less useful to him, and the chances that any of it specifically bypasses adventurer defenses is very low.

And do the NPCs run around with random equipment, or do they buy things that are useful to them?


Yeah, but I really don't have the desire, or probably the skill, to get into an argument over what consistutes "non-optimized but valid" for a 13th-level sorcerer. I'm just accepting that a portion of their buffs are here and bumping their attacks up by +4 or so in my calculation-head.

Strength boosting stuff, enhancement bonuses and buffs alone easily can account for a dozen or more points. Start optimizing and it's two dozen or higher.

[IP Proofing]

Your character isn't useless, it's just that the initial method you chose, and got you beaten, didn't work.
Give a rogue dagger, and and a good slight of hand check means they can keep it even when searched, and they can coup de gras a sleeping guard. There's no way they are making that save except on a 20.

The enemies beat the entire party, including this Rogue when he had all his gear and buffs. He's now naked with a dagger, and alone. He not only dies, there's nothing left of him to be raised.


From the guard, the Fighter-type can pick up some gear and armour. The Wizard is out of luck with out their spellbook, but the psion or the Sorcerer with Eschew Materials can use most of their abilities except for spells/powers with costly material components.

Assuming they didn't kill the rest of the party for being more trouble than they are worth, they're still locked up, still naked, defenseless, and offenseless, and the enemy group is still at full strength and an even further advantage.


Then, working to avoid confrontation, using stealth and care, most parties can escape imprisonment.

Then, after dying in prison you finally get to delete and reroll as something that hasn't been screwed over.


If you were left for dead or as a message, well, just get back up and gain a few levels before you try beating the Ancient Red Dragon, m'kay?

At which point you get hit with the DMG for trying to claim that it doesn't say anywhere dead people can't take actions.

[Friv]

And do the NPCs run around with random equipment, or do they buy things that are useful to them?

Obviously characters with NPC wealth spend that wealth on useful equipment. This would, in fact, be the entire core of my assertion that monsters don't buy their treasure that way, and that if they did it would necessitate raising their CRs.


Strength boosting stuff, enhancement bonuses and buffs alone easily can account for a dozen or more points. Start optimizing and it's two dozen or higher.

So your response to me saying that I don't want to get into an argument about how many buffs a non-optimized sorcerer-dragon posessess is to try and start an argument about how many buffs a non-optimized sorcerer-dragon possesses?

Classy.

That's it, I'm out.

[Gwendol]

Here I was thinking this could be a thread about bards or rogues specializing in Perform (comedy) and similar theme spells and gear. Instead its yet a tedious rant about "hitting your numbers". Like I don't get enough of that at work.
The OP fails on so many levels one is tempted to call it epic. Rather than list all (plenty of those already mentioned) I'll just skip ahead to the main objection: hitting numbers isn't meaningful in D&D outside of CRPG renditions of the game. This is because the game, by its very nature is PC-centric. The PC's ground the game, and thus makes hitting numbers pointless. The DM will and shall tailor encounters to fit the players, and have any means imaginable to do so. This means that if monsters can't hit often enough the DM will make them.
Furthermore, your reasoning behind the iterative probability is also faulty. XP is gained through ways other than combat, thus invalidating the 13,5 combats number. Second, as many point out, not winning a battle isn't the end of anything. Third, even if a player is knocked into the negatives, or even killed, from time to time, this still isn't necessarily all negative as it can allow for an unexpected twist or a new direction in the adventure.
You advice just don't carry much weight outside the (static) world of cRPGs and arena fighting.

[Slayer of Gimps]

Obviously characters with NPC wealth spend that wealth on useful equipment. This would, in fact, be the entire core of my assertion that monsters don't buy their treasure that way, and that if they did it would necessitate raising their CRs.

And yet you say that dragons - creatures that are considerably smarter, have more resources and can in many cases create whatever equipment they want do not.

So why then can a 6 Int character buy whatever he needs to success, and not an average or better Int dragon? Most monsters are intelligent, and many of those can even disguise themselves as something harmless so they can easily get what they need.

If they are not, then that's a CR penalty.


So your response to me saying that I don't want to get into an argument about how many buffs a non-optimized sorcerer-dragon posessess is to try and start an argument about how many buffs a non-optimized sorcerer-dragon possesses?

Classy.

That's it, I'm out.

My response is to mention a few basics. Nothing argumentative about it, though it seems you're looking for an argument.

Oh and funny thing. All the arguments about how you're just fine with low stats? Those are most accurate for CRPGs, not least accurate.

Enemies there have low stats, so if you aim for the low baselines you'll actually be fine.

In actual games though, AC 30 at 12 isn't only 20s hit material, it's only 1s miss material.

[IP Proofing]

It is not fun to fail. It is fun to watch others fail, unless its your friend sitting beside you at the gaming table who has died three times in as many fights because he hasn't learned that Flurry of Blows describes the effectiveness of the Monk and not the action he should take as a Monk.

[ahenobarbi]

Summon: You begin casting a 1 round action spell. Meanwhile, the enemy moves up and hits you, both disrupting the spell and delaying you further.

Or maybe rest of the party hold them back for that one round, and later everyone runs away.



Tanglefoot Bag: At most you stop a single, low level enemy. More than one enemy, or not low level?
Or other party members also can use them? Or maybe one low-level enemy blocks passage?



Caltrops: You spend a round setting out caltrops. They walk over them and suffer no effect and then kill you.
Or they suffer effect and are slowed down? Or you use invisible servant(s) to set them up faster?



Grease: If you could save or lose them, why run from them?
Maybe this is enough to slow them down but you have no means of killing them fast enough. Also a long list of battlefield control spells... all of them are useful for running away. They may let you run away from things you can not beat.



Books and movies have no bearing in any serious discussion. (...)
In any remotely serious story that does not happen.

Firstly I do not consider this a serious discussion since it's about a game :smallcool: Secondly this is supposed to be a role playing game so having fun and interesting story come first. And there are plenty of reasons to imprison someone (in a way that allows escaping):

You were ordered to imprison everyone who you encounter without touching their stuff (and your boss might have good reason for that, see Lord of the Rings)
There may beconflict withing group that captured you(and you might be able to take adventage of that)
...



And do the NPCs run around with random equipment, or do they buy things that are useful to them?

Actually monsters do. Troll can't exactly go to Magic Mart and buy what it wants. Dragon will just collect everything it can and enjoy how shiny it is....


The enemies beat the entire party, including this Rogue when he had all his gear and buffs. He's now naked with a dagger, and alone. He not only dies, there's nothing left of him to be raised.

But rogue could use method described above to escape imprisonment (with rest of the party) and *not* encounter those who did beat them :smallbiggrin:



Assuming they didn't kill the rest of the party for being more trouble than they are worth, they're still locked up, still naked, defenseless, and offenseless, and the enemy group is still at full strength and an even further advantage.

Not really. Enemy might get into internal conflict. Might be attacked by someone else. Might go for business trip planning to deal with PCs later. Might want some service from PCs in return for their lives. Might ...

[ahenobarbi]

It is not fun to fail. It is fun to watch others fail, unless its your friend sitting beside you at the gaming table who has died three times in as many fights because he hasn't learned that Flurry of Blows describes the effectiveness of the Monk and not the action he should take as a Monk.

Actually there are a lot of other kinds of fun in RPG. Creating an interesting story being one of them.

But I know at some people (I know plenty of male humans in their teens, but quite probably others too) have a lot of fun playing games with super-powerful characters fighting super-powerful enemies and that's ok... just acknowledge that others can have fun in different ways and that doesn't make them cheaters, please.

Also please explain your numbers for AC, saves etc.

[IP Proofing]

What part of them needs explaining?


Or maybe rest of the party hold them back for that one round, and later everyone runs away.

Ok, so let's see...

First you had to realize you needed to run. That happened when the enemy got one action and laid into your party. And since even normal enemies nearly one round people, that means it killed at least one person.

So the second round, it kills at least one more person. You begin casting a summon. By the time you finish, assuming you haven't been disrupted or slain yourself at least two are dead. You now have to get out of there without the enemy walking around the summon, outrunning you, and killing you. Nope.

That is the best case scenario. Anything less, more bodies hit the floor.


Or other party members also can use them? Or maybe one low-level enemy blocks passage?

More actions required, see above. Enemies can pass through each other's space.


Or they suffer effect and are slowed down? Or you use invisible servant(s) to set them up faster?

To hit bonus 0 vs ACs that hit 20 or greater only a few levels in. Casting a spell has the same action cost.


Maybe this is enough to slow them down but you have no means of killing them fast enough. Also a long list of battlefield control spells... all of them are useful for running away. They may let you run away from things you can not beat.

Then you also lack the means of outrunning them.



Firstly I do not consider this a serious discussion since it's about a game :smallcool: Secondly this is supposed to be a role playing game so having fun and interesting story come first. And there are plenty of reasons to imprison someone (in a way that allows escaping):

Death is not fun. Things worse than death are less fun.


But rogue could use method described above to escape imprisonment (with rest of the party) and *not* encounter those who did beat them

Except for the part where the Rogue lost when he was with his party, had all gear, and had all buffs and now he's naked and alone and in the same situation, so in one round they knock him to say... negative 500, and he accomplishes nothing.


Not really. Enemy might get into internal conflict. Might be attacked by someone else. Might go for business trip planning to deal with PCs later. Might want some service from PCs in return for their lives. Might ...

A completely invalid argument for obvious reasons.

[Helldog]

A completely invalid argument for obvious reasons.
Then state them.

[Ravens_cry]

The enemies beat the entire party, including this Rogue when he had all his gear and buffs. He's now naked with a dagger, and alone. He not only dies, there's nothing left of him to be raised.

Even a barely optimized Stealth and Move Silently can get past most Fighter types Spot and Listen checks. A sleeping area (assuming living enemies) should be able to be found and a 10th level human rogue with 10 strength is forcing an average 29 DC fort save on a coup de grace with an ordinary dagger. That's pretty hefty in most games.


Assuming they didn't kill the rest of the party for being more trouble than they are worth, they're still locked up, still naked, defenseless, and offenseless, and the enemy group is still at full strength and an even further advantage.

Only if you are seeking an open confrontation ,which would be suicidally stupid. Instead, you use stealth and guile. Sure, if you charge in all Leeroy Jenkins like, you are dead, but that's not the only way to go about things. Say the Bard puts on the uniform of the guard the rogue took out and casts Glibness, leading the rest along, claiming to be "Escorting Prisoners". There is no way in hell anyone but the most higher level enemy NPC has a short of making that sense motive check.. Hell, if they optimized bluff to any degree, even without Glibness. If you don't have a Bard, the Sorcerer is probably able to, Bluff being a class skill and a skill their main stat modifies.
Yes, assuming they don't decide to kill the characters outright, but this is discussing what do besides a TPK if you "lose" an encounter. Though mostly written from a players perspective, it is also ideas for a DM.
Starting a game again after a "wipe" is annoying and jarring for both the DM and the players from a story perspective and from a play perspective.
One should avoid them when one can.

[NinjaStylerobot]

OOh.

Everybody. We have all been epicaly trolled. Seriously, I feel like such a fool.

Think about it- He NEVER states his evidence. He just skips over it.

And yet "we" the aperantly "smarter people" continue on with his ruse.

I give hats off to you mon/s.

I needed to come back to point this out to stop this trolling.

[IP Proofing]

Even a barely optimized Stealth and Move Silently can get past most Fighter types Spot and Listen checks. A sleeping area (assuming living enemies) should be able to be found and a 10th level human rogue with 10 strength is forcing an average 29 DC fort save on a coup de grace with an ordinary dagger. That's pretty hefty in most games.

And yet, your entire party with buffs, equipment, and working together was beaten by those "Fighter types".

This means one of the following is true:

Your party is horrifically weak, such that taking an even further disadvantage will kill you outright without the enemy even doing anything.
You are mysteriously nerfing both the enemies capabilities as well as their intellects and judgments, as suddenly the enemies that took you on at full power and won are replaced with SBHs.


Only if you are seeking an open confrontation ,which would be suicidally stupid. Instead, you use stealth and guile. Sure, if you charge in all Leeroy Jenkins like, you are dead, but that's not the only way to go about things. Say the Bard puts on the uniform of the guard the rogue took out and casts Glibness, leading the rest along, claiming to be "Escorting Prisoners". There is no way in hell anyone but the most higher level enemy NPC has a short of making that sense motive check.. Hell, if they optimized bluff to any degree, even without Glibness. If you don't have a Bard, the Sorcerer is probably able to, Bluff being a class skill and a skill their main stat modifies.
Yes, assuming they don't decide to kill the characters outright, but this is discussing what do besides a TPK if you "lose" an encounter. Though mostly written from a players perspective, it is also ideas for a DM.

And then you remember they captured a high level party including spellcasters, so you can't cast spells even if by some miracle you managed to get out of the cell, then will have a ton of patrols to deal with to get out of the complex, and then you better hope they don't find you before you can recover.


Starting a game again after a "wipe" is annoying and jarring for both the DM and the players from a story perspective and from a play perspective.
One should avoid them when one can.

All the more reason to not impose fates worse than death, as they force delete and rerolls when normally the player could recover.

[Bovine Colonel]

Is that you, Elitarismo?

[ahenobarbi]

First you had to realize you needed to run. That happened when the enemy got one action and laid into your party. And since even normal enemies nearly one round people, that means it killed at least one person.

Not really. Maybe you saw Ithillid coming a few running rounds away. Maybe you rolled poor initiative and that dude wasn't affected at all by rest of your party but managed to seriously wound someone... Running away is pretty situational, you need to take advantage of what you can. I'm not gonna argue over every possibility (because how you can run away depends on situation... how many enemies what terrain, other party members, ....).

You really can run away without teleport, usually.Try it sometimes, you'll see.



Death is not fun. Things worse than death are less fun.

Death can be fun. Really. You just have to make it fun. For example be frenzied berserker and die Rolland-style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_Roland#Plot).

Also being captured isn't worse then death (most people choose imprisonment over death if given choice, you know :smallwink:). And it can be a lot of fun too (overcoming obstacles being capture created).



Except for the part where the Rogue lost when he was with his party, had all gear, and had all buffs and now he's naked and alone and in the same situation, so in one round they knock him to say... negative 500, and he accomplishes nothing.

No. Rogue is not in the same situation. Now [s]he knows [s]he should get away. Fast. And that changes a lot.

[ahenobarbi]

Everybody. We have all been epicaly trolled. Seriously, I feel like such a fool.

I thought everybody knew :smallconfused: But isn't this fun :smallredface:

If not just bring acid & fire (http://www.flayme.com/troll/eradication.shtml)

[hobo386]

Guys, don't bother arguing against whatsisface and his clones. He might shut up if we go away.

[IP Proofing]

Not really. Maybe you saw Ithillid coming a few running rounds away. Maybe you rolled poor initiative and that dude wasn't affected at all by rest of your party but managed to seriously wound someone... Running away is pretty situational, you need to take advantage of what you can. I'm not gonna argue over every possibility (because how you can run away depends on situation... how many enemies what terrain, other party members, ....).

You shoot the Illithid to death. Maybe it got food poisoning from a bad brain? Whatever the reason, if it's being stupid you take advantage of it. Especially since it can be anywhere at any time it wants.

That dude shook off your entire party's attacks, somehow wasn't strong enough to kill even one person, and then... kills the wounded runner with the AoO, and runs down everyone else.


You really can run away without teleport, usually.Try it sometimes, you'll see.

Sure you can. You'll just die tired.


Death can be fun. Really. You just have to make it fun. For example be frenzied berserker and die Rolland-style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_Roland#Plot).

Turning the game into some sort of running joke only serves to prove you wrong.


Also being captured isn't worse then death (most people choose imprisonment over death if given choice, you know :smallwink:). And it can be a lot of fun too (overcoming obstacles being capture created).

In the D&D world it is. The real world works differently, but is also not relevant. Even then most people would take the death penalty over the rest of their natural life in jail, less suffering that way. No, don't turn this into a political discussion. It's enough of a mess as it is.


No. Rogue is not in the same situation. Now [s]he knows [s]he should get away. Fast. And that changes a lot.

Ok. Naked Rogue starts running. They hit a patrol. They're already the weakest class in the game defensively, and they have no gear, no buffs, and are up against the enemies that beat the entire party at full power while holding back.

Naked Rogue is forcefully stopped from running. Naked Rogue becomes dog chow.

[Ravens_cry]

And yet, your entire party with buffs, equipment, and working together was beaten by those "Fighter types".

This means one of the following is true:

Your party is horrifically weak, such that taking an even further disadvantage will kill you outright without the enemy even doing anything.
You are mysteriously nerfing both the enemies capabilities as well as their intellects and judgments, as suddenly the enemies that took you on at full power and won are replaced with SBHs.


No, the tactics have changed, tactics, that, while not likely to beat the enemy, at least allow one to escape captivity.
And that is assuming you were captured in the first place, and not the other two options, leaving for dead and/or a message. In either cases, the DM hascreated some excellent motivation for the players to want to actually beat them at a later time once they have re-equipped and levelled.
You've made it personal.


And then you remember they captured a high level party including spellcasters, so you can't cast spells even if by some miracle you managed to get out of the cell, then will have a ton of patrols to deal with to get out of the complex, and then you better hope they don't find you before you can recover.

Sounds like just the kind of adventure a rogue or other sneak based character would love, a chance to shine at what they are best at.


All the more reason to not impose fates worse than death, as they force delete and rerolls when normally the player could recover.
If you TPK the party, then they are re-rolling anyway. Given a chance to escape with their lives, gain a few levels and then try again would be preferable to most players and DM I know of, even on this board. Even this also results in a wipe, at least they had the chance.

[ahenobarbi]

Maybe you are unable to run away. But others can do it. And do it when they believe it to be beneficial. Maybe one day you will add retreat to tactics you can take in combat :smallcool:


Turning the game into some sort of running joke only serves to prove you wrong.

Nope. Dying can be fun. Playing game that poses no challenge is boring.



In the D&D world it is.

No it isn't. Character would choose life in prison over death. Player might choose death because [s]he prefers rolling new character to playing imprisoned character.


Even then most people would take the death penalty over the rest of their natural life in jail, less suffering that way.

I believe a lot of people tried very hard to get life-long prison not death sentence.


Ok. Naked Rogue starts running. They hit a patrol. No. Naked rogue gets out of cell. Naked rogue is sneaky and gets out of prison. How they will do it depends on situation.

[Slayer of Gimps]

While many of the posts here do provide incentives that you should make characters that are successful for fun and profit, none of the latest ones help with doing that.

That includes all the posts about this capture the party tangent. The only way to avoid that situation is to keep your numbers up.

[ahenobarbi]

That includes all the posts about this capture the party tangent. The only way to avoid that situation is to keep your numbers up.

Or to avoid encounters you can not win?

[IP Proofing]

Nevermind.

[NinjaStylerobot]

And everybody asks YOU to provide evidence.

And those that do in your opinion are your puppets.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

If you capture them, playing again is delayed. You're stuck waiting, doing nothing in a hopeless situation.
Why do you keep implying that winning in-game is the only way to have fun?

[ahenobarbi]

They are running around with zero equipment. They automatically lose to everything.

No. They can fight lower CR to get cash back(for example).


If you capture them, playing again is delayed. You're stuck waiting, doing nothing in a hopeless situation.

No, then players have to think how to get out of the situation, which is by no means hopeless. I know thinking is hard and playing not-a-Pun-Pun sucks but still some of us enjoy overcoming challenges :smallbiggrin:

[IP Proofing]

Why do you keep implying that winning in-game is the only way to have fun?

Being dead or worse prevents you from playing. Not only is winning the only way to have fun, it's the only way to play at all as losing literally means that you're not playing.

Sorry SoG, I'll stop encouraging them now.

[ahenobarbi]

While many of the posts here do provide incentives that you should make characters that are successful for fun and profit, none of the latest ones help with doing that.

There were any? I thought we were troll-feeding for fun (http://www.midnightdba.com/Jen/2011/10/why-i-feed-trolls/).

[Grelna the Blue]

In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scourge_of_the_Slave_Lords#A4_In_the_Dungeons_of_t he_Slave_Lords) was a great module, though very possibly before SoG's time. I doubt he'd have enjoyed it anyway.

[Ravens_cry]

In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scourge_of_the_Slave_Lords#A4_In_the_Dungeons_of_t he_Slave_Lords) was a great module, though very possibly before SoG's time. I doubt he'd have enjoyed it anyway.
That does sound like an interesting challenge, has anyone ever made a d20 3.X conversion?

[Polarity Shift]

Would it be worth expounding further upon some typical scenarios and their results to get this back on track?

[Gotterdammerung]

{{scrubbed}}

[Helldog]

Would it be worth expounding further upon some typical scenarios and their results to get this back on track?

inb4

{Scrubbed}

[Grelna the Blue]

That does sound like an interesting challenge, has anyone ever made a d20 3.X conversion?Not that I know of, but I've seen the original adventure available online as a pdf.

[Ravens_cry]

Not that I know of, but I've seen the original adventure available online as a pdf.
To the Bat-Google!

[BoutsofInsanity]

And, I here by declare, that the OP and his socks are Trolling hardcore strolling!

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for review. Posters would be well advised to review the Forum Rules regarding vigilante modding and flaming.