PDA

View Full Version : This is my boom stick(new weapons, D&D 3.5, WIP PEACH)



bobthe6th
2012-07-01, 11:57 PM
Ok, so I have this problem with low level casters. They have so few spells, they use cross bows and such... Not cool. It feels like a break in charicter, and just a bit silly. So, my proposition.

two new weapons, the mage staff and wand.

{table=head]Simple Weapons | Cost | Damage (S) | Damage (M) | Critical | Range increment | weight | type
Ranged
Wand | 35gp | 1d6 | 1d8 | x3 | 80ft | 4lb | Piercing
Staff | 50 gp | 1d8 | 1d10 | x3 | 120ft | 8lb | Piercing
Martial Weapons | Cost | Damage (S) | Damage (M) | Critical
Ranged
Quick Wand | 30gp | 1d4 | 1d6 | x3 | 60ft | 2lb | Piercing
Quick Staff | 75 gp | 1d6 | 1d8 | x3 | 100ft | 3lb | Piercing
Taxing Wand | 75gp | 1d4 | 1d6 | x3 | 70ft | 2lb | Piercing
Taxing Staff | 100 gp | 1d6 | 1d8 | x3 | 110ft | 3lb | Piercing
[/table]



Staff:
A staff fires a bolt of focused energy. A staff uncharged, but can be charged by any person with at least one caster level at the cost of 1 sp in magical regents per charge. for every ten charges the staff has it's weight increases by 1 lb.
You prepare a staff for use by focusing it's energy. Preparing a staff is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.


the others are near identical, but the quick versions don't need to be prepared to use, and the taxing ones can be modified to add the casters charisma to the damage as a composite bow.


a staff is a two handed ranged simple weapon, with a

Kyuu Himura
2012-07-02, 01:19 AM
these look good, I mean, low level characters are gonna love them if they run out of spells.

Yet again, if your character is running out of spells, you're probably doing something wrong.

TuggyNE
2012-07-02, 02:35 AM
Um... is there a reason you decided on the names "staff" and "wand", when both are already in use with a quite different meaning?

Also, I'm not entirely sure why Reserve Feats aren't good enough to fill this void.

Yitzi
2012-07-02, 07:06 AM
Yet again, if your character is running out of spells, you're probably doing something wrong.

Or at low levels, it might mean that your DM is doing something right (e.g. not letting you get away with the sort of adventuring day length that makes casters overpowered.)

bobthe6th
2012-07-02, 10:27 AM
sorry this was half finished... it was late...

@Kyuu: a first level sorc has, at most 4 first level spells at level one... those never last the three encounters + random hazards. this is not the level were combat lasts 1 round, so most casters have 4-5 rounds of shooting their light crossbow... which I find a bit funky.

@tuggyne: I couldn't think of better names that weren't an existing magic item... so suggestions would be nice.

because they cost a feat? and also necessitate that you still have a high level slot left to be effective? Reserve feats can be fun... but still, a lot of casters are fairly feat starved especially at low levels.

@Yitzi: This, very much this. If the DM is playing a good game you should be out of spells one-two encounters in, leaving most with their crossbows.



and I should come clean that these are very much reskined cross bows and bows, if you hadn't already noticed...

TheWombatOfDoom
2012-07-02, 12:22 PM
so suggestions would be nice.

Caster's Cloak and Gloves? These give you the power to shoot the energy. Perhaps have charges?

bobthe6th
2012-07-02, 12:27 PM
but it loses the hand filling requirement... these are projectile weapons so you need two hands to use them...

TheWombatOfDoom
2012-07-02, 01:17 PM
Hmmm...wands aren't two handed...nor are staffs.

bobthe6th
2012-07-02, 01:20 PM
but they need to be held/carried, were cloaks and gloves can be worn... not a good trait for a weapon.

blasting rod and blasting staff then?

Yitzi
2012-07-02, 04:40 PM
@Yitzi: This, very much this. If the DM is playing a good game you should be out of spells one-two encounters in, leaving most with their crossbows.

Not quite. If the DM is doing things right and you're doing things right, you shouldn't be out of spells until 5 typically encounters in (more precisely, a fifth encounter should be too dangerous to be gone into willingly due to you not having that many spells left), but you're only going to be able to use one or two spells of your highest two levels each battle, meaning that at low levels most of each battle will be based on non-spell weapons.

ArkenBrony
2012-07-03, 07:52 PM
but they need to be held/carried, were cloaks and gloves can be worn... not a good trait for a weapon.

blasting rod and blasting staff then?

or maybe boom rod, and boom stick, for 1-hand and 2-hand respectively

planswalker
2012-07-03, 09:27 PM
Not quite. If the DM is doing things right and you're doing things right, you shouldn't be out of spells until 5 typically encounters in (more precisely, a fifth encounter should be too dangerous to be gone into willingly due to you not having that many spells left), but you're only going to be able to use one or two spells of your highest two levels each battle, meaning that at low levels most of each battle will be based on non-spell weapons.

um... what games are you playing in? I've never seen a game where level 1-3 characters play like this.

also, this seems to be assuming that there is a "right" way to play...

GunbladeKnight
2012-07-03, 10:11 PM
1) If these are based on magic, then I would expect a x2 multiplier.

2) If these are based on magic, why do they deal different damage when small?

3) Why piercing instead of bludgeoning? Or even make it elemental?

4) Is there a maximum number of charges?

5) These are way cheaper than 1st level wands, although they are heavier.

6) How does adding charges change the price?

Yitzi
2012-07-03, 10:37 PM
um... what games are you playing in? I've never seen a game where level 1-3 characters play like this.

also, this seems to be assuming that there is a "right" way to play...

To answer both questions: I'm basing myself on what's indicated in the core books, IIRC particularly the DMG.

planswalker
2012-07-03, 10:46 PM
I think practical experience trumps what's written in the DMG. That's the same book which thinks fighters are stronger than barbarians, that sorcerers need their gimps to keep them from outstripping wizards, and have all sorts of suggestions for how you're supposed to allow new players in and handle people making new characters.

all of which are things that get ignored, are just plain wrong, or people just ignore because that's now how they want to play.

Techwarrior
2012-07-03, 11:21 PM
The rules that Yitzi is referencing assume something that almost never happens. It assumes that the encounters that you face are of the exact same CR as the party. I know that, in my experience, when that is the case for the average battle, combat gets to be underwhelming, and not at all the experience I'm gunning for.

For instance, when I DM, I tend to go at least one or two (or three) CR higher than the party for normal encounters.

However, under the circumstances established in the DMG, the guidelinedoes happen to be fairly accurate. Not perfect, but close enough for debate, but
as has been pointed out, that 'perfect set of circumstances' almost never actually happens.

bobthe6th
2012-07-04, 12:25 AM
1) If these are based on magic, then I would expect a x2 multiplier.

2) If these are based on magic, why do they deal different damage when small?

3) Why piercing instead of bludgeoning? Or even make it elemental?

4) Is there a maximum number of charges?

5) These are way cheaper than 1st level wands, although they are heavier.

6) How does adding charges change the price?

1) because the magic focuses into a tight point of destruction.

2) because the bigger the container, the bigger individual charge you can build up.

3) because it is shaped sharpened magical destruction.

4) no, but at some point you will probably not be able to carry the weapon due to weight

5) The magic requires they be made out of depleted uranium, thus increasing the weight.

6) 1sp a charge as normal...

Alternative answer 1-6) because they are refluffed crossbows and bows... and I am lazy.

also, to the general subject of debate...
It is hard to take into account all play styles, as each group is often different. The general base assumption of the system is 3-4 encounters per day, but that could vary an infinite amount between groups and op levels. and endurance game could do 100 encounters in a day, and a low level low op game could have the DM let each day have one encounter. I can't disparage any of them, or call them wrong, but with this brew I assume the rules group, as that is one anyone can look up in the SRD. If your groups casters never have the problem of using a crossbow as much as a rouge, feel free to ignore this brew...

GunbladeKnight
2012-07-04, 12:49 AM
Oops, I must have switched tracks in my train of thought on number 6. I meant, how does it change the weight.

bobthe6th
2012-07-04, 01:22 AM
the added 1sp regent is more depleted uranium...

TuggyNE
2012-07-04, 01:26 AM
the added 1sp regent is more depleted uranium...

What is this depleted uranium of which you speak, and how do you acquire some for the fantastically low price of 1sp per charge?

ArkenBrony
2012-07-04, 01:38 AM
from akbars completely legitimate and definitely not fake depleted uranium store (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=8-bit+theatre+akbars+store&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1230&bih=684&tbm=isch&tbnid=w1YaCRf05O4rRM:&imgrefurl=http://the-red-mage.deviantart.com/art/Akbar-s-Discount-Wallpapers-12065646&docid=OZcUtdUedlmPZM&imgurl=http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs5/i/2004/311/1/d/Akbar__s_Discount_Wallpapers_by_The_Red_Mage.jpg&w=1024&h=768&ei=kuTzT5fMLsfW6wGV-4G-Bg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=365&vpy=303&dur=87&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=125&ty=151&sig=103882502098601461034&page=1&tbnh=149&tbnw=199&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:110)

bobthe6th
2012-07-04, 11:42 AM
yep, from Akbar. the uranium is definitely non radioactive, totally clean...

Yitzi
2012-07-04, 03:51 PM
The rules that Yitzi is referencing assume something that almost never happens. It assumes that the encounters that you face are of the exact same CR as the party. I know that, in my experience, when that is the case for the average battle, combat gets to be underwhelming, and not at all the experience I'm gunning for.

Even when the party can't safely use more than 1/5 of its resources each battle? And the DM keeps the power level down to what's possible using only the core rulebooks and no exploits?

There are two ways of playing (essentially high-powered and lower-powered, but high-powered also assumes fewer encounters per day); if there can be said to be a "right" way, it's the one described and assumed in the core books.


What is this depleted uranium of which you speak, and how do you acquire some for the fantastically low price of 1sp per charge?

What makes you think it's fantastically low? Personally, I think 1sp per millionth of an ounce is a very high price. Until we're told how much per charge, we can't really say if it's high or low.

planswalker
2012-07-04, 04:00 PM
Even when the party can't safely use more than 1/5 of its resources each battle? And the DM keeps the power level down to what's possible using only the core rulebooks and no exploits?

There are two ways of playing (essentially high-powered and lower-powered, but high-powered also assumes fewer encounters per day); if there can be said to be a "right" way, it's the one described and assumed in the core books.

You are taking a system that's very complex and has a sliding scale across the board and trying to simplify it into a duality (aka, setting up a straw man), compare the "two" and then declaring that one is "right".

Where, exactly, do you draw the line between "high" and "low" powered?

although, I have to say that there is a point:


if there can be said to be a "right" way, it's the one described and assumed in the core books.

there can't. People who don't play the way that core assumes they will are not wrong. at all. in any sense of the word.

toapat
2012-07-04, 09:37 PM
What is this depleted uranium of which you speak, and how do you acquire some for the fantastically low price of 1sp per charge?

Depending on how far you stretch the definitions, Adamantine fits the attributes of: Uranium, Tungsten, or Osmium

Mithral is definitively Titanium though.

asto names: Wand > Rent Mystic Sliver
Staff > Bound Arcane Essence

TuggyNE
2012-07-05, 04:13 AM
What makes you think it's fantastically low? Personally, I think 1sp per millionth of an ounce is a very high price. Until we're told how much per charge, we can't really say if it's high or low.

1sp per charge, 10 charges increases weight by 1 pound. Yeah, I'm gonna say 1sp for 1.6 ounces of depleted uranium is a pretty ferociously low price.


Depending on how far you stretch the definitions, Adamantine fits the attributes of: Uranium, Tungsten, or Osmium

That may or may not be, but I'm pretty sure that 1gp/lb is far too low a price for it to be involved here. (Estimates I've seen range more around 1000gp/lb.)

bobthe6th
2012-07-05, 09:13 AM
It's a by product of some transmutation rituals, which keeps the price artificially low.

planswalker
2012-07-05, 09:28 AM
why not just say it's a product generated by alchemy to justify the pricing?

Yitzi
2012-07-05, 10:54 AM
You are taking a system that's very complex and has a sliding scale across the board and trying to simplify it into a duality (aka, setting up a straw man)

Yes, there is a spectrum, but I think that things usually are going to tend more toward one approach or the other.


Where, exactly, do you draw the line between "high" and "low" powered?

If monsters with CR=party level are a viable challenge, it's the lower-powered approach, if they aren't it's the high-powered approach.


there can't. People who don't play the way that core assumes they will are not wrong. at all. in any sense of the word.

No they are not wrong (as long as everyone agrees to play a different way). But it isn't the default way to play, and so one should not assume that people will play that way.


1sp per charge, 10 charges increases weight by 1 pound.

And does that mean that the depleted uranium weighs 1 pound per 10 charges' worth, or does the charging process add weight? Seeing as the depleted uranium doesn't seem to actually enter the staff or wand, one is no more absurd than the other.

planswalker
2012-07-05, 11:06 AM
Yes, there is a spectrum, but I think that things usually are going to tend more toward one approach or the other.

It has been my experience that this is very much not so. You remember more readily the examples where it's one extreme or the other, but that is just the human recollection bias. My experience has apparently been a lot more varied than yours.


If monsters with CR=party level are a viable challenge, it's the lower-powered approach, if they aren't it's the high-powered approach.

that depends as much on the power of the monster of equal CR as it does the players. Such a rubric will be... inconsistent at best. A 6th level ogre druid is cr6. So is a 6th level gnome druid. As are thrice-evolved allips, large storm elementals, and 6th level dwarf fighters.

for those playing at home: can you spot which of those are NOT going to be a challenge to the party, almost no matter the optimization in the party (this all assuming you're optimizing the enemies to be on par with the sorts of things the monster manual does and NOT to pc levels. PC level opt will break the CR system even farther)


No they are not wrong (as long as everyone agrees to play a different way). But it isn't the default way to play, and so one should not assume that people will play that way.

Why shouldn't I assume that? I've been playing since I was 12. I've never been in a game where we followed the majority of the DMG's assumptions.

Yitzi
2012-07-06, 10:27 AM
It has been my experience that this is very much not so. You remember more readily the examples where it's one extreme or the other, but that is just the human recollection bias. My experience has apparently been a lot more varied than yours.

I suspect you have more experience too, so I'll concede this point.


that depends as much on the power of the monster of equal CR as it does the players. Such a rubric will be... inconsistent at best. A 6th level ogre druid is cr6. So is a 6th level gnome druid. As are thrice-evolved allips, large storm elementals, and 6th level dwarf fighters.

I'm thinking specifically of monsters straight from the monster manual; monsters with class levels will tend to be far more variable, of course (with casters in particular tending to be more powerful in higher-power games).


for those playing at home: can you spot which of those are NOT going to be a challenge to the party, almost no matter the optimization in the party (this all assuming you're optimizing the enemies to be on par with the sorts of things the monster manual does and NOT to pc levels. PC level opt will break the CR system even farther)

I think they all could be a challenge.


Why shouldn't I assume that? I've been playing since I was 12. I've never been in a game where we followed the majority of the DMG's assumptions.

And in those games that didn't follow most of the DMG's assumptions, were the fighters and rogues able to contribute a reasonable amount to parties that contained druids and wizards?

planswalker
2012-07-06, 11:04 AM
I'm thinking specifically of monsters straight from the monster manual; monsters with class levels will tend to be far more variable, of course (with casters in particular tending to be more powerful in higher-power games).

fair enough. It's less egregious without class levels, but I could generate a list that includes a seven-headed hydra and other such things to fill in the holes. My point still is that it's a very uneven rubric to use.


I think they all could be a challenge.

Can you really think of a situation where a 6th level dwarf fighter that uses DMG guidelines in its npc creation will be a challenge to four 6th level pc's? Keeping in mind that DMG guidelines are (in part): elite array for stats, far less WBL than pc's, and feats selected along thematic lines instead of picking powerful ones.

Of course, you can cite scenarios such as the (in)famous Tucker's Kobolds example where a dm created a challenge using far inferoir meatsacks to operate a situation. But we're still talking about an un-optimized sixth level fighter being of equal threat to pc's as a seven-headed hydra, a large storm elemental, and many other things.

To take away the class levels example, you can replace said fighter with a gray render zombie, perhaps even more so.


And in those games that didn't follow most of the DMG's assumptions, were the fighters and rogues able to contribute a reasonable amount to parties that contained druids and wizards?

Yes. In fact, NOT following those guidelines was done in part to increase the usefulness of non-casters. The DMG's guidelines are not utter rubbish, but I've found them to be far from the best playstyle for balance. The core rulebook design team did not spend too much effort balancing their classes and playstyles. They guidelines for playing they give are not the product of hundreds of hours of playtesting to make sure it's valid. If they've done any playtesting, I'll bet it was between levels 3 and 9 and little else.

Yitzi
2012-07-06, 02:02 PM
fair enough. It's less egregious without class levels, but I could generate a list that includes a seven-headed hydra

Yeah, those things are nasty unless you have Improved Sunder. (Well, unless it's an environment/situation where you can fly over it and the whole party has flying, but that's not really an encounter.)


Can you really think of a situation where a 6th level dwarf fighter that uses DMG guidelines in its npc creation will be a challenge to four 6th level pc's?

Sure: The PCs use the same feat selection method as the NPCs (as noted below, I can't find the place where it says to use poor ones, though), the NPC is just as intelligent in terms of use of expendables and similar as the PCs, and (most importantly of all) the NPC is going all-out while the PCs know that they'll probably have (or have already had) several other encounters today. They'll still probably win, but not easily.


elite array for stats

An elite array is a 25 point buy, which is pretty close to the average when using 4d6b3. Of course, if you're going with a higher-powered game you'll need to adjust accordingly; that's one of those nonstandard cases that's ok to play by but still isn't the default and shouldn't be treated as the only case. But for a default-power game, elite array is pretty standard; it's not friendly to SAD classes, but a fighter doesn't exactly fall into that category.


and feats selected along thematic lines instead of picking powerful ones.

I cannot find where it says that in the DMG. Can you provide the page number?


Of course, you can cite scenarios such as the (in)famous Tucker's Kobolds example where a dm created a challenge using far inferoir meatsacks to operate a situation.

The scary thing? Reading the MM entry on kobolds indicates that Tucker was just playing kobolds the way they were meant to be played.


But we're still talking about an un-optimized sixth level fighter being of equal threat to pc's as a seven-headed hydra, a large storm elemental, and many other things.

A sixth level fighter with only NPC levels of optimization can be more of a challenge than you might think. He's got the WBL for a few useful potions (e.g. fly), and enough feats (and a balanced enough ability distribution) that he can semi-specialize in both melee and ranged and attack the party with whichever one they're weakest in. Unless the party is heavily optimized or using a higher point-buy (or equivalent), they'll need to expend a significant amount of resources to beat him.


To take away the class levels example, you can replace said fighter with a gray render zombie, perhaps even more so.

The only way I can see to safely handle a gray render zombie without significant resource expenditure is to use arrows against it while keeping away (and its DR means it'll take a lot of arrows), and for that reason a good DM won't use a gray render zombie unless there's something to prevent that (perhaps it's in a small area where that won't work, or it's between them and something else they're running away from, or it's got allies; note that its organization tag says "any", so it might easily be combined with 9 skeleton archers for a CR 7 encounter.)

So yes, some monsters are not really suited for their CR under ideal conditions for the PCs; part of what I mean by a lower-powered game is that the DM doesn't allow such conditions to occur.


Yes. In fact, NOT following those guidelines was done in part to increase the usefulness of non-casters.

Wait, having fewer encounters per day makes non-casters more useful as compared to casters? Or was that one of the things that was followed (in which case, which ones weren't?)


The DMG's guidelines are not utter rubbish, but I've found them to be far from the best playstyle for balance. The core rulebook design team did not spend too much effort balancing their classes and playstyles. They guidelines for playing they give are not the product of hundreds of hours of playtesting to make sure it's valid. If they've done any playtesting, I'll bet it was between levels 3 and 9 and little else.

Yes, the classes themselves do have serious imbalance at higher levels (I blame in large part the fact that they didn't give fighters a good Will save, made it too "cheap" to pump a single ability score, and made archery too weak), but it seems to me that ignoring most of the DMG guidelines (especially the ones about encounters/day) will only make that problem worse.

Deepbluediver
2012-07-06, 02:40 PM
I was certain this was going to be about guns...well played.


Staff:
A staff fires a bolt of focused energy. A staff uncharged, but can be charged by any person with at least one caster level at the cost of 1 sp in magical regents per charge. for every ten charges the staff has it's weight increases by 1 lb.
You prepare a staff for use by focusing it's energy. Preparing a staff is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

a staff is a two handed ranged simple weapon, with a

I think something got cut off here; I'm not entirely sure how this works.

Once we've "prepared a staff for use" are we making any Attack rolls, Use magic device checks, or any other kind of roll?
And the charge (or whatever it's called) deals untyped magic damage, that is somehow piercing? I just want to be certain I understand things right.



While I agree that low-level casters could certainly use some sort of home-brew blasting capability, your reskinned crossbows seem like they can't decide what exactly they are trying to be.

I think that most of the wands, rods, and staffs from the PHB/DMG are pretty boring, and the mechanics could use some reworking. Magic staffs, in particular, should have major mechanical differences, IMO, but wands and rods can work plenty well for the spammy-fireball types.

For wands, what about something like:

Wands
A wand holds a number of charges that refresh themselves automatically over time. A wand may cast one specific spell, chosen when the wand is crafted. Activating a requires a Use Magic Device check as a standard action, DC equal to 10+ twice the level of the spell the wand will cast.
Wands may vary on what spell they contain, how many charges they hold at once, their cooldown period (time in between uses) and how quickly they recharge.

Frost-Ray Wand
DC: 10
Max Range: 40 ft.
Charges: 10
Cooldown: none (this wand may be used each turn consecutively)
Refresh Rate: 1 charge per 10 minutes
Effect: Deal 1d3 points of cold damage to your target

Acid-Orb Wand
DC: 10
Max Range: 30 ft.
Charges: 5
Cooldown: none (this wand may be used each turn consecutively)
Refresh Rate: 1 charge per 10 minutes
Effect: Deal 1d3 points of acid damage to your target

Wand of Magic Missile
DC: 12
Max Range: 60 ft.
Charges: 10
Cooldown: 1d3 rounds
Refresh Rate: 1 charge per hour
Effect: Deal 1d4+1 points of force damage to your target

planswalker
2012-07-06, 07:11 PM
Not quite. If the DM is doing things right and you're doing things right, you shouldn't be out of spells until 5 typically encounters in (more precisely, a fifth encounter should be too dangerous to be gone into willingly due to you not having that many spells left), but you're only going to be able to use one or two spells of your highest two levels each battle, meaning that at low levels most of each battle will be based on non-spell weapons.

keep in mind that this is the quote of yours that I am contending. Specifically, my contention is that this almost NEVER happens at level 1-3.

I will admit when choosing to show that cr's are not even, I used cr6 because I'm more familiar with them than I am cr3, but my point is that this encounter scheme is not appropriate for level 1-3 pc's.

also, keep in mind that I've never said what SHOULD happen at low levels, I've never said that you should use FEWER encounters. I've just said that the DMG assumptions are blind assumptions that almost never happen, particularly at level 1-3. I'm not going to go through tremendous effort to defend a position you're trying to pigeonhole me into.


Yeah, those things are nasty unless you have Improved Sunder. (Well, unless it's an environment/situation where you can fly over it and the whole party has flying, but that's not really an encounter.)

um... have you ever tried to imp. sunder one of those creatures? Beyond five heads, I've always found it's faster to just kill the body than fuss with heads.

edit: also, when was the last time you saw a party where someone had improved sunder?

I can tell you when mine was: my game that started at lvl 20, one of the players needed imp. sunder to qualify for something. When I was 13. I'm now 22.


Sure: The PCs use the same feat selection method as the NPCs (as noted below, I can't find the place where it says to use poor ones, though), the NPC is just as intelligent in terms of use of expendables and similar as the PCs, and (most importantly of all) the NPC is going all-out while the PCs know that they'll probably have (or have already had) several other encounters today. They'll still probably win, but not easily.

um... let's analyze what you're claiming is gonna be a challenge:

four sixth level pc's versus one sixth level npc.

the pc's are: a barbarian, a rogue, a druid, and a sorcerer.

the npc is a fighter.

please, please, please give me an example combat scenario where the sixth level fighter isn't going to be curbstomped.


An elite array is a 25 point buy, which is pretty close to the average when using 4d6b3.

A) once again, you're assuming people will use the rules as written in core. I know of few games where they use "six sets of 4d6b3, reroll as per phb". Even then, it's more likely than not for 4d6b3 to grant you a more useful array of stats, see B.

B) the problem with the elite array isn't its point-buy equivalent. The problem is that the stat assignments are pre-determined, and in a very sub-optimal way.


Of course, if you're going with a higher-powered game you'll need to adjust accordingly; that's one of those nonstandard cases that's ok to play by but still isn't the default and shouldn't be treated as the only case. But for a default-power game, elite array is pretty standard; it's not friendly to SAD classes, but a fighter doesn't exactly fall into that category.

this right here, my friend, is you making blind assumptions about what a default is. I've nothing more to say on this one.


I cannot find where it says that in the DMG. Can you provide the page number?

ooh, the "quote page numbers" game. Tell you what, give me the page number where it says what power level a default game is and when an elite array is and is not appropriate to use for your npc's and I'll give you the page number for this.


The scary thing? Reading the MM entry on kobolds indicates that Tucker was just playing kobolds the way they were meant to be played.

nope, on this one, you are WRONG. The MM entry in 3.5 is what it is BECAUSE of Tucker's Kobolds. That article changed people's perceptions of kobolds into what's written in the MM. At the time when the article was written, that was NOT the assumption for how kobolds should act.

the point of the article was to illustrate that even high-level pc's could be threatened by the weakest monsters in the book if you play them intelligently and avoid straight-up fights. Unfortunately, what people took from it was "sweet, kobolds are trap-masters!" and people started imitating the scenario in the article. WotC changed them in 3.0 to reflect people's perception of them.

you just put the cart before the horse.


A sixth level fighter with only NPC levels of optimization can be more of a challenge than you might think. He's got the WBL for a few useful potions (e.g. fly), and enough feats (and a balanced enough ability distribution) that he can semi-specialize in both melee and ranged and attack the party with whichever one they're weakest in. Unless the party is heavily optimized or using a higher point-buy (or equivalent), they'll need to expend a significant amount of resources to beat him.

tell you what, let's test that one. Take the pre-made DMG npc fighter (their guideline for what an npc fighter "should" be) and use that. I'll take a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard of the same level and use only core in my construction of the characters. We'll test and see how many resources get used up.

Pick your level, friend.


The only way I can see to safely handle a gray render zombie without significant resource expenditure is to use arrows against it while keeping away (and its DR means it'll take a lot of arrows), and for that reason a good DM won't use a gray render zombie unless there's something to prevent that (perhaps it's in a small area where that won't work, or it's between them and something else they're running away from, or it's got allies; note that its organization tag says "any", so it might easily be combined with 9 skeleton archers for a CR 7 encounter.)

that is you not having a good imagination, then. Throw an entangle down and the thing will barely be able to move at all. A ray of enfeeblement will take the edge off its attacks, and the party fighter tripping the thing will effectively render it useless. It'll take a while for them to saw through 133 hp, true, but they'll manage it just fine. Don't believe me? How about we take the party I create to curbstomp your npc fighter and scale them to 6th level. We'll try it out.


So yes, some monsters are not really suited for their CR under ideal conditions for the PCs;

not my point. My point is that monsters of the same CR can be wildly different from each other in power, meaning measuring a party's power by how well they handle monsters of their CR is an inconsistent standard.


part of what I mean by a lower-powered game is that the DM doesn't allow such conditions to occur.

let me get this straight: in order to preserve the sacred "four fights in a day" which will "fix" the issues of casters outperforming non-casters, you'll have to carefully pick the monsters to always be equal CR to the party level, make sure among that CR that the pc's situation will make that monster appropriate for that CR, and have the pc's not burn more than 1/5 of their resources on the fight.

This scenario is very rare. Which is my whole point.


Wait, having fewer encounters per day makes non-casters more useful as compared to casters? Or was that one of the things that was followed (in which case, which ones weren't?)

You put words in my mouth I never said. I said I didn't follow the "four encounters in a day" format, NOT what I did instead. For all you know, I'm advocating throwing ten billion encounters a day. (okay, hyperbole alert)

my point is that I don't follow some formula for how many encounters "should" and "shouldn't" be in a day. Except under special circumstances, I let my pc's decide when they are and aren't allowed to rest, meaning I let them set the pace. Some groups with more staying power will rarely ever rest until they just run out of time, others will try to rest after every fight. But my players are the ones to pick and when they all agree on the answer, everyone feels satisfied on their contribution level.


Yes, the classes themselves do have serious imbalance at higher levels (I blame in large part the fact that they didn't give fighters a good Will save, made it too "cheap" to pump a single ability score, and made archery too weak),

tell you what, let's give fighters a good will save and double the base damage of archery, let str always apply, allow power attacking, and make the crit range on bows 19-20/x3.

will that balance things out? Not by a long shot.


but it seems to me that ignoring most of the DMG guidelines (especially the ones about encounters/day) will only make that problem worse.

very clearly you think so. I've empirically found those guidelines to be naive and wrong. Not through the scenarios constructed in my head, but through gameplay and trial-and-error. I used to follow them more closely as a DM, and there will be some times when I *do* have four encounters in a day. But the blind assumptions used in the DMG do not help party balance.*

* caveat: my whole argument assumes you aren't forcing your players to play with the sometimes stupid tactics that they assume the classes will in the DMG.

Yitzi
2012-07-08, 09:40 AM
keep in mind that this is the quote of yours that I am contending. Specifically, my contention is that this almost NEVER happens at level 1-3.

And my contention is that regardless of how often it happens in practice, "standard" play is that way.


but my point is that this encounter scheme is not appropriate for level 1-3 pc's.

Why not? Those level 3 PCs might not be all that powerful, but they should be able to handle a squad of 4 orc warriors without expending anywhere near an entire day's worth of resources. (Well, assuming that they're built normally; "optimized" builds might be more reliant on high-end magic and therefore do worse, but that's good for balance.)


I've just said that the DMG assumptions are blind assumptions that almost never happen, particularly at level 1-3.

Ok, conceded that they almost never happen in most games. I just maintain that that's less relevant than what the DMG actually says. (This is part of my general life principle that a minority following the rules trumps a majority that doesn't follow the rules; while Rule 0 means that's not particularly relevant to a particular D&D game, it does have effects when looking at the system as a whole.)


um... have you ever tried to imp. sunder one of those creatures?

This really gets into the question of what the head is treated as; if it's treated as a medium non-weapon, then it's not hard at all. If it's treated as a light weapon (as most natural attacks are IIRC), then it's somewhat harder, but still doable. If it's treated as a non-light weapon, then it is indeed next to impossible.


edit: also, when was the last time you saw a party where someone had improved sunder?

The hydra is designed to reward that somewhat unconventional choice; even without it, you can sunder, it just provokes an AoO. (The fact that you're meant to be able to sunder even without improved sunder suggests that the head is in fact to be treated similarly to a worn object rather than a weapon.)


um... let's analyze what you're claiming is gonna be a challenge:

four sixth level pc's versus one sixth level npc.

the pc's are: a barbarian, a rogue, a druid, and a sorcerer.

the npc is a fighter.

please, please, please give me an example combat scenario where the sixth level fighter isn't going to be curbstomped.

Well, let's see what each of the PCs has available...

The barbarian has only 2 rages per day, so he can only use them on about half the battles. Let's assume this isn't one of them.

The rogue has 3d6 sneak attack, but no easy way of setting it up without either getting into melee (making him easy to kill) or having favorable terrain. Without sneak attack he's pretty pathetic.

The druid probably came into the fight with a wildshape form (medium or smaller), but can't switch it without using up his other 1/day, so most likely he's got that one and that's it. In terms of spells available, he can cast 1 level 3 spell (not every battle, but because the barbarian isn't raging this battle, let's say this is one of the ones where the druid uses a level 3 spell), 1 level 2, and 1 level 1. His animal companion will be of help, but only knows a limited number of tricks and can't handle complex tactics.

The wizard also has only 1 level 1 spell, 1 level 2, and 1 level 3 available.

They also have scrolls and potions, but a limited amount (and again, they can only use 1/5 to 1/4 without running out later in the day.)

As for our NPC fighter...For his elite array, give him 15+1 advancement STR for a +3 bonus, 14 DEX for a +2 bonus, 13 CON for a +1 bonus (so he has 11+(6.5)X5=43 hit points), and 12 WIS for a +1 bonus (boosting his Will save to +3); he won't be using the others.

He has 5600gp to spend, so let's equip him with a cloak of resistance +1 (1k; note that this boosts his Will save to +4), a masterwork greatsword (350), a masterwork composite longbow with a +2 strength rating (600), a +1 buckler (1165) and some +1 full plate (1650); that costs 4765 so far, and pumps his AC to 10+9+2+1=22.

Give him a potion of fly (costs 750) and a potion of Protection from Good (costs 50), and we're good.

And then come his feats; as a level 6 human fighter he gets 8 of them. Give him Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Deflect Arrows, Power Attack, Cleave, and Improved Initiative.

The party should still be able to win if they play things intelligently, but it won't be easy to do so (unless they exceed their planned expenditures for the fight, in which case they'll have to make it up elsewhere.)


A) once again, you're assuming people will use the rules as written in core. I know of few games where they use "six sets of 4d6b3, reroll as per phb".

Well yes, if they use a higher-powered ability distribution things will have to be adjusted accordingly in order to make an appropriate challenge.


B) the problem with the elite array isn't its point-buy equivalent. The problem is that the stat assignments are pre-determined, and in a very sub-optimal way.

How is it sub-optimal? Sure, there are some builds (e.g. 3-dump-stat wizard) for which a different distribution is better, but it's a very useful distribution for many purposes.


this right here, my friend, is you making blind assumptions about what a default is.

What the books say is the default. That seems obvious; any difference from the books is a house-rule, and therefore cannot be the default.


ooh, the "quote page numbers" game. Tell you what, give me the page number where it says what power level a default game is and when an elite array is and is not appropriate to use for your npc's and I'll give you the page number for this.

DMG pp. 48-49, DMG pp. 110-111


nope, on this one, you are WRONG. The MM entry in 3.5 is what it is BECAUSE of Tucker's Kobolds. That article changed people's perceptions of kobolds into what's written in the MM. At the time when the article was written, that was NOT the assumption for how kobolds should act.

Ah, Tucker was before 3.5? Ok, so conceded on that, although now it's the "official" way to play kobolds.


tell you what, let's test that one. Take the pre-made DMG npc fighter (their guideline for what an npc fighter "should" be) and use that. I'll take a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard of the same level and use only core in my construction of the characters. We'll test and see how many resources get used up.

So you get to look at the opponent before building your characters? That's way too much of an advantage. But if you're willing to build without looking, then let's use level 5.


that is you not having a good imagination, then. Throw an entangle down and the thing will barely be able to move at all.

With a +5 Reflex score, there's a pretty decent chance it won't be affected, and if it is it can break out in only a few rounds. And of course if there aren't any plants around that won't help you at all.

And many of the approaches that will prevent the archery approach will make the Entangle approach not so effective either.


A ray of enfeeblement will take the edge off its attacks

It will take a bit off.


and the party fighter tripping the thing will effectively render it useless.

The thing has a +11 resist-trip check. Unless it's a seriously trip-optimized fighter, it'll be countertripping far more often than it gets tripped.


How about we take the party I create to curbstomp your npc fighter and scale them to 6th level. We'll try it out.

Ok.


not my point. My point is that monsters of the same CR can be wildly different from each other in power, meaning measuring a party's power by how well they handle monsters of their CR is an inconsistent standard.

They can differ somewhat, but I don't think it's going to be that much most of the time unless the party is specialized against one particular class of monster.


let me get this straight: in order to preserve the sacred "four fights in a day" which will "fix" the issues of casters outperforming non-casters, you'll have to carefully pick the monsters to always be equal CR to the party level

Having a bit more or less occasionally will work (less and they can handle more fights, more and they either can handle fewer fights or have to run away), but it should be predominantly of the party level.


and have the pc's not burn more than 1/5 of their resources on the fight.

No, that's the players' job to make sure of.


You put words in my mouth I never said. I said I didn't follow the "four encounters in a day" format, NOT what I did instead. For all you know, I'm advocating throwing ten billion encounters a day. (okay, hyperbole alert)

Ok, so what are you advocating?


my point is that I don't follow some formula for how many encounters "should" and "shouldn't" be in a day. Except under special circumstances, I let my pc's decide when they are and aren't allowed to rest, meaning I let them set the pace.

So then how do you keep the casters from going nova and resting after every encounter, and resulting in a serious balance problem?


and when they all agree on the answer, everyone feels satisfied on their contribution level.

And if they don't agree?


tell you what, let's give fighters a good will save and double the base damage of archery, let str always apply, allow power attacking, and make the crit range on bows 19-20/x3.

will that balance things out? Not by a long shot.

Conceded that there are also some specific broken spells that need to be fixed, and some way is needed for casters to not get any more advantage from extra splatbooks than noncasters get, but if those are also done then it should balance things out.


very clearly you think so. I've empirically found those guidelines to be naive and wrong. Not through the scenarios constructed in my head, but through gameplay and trial-and-error. I used to follow them more closely as a DM, and there will be some times when I *do* have four encounters in a day. But the blind assumptions used in the DMG do not help party balance.*

* caveat: my whole argument assumes you aren't forcing your players to play with the sometimes stupid tactics that they assume the classes will in the DMG.

I suspect that as long as the NPC tactics are just as good as the PC tactics, it should still balance out the same way it would if both follow stupid tactics. Note for instance my own NPC fighter build above, which unlike the DMG version is designed to both use and counter more advanced tactics than the DMG assumes. But yes, conceded that if the NPCs use stupid tactics and the PCs use smart tactics, you'll end up with a very different, and probably irreparably broken, game.