Running Some Tests - Low Tier Competence

[demigodus]

This is a branch off from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267020) since that one is going all over the place now.

Generally it is understood that low tier characters have trouble keeping up with the higher tier classes. However, the point came up in that thread, that apparently a test was done on another board showing that maybe the point where they completely fall behind is earlier then expected. Specifically a 4 member level 7 party of tier 4's and below wasn't able to complete a (supposed) CR appropriate challenge.

This thread is here for those of us who want to run the test again, or make our own tests.

Note that this thread isn't to DISCUSS whether or not such a party can function. The point of this thread is discuss what are fair rules for a test testing that idea, and running that test. If you want to be making tests, organizing tests, running tests, running in the tests, or helping with any of those, post here. If you want to trade anecdotes about which specific ability low tiers can or can not deal with and why, post in the prior thread.

[Gwendol]

Alright, so what is needed for team low-tier: healer, paladin, rogue, and ? Warmage, warlock, ...

[Chilingsworth]

I'd be interested.

I suggest as valid test criteria:

* four member party
* 7th level, no LA
* 32 point buy
* only tier 4 and below classes
*standard WBL

Test will be performed by building a compliant with the above criteria. The party will then be run trough a randomly determined CR-appropriate challenge.
To reduce the influence of chance and gm competence on the outcome, this test will be repeated three times (with three different encounters, the party resetting between encounters).

How's that. Also, should multiclassing between acceptable classes be allowed?

[Chilingsworth]

Alright, so what is needed for team low-tier: healer, paladin, rogue, and ?

Isn't rogue T3?

EDIT: I see it is not.

Ok, how about: healer, paladin, rogue, warlock?

[Amphetryon]

For a discussion point: at Tier 4 and below, how reasonable is it for the DM to require prolonged use of Flight or See Invisibility? At what level might it be reasonable?

[Gwendol]

I'd like to see team underdog get slightly more cash than WBL, to offset the lack of t2 and t1 casters. 10% maybe?

[demigodus]

Alright, so what is needed for team low-tier: healer, paladin, rogue, and ? Warmage, warlock, ...

I would suggest the standard 4 roles (as defined by WoTC): Healer, Skill Monkey, Big Stupid Fighter, and ranged dps

everyone pick a role, and use whatever class they feel is most appropriate for it. The party SHOULD work together and coordinate their builds though


I'd be interested.

I suggest as valid test criteria:

* four member party
* 7th level, no LA
* 32 point buy
* only tier 4 and below classes
*standard WBL

Test will be performed by building a compliant with the above criteria. The party will then be run trough a randomly determined CR-appropriate challenge.
To reduce the influence of chance and gm competence on the outcome, this test will be repeated three times (with three different encounters, the party resetting between encounters).

How's that. Also, should multiclassing between acceptable classes be allowed?

Multi-classing should be legal. Not sure about how to handle the xp penalty. Make every race have Favored Class: Any?

Also, I would say each test should have 4 CR-appropriate encounters. To represent a proper adventuring day. Or one test might be 2 CR+2 encounters, or one might be a CR+4 encounters just to vary things.

Two thing I want to clarify, is what about PRC's (legal or not?), and what about replicating class features of higher tier classes? Should those be legal or not? For example, a Warmage with Arcane Discipline, is that considered just replicating a cleric and not the Warmage's own capability or not?


For a discussion point: at Tier 4 and below, how reasonable is it for the DM to require prolonged use of Flight or See Invisibility? At what level might it be reasonable?

I would say environmental challenges that require one to fly or teleport wouldn't be appropriate. Flying enemies should be fair though.

Also, no challenge should explicitly require See Invisibility. Enemies that have Invisibility as a spell-like, I would think are fair if they are CR appropriate. However, this is with the understanding that there are other counters to invisibility (say, a high spot/listen check) that may not be DM-fiated.


I'd like to see team underdog get slightly more cash than WBL, to offset the lack of t2 and t1 casters. 10% maybe?

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. This test is supposed to show that T1 and T2 (and T3) aren't strictly needed, but then extra money can be a bit of extra flexibility

EDIT: Also, should PF material be legal or not?

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd like to see team underdog get slightly more cash than WBL, to offset the lack of t2 and t1 casters. 10% maybe?

That would seem contrary to the idea of seeing if a standard low-tier party can beat CR appropriate challenges, since CR assumes average wealth. It's hard to see why they would have more money than an average party of mixed tiers or high tiers.

Basically, if we handicap team underdog, we are already admitting they are failing/doing poorly at the test, which we don't know, because we haven't run the test yet.

If they do very poorly in the test, then a boost to WBL would certainly be advisable for any DM that is running a campaign for a low tier party without monkeying with the CR and ELs that they run into.

[Chilingsworth]

I'd say no both to the extra money and the PF material, since both those take us away from standard 3.5 parameters, which are what we're supposed to be testing.

However, I'd say yes to the class replication. Afterall, those are abilities the relevant classes can legitimately gain access to.

I'm also unsure about PrC's On the one hand, if the classes can legitimately qualify, they should be allowed the option. On the other hand, if you allow them, then you potentially aren't testing T4 anymore. I have to say that I'd lean against allowing PrC's.

[demigodus]

hmmm, point. Lets avoid PrC's in that case.

Also, I think this goes without saying, but no loops (especially of the infinite kind) or excessive cheese. A level 1 Kobold Paladin called Pun Pun is technically a T4 character when he initially enters the game...

[Chilingsworth]

I'm building a rogue for this test. I'll post it when I'm done.

[Iron Tarkus]

As the person running this, allow me to set some parameters and explain things a bit better. Most of these were already said and I'm just bringing them here.

I joined the forum and posted a somewhat related story in which a party entirely composed of low tier classes was defeated by low tier opponents. Not that they had some epic struggle and lost, that they were soundly defeated and never stood a chance. Even a glance would show one side clearly outclassed the other and it wasn't the correct side (by normal D&D assumptions, you usually vastly outclass your opponents... fair fights the game expects you to run away from).

All of this happened on one board and ended up being taken to another, neither of which were this board.

I didn't think much of it. Many people took great interest in this and it quickly became the main subject of the thread. Many people expressed interest in trying it again, and insisted I run it. So here I am. Most of those people then backed out, but that's another subject and I'm getting ahead of myself.

What stood out most to me was the severity of the party's defeat - both parties and the nature of their defeat - they were bad at things they should be good at and that directly caused them to die. What also stood out was the reasoning behind what happened and why - in short, an entire party of low tiers lacks everything or almost everything they'd need to succeed and as such can cover only a few bases at most between the entire party. Many of these things they flat out could not get without one or more higher tier members - and mixed parties can be viable if everyone (especially the weaker guys) know what they're doing and the weaker guys are fine with doing nothing most of the time and having to have the high tier guys step in and do something for them.

This same scenario that killed two entire parties of low tier characters was defeated easily by a single tier 3 character. The exact approach he used I cannot say as that would reveal information you should not have but it showed a hard line and a vast gap between Tiers 3 and 4.

Even knowing all of this, some are still interested. I'm not sure how many as it was very hard to keep track of who is interested while also holding a conversation with a dozen different people.

So let's work that out first.

Who is interested in this particular scenario? Note that I am not interested in the question of "How much easier must a game be for low tier parties to be survivable and viable?" since if the answer is any higher than none that has the same effect as if such a party dies or is otherwise unable to perform as intended.

If you want to run some other scenario on your own time by all means, but I'm not interested and it's not relevant so I'd ask that be in another thread and if you won't move then I will make a thread specifically for this.

Here are the rules for this scenario:


Party of 4.
Level 7, 32 PB.
PCs and enemies are restricted to the following classes: Adept, Aristocrat, Barbarian, CA Ninja, Commoner, CW Samurai, Expert, Fighter (dungeoncrasher or not), Healer, Hexblade, Knight, Marshal, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Soulknife, Spellthief, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Warmage, Warrior.
Sources are restricted to 3.5 books that are non campaign specific and non weather based.

The party you construct will run through a scenario designed to model a standard adventuring day. This means a number of things.

1: If the entire party dies, you automatically lose.
2: If it takes more than one day (defined as either 16 hours game time or resting to recover resources), you automatically lose.
3: If at least half the party dies but you beat all encounters, you automatically lose (as losing half the party every single day is clearly not sustainable).
4: If one person in the party dies but the rest then go on to win, you might get a judgment loss. If that person died in some consistent or reliable fashion, that's a loss as consistently having a death a day isn't sustainable either. If it was just bad luck, I won't hold it against them and therefore that would be a win.
5: Large amounts of struggling might result in a judgment loss. This is meant to be a standard adventuring day, something you get through without breaking a sweat. If you're having to go all out to deal with routine stuff, you stand no chance against the actually hard stuff. And sometimes you do deal with that even in standard play.
6: If the party beats everything without losing anyone, they win. Good luck with that though.

Let me know if there's anything I missed.

Missed thing one: This is a standard adventuring day. Results should represent that. As such, non sustainable tactics such as consumable novaing are disallowed. Consumables are allowed in moderation.

Addendum by me: You cannot use more than 550 gold worth of consumables as a party during the course of the adventure*.

I don't remember where every character creation question someone asked me and my answer is. If someone can find it, by all means.

I do remember one thing I never got around to detailing. The Barbarian I was thinking of had normal rage and not Whirling Frenzy. If there's no precedent then I'm assuming the entire book wasn't allowed as UA is more something you pick and choose from rather than allowing or disallowing it wholesale and nothing I know of on either side has used anything from UA except for possibly Whirling Frenzy.

And let me know if you have questions.

* - I wasn't going to set a hard rule for how much is too much but people insisted and 550 gold is the approximate amount of consumable allowance you get by the rules.

[Juntao112]

I would be interested in participating.

I would suggest using the elite array, though. Or a low point buy, like 28 point buy.

[Gwendol]

Ok, no problem. It's more to compensate through consumeables than anything else. Not that important if we're looking at four encounters. However, I don't see why LA +1 races can't be allowed?
What about subraces, templates, bloodlines?

[Togo]

hmmm, point. Lets avoid PrC's in that case.

Also, I think this goes without saying, but no loops (especially of the infinite kind) or excessive cheese. A level 1 Kobold Paladin called Pun Pun is technically a T4 character when he initially enters the game...

I think anything that involves excessive rules-op-fu is missing the point. I would suggest that we allow p-classes though. They're part of the game system, low-tier characters do have access to them, and at only 7th level, they're not likely to dominate the challenge in any case.

This was discussed before, on the other thread, and the DM indicated they should be allowed.

In the meantime, I have an idea for a ranged rogue or fighter, an idea for a utility monkey ranger, and another idea for a barbarian marshal trip fighter. Happy to create as many or as few as we need.

[Gwendol]

What's a weather-based book?

[Iron Tarkus]

What's a weather-based book?

No Frostburn, Sandstorm, or Stormwrack.

[demigodus]

I'm participating as well

So we have Juntao112, me, Gwendol, and Chilingsworth(?)


Ok, no problem. It's more to compensate through consumeables than anything else. Not that important if we're looking at four encounters. However, I don't see why LA +1 races can't be allowed?
What about subraces, templates, bloodlines?

I think the point is so show that the classes can manage. Not that races can manage.


What's a weather-based book?

Stormwreck, Frostburn, and Sandstorm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the roles, I believe both Gwendol and Chilingsworth expressed an interest in making a rogue type character?

[Iron Tarkus]

I'm participating as well

So we have Juntao112, me, Gwendol, and Chilingsworth(?)



I think the point is so show that the classes can manage. Not that races can manage.



Stormwreck, Frostburn, and Sandstorm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the roles, I believe both Gwendol and Chilingsworth expressed an interest in making a rogue type character?

And to be clear: Is this referring to the scenario I'd be running that we've been discussing, or one of the many tangents?

[A_S]

Does campaign-specific stuff include Champions of Valor (which is associated with FR), and therefore ban Sword of the Arcane Order?

[Amphetryon]

I think the point is so show that the classes can manage. Not that races can manage.Which Races don't contribute anything to a Character, though? A Mongrelfolk Barbarian has very different benefits to it than a Snow Elf Barbarian, and both are +0. Humans get their Skill/Feat bonus. Even Helfs make good Diplomancers.

[Iron Tarkus]

Does campaign-specific stuff include Champions of Valor (which is associated with FR), and therefore ban Sword of the Arcane Order?

It would.


Which Races don't contribute anything to a Character, though? A Mongrelfolk Barbarian has very different benefits to it than a Snow Elf Barbarian, and both are +0. Humans get their Skill/Feat bonus. Even Helfs make good Diplomancers.

It isn't whether or not races add something for your character.

It's whether races eclipse your character.

If your defining trait is being a Half Minotaur Water Orc and not a Fighter/Barbarian, that says nothing about Fighter/Barbarian. And Half Minotaur isn't in an allowed source.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It was mentioned in the original thread that using CR 7 as a breakpoint isn't necessarily representative, since it's a level before the 3/4 BAB classes get their second attack, a level before spontaneous casters get 4th level spells, etc. Also, regarding number and challenge of encounters, the guideline is actually an average of 4 on-CR encounters per day, so that could be 4 on-CR encounters, more lower-CR encounters and an above-CR "boss fight," or something else.

So I'd suggest the following: build a party of level 7s and run them through a gauntlet of three "days" of encounters: one "standard" day of 4 EL 7 encounters, one "exploration" day with 8 EL 4-6 encounters, and one "boss fight" day with 1 EL 9 encounter and 1 EL 11 encounter, in any order. Once the outcome of that gauntlet is decided, win or lose, the party advances to level 8 and repeats the standard/exploration/boss fight gauntlet at that level (or a different party is built at that level and run concurrently, whatever works).

[demigodus]

And to be clear: Is this referring to the scenario I'd be running that we've been discussing, or one of the many tangents?

Yours I believe. Though would need confirmation from the others as well

Someone else might run a different test as well.


Which Races don't contribute anything to a Character, though? A Mongrelfolk Barbarian has very different benefits to it than a Snow Elf Barbarian, and both are +0. Humans get their Skill/Feat bonus. Even Helfs make good Diplomancers.

Half Elf doesn't contribute? XD

I think the point is to not be too reliant on racial benefits. Of course where the line is drawn is rather arbitrary by necessity.

[Phelix-Mu]

Here are the rules for this scenario:


Hmm, can't quote that part. In any case, I would like to make a brief comment on the premise of the scenario. If it's not thread appropriate, pls ignore, but I thought it worth mentioning while scenarios are still being cooked up.

You can't plan for a "standard adventuring day." There is no such thing. Every day is different, unpredictable stuff can happen at any time, and, specifically, fits of bad luck have disastrous consequences for those that are engaged in risky pursuits. Any day on which something happened that killed a party member or injured everyone is no longer a standard day, and any party, regardless of tier, should be allowed to use whatever tactic necessary to combat the unexpected. A party of any tier can then adjust future behavior to make up for the accidents, bad judgement, or lack of class strength that made that day bad. It's not clear to me that the result of the test being "bad" is necessarily equivalent to a "loss."

Basically, the outcome of the scenario could still be bad for the party, but the test might be counted as a "win." Bad stuff happens in every tier, and suggesting that no bad result be acceptable in judging a low tier party seems to gloss over the nature of the adventuring lifestyle. Same with the tactic on consumable items, a party has to do what it has to do. If they use up more than is "sustainable" then they do what every broke party does: seek alternative employment at tasks well below CR.

I think it is acceptable to judge the test without being quite so strict, but perhaps this is a matter of practicality. I am probably not a fraction as familiar with tests of this kind as others are, so feel free to ignore me.

[thethird]

Can't I play a truenamer?

[navar100]

I'd suggest no multiclassing since the point is to test the classes. No one really complains about dipping two levels into Fighter, Paladin, or Monk for two feats, Cha to saves, or evasion & Wis AC respectively. The harping is about the individual classes as a whole.

[Iron Tarkus]

It was mentioned in the original thread that using CR 7 as a breakpoint isn't necessarily representative, since it's a level before the 3/4 BAB classes get their second attack, a level before spontaneous casters get 4th level spells, etc. Also, regarding number and challenge of encounters, the guideline is actually an average of 4 on-CR encounters per day, so that could be 4 on-CR encounters, more lower-CR encounters and an above-CR "boss fight," or something else.

I don't know why level 7 was chosen but there are not many other levels it would work at. If you go much higher than 7 a low tier party would lose even if they otherwise would not simply because it's higher level D&D. If you go much lower than 7, a low tier party would lose if you'd otherwise be fine because the lower you are the more the RNG eclipses everything else.


Hmm, can't quote that part. In any case, I would like to make a brief comment on the premise of the scenario. If it's not thread appropriate, pls ignore, but I thought it worth mentioning while scenarios are still being cooked up.

You can't plan for a "standard adventuring day." There is no such thing. Every day is different, unpredictable stuff can happen at any time, and, specifically, fits of bad luck have disastrous consequences for those that are engaged in risky pursuits. Any day on which something happened that killed a party member or injured everyone is no longer a standard day, and any party, regardless of tier, should be allowed to use whatever tactic necessary to combat the unexpected. A party of any tier can then adjust future behavior to make up for the accidents, bad judgement, or lack of class strength that made that day bad. It's not clear to me that the result of the test being "bad" is necessarily equivalent to a "loss."

Standard adventuring day is not my phrase, but that is what the test is trying to resemble. Not something where you walk into an arena and kill some things that plays out nothing like an actual campaign.

It's a microcosm as modeling every single interaction between every opponent and party combination would take prohibitively long.

If we see the entire party die, and also see no hypothetical thing they could have done to not die, that allows us to draw a conclusion. If they could have survived by doing something different, that leads to a different conclusion. And so forth. In doing this many possibilities can be explored much more quickly.


Basically, the outcome of the scenario could still be bad for the party, but the test might be counted as a "win." Bad stuff happens in every tier, and suggesting that no bad result be acceptable in judging a low tier party seems to gloss over the nature of the adventuring lifestyle. Same with the tactic on consumable items, a party has to do what it has to do. If they use up more than is "sustainable" then they do what every broke party does: seek alternative employment at tasks well below CR.

I think it is acceptable to judge the test without being quite so strict, but perhaps this is a matter of practicality. I am probably not a fraction as familiar with tests of this kind as others are, so feel free to ignore me.

In this case the definitions of a technical loss seem wholly unnecessary. In both cases the party was killed completely. They did not technically lose, they definitively lost. I'm assuming that's there on the off chance someone survived at 1 HP and everyone else dead and people would call that a win even though it is a microcosm - if the result of the test is one person barely walks out alive, that means the result of using a low tier party in an actual game is that every single day one near dead person limps into the tavern and attempts to rebuild his party.

Even if only 1 or 2 people die per day, that is still an extremely high lethality. Something would give. Either the DM would get tired of everyone dying, the players would get tired of needing to constantly create a new character, or the world would get tired of it - would you sign on for dangerous work with someone well known for constantly losing teammates? If you were Death, would you want to see these guy's faces all the time?

[Chilingsworth]

I'm still interested. I was counting on using consumables, though. So, I'd like to change my role to healer. Also, lesser asimar is banned, I take it? (due to coming from a campaign specific book?)

On second thought, I'm not sure what I want to play, now.

But, you said that the enemies will also be low tier characters?

[Iron Tarkus]

I'm still interested. I was counting on using consumables, though. So, I'd like to change my role to healer. Also, lesser asimar is banned, I take it? (due to coming from a campaign specific book?)

On second thought, I'm not sure what I want to play, now.

But, you said that the enemies will also be low tier characters?

Consumables are still allowed but only in moderation. The optimizer party that went through it before used 4 charges from a level 2 wand.

The successful solo Tier 3 used a single level 2 scroll.

Lesser Aasimar is banned.

The enemies are subject to the same class restrictions and as most will be humanoids this does limit their abilities substantially.

[Chilingsworth]

Consumables are still allowed but only in moderation. The optimizer party that went through it before used 4 charges from a level 2 wand.

The successful solo Tier 3 used a single level 2 scroll.

Lesser Aasimar is banned.

The enemies are subject to the same class restrictions and as most will be humanoids this does limit their abilities substantially.

Ok, I'm still in. I'll play rogue.

[Phelix-Mu]

In this case the definitions of a technical loss seem wholly unnecessary. In both cases the party was killed completely. They did not technically lose, they definitively lost. I'm assuming that's there on the off chance someone survived at 1 HP and everyone else dead and people would call that a win even though it is a microcosm - if the result of the test is one person barely walks out alive, that means the result of using a low tier party in an actual game is that every single day one near dead person limps into the tavern and attempts to rebuild his party.

Even if only 1 or 2 people die per day, that is still an extremely high lethality. Something would give. Either the DM would get tired of everyone dying, the players would get tired of needing to constantly create a new character, or the world would get tired of it - would you sign on for dangerous work with someone well known for constantly losing teammates? If you were Death, would you want to see these guy's faces all the time?

I guess I can accept that a technical loss ruling might not be necessary. But the rest of your reasoning here is suspect. In many settings, if not strictly in RAW, adventuring is an EXTREMELY dangerous lifestyle. Most people that try get reamed and then give up, supposing they are lucky enough to still draw breath. Death is Death, he does death, not caring about who managed to die today or why. The lure of adventuring stands regardless of success rate, and people interested in pursuing it often stick with the profession are best at already.

In short, dying is something that happens a lot in D&D. And short of dying, lots of running. Getting hurt, running around, regrouping are not the best examples of "winning," but I don't think a party should be ruled a failure just because they can't meet a challenge head on and win decisively.

The intangibles here are extreme, since this test appears to allow limited player op-fu, but attempts to remove DM counter-op-fu, and DM-fu by putting the party in a fishbowl scenario with strict pass/fail. I guess this gives players a good advantage, but then removes it by strict scoring.

I will have to await the results of the test, I suppose. The main element required to judge inferiority of a class should be repeated failure under random circumstances, since the fishbowl will always kill the fish if it's full of bleach. "Failure" remains hard to judge, but I agree that death of the whole party is indeed failure. Partial death, I'm not so sure. "Sustainability" may not be an appropriate rubric.

[demigodus]

I'll be making our big stupid fighter in that case.

Not really doing anything too creative with it

[Iron Tarkus]

I guess I can accept that a technical loss ruling might not be necessary. But the rest of your reasoning here is suspect. In many settings, if not strictly in RAW, adventuring is an EXTREMELY dangerous lifestyle. Most people that try get reamed and then give up, supposing they are lucky enough to still draw breath. Death is Death, he does death, not caring about who managed to die today or why. The lure of adventuring stands regardless of success rate, and people interested in pursuing it often stick with the profession are best at already.

Yes, people will die. But every day? You are taking about 10 or more deaths per level and that's before accounting for each and every one of those deaths losing you 1 level.

The Death comment was to indicate that constantly going in and out of the afterlife would be annoying for everyone involved.


In short, dying is something that happens a lot in D&D. And short of dying, lots of running. Getting hurt, running around, regrouping are not the best examples of "winning," but I don't think a party should be ruled a failure just because they can't meet a challenge head on and win decisively.

If dying that frequently is the norm, there is a problem. Even campaigns in which the DM is throwing the most brutal foes he can find at the party do not have that high of a body count.

If you are dying more than the opponents of a Wraithstriking Dragon you are doing it wrong.

Anyways it seems that we have four people. Decide amongst yourselves what sort of party you'd want to build and put it together and let me know when you are done.

[demigodus]

Ahbout death frequency. Say it takes 3 adventuring days to level (4 fights per day, 13 to level). In that case if you lose 1 member per day, about 42% of adventurers at any given level will reach the next (assuming no retirement). For there to be a party of 4 level 7 adventurers, there were 173 more lvl 1 adventurers who died trying to get here.

These are PC quality adventurers. Seems like a VERY lethal game to me

[Chilingsworth]

may I take the spell sense ACF on my rogue?

[Iron Tarkus]

may I take the spell sense ACF on my rogue?

Spell Sense is allowed.

[Gwendol]

Demigodus, I thought you had a healer planned? If Cillingsworth is going for rogue my next choice would be beatstick, but if not I'll go healer instead.

[Chilingsworth]

Spell Sense is allowed.

Then, I think I'm done.

Here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497712)

I had gold left over. Couldn't think of anything to do with it that wasn't consumables, also I reached my light load, anyway.

[Gwendol]

Nice with the rod of globs, was going to propose it. No penetrating strike?

[Chilingsworth]

Nice with the rod of globs, was going to propose it. No penetrating strike?

penetrating strike? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with it. (I usually play T1/T2 casters, lol.)

Edit: And occasionally bards.

[Gwendol]

Half SA damage to things normally immune.

[Iron Tarkus]

Craven is from Champions of Ruin, a FR sourcebook and is banned. A +1 Str item is a custom item not existing in any listed source and is also banned. I'm not even sure why you have this. It only boosts Strength from an even number to an odd number. It does nothing for you.

I don't see any other rules errors here but I could be missing something.

[Chilingsworth]

Craven is from Champions of Ruin, a FR sourcebook and is banned. A +1 Str item is a custom item not existing in any listed source and is also banned. I'm not even sure why you have this. It only boosts Strength from an even number to an odd number. It does nothing for you.

I don't see any other rules errors here but I could be missing something.

I have the strength item because without it I'm over my light load.

I did forget the origin of craven, though.

EDIT: I found another rules error: I fogot to give myself my 4th level stat point, lol.

[Iron Tarkus]

I have the strength item because without it I'm over my light load.

I did forget the origin of craven, though.

Equipment burden? Equipment burden is a problem?

Did I ban Haversacks and forget I did it? :smallconfused:

[Chilingsworth]

Equipment burden? Equipment burden is a problem?

Did I ban Haversacks and forget I did it? :smallconfused:

d'oh!

Well, that's what I get for playing a caster (little gear) in a campaign where it's hard to get the items you want for the past year+ :smallredface:

[Sacrieur]

Someone do barb + FB :smallcool:

[Chilingsworth]

I think I'm just about done. I just need to find my copy of dungeonscape and take a look at this penetrating strike.

(heh, I bought almost all the non setting specific (and alot of the setting specfic) books, just haven't had a reason to read some of them, yet.)

EDIT: Having read it, I think I'll stick with spell sense, thanks.

So, yeah. I'm ready (assuming no further rules violations are left in my character. Also, I just used an online die roller for hp, should I reroll them here?)

[Lans]

If you run this you should make sure the monsters use standard treasure and not custom treasure.

[Phaederkiel]

I'd like to chip in, and play.

most, i'd like to play rogue, but then, it is already taken.

I could take barbarian, build a really mean beatstick.
Is this taken, too?


ps: I think Barbarian is quite good, and want to offer
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229753
in which I went 2 out of three matches with a lvl 1 barbarian against a standard lvl-3 4-guy party. And I took saddleborn as a feat, because I couldn't afford a saddle.



Lets ask: are flaws in?

are traits in?

further: is the MIC in?

is whirling frenzy in?


is lion totem pouncing in?

Is the cityscape web enhancement in? (it is not quiiiite a campaign specific book, is it? and dungeonscape is in, you said)

LA 0 races are all in, except for the banned books, yes?

is BoED really in? not going to go VoP probably, but still.

[demigodus]

Demigodus, I thought you had a healer planned? If Cillingsworth is going for rogue my next choice would be beatstick, but if not I'll go healer instead.

Well, we still are missing Arcane Caster from the traditional roles. Not sure what Juntao is doing. That said I don't particularly mind either way. My BSF is done aside from equipment, so you can see what it is like. If you think you can make a better one, I will make a healer.


Someone do barb + FB :smallcool:

Doesn't contain any FB, but here is a Barbarian I might run this with: http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497802


So, yeah. I'm ready (assuming no further rules violations are left in my character. Also, I just used an online die roller for hp, should I reroll them here?)

Generally practice is to assume average (so max on your first HD, 3.5 for all your other d6 Hit Dice)

[Chilingsworth]

Ok, just remembered that I need a way to light my smokesticks
Also almost forgot one of my cardinal rules: never leave home without a dagger.

Lastly, added a bedroll (yeah, I know if I ever get a chance to use it, we've already lost. My character doesn't know that, though. Besides, it might come in handy, you never know.)

EDIT: As for my hp. I've cleared them out. Waiting on dm instructions.

Oh, and your BSF looks pretty good to me. Kinda dropped the ball on the "stupid" part, though. :smalltongue:

[demigodus]

I'd like to chip in, and play.

most, i'd like to play rogue, but then, it is already taken.

I could take barbarian, build a really mean beatstick.
Is this taken, too?


ps: I think Barbarian is quite good, and want to offer
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229753
in which I went 2 out of three matches with a lvl 1 barbarian against a standard lvl-3 4-guy party. And I took saddleborn as a feat, because I couldn't afford a saddle.



Lets ask: are flaws in?

are traits in?

further: is the MIC in?

is whirling frenzy in?


is lion totem pouncing in?

Is the cityscape web enhancement in? (it is not quiiiite a campaign specific book, is it? and dungeonscape is in, you said)

LA 0 races are all in, except for the banned books, yes?

is BoED really in? not going to go VoP probably, but still.


Sadly we already have 4 people. That said, others in the original thread have expressed interest in running/designing their own versions of the test. If they are all still interested, at the least you should have enough members to run a different test (or the same test, though likely someone other then Iron Tarkus would need to run it)

[Norin]

In to watch. Could be amusing. :) i hope the rogue does well, i like rogues.
:smallbiggrin:

[A_S]

I know you're full up, but worked out what I'd be running in it:


Race: Dragonborn (Heart) Water Halfling

Stats (28-point buy):
Str: 8 (2)
Dex: 16 (10)
Con: 18 (6)
Int: 12 (4)
Wis: 8 (0)
Cha: 14 (6)

1 - Warlock 1 - Mortalbane
2 - Warlock 2
3 - Warlock 3 - Entangling Exhalation
4 - Warlock 4 - Con 19
5 - Warlock 5
6 - Warlock 6 - Quicken Breath
7 - Warlock 7

Skills: Concentration 10, Spellcraft 10, Use Magic Device 10

Invocations:
Least: Eldritch Spear, Frightful Blast, See the Unseen
Lesser: Fell Flight

WBL: 19,000
-Chasuble of Fell Power (8000)
-Small +1 Longspear of Smoking (8305) (4.5 lbs)
-Healing Belt (750) (1 lb)
-Wand of Lesser Vigor (750)
-Small Chain Shirt (100) (12.5 lbs)
-Rod of Viscid Globs (1000)

[Chilingsworth]

So, who/what do we have at this point?

I know there's my rogue
and demigodus' Big (not really) Stupid Fighter barbarian.

what else?

Also, if anyone plays a warlock or any kind of arcane caster, might I suggest eternal wands? (They were reprinted in the MIC, so they should be legal.)

[demigodus]

Yeah, I was thinking of buying an eternal wand of Enlarge Person and asking someone to cast it on me pre-fight. 20ft reach would make lock down a lot easier.

[A_S]

I figured 15 gp per cast of LV was a pretty reasonable expenditure of consumables cost...I guess if everybody was investing in Healing Belts, it's unlikely you'd need more than 2 castings of LV on top of that.

*edit* If anybody who'd said they'd play is a no-show, I'd happily be in as an alternate.

[Phaederkiel]

hmm, that is too bad. I will just watch then, and cheer on.
I am fairly confident for the party, since in one of my games a party of 5 fighters 3 / something 1 DOMINATED a long series of CR 6-8 encounters.

If you have need for one more guy, tell me.

[demigodus]

I figured 15 gp per cast of LV was a pretty reasonable expenditure of consumables cost...I guess if everybody was investing in Healing Belts, it's unlikely you'd need more than 2 castings of LV on top of that.

*edit* If anybody who'd said they'd play is a no-show, I'd happily be in as an alternate.

Well, technically each fight should only cost us around 138.5gp (I calculated it out of interest, somehow became an official rule of the test), so that puts us at 9 casts per fight, for a total of about 40.5hp healing on average.

Wands of Lesser Vigor would give us 99 hp of healing per fight, which, actually is probably sufficient to remove the need for a healer if we Crowd Control properly, and kill quickly.

[Chilingsworth]

I figured 15 gp per cast of LV was a pretty reasonable expenditure of consumables cost...I guess if everybody was investing in Healing Belts, it's unlikely you'd need more than 2 castings of LV on top of that.

*edit* If anybody who'd said they'd play is a no-show, I'd happily be in as an alternate.

One thing to note if we do need an alternate, we get a 32 point buy, not a 28.

[Chilingsworth]

I'm participating as well

So we have Juntao112, me, Gwendol, and Chilingsworth(?)


Ok, so demigodus and I are done or nearly done. Where are Juntao and Gwendol?

I mean, seeing as one of the would be alternates (A_S) has a good start on a character already... :smallannoyed:

[A_S]

Writing a character sheet (Mythweavers) in case I end up playing. Are masterwork tools kosher (since they're core)?

*edit* http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497899

[Chilingsworth]

Also, may I ask that the spellcasters in our party invest in a means of identifying magic items? (at least scrolls and potions)?

EDIT: A_S, you might want to list the prices of your gear (and your remaining gold, if any.) Also, the sources for any items not in core. Such things tend to make the lives of a DM checking your sheet easier. Also, if makes things easier if you need to check on the properties of an item.

[demigodus]

Chiling, could I ask you to pick up a masterwork item of search? I'm willing to have the cost come out of my WBL. I was looking at traps on the SRD, and CR 8 mechanical traps (which we might find), have a search DC of up to 25. That +2 would let you find mechanical traps by simply taking 10.

For magic traps, I figure if we get a warlock in the party, detect magic at will does wonders for locating magical traps.

[Chilingsworth]

Chiling, could I ask you to pick up a masterwork item of search? I'm willing to have the cost come out of my WBL. I was looking at traps on the SRD, and CR 8 mechanical traps (which we might find), have a search DC of up to 25. That +2 would let you find mechanical traps by simply taking 10.

For magic traps, I figure if we get a warlock in the party, detect magic at will does wonders for locating magical traps.

I'd be happy to take a masterwork item of search. But, is the dm going to allow them? (while I'm at it, I wouldn't mind masterwork items of hide and move silently, either.)

*Checks price of mw tools*

Ok, if the dm will allow them, I'll definately take you up on the offer, and use my remaining wealth for the other two. Or, I could just rearange my gear slightly if he wont let us pay for eachother's stuff.

Oh, and I'm not sure you can take 10 to search for traps, can you?

[A_S]

EDIT: A_S, you might want to list the prices of your gear (and your remaining gold, if any.) Also, the sources for any items not in core. Such things tend to make the lives of a DM checking your sheet easier. Also, if makes things easier if you need to check on the properties of an item.

Done, in Other Notes section.

[Chilingsworth]

Also, any idea what a masterwork tool for search might be? A magnifying glass already exists, but it doesn't help search.

[A_S]

Spectacles?

*edit* Screw that, monocle.

[Chilingsworth]

Spectacles?

*edit* Screw that, monocle.

spectacles make more sense.

I have a hard time imagining a monocle as being very comfortable to wear, or practical while advernturing.

EDIT: Although glasses weighing a full pound (listed weight of a MW tool.) don't sound very comfortable, still... better than a monocle of that weight.

Also, added the masterwork tools to my character. I can always remove them if the DM says no. *shrug*

[Juntao112]

Party of 4.
Level 7, 32 PB.
PCs and enemies are restricted to the following classes: Adept, Aristocrat, Barbarian, CA Ninja, Commoner, CW Samurai, Expert, Fighter (dungeoncrasher or not), Healer, Hexblade, Knight, Marshal, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Soulknife, Spellthief, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Warmage, Warrior.
Sources are restricted to 3.5 books that are non campaign specific and non weather based.

The party you construct will run through a scenario designed to model a standard adventuring day. This means a number of things.

1: If the entire party dies, you automatically lose.
2: If it takes more than one day (defined as either 16 hours game time or resting to recover resources), you automatically lose.
3: If at least half the party dies but you beat all encounters, you automatically lose (as losing half the party every single day is clearly not sustainable).
4: If one person in the party dies but the rest then go on to win, you might get a judgment loss. If that person died in some consistent or reliable fashion, that's a loss as consistently having a death a day isn't sustainable either. If it was just bad luck, I won't hold it against them and therefore that would be a win.
5: Large amounts of struggling might result in a judgment loss. This is meant to be a standard adventuring day, something you get through without breaking a sweat. If you're having to go all out to deal with routine stuff, you stand no chance against the actually hard stuff. And sometimes you do deal with that even in standard play.
6: If the party beats everything without losing anyone, they win. Good luck with that though.

Let me know if there's anything I missed.

Missed thing one: This is a standard adventuring day. Results should represent that. As such, non sustainable tactics such as consumable novaing are disallowed. Consumables are allowed in moderation.

I'll work on something.

[Chilingsworth]

Also, so far we have the following characters submitted:

A_S gives us: Pew Pew, the waterloged scaly halfling warlock (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497899)

Demigodus gives us: Mog, the waterloged, scaly, winged orc barbarian (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497802)

and I offer: Darrin, the perfectly normal human rogue (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497712) :smalltongue:

We still have room for a healer, or doubling up on one of our covered roles. Actually, a hexblade might be nice to offer us abit more debuffing potential.

Also, one vulnerability we still have is a lack of means to remove status effects/ability damage.

Also remember: clubs are free and can be thrown in a pinch.

[ranagrande]

I'd love to join this as well...

There are probably enough people; would you be willing to run a second group?

[Lans]

I recommend hit and run exoticists variant for the fighter, and going monk2/barb3/fighter 2 using the martial monk, and invisible fist variants.

This would trade 1 bab and 5hp for +2 to saves, ability to turn invisible as an immediate action 1/3 rounds for a round, and 2 more fighter bonus feats, that by raw you don't need to qualify for.

Edit- Why not strongheart halfing instead of human for the rogue?

[A_S]

Fear lockdown could also be good (level 7 has enough WBL for the Fearsome armor enhancement, and Imperious Command is really good). No Mass Staredown, unfortunately, but Never Outnumbered could be in the books.

[Chilingsworth]

I recommend hit and run exoticists variant for the fighter, and going monk2/barb3/fighter 2 using the martial monk, and invisible fist variants.

This would trade 1 bab and 5hp for +2 to saves, ability to turn invisible as an immediate action 1/3 rounds for a round, and 2 more fighter bonus feats, that by raw you don't need to qualify for.

Edit- Why not strongheart halfing instead of human for the rogue?

because strongheart halfing is a FR-specific race, and is therefore banned.

I'm also taking a stab at building a healer, for craps and chuckles.

Not completed, wont be able to tonight. But, here's my stab at a healer. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497969)

[Juntao112]

What was the final stance on multiclassing?

[Story]

Also, any idea what a masterwork tool for search might be? A magnifying glass already exists, but it doesn't help search.

How about a level for detecting uneveness in the floors and walls?

[Lans]

because strongheart halfing is a FR-specific race, and is therefore banned.

I'm also taking a stab at building a healer, for craps and chuckles.

Not completed, wont be able to tonight. But, here's my stab at a healer. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497969)
I had forgotten that :smallfrown:

I recommend looking at the sanctified spells from the book of exalted deeds. None of them are great but (greater)luminous armor can save your party some money and provide up to 7 points of AC

[demigodus]

What was the final stance on multiclassing?

Allowed, but using the XP penalty rules.


I recommend hit and run exoticists variant for the fighter, and going monk2/barb3/fighter 2 using the martial monk, and invisible fist variants.

This would trade 1 bab and 5hp for +2 to saves, ability to turn invisible as an immediate action 1/3 rounds for a round, and 2 more fighter bonus feats, that by raw you don't need to qualify for.

Edit- Why not strongheart halfing instead of human for the rogue?

Martial Monk is dragon magazine so I believe that is out, but I will try to make use of the Passive Way monk. Thank you :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Monk's require Lawful alignment, Barbarian requires non-lawful. Not sure that works


Fear lockdown could also be good (level 7 has enough WBL for the Fearsome armor enhancement, and Imperious Command is really good). No Mass Staredown, unfortunately, but Never Outnumbered could be in the books.

I was looking at Imperious Command, but couldn't pull off the Cha for it (-2 Cha penalty hurts) without dumping Str

[Lans]

A
Martial Monk is dragon magazine so I believe that is out, but I will try to make use of the Passive Way monk. Thank you :smallbiggrin:


Magazines are books, my friend. I checked.

How is monster equipment/treasure going to be handled? I am assuming the standard from the DMG? Random, with creatures with levels getting crap equipment from a chart by class leve?

[demigodus]

True. Still, monks are lawful. Barbarians are non-lawful sadly.

So I don't think that would be alignment legal

[Lans]

True. Still, monks are lawful. Barbarians are non-lawful sadly.

So I don't think that would be alignment legal

You just can't take another level of monk, its perfectly legal.

Start out as a young monk, get kicked out of your order, levels of fighter get taken, then barbarian as you turn more on your upbringing

I suppose you could start barbarian, go monk, then go fighter.

Young brash barbarian while an angry rebellious teenager joins a monestary, in his twenties he mellows out a bit and gets a a foot back in with his roots and finding balance between the two traditions

[Chilingsworth]

I had forgotten that :smallfrown:

I recommend looking at the sanctified spells from the book of exalted deeds. None of them are great but (greater)luminous armor can save your party some money and provide up to 7 points of AC

Oh, I don't plan on playing a healer (unless I end up playing two characters, somehow) It's just to offer a possible build if someone wants one.

Also, it's done. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497969)

[demigodus]

checked. Barbarian -> Monk doesn't work. Loses rage if I go lawful

Monk -> Barbarian does work yes

So I guess I will be going Monk 2 / Barbarian 3 / Fighter 2

Would it be considered too much cheese if I carried around 4 Healing Belts (3,000gp total), and only put them on when I needed healing? While wearing a different belt in combat?

[ranagrande]

So you still need a healer? I could make one. :smallsmile:

[Chilingsworth]

So you still need a healer? I could make one. :smallsmile:

Yeah, we do. If you can improve on my suggested build, feel free to. If you can't, feel free to use it. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

[Lans]

Yeah, we do. If you can improve on my suggested build, feel free to. If you can't, feel free to use it. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

All of your feats?

Augment healing, magic of the land, if you can get into a prestige class that gives a domain imbued healing

[Chilingsworth]

All of your feats?

Augment healing, magic of the land, if you can get into a prestige class that gives a domain imbued healing

I chose the feats I did because touch of healing = party will never be below half hp, mitigate suffering = ability damage is irrelevant. As for skill focus (diplomacy) well, augment healing seemed extrenious given that the build would already heal quite well, and everyone would have a belt of healing, and/or access to lesser vigor wands. I couldn't think of any feats that were both useful to the build, and available at 1st level. Magic of the land requires being in natural surroundings, doesn't it? That's not actually a given.

Also, I thought we weren't using PrC's?

[demigodus]

Well, I think I'm done selecting all of my necessary equipment (not too familiar with WBL optimization sadly).

I have a little over 3,000gp left to spend in case we need anything.

A_S, I'm going to be giving you a Wand of Faerie Fire. This will be so that if you see invisible opponents, we can handle them. Also would appreciate it if you could use the eternal wand of enlarge person on me whenever me having 20ft reach might be useful (up to your judgement really).

[Chilingsworth]

Well, I think I'm done selecting all of my necessary equipment (not too familiar with WBL optimization sadly).

I have a little over 3,000gp left to spend in case we need anything.

A_S, I'm going to be giving you a Wand of Faerie Fire. This will be so that if you see invisible opponents, we can handle them. Also would appreciate it if you could use the eternal wand of enlarge person on me whenever me having 20ft reach might be useful (up to your judgement really).

you could always spend that 3k on more eternal wands.

Specifically, web and that 2nd level version of grease (incendiary slime?) the latter more for the sake of the increased duration than anything else.

[demigodus]

you could always spend that 3k on more eternal wands.

3,250, so 30gp short of being able to afford 4 level 1 ones. If someone else can chip in 30gp more, we can get 4.

Any ideas on what eternal wands could be useful?

[Chilingsworth]

3,250, so 30gp short of being able to afford 4 level 1 ones. If someone else can chip in 30gp more, we can get 4.

Any ideas on what eternal wands could be useful?

hmm... rays of enfeeblement and clumsiness wouldn't be bad. the fact that grease would be cast at minimum caster level is unfortunate, but with proper timing, it might help me get some more sneak attacks in. Actually, even a 0-th wand of prestdigitation might come in handy.

[Juntao112]

I submit a Marshal (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497981).

[Chilingsworth]

Ok, we have our four!

First we have Mog, the waterlogged, scaly, winged orc barbaric lapsed monk. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497802)

Then, we have Pew-Pew, the waterlogged, scaly, fire-breathing halfling warlock (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497899)

Next, we have Liara, the dragon-blessed marshal (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497981)

Last (but maybe not least) we have Darrin, the utterly mundane human rogue (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497712)

So, what should we call our team? Three Dragons plus some human? Team Deadmeat Walking?

Oh, also are we using average hp, or rolled?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I submit a Marshal (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497981).

Isn't it redundant to have both a mithral chainshirt and the dragonscale husk?

[Chilingsworth]

Isn't it redundant to have both a mithral chainshirt and the dragonscale husk?

Well, how long does the dragonscale husk last? Or, maybe if you want less encumberment at some point? Though I wondered that, too.

[Juntao112]

I keep the chain shirt around for times when I do not wish to advertise my presence so loudly.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I keep the chain shirt around for times when I do not wish to advertise my presence so loudly.

I thought that was what your typical, non-descript brown cloaks were for but it's your character.

Even then though, why mithral? Chainshirt is a light armor anyway and it seems to me that 1k is too substantial a portion of your current wealth to spend on something like that at this level. MW chainshirt if you want it to still be fancy, but mithral just seems excessive.

[Arcanist]

Isn't it redundant to have both a mithral chainshirt and the dragonscale husk?

I'm just shocked/disappointed they all aren't running around with any miss chance :smallamused: :smalltongue:

[Chilingsworth]

I'm just shocked/disappointed they all aren't running around with any miss chance :smallamused: :smalltongue:

Well, for the entirety of the current campaign I play with my rl group, miss chances have done more to hurt whichever side created them than anything, lol.

[Arcanist]

Well, for the entirety of the current campaign I play with my rl group, miss chances have done more to hurt whichever side created them than anything, lol.

I'm not sure how :smallconfused: Give me an example so that I may call it DM's fiat and call your DM bad/wrong/evil for making a potentially logical decision.

[Juntao112]

I thought that was what your typical, non-descript brown cloaks were for but it's your character.

Even then though, why mithral? Chainshirt is a light armor anyway and it seems to me that 1k is too substantial a portion of your current wealth to spend on something like that at this level. MW chainshirt if you want it to still be fancy, but mithral just seems excessive.

For formal occasions.

[demigodus]

I'm just shocked/disappointed they all aren't running around with any miss chance :smallamused: :smalltongue:

I have stated before, I'm not very good at optimizing (especially gear). That said, after a bit of googling I'm not tempted to pick up a Mithralmist Shirt now.

7x per day should be plenty, and cheaper than a smoking weapon

[Arcanist]

For formal occasions.

It's a play through, not a campaign. Save looking fancy for when you meet the King (and potentially stab him, because you were secretly evil the entire time :smallamused:)

[A_S]

If our fourth is a Marshal, it'd be very good for us to have at least one eternal wand of Lesser Restoration (I can UMD it). I can drop my Benign Transposition wand to chip 970 into the pot for one. And yes, of course I'll be UMDing anything the party needs UMD'd.

When are you guys up for starting this? I'm going to bed now, but I'm free tomorrow whenever.

[demigodus]

It is a level 1 paladin spell. So we can get it for 820gp. I can afford it

I'm able to start tomorrow if you guys can too.

[Chilingsworth]

If our fourth is a Marshal, it'd be very good for us to have at least one eternal wand of Lesser Restoration (I can UMD it). I can drop my Benign Transposition wand to chip 970 into the pot for one. And yes, of course I'll be UMDing anything the party needs UMD'd.

When are you guys up for starting this? I'm going to bed now, but I'm free tomorrow whenever.

Is lesser restoration an arcane spell? If it isn't, it can't be made into an eternal wand. This goes for lesser vigor, too.

In any case, I can offer 300gp towards healing supplies.

I can start tomorrow, but I'll only be available from roughly noon to 2pm, Then I'll be back from my weekly rl group meeting around midnight.

hmm... can anyone spare a feat for leadership to get a healer, lol?

[Gwendol]

Bah! Here I go to sleep only to find out I've been sidestepped! Oh well, have fun!

[Arcanist]

Is lesser restoration an arcane spell? If it isn't, it can't be made into an eternal wand. This goes for lesser vigor, too.

It's just as well. I figure you'd rather be able to use the wand more then twice a day :smallconfused:

[demigodus]

Is lesser restoration an arcane spell? If it isn't, it can't be made into an eternal wand. This goes for lesser vigor, too.

Damn, so I'm getting a non-eternal wand of it then. There is a PrC that gets it as a level 1 arcane spell, but it is FR specific...


It's a play through, not a campaign. Save looking fancy for when you meet the King (and potentially stab him, because you were secretly evil the entire time :smallamused:)

Doesn't mean you can't play through in style...

[Chilingsworth]

It's just as well. I figure you'd rather be able to use the wand more then twice a day :smallconfused:

Except that the terms of the test include a provision significantly limiting our use of consumables. Since eternal wands aren't consumables, they get around this provision.

Specifically, the provision bans our "excesive" use of consumables, so that we don't use them "to an extent that would be unsustainable in a normal adventuring career." This limit has been placed at 550gp for the entire party.

Now, the typical adventuring day we're facing is a typical loadout for a 7th level party. That means (on average) 4 ECL 7 enounters. Each such encounter should have an average treasure value of 2,600 gp. It seems to me that a daily expenditure of 25% of our take would be more than sustainable.* So that our limit for the test should be 2,600 gp, or more than 5 times what we're being allowed. :smallannoyed:

*Technically, daily expenditure less than total intake - non adventuring-related daily expenditures (i.e. anything that has the party turning a profit) would be sustainable. :smallmad:

[WhatBigTeeth]

Looks like I signed up here too late

That exalted healer gish was just too tempting

[A_S]

Fixed my LV wand to be non-eternal (looks like the Cure X Wounds line are the only ones that can be eternal, presumably via bard). So I've got 220 toward the LR wand.

[Chilingsworth]

I'm not sure how :smallconfused: Give me an example so that I may call it DM's fiat and call your DM bad/wrong/evil for making a potentially logical decision.

No, nothing like dm fiat. Just that for the past several sessions, when we use miss chances (we have a tiefling in the party who uses his darkness ability for this) seems like 9/10 it causes our attacks to miss while 9/10 our foes attacks bypass it.

Then, the one time our enemies caused a miss chance, it protected us and did nothing to help them! The dice rolls were all on the table, so there's no dm fudging involved. It's a supersition thing. I was only being partly serrious.

Also, as far as wands go, remember we don't have to buy full wands. (actually, with our limits on consumable use, there's no point in buying full ones.)

Lastly, as a substitue (at least a partial one) for lesser restoration, there are the items orb of mental renewal and rod of bodily restoration. They heal mental and physical ability damage (respectively) in a manner similiar to the belt of healing.

['Able' Xanthis]

Hmm, too late to join now. Ah well, hope you guys show that those of the lower tiers can hold their own. Does anyone have a link to the tier table? I'm not on my main computer right now, and I can't remember the place I found it last time.

[demigodus]

Except that the terms of the test include a provision significantly limiting our use of consumables. Since eternal wands aren't consumables, they get around this provision.

Specifically, the provision bans our "excesive" use of consumables, so that we don't use them "to an extent that would be unsustainable in a normal adventuring career." This limit has been placed at 550gp for the entire party.

Now, the typical adventuring day we're facing is a typical loadout for a 7th level party. That means (on average) 4 ECL 7 enounters. Each such encounter should have an average treasure value of 2,600 gp. It seems to me that a daily expenditure of 25% of our take would be more than sustainable.* So that our limit for the test should be 2,600 gp, or more than 5 times what we're being allowed. :smallannoyed:

*Technically, daily expenditure less than total intake - non adventuring-related daily expenditures (i.e. anything that has the party turning a profit) would be sustainable. :smallmad:

Level 7 WBL is 19,000
Level 8 WBL is 27,000

Basically, it isn't enough to break even. In enough encounters to level, we need a profit of 32,000gp. 550gp came from the assumption that we need 13 encounters to level. If instead we use 13.3 encounters, we only need 2406gp per encounter, letting us spend 194gp per encounter, or 776gp over the trial. The 550 expense was something I calculated for personal curiosity. Never expected it to become a rule


Fixed my LV wand to be non-eternal (looks like the Cure X Wounds line are the only ones that can be eternal, presumably via bard). So I've got 220 toward the LR wand.

I already bought a lesser restoration wand, paladin version (so level 1).

Also, if there is no attunememt time, an extra Healing Belt is both cheaper and better than an eternal CLW wand

[Chilingsworth]

Level 7 WBL is 19,000
Level 8 WBL is 27,000

Basically, it isn't enough to break even. In enough encounters to level, we need a profit of 32,000gp. 550gp came from the assumption that we need 13 encounters to level. If instead we use 13.3 encounters, we only need 2406gp per encounter, letting us spend 194gp per encounter, or 776gp over the trial. The 550 expense was something I calculated for personal curiosity. Never expected it to become a rule

Ah, so that's where it came from. Also, I misunderstood the term "sustainable" to mean "an adventuring party that did this wouldn't starve to death," rather than "this party wont fall behind the WBL curve." I take back my discontent.



I already bought a lesser restoration wand, paladin version (so level 1).

Also, if there is no attunememt time, an extra Healing Belt is both cheaper and better than an eternal CLW wand

No attunement time is mentioned in the item's description, so by RAW at least, there is none.

Answers in bold to save space.

Also, will the 300 gp I offered for healing supplies be needed?

[MukkTB]

If this is supposed to be like a real game then it doesn't seem fair for the DM not to give a bit of background on the area. Is the test going to take place in a city? Deep in the Jungle? On a pirate ship? In a real game the DM is normally expected to tell the players a bare minimum about the setting so they can make appropriate characters.

[Phaederkiel]

Bah! Here I go to sleep only to find out I've been sidestepped! Oh well, have fun!

not only you.

but perhaps someone wants to run a second challenge.

[Iron Tarkus]

I think I'm just about done. I just need to find my copy of dungeonscape and take a look at this penetrating strike.

(heh, I bought almost all the non setting specific (and alot of the setting specfic) books, just haven't had a reason to read some of them, yet.)

EDIT: Having read it, I think I'll stick with spell sense, thanks.

So, yeah. I'm ready (assuming no further rules violations are left in my character. Also, I just used an online die roller for hp, should I reroll them here?)

Everyone should have average HP.


is the MIC in?

is lion totem pouncing in?

Yes.


are flaws in?

are traits in?

is whirling frenzy in?


Is the cityscape web enhancement in? (it is not quiiiite a campaign specific book, is it? and dungeonscape is in, you said)

LA 0 races are all in, except for the banned books, yes?

I'm assuming yes. Cityscape is allowed, not sure about the web enhancement and I don't think there are any LA 0 loophole races.


is BoED really in? not going to go VoP probably, but stilll

I believe that one is not 3.5.


Except that the terms of the test include a provision significantly limiting our use of consumables. Since eternal wands aren't consumables, they get around this provision.

Specifically, the provision bans our "excesive" use of consumables, so that we don't use them "to an extent that would be unsustainable in a normal adventuring career." This limit has been placed at 550gp for the entire party.

Now, the typical adventuring day we're facing is a typical loadout for a 7th level party. That means (on average) 4 ECL 7 enounters. Each such encounter should have an average treasure value of 2,600 gp. It seems to me that a daily expenditure of 25% of our take would be more than sustainable.* So that our limit for the test should be 2,600 gp, or more than 5 times what we're being allowed. :smallannoyed:

*Technically, daily expenditure less than total intake - non adventuring-related daily expenditures (i.e. anything that has the party turning a profit) would be sustainable. :smallmad:

The math came from determining just what the consumable allowance was, and it was 545 gold or so for the entire party for four fights at level 7. Any more than that and you are cutting into your normal WBL which those characters can not afford to do. I rounded up to 550 because it's the next round number.

I was just going to leave it as a judgment call which would have been more forgiving. People insisted on analyzing it even after warning them they'd make it harder on themselves that way.


If this is supposed to be like a real game then it doesn't seem fair for the DM not to give a bit of background on the area. Is the test going to take place in a city? Deep in the Jungle? On a pirate ship? In a real game the DM is normally expected to tell the players a bare minimum about the setting so they can make appropriate characters.

The party is being built collaboratively, meaning it's already existed and worked together before this point rather than just being built now for this adventure. Building just for this adventure, or trying to metagame it is counterproductive for everyone so I am deliberately withholding the details of the adventure until the party is finalized.

[Amphetryon]

Book of Exalted Deeds is 3.5 (references Survival instead of Wilderness Lore).

[Lans]

I believe that one is not 3.5. Book of exalted deeds is infact 3.5. Book of vile darkness is not


Is there a reason why you are limiting classes? Shadowcaster, incarnate, and divine mind are all pretty useful dips

[MukkTB]

You seriously believe that its metagaming to tell the party the general area they will be operating in? What? Do you really think the players are cheating if they know "This adventure is set at sea." What? Deciding not to wear heavy armor on a boat is terrible metagaming? Deciding to have some survival skills in the in wilderness game is awful?

If thats your take on the situation i'm going to call foul if the players don't end up in a fairly generic dungeon without any special features they could have know about beforehand. Furthermore if you stick weird plot points in that anyone who lived in the setting would be aware of I'm going to scream bloody murder. If for example, magic users are universally hated by everyone I'm going to be unhappy.

Unless they've been enslaved, mind controlled, or railroaded crazily the players have a choice where they go. The civilized courtier won't voluntarily wander the wilderness without great reason to. At which case he probably has time for preparation. The wilderness ranger won't spend the majority of time at upper class social gatherings. He's unlikely to ever be invited to one unless something out of the ordinary has happened. Again he's going to have a chance to prepare.


"You wake up in a closet with some of your friends. You have no memory of how you got there. You don't know where you come from. You don't know anything about the society of the world or anything else. The closet has no light and one door. You didn't have a chance to prepare for the situation at all. For all you can tell the hand of god put you in this closet. What do you do?"

Do you honestly believe thats a more useful way to test character ability than:

"You're in an arena with some buddies about to fight a monster. They'll be opening the gate any moment now."

Screw that. Tell the players a bit of background and any relevant plot points the world rests on. Do that or give up on this thing. I demand that you provide the players a bare minimum of knowledge about the setting before they go in. Even if all you say is "A wilderness / Generic Fantasy setting." You will not get away with dropping characters with normal clothing into the freezing north or some other such garbage.

[hamiltond465]

Assume that Tarkus is wearing a clean white lab coat as he DMs.

This is a test that is intended to be a fairly neutral example of what lower tier parties can do against level appropriate challenges.

Sure, he could drop these people off in an ocean and then tell them they all drowned because they forgot to buy a canoe, but if he were going to ruin this that badly why bother to do it at all?

Just trust in the sparkly cleaness of his labcoat that he knows what he's doing, and tear his module apart after the party has been unjustly murdered.

And then write your own module so that we can run it afterwards in order to increase our sample size.

[Malroth]

I say we start in a city next to the jungle, the party needs to use social and knowledge skills to find out where our evil cultists are hiding, wilderness survival skills to track down the temple once they know where to look, having heavy guards (cr+2 encounter) on the front door while the hidden entrance is covered with deathtraps, they then need to kill the evil cultist boss and save the sacrifical victims before the ritual is completed at midnight/50 rounds after the alarm is raised.

and a variety of combat threats in the process
1) hordes of weak but well organized ranged attackers in the urban city encounter
2) something big nasty and hungry in the wilderness
3) summoned outsider guards in the temple
4) a spellcaster boss with minions, hostages and possibly some prep time.

[Lans]

Chilingsworth Your character seems very fragile and inaccurate, you might want to lower your intelligence and drop the stealth skills, and up your dexterity and constitution by a couple points. If you can take a level of H&R Exoticist fighter and swashbuckler that would be good to. Loose out on some skills, 3.5 sneak attack, but should get you 2 bonus feats that can be used for something like shape soulmeld lucky dice and maybe knowledge devotion if you move your skills around. And 4 exotic weapons and +2 to initiative and dex damage against flat footed opponents in 30'.

Demigodus You need to add +2 to initiative and dex damage against flat footed opponents in 30' from hit and run fighter.

I recommend invisible fist over evasion. Immediate action invisibility(not the spell) for 1 round every 3 rounds is going to be more useful.

[Iron Tarkus]

Book of Exalted Deeds is 3.5 (references Survival instead of Wilderness Lore).

In that case I am assuming it is allowed. Exalted status as impractical as all hell to maintain but let's ignore that for now.


Book of exalted deeds is infact 3.5. Book of vile darkness is not


Is there a reason why you are limiting classes? Shadowcaster, incarnate, and divine mind are all pretty useful dips

I am using the ruleset as it was written. The class list is every class listed as Tier 4, 5, or 6 that is not from a campaign specific source.

If those classes aren't on the Tier list they aren't on this list.

Direct your question to JaronK.


You seriously believe that its metagaming to tell the party the general area they will be operating in? What? Do you really think the players are cheating if they know "This adventure is set at sea." What? Deciding not to wear heavy armor on a boat is terrible metagaming? Deciding to have some survival skills in the in wilderness game is awful?

If thats your take on the situation i'm going to call foul if the players don't end up in a fairly generic dungeon without any special features they could have know about beforehand. Furthermore if you stick weird plot points in that anyone who lived in the setting would be aware of I'm going to scream bloody murder. If for example, magic users are universally hated by everyone I'm going to be unhappy.

Unless they've been enslaved, mind controlled, or railroaded crazily the players have a choice where they go. The civilized courtier won't voluntarily wander the wilderness without great reason to. At which case he probably has time for preparation. The wilderness ranger won't spend the majority of time at upper class social gatherings. He's unlikely to ever be invited to one unless something out of the ordinary has happened. Again he's going to have a chance to prepare.


"You wake up in a closet with some of your friends. You have no memory of how you got there. You don't know where you come from. You don't know anything about the society of the world or anything else. The closet has no light and one door. You didn't have a chance to prepare for the situation at all. For all you can tell the hand of god put you in this closet. What do you do?"

Do you honestly believe thats a more useful way to test character ability than:

"You're in an arena with some buddies about to fight a monster. They'll be opening the gate any moment now."

Screw that. Tell the players a bit of background and any relevant plot points the world rests on. Do that or give up on this thing. I demand that you provide the players a bare minimum of knowledge about the setting before they go in. Even if all you say is "A wilderness / Generic Fantasy setting." You will not get away with dropping characters with normal clothing into the freezing north or some other such garbage.

I believe some people have already attempted to metagame the adventure and prepare specifically for it at multiple points.

I've also been specifically warned anyone that takes the challenge can and would blatantly metagame if allowed so I am stopping that before it starts.


Assume that Tarkus is wearing a clean white lab coat as he DMs.

This is a test that is intended to be a fairly neutral example of what lower tier parties can do against level appropriate challenges.

Sure, he could drop these people off in an ocean and then tell them they all drowned because they forgot to buy a canoe, but if he were going to ruin this that badly why bother to do it at all?

Just trust in the sparkly cleaness of his labcoat that he knows what he's doing, and tear his module apart after the party has been unjustly murdered.

This.

The environment books were banned because they were "not applicable" so I'm not sure why people would think I'd just start them off in a hostile environment. If those environments would come into play, their sourcebooks would be relevant. That means no desert, no tundra, no oceans.


Chilingsworth Your character seems very fragile and inaccurate, you might want to lower your intelligence and drop the stealth skills, and up your dexterity and constitution by a couple points. If you can take a level of H&R Exoticist fighter and swashbuckler that would be good to. Loose out on some skills, 3.5 sneak attack, but should get you 2 bonus feats that can be used for something like shape soulmeld lucky dice and maybe knowledge devotion if you move your skills around. And 4 exotic weapons and +2 to initiative and dex damage against flat footed opponents in 30'.

Demigodus You need to add +2 to initiative and dex damage against flat footed opponents in 30' from hit and run fighter.

I recommend invisible fist over evasion. Immediate action invisibility(not the spell) for 1 round every 3 rounds is going to be more useful.

Some of those things are from a banned source.

[Lans]

1) hordes of weak but well organized ranged attackers in the urban city encounter

So 4 fighter 2/barb1 with rapidshot, pbs, knowledge devotion and attack bonus of around 3bab, 2 knowledge devotion, 1 weapon focus, 4 stat, 1 for being small 1 for masterwork weapon, -2 rapidshot. So around +10/10. With ACs of 10+4 dex+1 size+4 chain shirt+8 full cover so 27 or so.

Damage 8*(d8+2 knowledge devotion,+4 strength+d6+1 for an elemental arrow) So a 120 point attack routine. Which after calculating for probability comes close to dropping any character being entered. Even after accounting for the +2 AC from the marshal

Though if you argue against consumables for npcs they wouldn't have the elemental arrows, or at a 166 a pop as many. Otherwise they could have 7(npcs have a 50% consumable limit) of the arrows and go through half of them in 2 rounds.




Some of those things are from a banned source.


Sources are restricted to 3.5 books that are non campaign specific and non weather based.

No, they are not.

[Iron Tarkus]

Speaking of things from a banned source:

Exoticist - not from an allowed source.
Whirling Frenzy - not from an allowed source.
Smoking - 3.0 and FR and therefore double banned.
Mortalbane - not from an allowed source.
Water Halfling - not from an allowed source.

There is no way you can have a Lesser Restoration wand for 750 gold. Even assuming the Paladin spell list that is 1,500 as the minimum CL is 2.

I'd also like to remind everyone who is running this scenario and it isn't people playing through their own ideas.

[Malroth]

Drop the Barb level for an extra fighter or ranger one and the +4 STR mod and the elemental arrows and i'd concider that a perfectly routine encounter for an ambush by a bandit group in the city

[Lans]

Speaking of things from a banned source:

Exoticist - not from an allowed source.
Whirling Frenzy - not from an allowed source.
Smoking - 3.0 and FR and therefore double banned.
Mortalbane - not from an allowed source.
Exoticist and whirling frenzy are both from 3.5 books that are non campiagn non weather.


There is no way you can have a Lesser Restoration wand for 750 gold. Even assuming the Paladin spell list that is 1,500 as the minimum CL is 2. Paladin could take mage slayer. Or you could take one one with 25 charges

[hamiltond465]

Exoticist and whirling frenzy are both from 3.5 books that are non campiagn non weather.

Title and page number please~

[Iron Tarkus]

Wrong.

Exoticist is from Dragon Magazine and not a 3.5 source.

Whirling Frenzy is from UA. As I've already mentioned previously, UA isn't a book that is blanket allowed or banned because it's more something you pick and choose from as some of the rules contradict others. Since no one has previously used UA on either side, I'm going by precedent and assuming it is not allowed.

Mage Slayer doesn't reduce the level required to craft things and Paladins with Craft Wand are rare enough as it is. Partial charged wands are only allowed in multiples of 10. 20 would be acceptable, as would 30, but you cannot have a full wand without spending twice as much.

[Lans]

Wrong.

Exoticist is from Dragon Magazine and not a 3.5 source.

Whirling Frenzy is from UA. As I've already mentioned previously, UA isn't a book that is blanket allowed or banned because it's more something you pick and choose from as some of the rules contradict others. Since no one has previously used UA on either side, I'm going by precedent and assuming it is not allowed.
early 300 range Dragon magazine is a 3.5 source. Magazines are a subset of books. If you don't want to use Dragon magazine or UA you should of mentioned it in the rules section you posted.


Mage Slayer doesn't reduce the level required to craft things and Paladins with Craft Wand are rare enough as it is. Partial charged wands are only allowed in multiples of 10. 20 would be acceptable, as would 30, but you cannot have a full wand without spending twice as much.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of those specific rules

[thethird]

So if no one uses a book it is automatically disallowed? :smallconfused:

[Iron Tarkus]

So if no one uses a book it is automatically disallowed? :smallconfused:

If something isn't clear cut I go by precedent. The book list is either blanket allowed or banned. UA is not a book you use in either of those ways.

If UA was allowed people would have made Whirling Frenzy Barbarians (among other things) so I am assuming there was a ban there I cannot find.


early 300 range Dragon magazine is a 3.5 source. Magazines are a subset of books. If you don't want to use Dragon magazine or UA you should of mentioned it in the rules section you posted.

Aura of Supremacy
Universal
Level: Bard 1, Beguiler 1, Cleric 1, Druid 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Effect: Aura with a range of 1 mile/level.
Target: You
Duration: 1 day/level (D)

A feeling of smug superiority radiates from you. Weaklings cannot hope to bask in your glory.

Upon casting this spell, you radiate a sinister aura in all directions, even in areas you cannot see or do not have line of effect to within range. Living creatures that enter the effect area or that are within it when cast are instantly slain. Non living creatures within the effect area are instantly destroyed. This effect extends into the Astral and Ethereal planes and can even effect incorporeal creatures. This aura even affects yourself, however Tier 3 or higher classes, monsters, and NPCs are all immune to this effect.

I wrote this for 3.5 so it's a 3.5 source and must be allowed. The party dies the instant they get anywhere near the adventure and has no idea what hit them. Seems legit!

...Or we can take the sane approach and assume that when a ruleset states 3.5 sources are allowed the word official is implicit and wildly unbalanced homebrew such as my deliberately crazy example or any Dragon Magazine is not allowed.

[Chilingsworth]

There is no way you can have a Lesser Restoration wand for 750 gold. Even assuming the Paladin spell list that is 1,500 as the minimum CL is 2.

.

Incorrect. Archivist. Heroes of Horror.

By which I mean an archivist could have crafted it. The class itself is from an allowed source. If you say we can't have items crafted by them because they aren't T4 or worse, then you're almost saying we can't have any magic items at all (since most magic items are crafted by wizards, clerics, etc.) I can think of no other reason this would be objectionable.

[Gwendol]

Should we be building a team tier3 as well? To compare results with the previous one? If so I'm interested to play the bard.

[Iron Tarkus]

So your plan is to find an Archivist that has learned a Paladin spell, has Craft Wand, and get the cheapest Lesser Restoration wand from him. Archivists, I'll remind you are a Tier 1 class.

And all of this running around in circles with your low tier party... for what? It isn't as if it is even mathematically possible for an encounter to require more than 20-30 charges as it'd kill you first, and you are also limited in how many of those charges you can use.

At this point it isn't that it isn't possible, it's that you're having to go through extreme leaps to save 750 gold. Is the party that desperate?

Rules errors aside, is everyone done and ready?

I don't think a run with Tier 3 is really necessary. Not only is it inevitable that metagaming will occur after one run, unless the party is trying to lose they will win.

[Chilingsworth]

So your plan is to find an Archivist that has learned a Paladin spell, has Craft Wand, and get the cheapest Lesser Restoration wand from him. Archivists, I'll remind you are a Tier 1 class.

So what if they are T1, so are almost all crafters. Are you saying we can have no items, then?

And all of this running around in circles with your low tier party... for what? It isn't as if it is even mathematically possible for an encounter to require more than 20-30 charges as it'd kill you first, and you are also limited in how many of those charges you can use.

It's precisely because of the consumables limit that it matters: 1/2 price wand = 1/2 price charges = 2x charges available. Also, it absolutely is mathematically possible. 1. There is certainly at least one stat which we have more than 30 points between us. All of them, I'd imagine, actually. 2.It's not actually a single encounter that is the relevant time period here, but an entire day consisting of 4 of them.

At this point it isn't that it isn't possible, it's that you're having to go through extreme leaps to save 750 gold. Is the party that desperate?

See above. Also we're T4, of course we are.:smalltongue:

Rules errors aside, is everyone done and ready?

I don't think a run with Tier 3 is really necessary. Not only is it inevitable that metagaming will occur after one run, unless the party is trying to lose they will win.

no complaints or arguments with this point, unless you want to run that with a different group, I suppose.

Answers in bold to save space.

Also, on an archivist that has a paladin spell: Archivists, like wizards, can trade spells. Therefore, the paladin to archivist exchange only needs to happen once. Once it had happened, it would be a fairly highly desireable spell, and therefore would be a valuable trading commodity between archivists. So, there would be incentive for it to spread.

Oh, and on an archivist having craft wand: They're a casting class, a T1 casting class at that. It hardly seems far fetched for them to have crafting feats.

For that matter, you don't even need a paladin with scribe scroll for the transfer to happen. The paladin can provide the spell, the archivist the feat, as per shared crafting rules in the DMG/SRD. It even makes sense that a paladin order might make an alliance with an archivist, something like: we'll provide you access to some spells you cant get any other way, in exchange you'll help us by making items of them. We'll also pay you for the items, of course.

[A_S]

I forgot Lords of Darkness was FR, sorry (mixed it up with Lords of Madness). Gear is now updated (replaced smoking weapon with Warlock's Scepter).

I suspect we collectively have the wealth to afford a powered-up (CL 2 @ 1500) wand of Lesser Restoration. I have 225 to chip in.

*edit* ...and dang it, didn't realize BoVD was 3.0. One sec to update feat.

*edit 2* Okay, replaced with Maximize SLA. Nope, then I don't have 19 con when I take Quicken Breath. One sec, again.

*edit 3* Okay, all I have to do to fix that is start with Con at 19 and Dex at 15 and boost Dex at 4 instead of Con. Character fixed.

[Gwendol]

Well, since your premise is that tier 4 suck badly while tier 3 breeze through effortlessly my proposition isn't entirely without merit.

[Chilingsworth]

Also, my character is done (I have set aside 300gp towards whatever we end up spending on additional healing supplies, if that's not used, I'd like to return the masterwork quality to my crossbow.) However, I need to start getting ready for my rl group very soon. If the game thread is started before I leave, I should be able to get a post in. Otherwise, I wont be back until sometime around midnight (Eastern Standard Time.)

[A_S]

Character also done:

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=497899

225 toward Wand of Lesser Restoration pot.

[Iron Tarkus]

I bring up the Lesser Restoration thing because it undermines your own point. If, by your own admission you are so unlikely to succeed on your own you need to find an Archivist with Craft Wand who has found a Paladin with Scribe Scroll all to spend 15 gold per charge instead of 30 on a Lesser Restoration then even the people most hostile to low tier viability still think better of them than you.

But that's your call.

Doesn't seem anything needs settling except the wand so I'll probably start in an hour or two.

[Phaederkiel]

and here I thought that flaws were from Unearthed arcana.

anyway, why should UA not count? why is it not a book?

denying the Barbarian Whirling frenzy seems somewhat arbitrary, some people will feel that leaving out an important book like this makes the whole exercise invalid.

edit: and what is to say against regional books? I can easily understand what is to say against region-bound feats, but what about feats like for example allied defense from shining south?

as it is now, you will at best prove that a tier 4 party will lose if denied access to books randomly determined as unfitting.

[Chilingsworth]

and here I thought that flaws were from Unearthed arcana.

anyway, why should UA not count? why is it not a book?

denying the Barbarian Whirling frenzy seems somewhat arbitrary, some people will feel that leaving out an important book like this makes the whole exercise invalid.

UA is a book of varriant rules, expressly described as such. Therefore, it's not so outrageous for it to be dissallowed.


I bring up the Lesser Restoration thing because it undermines your own point. If, by your own admission you are so unlikely to succeed on your own you need to find an Archivist with Craft Wand who has found a Paladin with Scribe Scroll all to spend 15 gold per charge instead of 30 on a Lesser Restoration then even the people most hostile to low tier viability still think better of them than you.

But that's your call.

Doesn't seem anything needs settling except the wand so I'll probably start in an hour or two.

As I said, the archivist needn't have gotten the spell directly from a paladin. Also, the paladin needn't have scribe scroll:


Creating Magic Items

To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats. They invest time, money, and their own personal energy (in the form of experience points) in an item’s creation.

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

So, when the first archivist to learn the spell from a paladin learned it, he/she only needed to do the following:

1. Find a paladin that can cast spells and is willing to work with the archivist (since an archivist would be a valuable ally to a paladin order, a properly aligned archivist should have little trouble with this.)

2. Have the paladin act as a spell source for him/her to create the scroll (all archivists have scribe scroll, much like wizards.)

3. Scribe the resultant scroll into his/her prayerbook.

total cost to the archivist: 2 days, 112 gp, 5sp, 1 xp, plus whatever the paladin choses to ask for his time (likely equivilant to the cost for spell access, maybe?)
total cost to the paladin: 1 day, plus might even make some money from the archivist.

Not too much of a burden really.

Furthermore, an archivist with craft wand is in no way extrodinary, at least no more than say, a cleric with that feat.

As for wheather or not our using this form of a lesser restoration wand proves we're unable to pass the test.

1. you could make that argument for our use of any magic item (since almost all such things are crafted by characters of a higher tier than us.)

2. We would still be within the terms you set for the test. Changing those terms now would be unfair at the least and could be argued as evidence that you are so sure of our victory (and for some reason invested in preventing that victory) that you wish to deny us a legitimate advantage.

Oh, and in all this focusing on archivists, I forgot this: (writen out because it is needed to make the point clearly.)



Imbue Item (Su): A warlock of 12th level or higher can
use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he
does not know the spells required to make an item (although
he must know the appropriate item creation feat). He can
substitute a Use Magic Device check (DC 15 + spell level for
arcane spells or 25 + spell level for divine spells) in place of
a required spell he doesn’t know or can’t cast.
If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if
he had cast the required spell. If it fails, he cannot complete
the item. He does not expend the XP or gp costs for making
the item; his progress is simply arrested. He cannot retry this
Use Magic Device check for that spell until he gains a new
level.

In otherwords, since the possibility for any class to craft a 1st CL wand of lesser restoration exists, a warlock can theoretically make one. There, the wand we want is available, and by means of a T4 class, even!

And, Now I really must get ready for my rl group. Guess I'll see you guys around midnight!

[A_S]

as it is now, you will at best prove that a tier 4 party will lose if denied access to books randomly determined as unfitting.
Given that most gaming tables don't have access to every single rulebook, I'm kind of the mind of "whatever." We're ending up at an optimization level that's a reasonable representation of what a real mid-op tier-4 party looks like. Let's see if we can kill these encounters. If not, maybe somebody else will want to run one to see if a high-op (all legal sources allowed) tier-4 party can do the same.

Also, demi has way more gold left than we need for that LR wand. If the DM wants us to pay 1500 for it instead of 750, whatevs. Doubt we'll need it so often that the 30/charge will kill us.

[demigodus]

I still had a ton of money left unspent last night. So I just shelled out 1,500gp for an LR wand. Also got 2 extra Healing Belts. Have 250 left for the pot

Dropped Whirling Frenzy and Exoticist Fighter

I Believe that should take care of rules issues on my end

[Iron Tarkus]

My point is that just because something is possible doesn't make it practical and if you're having to go that far out of your way to get something it reflects poorly on your own points.

Conversely most items can be made by a variety of classes, CWI is the most common item creation feat (Craft Wand is second or third)... these are all things that can be commonly available.

In any case I just need to know what this "pot" is for and if everyone is finalized then I will go make threads in the PbP section. Which is where this one should have been.

[A_S]

I think we didn't end up needing the pot, since demi shelled out for the wand himself. Give chili his masterwork back (he can edit his sheet when he returns), and I think we're set.

[demigodus]

I guess the pot can be misallaneous expenses: usuallly in my games we don't spend all our cash on combat gear, and have some spending money left for living expenses/emergencies.

[Iron Tarkus]

Game is up.

OOC thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267655)

IC thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267656)

Dice thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267658)

[Phaederkiel]

My point is that just because something is possible doesn't make it practical and if you're having to go that far out of your way to get something it reflects poorly on your own points.




you explicitely allowed for flaws (because they are somewhat standard in mid to high OP), and then dissallow the book they come from, because nobody yet used that book?

talk about reflecting poorly, yes?

and I do not go out of my way. My fighter would like to use allied defense, which is a nice simple feat fitting for a fighter but coming from a regional book.
What in that is going out of my way?

let us soften the bandages a little. I take some offense on how you talk to me, and I would take even more offense if I was one of the other guys you responded to. I do not want to diss you, I want to help making this a valid test. (by the way, I would also have taken some offense if I was you, some people were less than curteous).

Please give me a less snarky answer: why dissallow regional books completely? there are many good standard feats in those books.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I see that the thread is already up, but I have to ask; why are 3.0 books completely disallowed?
The official rule is that 3.0 material is legal in a 3.5 game unless it's been updated in a 3.5 source.

Eliminating all 3.0 rulebooks strikes me as yet another entirely arbitrary restriction.

On the archivist produced wand of lesser restoration; the previous poster was showing why such a thing would be available in the open market, not saying that they'd seek out an archivist to make one for them. At least that's how I read it.

[Iron Tarkus]

you explicitely allowed for flaws (because they are somewhat standard in mid to high OP), and then dissallow the book they come from, because nobody yet used that book?

I did no such thing. I explicitly said no to flaws and traits.


and I do not go out of my way. My fighter would like to use allied defense, which is a nice simple feat fitting for a fighter but coming from a regional book.
What in that is going out of my way?

That part wasn't directed at you. I was talking to someone else. However, feats from banned sources will remain banned.


Please give me a less snarky answer: why dissallow regional books completely? there are many good standard feats in those books.

The rules forbid all campaign specific books. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars. It doesn't matter what is or is not within the books, I am upholding the ruleset as it was written.


I see that the thread is already up, but I have to ask; why are 3.0 books completely disallowed?
The official rule is that 3.0 material is legal in a 3.5 game unless it's been updated in a 3.5 source.

Eliminating all 3.0 rulebooks strikes me as yet another entirely arbitrary restriction.

On the archivist produced wand of lesser restoration; the previous poster was showing why such a thing would be available in the open market, not saying that they'd seek out an archivist to make one for them. At least that's how I read it.

Likewise, because those are the rules as well. Though if I had to guess I would say because they are not actually compatible. If you don't know what I mean read MM2.

I am getting quite annoyed with a few people here continually misreading my posts and attempting to start something at every turn.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I may not speak for everyone with this but I'm sure I speak for more than just myself.

We didn't want a recreation of the test you referenced. We wanted a new test that would be unambiguously fair and valid.

At this point, this test cannot be those things. It may well prove interesting if the party succeeds in-spite of the arbitrary restrictions that've been levied against them but it will utterly fail to prove that a t4 party cannot survive a typical adventuring day if they don't. It'll only prove that a limited version of t4 couldn't pass this particular test.

[demigodus]

I may not speak for everyone with this but I'm sure I speak for more than just myself.

We didn't want a recreation of the test you referenced. We wanted a new test that would be unambiguously fair and valid.

At this point, this test cannot be those things. It may well prove interesting if the party succeeds in-spite of the arbitrary restrictions that've been levied against them but it will utterly fail to prove that a t4 party cannot survive a typical adventuring day if they don't. It'll only prove that a limited version of t4 couldn't pass this particular test.

I think enough people expressed interest here to make a new group to runa seperate, different test. I'm curious about the test that he referenced, hence I'm participating in that. Feel free to detail the thread to make your own test though.

[Amphetryon]

I did no such thing. I explicitly said no to flaws and traits.



That part wasn't directed at you. I was talking to someone else. However, feats from banned sources will remain banned.



The rules forbid all campaign specific books. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars. It doesn't matter what is or is not within the books, I am upholding the ruleset as it was written.



Likewise, because those are the rules as well. Though if I had to guess I would say because they are not actually compatible. If you don't know what I mean read MM2.

I am getting quite annoyed with a few people here continually misreading my posts and attempting to start something at every turn. From post #121:

Quote:
are flaws in?

are traits in?

is whirling frenzy in?
Quote:
Is the cityscape web enhancement in? (it is not quiiiite a campaign specific book, is it? and dungeonscape is in, you said)

LA 0 races are all in, except for the banned books, yes?
[Iron Tarkus]I'm assuming yes. Cityscape is allowed, not sure about the web enhancement and I don't think there are any LA 0 loophole races. If you said "no" to Flaws/Traits, could you point to where you did so within this post, where it would appear your answer was "I'm assuming yes" to that direct question?

[Phaederkiel]

Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

I am getting quite annoyed with a few people here continually misreading my posts and attempting to start something at every turn.


you allowed flaws and traits explicitely when I asked about them.

if you would stop the snark ( a difficult quest indeed as we all know, but perhaps possible ), and actually take suggestions seriously, instead of basking in your Aura of GMacy, perhaps we could come to less noisy solutions.

And I cannot "this" Kelb_Panthera's words more emphatically.

I thought this was a test about that last test beeing accurate, not you trying to recreate the last tests outcome by using the same arbitrary rules.

I mean, trying to recreate the outcome has some value in its own for sure, but I thought it were the classes and the tier system scrutinized here, not that test.

[Iron Tarkus]

From post #121:
If you said "no" to Flaws/Traits, could you point to where you did so within this post, where it would appear your answer was "I'm assuming yes" to that direct question?

I have no idea how that happened. I divided them into groups and that group I said no to but somehow it got lost in editing. That's why they're separate from the yes and probably groups.

[MukkTB]

I'm just sitting on the sidelines ready to call foul now. The refusal to say "a dungeon / generic fantasy setting" and his complaints about metagaming leave me pretty suspicious. Furthermore this is a test designed to convince the playground of a controversial statement. You're not the DM in this thread. You're a researcher under peer review.

[Darius Kane]

The outcome of this test is already predetermined in the mind of the OP. I would suggest finding someone else to run it.

[demigodus]

The outcome of this test is already predetermined in the mind of the OP. I would suggest finding someone else to run it.

I'm not sure whether you are saying I'm going to fail this test on purpose, that my belief is our victory is so powerful it is will pierce the heavens, and force reality to conform to it, or by OP you are referring to Iron Tarkus.

[Phaederkiel]

I'm not sure whether you are saying I'm going to fail this test on purpose, that my belief is our victory is so powerful it is will pierce the heavens, and force reality to conform to it, or by OP you are referring to Iron Tarkus.



:smallbiggrin:


I hope for your belief in victory.


well, friends, lets hope for a fair contest (with not more than a little of the tuckerskobolding that i seem to smell), and decry Iron_tarkus only AFTER and IF something went awry, yes?

This is not atmosphere to work in, peer researchers or no.

[thethird]

Not to be mean, but since this seems to be the flow of the thread...

Why don't we take a step back, count to ten, breath for a minute and then go back in and compromise?

If the test is not valid due to the arbitrary restrictions of the rules (to which I mostly agree) wouldn't it be better to propose a new set of rules and discuss/review them before going on?

If so I propose the following:

The builds are to be submitted at level 8, since as it was pointed out on the other thread several significant features come online at that level. For example, the second attack for the medium BAB progression or the unicorn for the healer.

The builds are subject to peer review and suggestions. Be it from members of the party (since they are expected to work together) or from other members of the playground (since this is an experiment). The players though, have the final saying on the build.

The only restricted classes are T1, T2 and T3. Dips, such as two levels of fighter for a feat starved melee character are common and expected. Feats, such as maneuvers, hidden talent or incarnum are also common and expected. If a player intends to use a class not explicitly in the actual tier system, such as incarnate the class would be rated by the playground and then allowed or disallowed based on its tier.

The sources available are:
-Any official 3.5 rulebook.
-Any ACF from Unearthed Arcana.
-Any official 3.0 rulebook (that has not been updated).
-Web-exclusive 3.0 or 3.5 materials by WotC.
-Dragon magazine compendium.

The explicitly banned stuff:
-Alternate rules systems from UA (gestalt for example is obviously beyond the scope of this test).
-Leadership (and similar feats)
-Item familiars
-Individual dragon magazines.

No cross setting stuff

Cross-setting stuff means that no character should have feats, PrC's, or items that pull from multiple settings. An incantatrix (forgotten realms) with the etch schema feat (eberron), for instance, or a strongheart halfling (FR again) with the dinosaur wrangler feat (Also eberron).

There won't be ONE DM. The DMs (at least 2) will design the dungeon, while the dungeon is designed they will refrain from entering the thread in which the players are discussing their builds.

There would be an arbiter (a rules lawyer) for discussing important stuff and providing an impartial point of view. The arbiter also has the responsibility to inform itself of the dungeon that the DMs are going to run and describe its world setting in big strokes to the players, so they can prepare. By this I mean something like it is going to be in the jungle, not that there are going to be two leprechauns and a Chinese vampire.

There should be (pending on people's interest) more than one party, since having more than one experiment would broad the scope and allow to give a more definitive answer.

Please, check the rules that I proposed, add or cut stuff as you see fit and stop the flame. Let there be SCIENCE!

Ps/Edit. I agree that the restrictions are arbitrary. I don't agree to the restrictions. (in case this wasn't clear).

Ps/Edit2. This test can by all means continue, I am just proposing this to try to satisfy those who aren't satisfied with the current test. Still, having more experiments allows to get to better conclusions.

[Darius Kane]

I'm not sure whether you are saying I'm going to fail this test on purpose, that my belief is our victory is so powerful it is will pierce the heavens, and force reality to conform to it, or by OP you are referring to Iron Tarkus.
Sorry, I clicked the wrong page, I thought he was the OP.

[Togo]

The outcome of this test is already predetermined in the mind of the OP. I would suggest finding someone else to run it.

If we have a challenge played by players who think that T4s can make it, DMed by someone who think that T4s can make, where's the tension?

I have an adventure I can run, but without Iron Tarkus' unusual views, is there a reason to?

[demigodus]

Sorry, I clicked the wrong page, I thought he was the OP.

Lol, np. I wasn't fully serious with that post :smallbiggrin:


If we have a challenge played by players who think that T4s can make it, DMed by someone who think that T4s can make, where's the tension?

I have an adventure I can run, but without Iron Tarkus' unusual views, is there a reason to?

For SCIENCE of course!

[Kelb_Panthera]

If we have a challenge played by players who think that T4s can make it, DMed by someone who think that T4s can make, where's the tension?

I have an adventure I can run, but without Iron Tarkus' unusual views, is there a reason to?

If we use something like the rules Thethird proposed, plus something about "no cross-setting stuff" I'd be game.

[WhatBigTeeth]

The builds are to be submitted at level 8, since as it was pointed out on the other thread several significant features come online at that level. For example, the second attack for the medium BAB progression or the unicorn for the healer.
If this test is supposed to demonstrate whether a low-tier party can survive a regular campaign, there's all the more reason to select a weak point for the demonstration.

If the party can't survive at the weak stretches of its component builds, the party isn't going to survive a campaign that goes past that point. If the party can survive those stretches, there's a good chance it can run a functional campaign.

I don't disagree that the source restrictions in this thread's test are arbitrary, but if the source selection isn't biased for or against low-tier classes, it's not inconsistent with the theory outlined in the tier thread, where tier placements are reliant on "equal optimization." Source counts and source obscurity are fairly common ways of quantifying or demonstrating the optimization level and dumpster-diving involved in a build. If we hold to the tier thread's assumption that class powers are equally elastic according to optimization levels and sourcebook access, then restricting available materials to relatively common setting-neutral resources isn't inconsistent with the content of the test.

Banning rings of diamond mind, shape soulmeld, wild cohort and hidden talent is bizarre though. T4-6 builds have ready access to all of those, and several t5 classes get those or analogous abilities as class features.

edited to add
Oh, if someone else is willing to run a parallel meatgrinder test, I'd love to join! :smallsmile:

[Phaederkiel]

define what you mean with "no cross-setting" ?


I think the most pressing (because most game changing) question is: are flaws allowed?

On the one hand, Flaws are often used in optimisation.

On the other hand, Flaws are extremely powerful and completely unbalanced
(both in the sense that the Monster Manuals never expected people to have two more feats and in the sense that they give WAY more than what is taken)


I propose I shall play the beatstick in another try. I have some experience with beatsticks and such challenges.


the second most important question is: how much change to the classes is allowed? I am not sure how much the multitude of ACFs can impact the tier system, but the last time I played such a challenge, Dexterocovia won his because he swapped his familiar for an animal companion (which is a BIG boon if you only play at lvl 1)



I think Lvl 7 was chosen because it is the point at which, by public opinion, casters begin to outshine everyone. Perhaps, to accentuate the difference between full bab and 3/4 Bab classes it would be good to stay at lvl 7.

edit: swordsaged. Weak point. you put it better than me.

[Iron Tarkus]

I'm not sure whether you are saying I'm going to fail this test on purpose, that my belief is our victory is so powerful it is will pierce the heavens, and force reality to conform to it, or by OP you are referring to Iron Tarkus.

What they are saying is that any test not assured of yielding their desired result is biased. This is a typical 'feature' of these sorts of threads.


If this test is supposed to demonstrate whether a low-tier party can survive a regular campaign, there's all the more reason to select a weak point for the demonstration.

If the party can't survive at the weak stretches of its component builds, the party isn't going to survive a campaign that goes past that point. If the party can survive those stretches, there's a good chance it can run a functional campaign.

I don't disagree that the source restrictions in this thread's test are arbitrary, but if the source selection isn't biased for or against low-tier classes, it's not inconsistent with the theory outlined in the tier thread, where tier placements are reliant on "equal optimization." Source counts and source obscurity are fairly common ways of quantifying or demonstrating the optimization level and dumpster-diving involved in a build. If we hold to the tier thread's assumption that class powers are equally elastic according to optimization levels and sourcebook access, then restricting available materials to relatively common setting-neutral resources isn't inconsistent with the content of the test.

Banning rings of diamond mind, shape soulmeld, wild cohort and hidden talent is bizarre though. T4-6 builds have ready access to all of those, and several t5 classes get those or analogous abilities as class features.

edited to add
Oh, if someone else is willing to run a parallel meatgrinder test, I'd love to join! :smallsmile:

What they are doing is asking the question of "How much easier must a game be than normal for low tier parties to not die within it?"

And either the answer is none or something greater than none and in the latter case that means such parties are not survivable and viable. Given how people see a large source list and want it even larger and generally show less than no confidence at all in the party's ability to succeed despite being on the side of the party or actively playing the party it is clear which is most likely the case.

They still don't understand this though (nor have many of the naysayers understood anything else I've said) which is why they are trying to create scenarios and then play their own games to prove themselves right and to answer questions where the answers do not matter.

Alternately, as I suspect they will invoke another board, where the "impartial judge" was caught funneling information to one side from the other side that they should not have but did not do the same in reverse. The more they question me for no reason, the more I question them for good reason.

What they should do is allow the test to run and then save their inevitable complaints for after the fact once everyone has seen what actually happened.

And not all classes were listed on the Tier list. Blame JaronK for that one.

[MukkTB]

I don't mind that the DM is taking an adversarial approach. For normal play I wouldn't recommend it, but for stress testing thats fine.

What I do care about is that there is no mechanism in place to make the DM play fair. Nobody is looking over his shoulders during play. Nobody is able to tell him what is or isn't allowed. If we're in an adversarial game where the DM is playing one team and the players are on the other side and this is supposed to be a test then the DM doesn't also get to be the referee. Its trivial for the DM to win an adversarial game.

The only way we have to deal with it is to look at the finished product and then decide if the DM played fairly or not. Good luck with the test.

[thethird]

Who, in the name of Pancakes are they?

Because it sounds as if "they" means the "enemy".

Ps. I totally blame JaronK for not updating the thread of the tiers. I hope you hear me JaronK. Fear my fury, for my fury is BLUE!

Ps2. No, seriously, man (Iron Tarkus, I assume you are a man), I asked


Can't I play a truenamer?

Which is rated as a T6, and you keep saying that the classes listed were the whole compendium of T4, T5 and T6.

But nvm.

JaronK are you okay if, for the purposes of this test in case someone wishes to play an unrated class we (meaning the playground) rate it?

[Phaederkiel]

just to ask, before I feel very much offended:

does the "they" in


What they are saying is that any test not assured of yielding their desired result is biased.

and

They still don't understand

and

The more they question me for no reason, the more I question them for good reason.
(as in, that I pointed out you contradicting yourself)

include me?

Last time id didn't.

Would you please write down a list who you think those mysterious "they" are, so that they can feel properly offended by your assumptions?

you can run your adverse game without treating people badly, yes?

[Iron Tarkus]

The individuals behaving as I described know who they are. People that aren't acting that way - I'm not talking about you.

When certain individuals are antagonistic the entire time they have no right to complain about antagonism in turn (though saying I'm tired of their behavior is hardly mean).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Cross-setting stuff means that no character should have feats, PrC's, or items that pull from multiple settings. An incantatrix (forgotten realms) with the etch schema feat (eberron), for instance, or a strongheart halfling (FR again) with the dinosaur wrangler feat (Also eberron).

A more extreme version of such a rule would be that -all- the players have to draw from the same setting if any of them use setting specific material, though I don't favor going quite that far.

@Tarkus:

We're not saying a test that won't produce our desired outcome is biased. We're saying that a test where the person running the test has already decided how it's going to turn out is biased. Such a person would have to police themselve very, very carefully to not use material that's specifically built to force the test in the direction of his desired outcome.

The person running such a test should be someone who's open to the idea that either side may be correct.

Your comments being the catalyst that sparked such a test is perfectly reasonable. That you should be the one running it, however, is precluded by those same comments.

Arbitrary restrictions nuke any semblance of objectivity. Restrictions that have been carefully thought out and the reason for their placement thoroughly explained do not.

On a personal note:

I'd like to have someone run a challenge like this so that I can put an entire party, that I've built, through it; a test to minimize the variable of differing levels of player competence.

[Phaederkiel]

I am absolute unsure if you are talking about me. please tell me directly.


In my humble memory there was noone saying "that any test not assured of yielding their desired result is biased", so I fear it is only what you assume "they" meant when "they" used other words to opine on some points of this challenge.

[thethird]

I agree on the no cross setting stuff, it is something to take into account.

On the byas, of the players/DMs. The most ideal solution would be to run several experiments, with double blanks (the party not knowing what the DM prepared and the DM not knowing what the party prepared). I still feel it would be hard to get to that, and since the DM is in a position of power/superiority I proposed two DM's and an arbiter to try to minimize the chance of forcing the test in a direction or another.

On the level of the party (7 vs 8) both seem fair points. Perhaps running the game with rules similar to those of E6 could be beneficial (that would also limit magic items).

[Phaederkiel]

We're not saying a test that won't produce our desired outcome is biased. We're saying that a test where the person running the test has already decided how it's going to turn out is biased.

I don't say. :smallcool:

to say something productive:
I can easily live with the no cross-setting rule, although i say we should differ between setting-bound content and content which was randomly published in some setting. To again go with allied defense: there is little reason why a warforged should not have have it, is there?

I mean, that a goldheart halfling should not wrestle dinosaurs is ok (since both are part of very different habitats), but tell me, what good does this rule do?
okay, you will stop some warforged/zentarim fighter, but is that really important?

what is your position on flaws, kelb?

oh, and: it is so very easy to kill even a tier one party with encounters several lvl beneath their tier, if only you are mean enough. Tucker is a name with some fame to it. And it is obviously easier if your party is tier 4.
Just optimize every critter for critting, some WILL come through, and some crit WILL kill a player. Even amassed archery on single targets can oh so easily kill nearly any character. The DM can will at any whim, if he decides to play his monsters unusually organized and smart.

[Darius Kane]

I'm pretty sure "they" includes me. To be honest I don't really care one way or the other about the test or the outcome. It won't change a thing about my opinions or my games. But I just couldn't keep quiet when I saw what is going on here.

[Juntao112]

If anyone is reading the OOC thread, I have one question: Where do you think I am going with this?

[huttj509]

I think part of Tarkus' point is that there seems to be some "cart before the horse" in various comments.

We have access to the playthread. Afterwards, when attempting to draw conclusions from the run, THEN people could address things such as "Encounter X wasn't really representative or fair because of <reasons>." There seem to be assumptions that the encounters are not GOING TO BE fair or representative.

And from the setup of the run, post-game analysis seems to be expected. In order to draw real conclusions we need to look at things and determine how much was class capability, how much was player strategy, and how much was bad luck (or good, for that matter, if the party survives but only because they rolled straight 20s, that can adjust interpretations the same as if they lost due to rolling straight 1s).

Now, I don't know if what's in the run is going to be fair and reasonable. I plan to follow along and see.

If the encounters are deemed reasonable, and the party as is fails miserably, we can draw conclusions from that, EVEN IF including more available material would have significantly changed things. Even if the conclusion winds up being "tier 4- parties have significant difficulties unless specifically and deliberately built to best compensate for those difficulties," it's a conclusion. We're not going to get anything as straightforward and unambiguous as "tier 4 sucks." Well, probably not. If the encounters are deemed reasonable, AND the party's totally stomped, AND it's judged that further material would not have changed things without the party being specifically built for THOSE encounters...then we might be able to deal in absolutes.

No test is perfect, especially when people are involved. Analyzing what the test actually reveals is just as important as designing it in the first place.

Given the open nature of things, I don't see an easy way for Tarkus to bring "a trusted observer" in on the encounter notes beforehand, without adding risk of leaking details to a player (which apparently allegedly happened in a similar test on another forum).

Now, if the first encounter is with a Dracolich, I take back everything I said about assuming fair and reasonable encounters. :-)

[Phaederkiel]

today, i am seemingly reading impaired:

juntao: what do you mean with your question?

I like your character, btw.

[demigodus]

If anyone is reading the OOC thread, I have one question: Where do you think I am going with this?

Burninate the tunnels? We have 1,059.9 gp left.

That is 10,599 pounds of Oil we can buy

[Juntao112]

Muhuhaha...

[akahdrin]

I think a lot of people don't understand how the game works. The object isn't always to defeat the opponent, but to achieve the objective. If you are to retrieve an item, go get it. If you bypass an enemy, you're supposed to get exp for it. If you outsmart an enemy, that is just as cool. Or if you just happen to run really fast =D

A group of any classes can complete objectives if they want. Just stop making them look like like a T4 class and instead make them look like a character run by a real person who can use tactics to win. I've seen some obscene monsters die to silly tactics in the past and I've seen 3-4 game sessions go by where my players skipped every encounter I had set up and they loved it because they got to role play instead of roll play.

[huttj509]

If anyone is reading the OOC thread, I have one question: Where do you think I am going with this?

Nuke it from orbit Flood it with fire, it's the only way to be sure. And/or smoke em out.

I do feel that unless your goal is to demonstrate that creative use of the item and equipment lists matters much more than any choice of class or stats, that sort of tactic should be used sparingly (assuming that is what you're going for). Stampeding sheep might be an awesome anecdotal way of getting through a killer dungeon, but it doesn't say much about the classes involved.

[Togo]

On a personal note:

I'd like to have someone run a challenge like this so that I can put an entire party, that I've built, through it; a test to minimize the variable of differing levels of player competence.

But what is a challenge like this?

Tarkus doesn't intend a balanced adventure to show that Tier 4 and below can't survive normal D&D. He's got an adventure specifically designed to cause problems for people that lack Tier1-3 abilities. Higher Tiers would find it easier than a normal adventure.

The best outcome he can hope for is a demonstration that the CR system allows for encounters that will kill off parties that don't have a full range of abilities. The extent to which people will care depends on how unreasonable the encounters are and how neutral and accurate his DMing is. Given his comments so far, I'm predicting that people won't care, but it really does depend on how the adventure goes, and what it consists of.

Which is why I wanted to play. However, there's no room for my ranger or my barbarian characters, which is a shame, since they aren't what he appears to be expecting.

So if you want someone to run a 'similar challenge', would it be a series of fights designed to be harder for a particular set of tiers, or a neutral series of fights designed to be hard for everyone, or something else? How would it differ from 'just run an adventure'?

Would it be more meaningful to simply run an adventure designed to kill high-tier characters, as a contrast?

I'm seriously tempted to run something, but it may just turn into me running one of my old adventures, designed around providing varied fights to challenge different groups, unless we have a clear aim.

[Phaederkiel]

I think part of Tarkus' point is that there seems to be some "cart before the horse" in various comments.

the problem is twofold.

a) on the basis of facts, research and stuff. I think Tarkus is going to run the fairest game he humanly can. and not only because we are going to analyze it to death afterwards.
We are quite unlikely to get any truly good data from it, since WAY to many factors play in. His strategy, their strategy, Lady Luck, arbitrary restricted book access, and so on. But perhaps it is not good data we seek, but a good story we can use as an example. This has also its worth.


b) the people. Tarkus is just a wee bit mean. He does not discuss problems, but assumes things about our motivations instead. (oof. I just said our. sorry, everyone, happens to me too). So there will be probably a second run, with other people. Which will not give good enough data either. Well, two sets of imperfect data are better than one is, are they not?

ironic would be, if tarkus party would make it, while the others die horribly...

[Juntao112]

Nuke it from orbit Flood it with fire, it's the only way to be sure. And/or smoke em out.

I do feel that unless your goal is to demonstrate that creative use of the item and equipment lists matters much more than any choice of class or stats, that sort of tactic should be used sparingly (assuming that is what you're going for). Stampeding sheep might be an awesome anecdotal way of getting through a killer dungeon, but it doesn't say much about the classes involved.

Casters get to use their spells creatively, and I get to set things on fire. I think that this is fair.

[Phaederkiel]

But what is a challenge like this?

Tarkus doesn't intend a balanced adventure to show that Tier 4 and below can't survive normal D&D. He's got an adventure specifically designed to cause problems for people that lack Tier1-3 abilities. Higher Tiers would find it easier than a normal adventure.


to stay fair: Do not assume things about his motivations either, okay? Else you become "they", and that is no thing to be.

[Phaederkiel]

But why would my character go into a deathtrap when an easier option avails itself?

because he would bleeding burn half the city to the ground, getting chased the rest of his short life because of arson and multiple murder.

you left alignment blank. Does not mean you are chaotic stupid either, does it?

[Juntao112]

because he would bleeding burn half the city to the ground, getting chased the rest of his short life because of arson and multiple murder.
Don't exaggerate, it makes you look bad. Small fires are unlikely to burn entire cities to the ground, both historically in real life* and presumably in a setting where you have decanters of endless water and MAGIC.

*I am aware of great fires that have burned down large parts of cities in the past, but those were rare events; what most commonly happened when a fire broke out was that it got extinguished.


you left alignment blank. Does not mean you are chaotic stupid either, does it?
Please use proper grammar. It makes understanding you a lot easier.

[Togo]

Afterwards, when attempting to draw conclusions from the run, THEN people could address things such as "Encounter X wasn't really representative or fair because of <reasons>." There seem to be assumptions that the encounters are not GOING TO BE fair or representative.

To be fair, that's because Tarkus said they weren't going to be normal encounters, but encounters specifically intended to kill off Low Tier characters. Higher Tier characters would not find them as difficult as a normal encounter. Whether that's 'fair and respresentative' depends on what it is you think this gauntlet represents.

And it's also because Tarkus has already claimed that people are intending to challenge the validity of the exercise if it doesn't come out the way they want. The somewhat predictable response to that is that people want to get their doubts out before the exercise instead.



I do feel that unless your goal is to demonstrate that creative use of the item and equipment lists matters much more than any choice of class or stats, that sort of tactic should be used sparingly (assuming that is what you're going for). Stampeding sheep might be an awesome anecdotal way of getting through a killer dungeon, but it doesn't say much about the classes involved.

Says an awful lot about whether your survivability depends on your class though.

[Phaederkiel]

hmm, so you want to BUY oil for all your gold (assuming that you can just buy that much oil, someone would know your face), transport it to the site (assuming you can, some many people would get to know your face), flood the dungeon with it (assuming you could flood it, and not trickle, which would make people come out somewhen), and then you would light it.

10,599 pounds of oil are quite enough to burn A Lot of a city. And any caster able to quench that fire is probably able to quench you, too.


and even if you got all this done, and survived, hutt is still right. It was in no way your class what got you able to do this, but your wealth.

oh, and there was some rule about consumables. and I think literally burning that much Gp is not in the spirit of said rule.

[Togo]

But what is a challenge like this?

Tarkus doesn't intend a balanced adventure to show that Tier 4 and below can't survive normal D&D. He's got an adventure specifically designed to cause problems for people that lack Tier1-3 abilities. Higher Tiers would find it easier than a normal adventure.
to stay fair: Do not assume things about his motivations either, okay? Else you become "they", and that is no thing to be.

I'm not. He is reusing an existing challenge, so his motivations don't come into it. The gauntlet he is proposing to run, from his own descriptions, is not a series of balanced encounters. It's a series of encounters designed specifically to challenge Tiers 4-6, and which, because of that, would be unusually easy for higher Tiers.

For that matter I don't doubt that he intends to run it fairly, as far as he is able. However, since he firmly believes that the rules properly interpreted will kill low tier characters, and I firmly don't, it seems likely that rules interpretation is going to be an issue. Particularly since we've already discussed, and disagreed on, some of the rules that are likely to come up.

Tarkus has openly questioned the motivations of those who disagree with him. I have not questioned his.

[Juntao112]

hmm, so you want to BUY oil for all your gold (assuming that you can just buy that much oil, someone would know your face), transport it to the site (assuming you can, some many people would get to know your face), flood the dungeon with it (assuming you could flood it, and not trickle, which would make people come out somewhen), and then you would light it.

10,599 pounds of oil are quite enough to burn A Lot of a city. And any caster able to quench that fire is probably able to quench you, too.


and even if you got all this done, and survived, hutt is still right. It was in no way your class what got you able to do this, but your wealth.

oh, and there was some rule about consumables. and I think literally burning that much Gp is not in the spirit of said rule.

I am confused. At what point did I say I would be buying that much oil?

[Phaederkiel]

@togo:
I cannot find what you describe, but if that is true, then I ask for your pardon.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I am absolute unsure if you are talking about me. please tell me directly.


In my humble memory there was noone saying "that any test not assured of yielding their desired result is biased", so I fear it is only what you assume "they" meant when "they" used other words to opine on some points of this challenge.
It was an open invitation for anyone that would like to participate in this sort of acid test. That said, I'm game if you are. (I think I'll get started on putting together a party, just in case)

But what is a challenge like this?

Tarkus doesn't intend a balanced adventure to show that Tier 4 and below can't survive normal D&D. He's got an adventure specifically designed to cause problems for people that lack Tier1-3 abilities. Higher Tiers would find it easier than a normal adventure.

The best outcome he can hope for is a demonstration that the CR system allows for encounters that will kill off parties that don't have a full range of abilities. The extent to which people will care depends on how unreasonable the encounters are and how neutral and accurate his DMing is. Given his comments so far, I'm predicting that people won't care, but it really does depend on how the adventure goes, and what it consists of.

Which is why I wanted to play. However, there's no room for my ranger or my barbarian characters, which is a shame, since they aren't what he appears to be expecting.

So if you want someone to run a 'similar challenge', would it be a series of fights designed to be harder for a particular set of tiers, or a neutral series of fights designed to be hard for everyone, or something else? How would it differ from 'just run an adventure'?

Would it be more meaningful to simply run an adventure designed to kill high-tier characters, as a contrast?

I'm seriously tempted to run something, but it may just turn into me running one of my old adventures, designed around providing varied fights to challenge different groups, unless we have a clear aim.

My understanding of what the challenge was supposed to be is that it was intended to show that a party composed entirely of t4 classes couldn't overcome any set of reasonable challenges for their level.

That is to ask; if presented with a series of cr7 encounters designed to represent a typical adventuring day, could a party of level 7 t4 classes succeed.

I believe that it's almost certain that they can, which precludes me from being suitable to run it.

As for how best to setup such a test; something akin to a typical adventure would probably be more representative of typical play than most any other possible setup. Running a full adventure of the appropriate level could also be informative, provided the challenges presented are reasonably varied. Both combat and non-combat challenges need to be represented.

On Tarkus motives and methods: I've expressed my substantial reservations but a final judgement can't be made until after his test is complete.

I will add that sticking primarily to classed humanoids is -not- going to be representative of all of the challenges that the party being tested might potentially face and that his skill at optimization may result in those humanoids shooting significantly over or under their nominal CR. Non-classed creatures would be worlds better, in-spite of his insistence that they'll curb-stomp a party whose level is equal to their challenge rating.

[NichG]

There are sort of two ways about this kind of problem (namely, the high variability inherent in a given test). One is to run the exact same test many times and use averaging and analysis to try to pick out consistent features (what Tarkus is doing), and the other is to run lots of highly different tests with one consistent feature (T4 limit) and then do statistics over those.

Running a single test, no matter how well crafted, won't really convincingly answer this question. It really does need to be a bulk aggregate of data. So I'd say, for those arguing Tarkus needs to change his test, its bad for him to do that because it prevents him from aggregating a lot of data about the specific test (running three slightly different tests loses the important advantage of being able to say that all three tests were the same when presenting the data). From the point of view of this being peer review, the problem is that a lot of the referees are suggesting 'throw out all of your data and do a totally new experiment', which isn't that constructive when clearly there is still useful information to be mined from the existing data. Even if you disagree about the overall fairness, there is still useful information in how exactly the various parties failed and what kinds of challenges did them in.

On the other hand, establishing a larger data set based around the common restriction (T4 limit) is a very useful thing to do in order to address this question, and with a sufficient breadth of data will be more convincing than this initial controlled test. The downside to going to something where the scenario can differ is that you're going to need a lot more sampling to get good data though - there's more noise from the variable scenarios. So I'd suggest doing more than just two such runs. Instead, it would make sense to generate some set of scenarios for 'a single adventuring day' or 'three adventuring days' or whatever, distribute them to a large number of DMs, and have those DMs run the scenario as a oneshot in their home games or at conventions and report back. That way you're leveraging a much larger player base and you have less risk of contamination due to players being explicitly aware of too much of the design parameters ahead of time.

You might consider using a set of tournament modules as a kind of control here, replacing the pre-gens with custom T4 characters. So one could ask, e.g., what is the survival rate for this particular DCC module as a function of party level, and see where it falls off. Interestingly, if you had a given scenario you could compare its 'actual' difficulty to the set of baseline scenarios by matching the survival curves onto eachother. This is kind of how ranks are determined in things like internet Go or Chess servers - basically, a large set of statistics are available on the win chance for Rank X versus Rank Y, and so an individual player's stats can be fitted onto that curve.

[Togo]

My understanding of what the challenge was supposed to be is that it was intended to show that a party composed entirely of t4 classes couldn't overcome any set of reasonable challenges for their level.

I think that's the basic point of disagreement actually. Is the challenge supposed to show that tier 4 can't survive a normal adventuring day, or is it supposed to show that there are some things that might come up in a normal day that Tier 4s alone can't handle? If the latter, then the gauntlet proposed is quite reasonable, as a showcase of what tier 4 can't handle that might reasonably come up. In which case we watch the guantlet, and see if we agree that it represents events that might occur in normal adventuring, handled in a reasonable way.


You might consider using a set of tournament modules as a kind of control here, replacing the pre-gens with custom T4 characters.

I've already suggested using a mod I wrote for Living Greyhawk. It's already written for a variety of characters rather than pre-gens, which I think is better since tourny mods may included challenges customised towards the pre-gen characters. I have many adventures and can run them. The only difficulty would be adapting them to a more generous rules set for character creation. The temptation is to leave them as is, but assume that 4 optimised characters using a wide range of sources is roughly equivalent to the 6 characters the adventure was written for.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think that's the basic point of disagreement actually. Is the challenge supposed to show that tier 4 can't survive a normal adventuring day, or is it supposed to show that there are some things that might come up in a normal day that Tier 4s alone can't handle? If the latter, then the gauntlet proposed is quite reasonable, as a showcase of what tier 4 can't handle that might reasonably come up. In which case we watch the guantlet, and see if we agree that it represents events that might occur in normal adventuring, handled in a reasonable way.
The latter is a given though. Everybody has an off day and no party of any tier can prepare for every possible eventuality. Proving that would be equivalent to proving that water is comprised primarily of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen.

The former case is a highly contentious one and it seems to be the thing that Tarkus' test is nominally designed to prove or disprove.

@NichG:

You've shown an excellent understanding of the scientific process there and I find no fault with -your- argument.

However, the reproduction of a flawed test and the analysis of the resultant data is a worthless excersize. Basing a test of how well t4 characters perform in a typical adventure with the premise that monsters of the appropriate level will alwasy curb-stomp characters designed for the same role or the premise that most magic items don't exist if there're no t1 classes to craft them when this is provably (nevermind proven) untrue is going to completely invalidate the results because those magic items will be available regardless and those monsters -are- part of a "typical" adventuring day. Restricting entire swaths of sources for no reason (all setting specific sources in this instance) cuts deeply into the ability to fully realize the optimization potential of the classes being tested. A core only test would be one thing but a no FR, no Eberron test is entirely arbitrary. Both are common setting choices and discarding them discards a huge portion of the gaming populace to which this test's results are applicable.

[Phaederkiel]

I am ready to play for you, wide range of sources or not.
Only difficulty is that my sleeping rythm is probably somewhat different from yours, since I live in Berlin, Germany.

will you have me anyway?

hmm. Let us make a final draft of the rules for charbuilding, talk a little more about thethirds proposals and then play already :smallbiggrin:

my questions still stand unanswered , by the way:
flaws or not, and why not to cross-regional?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I am ready to play for you, wide range of sources or not.
Only difficulty is that my sleeping rythm is probably somewhat different from yours, since I live in Berlin, Germany.

will you have me anyway?

hmm. Let us make a final draft of the rules for charbuilding, talk a little more about thethirds proposals and then play already :smallbiggrin:

my questions still stand unanswered , by the way:
flaws or not, and why not to cross-regional?

D'oh. I'd go with no flaws. Their cost/benefit relation is entirely borked and would give an unfair edge to the players over monsters and the like.

For the cross-regional thing; if you mean cross-setting then it's simply a matter of a character that exists in FR doesn't exist in Eberron and vice versa. Though they can meet up in a planescape campaign. Combined with the fact that generic feats and items from those settings would have to be reviewed by the DM to be sure that they are, in fact, generic makes cross-setting construction either non-sensical or -far- more trouble than it's worth. Nevermind the relative rarity of a DM allowing such cross-setting material IRL making such things less constructive for the gaming community on the whole.

If you meant cross-regional as in drawing from mutliple regions of origin within FR or Eberron, then the rules for regional feats preclude that themselves. PgtF made it so that 2 ranks in know (local) can't qualify you for regional feats from that region anymore and eberron never had such a provision to begin with.

Incidentally, my characters will be drawing from eberron material in their construction if they don't remain entirely generic.

Also, your phrasing there has me confused. Are you saying that you'll run a party I construct through a test or that you've misunderstood and believe I'm intending to run a test?

I have little doubt for my ability to remain objective in the running of such a test but the fact that I -do- believe that the outcome is a forgone conclusion would make my objectivity too questionable for the test to be 100% valid.

[Story]

Tucker is a name with some fame to it.

A) Tucker's Kobolds was in the much deadlier 1st edition
B) It was designed to teach a particular group of overconfident players a lesson. A cautious party would have no trouble.

[Phaederkiel]

I was thinking Togo wanted to run a test...

and about me running: I do not think i could really do this justice. I know from my own experience that any human I build lands a good bit above planned cr, so I would have to open the MM randomly at CR 7 and hope to find good things.

I can run a fun game, but for the scientific approach, someone with more Knowledge about CR is needed.

_______________


I meant cross setting. And I understand that it would be difficult to find out if something was generic or not. But what I meant is: what bad does it do?
Most setting-intern options are easily adapted to other settings.
Would a warforged zentarim fighter really break the game that hard?

___________________

I genuinly hope someone plays a truenamer...

[Phaederkiel]

A) Tucker's Kobolds was in the much deadlier 1st edition
B) It was designed to teach a particular group of overconfident players a lesson. A cautious party would have no trouble.

yeah, but tucker stands also for a way of gming. Do you really doubt that any dm, if he is even half competent, can easily kill any group of characters by piling situational advantages on a lower Cr encounter?

There are some things DMs just do not do. Many frown already on orcs with greataxes, simply for the crit=kill they bring to the table.
What do you think your party does if it is ambushed by a horde of normal humans with optimized strength on horses, using ride-by / spirited charge?
Or if that halforc has shocktrooper karmic strike going?
Even a set of quite normal archers is really dangerous if they do not spread their fire but concentrate.
Or bring a swarm-type monster against a melee party. Hilarity ensues.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was thinking Togo wanted to run a test...

and about me running: I do not think i could really do this justice. I know from my own experience that any human I build lands a good bit above planned cr, so I would have to open the MM randomly at CR 7 and hope to find good things.

I can run a fun game, but for the scientific approach, someone with more Knowledge about CR is needed.

_______________


I meant cross setting. And I understand that it would be difficult to find out if something was generic or not. But what I meant is: what bad does it do?
Most setting-intern options are easily adapted to other settings.
Would a warforged zentarim fighter really break the game that hard?

___________________

I genuinly hope someone plays a truenamer...

I'm good to make a single character if noone is willing to go one-on-one with me.

Like I edited into my last post, the biggest issue with cross-setting construction is it's rarity.
Many play-groups simply don't do it and while the scientific analysis of the data is chief here, the useablility of that analyzed data should also be considered.

I'd like to think that we're doing these tests for more than just ourselves.

What's the word togo? Should I put my whole party on the back burner and do a single character for your adventure or should I go ahead with the party of 4 so we can do a one-on-one test?

If the former, then we're going to need two more players and we need to discuss what kind of character roles we're going to cover.

[Lans]

...Or we can take the sane approach and assume that when a ruleset states 3.5 sources are allowed the word official is implicit and wildly unbalanced homebrew such as my deliberately crazy example or any Dragon Magazine is not allowed.

Dragon is 100% official and is more balanced than that one 3.5 book. You know the one that thought monks and druids were about equal. :smalltongue:. It doesn't really matter I don't think the difference of 1 feat will make or break anything, and if it really mattered the party could of sold their souls for 2 feats and 950 gp. Or 1 feat and 1 point to a stat

Except for the barbarian


D'oh. I'd go with no flaws. Their cost/benefit relation is entirely borked and would give an unfair edge to the players over monsters and the like.
You could give the monsters flaws, but I'd recommend against it. You could have them select virtual benefits and feats and use them as a background check to see if it changed anything significantly.




Drop the Barb level for an extra fighter or ranger one and the +4 STR mod and the elemental arrows and i'd consider that a perfectly routine encounter for an ambush by a bandit group in the city


And the party as stands would still likely suffer casualties from them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

yeah, but tucker stands also for a way of gming. Do you really doubt that any dm, if he is even half competent, can easily kill any group of characters by piling situational advantages on a lower Cr encounter?

There are some things DMs just do not do. Many frown already on orcs with greataxes, simply for the crit=kill they bring to the table.
What do you think your party does if it is ambushed by a horde of normal humans with optimized strength on horses, using ride-by / spirited charge?
Or if that halforc has shocktrooper karmic strike going?
Even a set of quite normal archers is really dangerous if they do not spread their fire but concentrate.
Or bring a swarm-type monster against a melee party. Hilarity ensues.

It's extremely important to remember that the DMG says that the challeng rating of an encounter is supposed to be increased if the circumstances surrounding the encounter favor the enemy over the party. (it's also noteable, and unfortunate, that they almost certainly meant the EL of the encounter. They got a bit sloppy when they typed out the CR/EL system.)

[WhatBigTeeth]

If someone's running a second set, I'd be up to run an exalted healer as battlefield control and backup buffing/healing.

But I haven't ever done the online play thing, and my 3e chops are rusty, so I wouldn't spring to run anything myself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If someone's running a second set, I'd be up to run an exalted healer as battlefield control and backup buffing/healing.

But I haven't ever done the online play thing, and my 3e chops are rusty, so I wouldn't spring to run anything myself.

As long as exalted doesn't include VoP. That should be cool.

So far that's me, Phaederkiel, and WhatBigTeeth. We need one more for Togo's test.

[Lans]

I would like to try a truenamer or a marshal/divine mind

I think I had something tossed up

[Kelb_Panthera]

And lans makes 4.

What about you Phaederkiel? what did you intend to play?

After seeing everyone else's class choices I'll make my own.

[NichG]

I guess my point is more, you'll never get everyone to agree that any solitary set of conditions is exactly what they would have come up with in the same situation. Using that as a baseline for whether or not the data is useful means that no data will ever be useful. Its better to say 'this is what we have, what can we say based on it?' and let the disagreement settle on the analysis. So I'd still say that the original test has utility to it.

But of course, if you can make a better experiment and run it yourself, then that is also very useful data, and then (since there is no existing data) it makes perfect sense to find the best set of experimental protocols to satisfy most of the interested parties.

Anyhow, I do think that its important to clearly identify the questions that these tests are designed to address. Going back to the original post, the question isn't 'can a T4 party survive?', its 'at what level does the difference between T3s and T4s become significant?'. The meaning of 'significant' is tricky here, so let me propose a more general question:

- What is the relative survival rate of T4 parties versus T3 parties at Lv7?

So with that in mind, I'd suggest the following.

- Pick a set of rules/constraints/etc, as you've been doing. The important thing is, once this has been selected, commit to a set of experiments that will not involve changing those rules at all over the set of experiments. Do not do mid-experiment analysis (e.g. don't say 'well, the party in the first game used Elemental Gems to crush this encounter, so lets change the consumable loadout').

- Generate say 4 test scenarios each representing a day of adventuring, before doing any player selection or character generation.

- Have two teams, lets call them A and B. For each scenario, one team will run a Tier 4 party through it and the other team will run a Tier 3 party through it. Switch up which team runs which party, so each team ends up running two T3 and two T4 parties.

- Compare the resultant survival rates, in terms of percentage of party survival at the end of the scenario.

I'd suggest making the scenarios harder than the 'average' day to avoid an across-the-board 0% fatality result. Essentially the thing to aim for is around a 50% fatality rate in the T4 party, as that would give the best statistics.

Alternately, use resources consumed as the metric, include hitpoints lost to this in terms of the expense of obtaining healing, and assign a gp value to character death (probably just the cost of the Raise Dead). This would also allow you to avoid needing an explicit consumables cap, and dovetails nicely with the claimed statistics of the CR table (e.g. that an equal CR encounter consumes 25% of party resources).

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're right that it's impossible to get everyone to agree to what are the proper testing conditions, but you can at least shoot for a majority. I really don't think that setting restrictions of no setting specific sources and then eliminating a number of the more poweful effects and several more sources from what's left is going to be representative of the majority. If we wanted to look at this in a highly restrictive fashion then something more akin to limiting each player or group to a specific number of books and a setting of their choice would be more appropriate, the extreme option being core only.

Even then the question would be closer to "can a t4 party with 'reasonably' restricted sources survive a CR appropriate adventuring day?"

The OP's original post is poorly phrased. It's wording creates an unfortunate ambiguosity in exactly what the test at hand is trying to accomplish.

Finding the exact point at which a t4 party becomes less effective than a t3 party would, by it's very nature, require more than one challenge run at more than one level. The proposed test couldn't possibly speak to that question by itself and there's been no talk of a follow-up test or a comparative test. This strongly suggests to me that it was not the question that this test sought an answer to.

[Lans]

Does any body have a link to a completed tier list?

[WhatBigTeeth]

Does any body have a link to a completed tier list?
This (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5xlIPzWksqgJ:brilliantgameologists. com/boards/index.php%3Ftopic%3D11714+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) guy?

(I need more words :smallfrown:)

edited to un-double post

I think I got H. E. Lehr (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=498516) up on Mythweavers.

A pretty standard Healer, but it looks like fun.

[NichG]

You're right that it's impossible to get everyone to agree to what are the proper testing conditions, but you can at least shoot for a majority. I really don't think that setting restrictions of no setting specific sources and then eliminating a number of the more poweful effects and several more sources from what's left is going to be representative of the majority. If we wanted to look at this in a highly restrictive fashion then something more akin to limiting each player or group to a specific number of books and a setting of their choice would be more appropriate, the extreme option being core only.


I'm not really arguing for any specific set of conditions here, just making the broader point that taking seriously the argument 'this is invalid because I don't like X condition' is going to mean nothing gets done, so I'm encouraging everyone to be a bit more open-minded about the possible utility of various tests.



Even then the question would be closer to "can a t4 party with 'reasonably' restricted sources survive a CR appropriate adventuring day?"

The OP's original post is poorly phrased. It's wording creates an unfortunate ambiguosity in exactly what the test at hand is trying to accomplish.

Finding the exact point at which a t4 party becomes less effective than a t3 party would, by it's very nature, require more than one challenge run at more than one level. The proposed test couldn't possibly speak to that question by itself and there's been no talk of a follow-up test or a comparative test. This strongly suggests to me that it was not the question that this test sought an answer to.

On the other hand, I think the question of 'can X survive' is going to be much more sensitive to the scenario chosen, the DM's bias, the bias of the testing group, etc, because its a very binary question. Essentially, 90% of the data (what resources ended up being used up) is being thrown out. Also a question like 'can X happen?' is almost always strongly biased towards the answer of 'yes' in situations like this (because there is likely some combination of T4 characters, scenario elements that are valid for an adventuring day, etc in which they do survive). So you have to ask something more quantitative, like 'what is the chance that a T4 party survives the average adventuring day?'. But then you have the issue that it still depends on making people agree that a given test is an 'average' day.

That is why I suggest a differential test. Don't ask 'can a T4 party survive X?' or even 'what is the chance that a T4 party survives X?'. Instead ask 'what is the relatively likelihood that a T4 party survives X compared with a T3 party?'. Such a question will be a lot less sensitive to the details, its quantitative (so its a lot harder to argue with what the results actually are, which isn't the case with a loosely phrased 'can it survive?' question) and I think that its a more meaningful thing to ask with respect to the meaning of the Tier system as a whole.

[Gwendol]

Do you guys still need a fourth? I'll pick up whatever slack is left.

[Gwendol]

About the game in progress: so we've got an information broker on whom there is no intel except for a secret passage? Did the rogue not gather information? Known associations, guilty pleasures, etc?
The start doesn't bode too well for TT4.

[Kelb_Panthera]

About the game in progress: so we've got an information broker on whom there is no intel except for a secret passage? Did the rogue not gather information? Known associations, guilty pleasures, etc?
The start doesn't bode too well for TT4.

They're being given information about the target retroactively in the IC and OOC threads and they haven't actually entered the dungeon proper yet, so GI checks may or may not come up.

Though come to think of it, I don't think any of them have GI on their skills. Edit: yep. The rogue's GI modifier is ±0.

[Juntao112]

The Marshal's is +8 though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Marshal's is +8 though.

I'm not sure that'd be enough to warrant trying to use it though.

You're looking at at least the DC 15 for trying to find rumors on a specific subject which yields a 30% chance of failure after burning 2-5 hours of the 16 that are available. If Tarkun opts for the DC25 on particularly well-hidden info it's an 80% chance of failure. Your call though.

Btw, why is it 16 hours instead of until they need to rest? Lack of spell-casters that need renewal? Why not at least an entire actual day at 24 hours?

[Gwendol]

Yup, I agree. And eight hours is required for arcane casters only, at that.

[Fortuna]

In the interests of my own curiosity, I'd be willing to design and run a test.

My sources are limited - extremely so, in fact - and so I will be similarly limiting the sources on which any hypothetical players can draw. You might say that this isn't a 'normal' campaign. On the contrary, I feel that this is an excellent representation of exactly what a 'normal' campaign might have, with sources limited not for arbitrary balance reasons but because you just don't have those sources.

With that in mind, my permitted list is SRD material, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle and Complete Divine. Obviously the base classes in ToB and CD don't meet the test's criteria, and so they will be banned, but secondary material from those sources is available (including magic items and feats).
- Races are limited to LA +0 with no RHD from approved sources for two reasons: first, the concern that more powerful races have an undue influence on a character's effectiveness compared to their class; second, the desire to emulate a 'normal' campaign.
- One flaw and one trait, or two flaws, will be permitted - variant rules will in general not be in effect. Alternate class features will in general be permissible but require approval.
- Ability scores will be generated by a 32 point buy. Hit points are maximum at first level and average thereafter. For example, a fighter 5 with ten constitution would have 10 (maximum at first) plus four times 5.5 (average thereafter) for a total of 32 hit points.
- The game will be run at... let's say level 5, for no real reason, i.e. precisely 10000 xp (crafting is permissible, but will cost you a level). Standard WBL (9000 gp apiece). Consumables are permitted. Using the same method outlined earlier in the thread, I figure about 100 gp each of consumables per encounter should be considered a baseline. Although I will not directly penalize excesses of consumables, and to some extent encourage packing for contingencies, bear in mind that burning through 1000 gp in every fight is not really sustainable. :smallsmile:
- Of the classes in Magic of Incarnum, only Soulborn is permitted. Incarnate is from what I know solidly tier 3, and Totemist is borderline 3/4. This rule is not strict, but changing my judgement on these matters will require well-reasoned and persuasive argument. Other permitted classes are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Soulknife, Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner and Warrior. You may multiclass freely.
- The quest will involve finding and retrieving the Most Holy MacGuffin in a generic totally-not-Europe fantasyland. Overland movement and your ability to negotiate and investigate will be relevant. The forces of the Dark Lord MacGuffin (no relation) are also questing for the MHG, and if they beat you to it the land will fall into a thousand years of darkness (which would be A Bad Thing). Rather than set a hard time limit, I will secretly determine how long it will take their forces to reach the MacGuffin unimpeded, and adjust as needed for any interference you may undertake.

My intention is to provide an example of 'normal' play, insofar as that's possible under these conditions. The adventure which I have outlined is, I hope, suitably representative of the range of challenges which standard PCs might expect to face. In the interests of keeping this as neutral as possible, I am willing to accept input from the general community on the challenges which the party will face - my PM box is always open. Anyone with whom I share information about the quest beyond this post is summarily disqualified from playing. The first four eligible characters will be accepted, bearing in mind that I may not have the adventure prepared for a fair while. When the adventure concludes I will make public all private notes and correspondence related to the challenge. Seem fair?

[Gwendol]

Interested, but have some questions: what is the method of generated ability scores? I don't see that in the post above.
I see the MiC and Spell Compendium are not an allowed source.

What about core PrC's?

[Fortuna]

Oooh, ability scores. Good call. Um, let's go with a 32 PB. EDIT: Edited into my post.

MIC and SC are not on the approved list because I don't have those books.

To the best of my knowledge, core prestige classes can't be legitimately entered at level 5.

[Gwendol]

No, of course not, but I figured XP would be handed out during the test, which may lead to a level up. It's not that important, but I did want to find out.

I'd like to play a paladin.

[Fortuna]

My intent is not for players to level up in the course of the quest.

...that said, on the off-chance that it goes smoothly, no one dies and everyone has fun, I'd be willing to consider continuing it into an actual campaign. In which case the question might arise.

[Gwendol]

Ok. I'm submitting a paladin ASAP.

[Iron Tarkus]

I think part of Tarkus' point is that there seems to be some "cart before the horse" in various comments.

We have access to the playthread. Afterwards, when attempting to draw conclusions from the run, THEN people could address things such as "Encounter X wasn't really representative or fair because of <reasons>." There seem to be assumptions that the encounters are not GOING TO BE fair or representative.

This. There are adversarial people here but they are not me. Some people are going in with the assumption that neither my test nor me have enough or any integrity. Of course they will doubt the results!

I don't expect actually knowing the details of the test and knowing me would change their minds as doing so would not support their argument but they should at least wait until they have the information to actually make come to some conclusion.


Given the open nature of things, I don't see an easy way for Tarkus to bring "a trusted observer" in on the encounter notes beforehand, without adding risk of leaking details to a player (which apparently allegedly happened in a similar test on another forum).

Yes. I might have considered that before but given some comments I've seen I think it's a bad idea here.

And for those wondering about my "other board that should not be named" comments:

There's another board where almost everyone there believes problems with the rules are not problems because the DM can and should ignore the rules and replace them with worse rules, among many other questionable things.

They had one of the many Fighter vs Wizard threads, and not only was it entirely stereotypical it contained highlights such as the impartial judge ruling the Wizard's summons attacked each other and not the target they were directed to attack because they were unable to see. The summons were dire bats. They could still echolocate. They could also speak and understand Common as they were Fiendish.

They had another later, party vs single monster for the day. The impartial judge kept telling the party what the monster was doing behind the scenes. They had no way of knowing any of that.

And for all the talk of this being specifically designed to kill lower tiers and be easier than normal for high tiers - this is false.

It is low tier vs low tier. Low tiers are easier for higher tiers to defeat than the normal range of opponents they'd face which would also contain some high tiers and a lot more monsters. Most DMs also use high tiers and monsters regardless of the party quality - BBEG Wizard is a trope for a reason. As such a scenario where a low tier party only fights other low tiers is already a fair bit easier than normal D&D for everyone.

Now if a low tier party cannot defeat those like themselves that is rather telling. A Tier 3 party can defeat classes such as Beguilers and a Tier 1 party can beat classes such as Clerics. For that matter a Tier 3 party could defeat a Cleric, it'd just be very difficult.


I'm not sure that'd be enough to warrant trying to use it though.

You're looking at at least the DC 15 for trying to find rumors on a specific subject which yields a 30% chance of failure after burning 2-5 hours of the 16 that are available. If Tarkun opts for the DC25 on particularly well-hidden info it's an 80% chance of failure. Your call though.

Btw, why is it 16 hours instead of until they need to rest? Lack of spell-casters that need renewal? Why not at least an entire actual day at 24 hours?

People sleep for 8 hours.

A strict definition of a day would give you 8 as the typical day is 8 hours of adventuring, 8 of camping and 8 of sleeping. This is also why penalties such as forced march kick in after 8. If you're all eating or preparing for the day you're not going out into it.

Just as a strict analysis of how long it took the party to learn about the adventure and head to the site of it would likely take 1-2 hours or more and not 15 minutes.

For all the talk about how I am biased against the party people sure are eager to try and get me to be harsh upon it.

[Phaederkiel]

for togo, I would like to play the worst possible thing:
Sword and board.

feat rogue 1 / Dungeoncrasher fighter 6
will be the chassis, and then I hit the problem with the settings. I would probably like to go warforged / zentarim / allied defense, which each comes from a different setting.

Lets say I go with human, can I still get Zhentarim and allied defense?

I think the goal of the character will be to be as unstoppable as possible, protect all his adjacent fellows well, and do bull rushs most of the time, since he does not to give up his combat expertise for that.

edit: my teammates should perhaps look at my feat selection, and help me a little with deciding.

I have 7 feats left after I take dungeoncrasher (1 human, 2 fighter, 1 Feat rogue, 3 Normal). I want to play a very sturdy character, help my allies, and, every now and then, get out my 2 handed weapon and headless charge someone to smithereens. so far, three build choices:

shield spec, shield ward, power attack, imp bull, shock trooper, combat expertise,allied defense,

or

combat expertise,allied defense, shield ward, shield specialisation (heavy), endurance, steadfast determination, resolute (which is an ACF which eats a fighter feat)

or

Allied defense, combat expertise, endurance, steadfast determination, power attack, imp bull, shock trooper


I think about switching two feats for one maneuver and Iron guards glare.


__________________________________________________

ehm, everybody, how about NOT going with a 32 point buy? The game was (as far as I know) not build with such high ability scores in mind. I'd say 26 is a good value.

[Amphetryon]

In the interests of my own curiosity, I'd be willing to design and run a test.

My sources are limited - extremely so, in fact - and so I will be similarly limiting the sources on which any hypothetical players can draw. You might say that this isn't a 'normal' campaign. On the contrary, I feel that this is an excellent representation of exactly what a 'normal' campaign might have, with sources limited not for arbitrary balance reasons but because you just don't have those sources.

With that in mind, my permitted list is SRD material, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle and Complete Divine. Obviously the base classes in ToB and CD don't meet the test's criteria, and so they will be banned, but secondary material from those sources is available (including magic items and feats).
- Races are limited to LA +0 with no RHD from approved sources for two reasons: first, the concern that more powerful races have an undue influence on a character's effectiveness compared to their class; second, the desire to emulate a 'normal' campaign.
- One flaw and one trait, or two flaws, will be permitted - variant rules will in general not be in effect. Alternate class features will in general be permissible but require approval.
- Ability scores will be generated by a 32 point buy.
- The game will be run at... let's say level 5, for no real reason, i.e. precisely 10000 xp (crafting is permissible, but will cost you a level). Standard WBL (9000 gp apiece). Consumables are permitted. Using the same method outlined earlier in the thread, I figure about 100 gp each of consumables per encounter should be considered a baseline. Although I will not directly penalize excesses of consumables, and to some extent encourage packing for contingencies, bear in mind that burning through 1000 gp in every fight is not really sustainable. :smallsmile:
- Of the classes in Magic of Incarnum, only Soulborn is permitted. Incarnate is from what I know solidly tier 3, and Totemist is borderline 3/4. This rule is not strict, but changing my judgement on these matters will require well-reasoned and persuasive argument. Other permitted classes are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue and Soulknife. You may multiclass freely.
- The quest will involve finding and retrieving the Most Holy MacGuffin in a generic totally-not-Europe fantasyland. Overland movement and your ability to negotiate and investigate will be relevant. The forces of the Dark Lord MacGuffin (no relation) are also questing for the MHG, and if they beat you to it the land will fall into a thousand years of darkness (which would be A Bad Thing). Rather than set a hard time limit, I will secretly determine how long it will take their forces to reach the MacGuffin unimpeded, and adjust as needed for any interference you may undertake.

My intention is to provide an example of 'normal' play, insofar as that's possible under these conditions. The adventure which I have outlined is, I hope, suitably representative of the range of challenges which standard PCs might expect to face. In the interests of keeping this as neutral as possible, I am willing to accept input from the general community on the challenges which the party will face - my PM box is always open. Anyone with whom I share information about the quest beyond this post is summarily disqualified from playing. The first four eligible characters will be accepted, bearing in mind that I may not have the adventure prepared for a fair while. When the adventure concludes I will make public all private notes and correspondence related to the challenge. Seem fair?
Emphasis mine. I don't really have a dog in this fight at this point, but I'm curious about the portion I bolded, because the link WhatBigTeeth provided indicates that Totemist is squarely in Tier 4.

[Gwendol]

My intent is not for players to level up in the course of the quest.

...that said, on the off-chance that it goes smoothly, no one dies and everyone has fun, I'd be willing to consider continuing it into an actual campaign. In which case the question might arise.

Ok, understood.

Drafted a paladin.
http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=498709

Random_person: please take a look to see this is to your liking this far

Others: please critique.

[Juntao112]

My thoughts so far? The Marshal is supposed to be a party oriented buffing character. I don't know if the Marshal is nonviable in Tarkus' challenge, but the Bard does everything the Marshal can, and does it better.

[demigodus]

My thoughts so far? The Marshal is supposed to be a party oriented buffing character. I don't know if the Marshal is nonviable in Tarkus' challenge, but the Bard does everything the Marshal can, and does it better.

How would a bard go about giving bonuses to initiative, and trip/disarm/bullrush checks?

Not being sarcastic, just curious

[Fortuna]

Emphasis mine. I don't really have a dog in this fight at this point, but I'm curious about the portion I bolded, because the link WhatBigTeeth provided indicates that Totemist is squarely in Tier 4.

I didn't see that link - could you either relink it or summarize the reasoning therein?

[Juntao112]

How would a bard go about giving bonuses to initiative, and trip/disarm/bullrush checks?
Hm. Initiative bonuses are harder to come by, though the bard has debuffs in the form of spells and feats such as Sound of Silence, which deafens people, which lowers their initiative. He also has the stealth and perception skills to help the party act first in combat, though admittedly this is not quite the same as granting an outright initiative bonus.

I personally feel that it falls in the same general category of tactics (ensuring the party goes first) and the Bard is better at that.

Trip/Disarm/Bull Rush can be buffed via spells such as Grease and Heroism. Also, the bard can UMD a wand of Enlarge Person.

[Amphetryon]

I didn't see that link - could you either relink it or summarize the reasoning therein?

See post #221, with its link to a google cache of a long discussion on the Tiers.

[Fortuna]

Thank you, but the link includes no actual discussion of the reasoning behind Totemist's position, and as such I am discounting it.

[Lans]

Emphasis mine. I don't really have a dog in this fight at this point, but I'm curious about the portion I bolded, because the link WhatBigTeeth provided indicates that Totemist is squarely in Tier 4.

There was another listing with Incarnate at tier 4 and Totemist at tier 3. Which is what I feel was more accurate, as incarnate feels like it has the option to be a bad rogue or a bad fighter with a couple of niche abilities. While the totemist seems to be a barbarian with a bunch of abilities. But that could just be indicative of me being bad at optimizing them.

[Fortuna]

There was another listing with Incarnate at tier 4 and Totemist at tier 3. Which is what I feel was more accurate, as incarnate feels like it has the option to be a bad rogue or a bad fighter with a couple of niche abilities. While the totemist seems to be a barbarian with a bunch of abilities. But that could just be indicative of me being bad at optimizing them.

This just makes me all the more inclined to discount the both of 'em and keep things simple. Quite frankly, their absence can't really pollute the data, while their presence most certainly can.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Incarnate is kind of borderline between 3 and 4. It can produce a decent number of effects that are useful both in and out of combat, some of which can be optimized to quite potent effect. Leaving it out to be safe is probably appropriate.

Totemist, on the other hand, is very much a combat engine. Few of his soulmelds offer any out-of combat utility and his in-combat utility isn't really any more versatile than some of the half-casters that are also below T3. Including it in a test of this nature really shouldn't be inappropriate, IMO.

[DEMON]

my permitted list is SRD material, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle and Complete Divine.
...
- Of the classes in Magic of Incarnum, only Soulborn is permitted. Incarnate is from what I know solidly tier 3, and Totemist is borderline 3/4. This rule is not strict, but changing my judgement on these matters will require well-reasoned and persuasive argument. Other permitted classes are Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue and Soulknife. You may multiclass freely.


I am completely unfamiliar with MoI and Psionics, so I may be completely wrong here, but judging from the list of classes (and ACFs ... no CC, City and Dung for the ACFs is a pity) available, I'd say a Rogue, or at least a few level dip is pretty much a must have for the UMD and Trapfinding.

Also, what about web enhancements to disallowed books that are freely available on WotC webpage? Are these banned as well?

[Kelb_Panthera]

So that's Phaederkiel with the beatstick (go with option B. I don't think shocktroopering is a good idea with the party and environment we're looking at), WhatBigTeeth with the heal/buff bot, and Lans with either a truenamer or a gish-lite. Sounds like I should put together some sort of utility character. Gimme a little while to mull over the details and I should be able to produce something.

Just to be clear, the only restrictions on sources at present are no cross-setting and nothing above t4 right? Did we say yes or no to PrC's?

[Fortuna]

Incarnate is kind of borderline between 3 and 4. It can produce a decent number of effects that are useful both in and out of combat, some of which can be optimized to quite potent effect. Leaving it out to be safe is probably appropriate.

Totemist, on the other hand, is very much a combat engine. Few of his soulmelds offer any out-of combat utility and his in-combat utility isn't really any more versatile than some of the half-casters that are also below T3. Including it in a test of this nature really shouldn't be inappropriate, IMO.

I am aware that there is some disagreement over their precise tier ranking - for simplicity, and to ensure that all the classes involved are in fact tier 4 or below, I have banned them both.


I am completely unfamiliar with MoI and Psionics, so I may be completely wrong here, but judging from the list of classes (and ACFs ... no CC, City and Dung for the ACFs is a pity) available, I'd say a Rogue, or at least a few level dip is pretty much a must have for the UMD and Trapfinding.

Also, what about web enhancements to disallowed books that are freely available on WotC webpage? Are these banned as well?

Web enhancements are in general permissible but always require an explicit go-ahead.