Why play a Fighter?

[Tainted_Scholar]

New DMs tend to have dragons land and full attack. If you are comparing a newb playing a Fighter to a strafing Dragon...

Even before I played D&D I though strafing while attacking with fire breath is a good idea, so I'm not to sure about that. Really it's all about tactics, it's alot harder to build a good character than it is to use good tactics, however Dragons are strong out of the box in terms of build so that helps it alot. Even a new player with a bad build can develop good tactics, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have the dragon use this type of strategy, the Fighter can also use some strategy besides just "Hit it with my SWORD!".

[OldTrees1]

Why would the dragon land? Why wouldn't it just fly above their heads, nuke them with its breath weapon, then fly higher until it recharges?

A dragon trading full attacks with the party isn't playing smart.

I suspect it could still kill low Op parities, though.

Why would it land? We are talking low OP here. Some mistakes are assumed. Unless you are expecting only the Fighter to be making mistakes? OR are you assuming the Fighter will be built without mistakes? Which is it, low OP or standard OP?


If we are expecting the strafing Dragon to be low OP, then we should not be worried about the low OP Fighter because they will be build to the same level of skill as a proper strafing run.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Why would it land? We are talking low OP here. Some mistakes are assumed. Unless you are expecting only the Fighter to be making mistakes? OR are you assuming the Fighter will be built without mistakes? Which is it, low OP or standard OP?

See my above response.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Why would it land? We are talking low OP here. Some mistakes are assumed. Unless you are expecting only the Fighter to be making mistakes? OR are you assuming the Fighter will be built without mistakes? Which is it low OP or standard OP?

- What does low Op and standard Op mean in this instance?

- The only feat I gave the Dragon for sure is Flyby Attack, the rest of its feats could be horrible, and it would still win. I'd say that the Dragon is pretty low Op, regardless of its strafing tactics.

- If you feel that intelligent tactics make it standard Op, that's fine, but I disagree.

[OldTrees1]

See my above response.

I saw your response and it does not convince me. You are expecting the Fighter to be penalized and the Dragon not to be penalized. I think that is just silly.

[Lans]

- The Dragon casts Mage's Armor; good luck hitting him now.


That doesn't matter; if the Fighter can't get by without the Cleric's/Wizard's buffs, he sucks.


The Healer can probably only cast that spell four times or so.


The mage armor really isn't helping much in this fight, neither is the fighter or rogue.

I am only thinking he would have 2 at most. After the initial breath weapon happens he can use cure light wounds to heal 1d8+5+3+2 to cure most of the dragons 2d6+7 bite attack. If 2 members get caught in another breath weapon he can use cure moderate wounds and close wounds to heal 2d8+8+3+4 and 1d4+5+3+6 to negate most of it. The dragon really should be dead before it can do more than 3 breath weapons

[OldTrees1]

- What does low Op and standard Op mean in this instance?

- The only feat I gave the Dragon for sure is Flyby Attack, the rest of its feats could be horrible, and it would still win. I'd say that the Dragon is pretty low Op, regardless of its strafing tactics.

- If you feel that intelligent tactics make it standard Op, that's fine, but I disagree.

I feel that Optimization level describes the general level of tactical and strategic intellect the DM/Player uses to create and use the character. Standard OP means doing an average amount of optimization on build and actions.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I saw your response and it does not convince me. You are expecting the Fighter to be penalized and the Dragon not to be penalized. I think that is just silly.

How is the Fighter penalized?

Edit:


I feel that Optimization level describes the general level of tactical and strategic intellect the DM/Player uses to create and use the character. Standard OP means doing an average amount of optimization on build and actions.

OK, I just feel like that a Dragon using its flight is a no-brainer.

[Psyren]

Challenging and 50% chance of victory are the same thing. Page 49 of the DMG under "Difficulty", you'll find a table that examples the likelihood of victory for each category of difficulty. The Fighter should have a 15% chance at beating a CR 7 monster like the Dragon.

Do you mean table 3-2? That's not likelihood of success, that's % of encounters that should come from each category. DMG 49 says nothing about a solo PC's chances of victory.



- Or he could just use Flyby Attack and bite them.

Readied actions exist, and the party doesn't have to stand around gormlessly in the open either. Control the engagement, bring the dragon to you.



That doesn't matter; if the Fighter can't get by without the Cleric's/Wizard's buffs, he sucks.

You might not know this, but the game wasn't designed around solo fighters.



It was always all of 3.5, I mentioned Nerveskitter.

How is a new player going to know about that?


I feel that Optimization level describes the general level of tactical and strategic intellect the DM/Player uses to create and use the character. Standard OP means doing an average amount of optimization on build and actions.

The optimization level I'm using is a dragon from a module, because we were talking newer players. Say, the same level as the green dragon mentioned from RHoD. (Does it have Flyby Attack?)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Readied actions exist, and the party doesn't have to stand around gormlessly in the open either. Control the engagement, bring the dragon to you.

- The dragon has a 10' reach, you can't hit it with normal weapons.

- Also, it could just fly higher and wait for its breath weapon to recharge, dip lower and then attack. Rinse and repeat as needed.


You might not know this, but the game wasn't designed around solo fighters.

And? Classes shouldn't need party member's buffs to be viable.


How is a new player going to know about that?

That spell was intended for the Dragon; if that's too high Op, replace it with Mage's Armor.

[OldTrees1]

How is the Fighter penalized?

Edit:



OK, I just feel like that a Dragon using its flight is a no-brainer.

1) The Fighter was penalized in 2 ways: First you are still assuming this is the first character the player has ever made/run. Second you are assuming the Fighter will have the stupidest plan for how to destroy the bridge.


2) You feel that a Dragon using Strafing Runs (more than mere flight) is a no-brainer. I would expect that. I would also expect you would make a better Fighter and execute a better plan also as a no-brainer. Or am I overestimating your intellect?


Now I realize that what I would expect the Fighter / Dragon to do is better executed than what a new Player / new DM would do. So I am not talking about a Dragon impossible to hit except by readied ranged attacks nor am I talking about Fighters doing flying charges to hit and incapacitate the Dragon.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I am going postulate that Fighters are the most pointless class in 3.5. Not the worst class, just the most pointless class. I'm not referring to Fighters as a dip or their ACFs but rather just the normal Fighter class. They have literally nothing going for them.

Other bad classes have at least some reason to play them. Monks are one of two classes that punch things (and the other only punches as an ACF). Truenamers have unique mechanics. Paladins, Samurai, and Knights all have different class features and fluff even if their shtick is stabbing things.

Fighters have nothing. Their fluff is bland and forgettable, to point where I don't even remember it, and their crunch is even worse. They are literally the same as the Warrior (a NPC class) except they have Craft (Which they'll never use) and bonus feats, which aren't a class feature.

So ultimately, what reason is there to play as a Fighter?

Roleplaying? Not everyone wants to play as a skinny and nerdy wizard. Or is obsessed with optimization and just want to have fun and play the game.

[ColorBlindNinja]

1)The Fighter was penalized in 2 ways: First you are still assuming this is the first character the player has ever made/run. Second you are assuming the Fighter will have the stupidest plan for how to destroy the bridge.

Worth noting, that this little exercise was separate from the RHoD; we have 4 level 7 PCs VS one CR 7 Dragon.



You feel that a Dragon using Strafing Runs (more than mere flight) is a no-brainer. I would expect that. I would also expect you would make a better Fighter and execute a better plan also as a no-brainer. Or am I overestimating your intellect?

Fair enough.


Now I realize that what I would expect the Fighter / Dragon to do is better executed than what a new Player / new DM would do. So I am not talking about a Dragon impossible to hit expect by readied ranged attacks nor am I talking about Fighters doing flying charges to hit the Dragon.

I see where you're coming from. If that makes the Dragon standard Op, rather than low, I accept that.

Edit:


Roleplaying? Not everyone wants to play as a skinny and nerdy wizard. Or is obsessed with optimization and just want to have fun and play the game.

Why not play a different, better class? Like a Warblade, or a Barbarian, or a Psychic Warrior, or Totemist, or... I'll stop now.

Edit 2: It's hard to have fun when your character sucks/dies.

[OldTrees1]

Worth noting, that this little exercise was separate from the RHoD; we have 4 level 7 PCs VS one CR 7 Dragon.

Fair enough.

I see where you're coming from. If that makes the Dragon standard Op, rather than low, I accept that.

Yay. I am glad I was not overestimating.

Sidenote for the RHoD encounter which is different from the other Dragon encounter:
What stops the PCs from burning either the bridge or its supports? Dragons are not known for being good at rebuilding bridges.




Quote Originally Posted by S@tanicoaldo View Post
Roleplaying? Not everyone wants to play as a skinny and nerdy wizard.
Why not play a different, better class? Like a Warblade, or a Barbarian, or a Psychic Warrior, or Totemist, or... I'll stop now.
Or a skinny and nerdy Wizard?(oh, wait they already answered this question :P)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sidenote for the RHoD encounter which is different from the other Dragon encounter:
What stops the PCs from burning either the bridge or its supports? Dragons are not known for being good at rebuilding bridges.

If I recall correctly, the bridge in question was made of stone. It was also populated by archers and warriors in addition to the (green) dragon.

[Psyren]

- The dragon has a 10' reach, you can't hit it with normal weapons.

- Also, it could just fly higher and wait for its breath weapon to recharge, dip lower and then attack. Rinse and repeat as needed.

Bows still exist, and is the fight taking place on a featureless plain?



And? Classes shouldn't need party member's buffs to be viable.

Not even against boss encounters?



That spell was intended for the Dragon; if that's too high Op, replace it with Mage's Armor.

Ok. So now it's harder to hit, but still not impossible.

Let's move out of the abstract - I looked up the green dragon from RHoD. It does have Flyby Attack, but no spells, medium size and 23 AC. Before that point, the fighter gets a +1 longbow, +1 banded mail, +1 amulet of natural armor, heavy steel shield and +1 short sword. So we're looking at the dragon's +14 to hit with its bite vs. +11 AC on the fighter, a respectable difference But his tactics don't mention melee at all - he strafes with his breath weapon, and while it's on cooldown, he explicitly stays out of range waiting for it to cool down. He'll only come down to try and bull rush anyone who is making progress on destroying the bridge. With 17 Str, he'll actually likely be weaker than a 5th-level Fighter, and his attempt will bring him into melee range before he flees again.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Bows still exist, and is the fight taking place on a featureless plain?

It'd be far worst in it's in a forest.


Not even against boss encounters?

- This dragon is CR 7 VS a level 7 party.

- No, classes should be able to function without buffs from other classes. Buffs are nice and can make fights easier, but they shouldn't be necessary for a class to function.


Ok. So now it's harder to hit, but still not impossible.

AC is now 25, and the Fighter has to roll a 14 or higher to hit it. That will be 12 if he has a +5 STR mod and +1 weapon.

Edit: Probably more like a 16 or so with ranged weapons.


Let's move out of the abstract - I looked up the green dragon from RHoD. It does have Flyby Attack, but no spells, medium size and 23 AC. Before that point, the fighter gets a +1 longbow, +1 banded mail, +1 amulet of natural armor, heavy steel shield and +1 short sword. So we're looking at the dragon's +14 to hit with its bite vs. +11 AC on the fighter, a respectable difference But his tactics don't mention melee at all - he strafes with his breath weapon, and while it's on cooldown, he explicitly stays out of range waiting for it to cool down. He'll only come down to try and bull rush anyone who is making progress on destroying the bridge.

- I wasn't really talking about the RHoD, but OK.

- That Dragon isn't going to be easy to hit, and that bull rush could be lethal.

[Psyren]

- This dragon is CR 7 VS a level 7 party.

- No, classes should be able to function without buffs from other classes. Buffs are nice and can make fights easier, but they shouldn't be necessary for a class to function.

Bosses should require buffs. That's the point. Dragons are boss monsters.



AC is now 25, and the Fighter has to roll a 14 or higher to hit it. That will be 12 if he has a +5 STR mod and +1 weapon.

Edit: Probably more like a 16 or so with ranged weapons.

14 to hit seems suitable for a boss monster.



- I wasn't really talking about the RHoD, but OK.

- That Dragon isn't going to be easy to hit, and that bull rush could be lethal.

I know, but TS and I were before you came in.

He has to roll pretty high to push you more than 5 feet, and the fighter is stronger than he is as well as the same size, making his odds not great. The new player will be fine.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Bosses should require buffs. That's the point. Dragons are boss monsters.

- No class should need the buffs of other classes to function; that's my point.

- It's also moot, since I doubt a Healbot prepared that many buffs. Protection from Evil is nigh useless, here.


14 to hit seems suitable for a boss monster.

It's more like 16+ with bows.


I know, but TS and I were before you came in.

That's fine, I was talking about something else.


He has to roll pretty high to push you more than 5 feet, and the fighter is stronger than he is as well as the same size, making his odds not great. The new player will be fine.

He'll probably target someone weaker looking, like a Halfling Rogue, but the breath weapon is still a problem. On average, that's 21 damage per hit. Two hits will leave the Fighter at death's door.

[Psyren]

- No class should need the buffs of other classes to function; that's my point.

- It's also moot, since I doubt a Healbot prepared that many buffs. Protection from Evil is nigh useless, here.

I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for a boss encounter. Take RHoD - there's a ton of fights in there that don't involve dragons and don't require buffs. The dragon encounter is explicitly described as a "climax" too, though to be honest it doesn't require them. Lastly, Pro: Evil is +2 deflection against all chromatic dragons that lasts the whole fight, so I fail to see its lack of usefulness.


He'll probably target someone weaker looking, like a Halfling Rogue, but the breath weapon is still a problem. On average, that's 21 damage per hit. Two hits will leave the Fighter at death's door.

If he sees the rogue, maybe, but fighters can break bridges too. The bridge has a weak point designed for rogues to find and get to at the base of one of the towers. This is incidentally a good place for the party to stand, as the towers naturally provide cover from the dragon's strafe, the bridge can still be broken from there, and there are fewer directions for the dragon to try bull-rushing anyone off.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for a boss encounter. Take RHoD - there's a ton of fights in there that don't involve dragons and don't require buffs. The dragon encounter is explicitly described as a "climax" too, though to be honest it doesn't require them.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


Lastly, Pro: Evil is +2 deflection against all chromatic dragons that lasts the whole fight, so I fail to see its lack of usefulness.

+2 won't help that much on the saves; the Fighter needs a 13+ on the roll.


If he sees the rogue, maybe, but fighters can break bridges too. The bridge has a weak point designed for rogues to find and get to at the base of one of the towers. This is incidentally a good place for the party to stand, as the towers naturally provide cover from the dragon's strafe, the bridge can still be broken from there, and there are fewer directions for the dragon to try bull-rushing anyone off.

I'll leave the RHoD discussions to Tainted_Scholar.

[Psyren]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Guess so.



+2 won't help that much on the saves; the Fighter needs a 13+ on the roll.

11 with cover (+2 bonus) which the terrain provides.



I'll leave the RHoD discussions to Tainted_Scholar.

Ok.

[AnimeTheCat]

ColorBlindNinja, at the end of the day, I'm still going to recommend my new players play fighter or similar class and later either build a new character or multiclass. I enjoy playing fighters in my group and nobody feels as though I'm slowing them down or doing a less than adequate job. I haven't said it because it's anecdotal. I respect your points, but breaking things down further and trying to explain my view is getting so crazy that we both need to put it in spoilers. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, please feel free to PM me and I would be more than happy to discuss it further.

As for the feat selection on the fighter vs the dragon, it was a thought experiment based on a sword and board focused fighter, hence the shield focused feats.

[Florian]

at the end of the day

End of the day, I´m mainly amused about what has been "proven" that Fighters can´t do and suck at.
Incidentally, the same things they do over and over again since the dawn of (D&D) time, to the pleasure and amusement of countless players.

[Mordaedil]

I reckon fighters mostly still exist because of tradition rather than anything else.

But I think after all this discussion, my conclusion is that if a player dips into fighter, to leave it as is, but if a player wants to start as a fighter, I'd have to make some changes, particularly to his skillset and maybe give focus and specialization for free.

[Psyren]

Well... That seemed... Rude. I never once said I had proven anything in the post that you replied to. Additionally, I don't recall ever responding to you in the thread. Furthermore, I don't recall ever making any claims to "Prove" anything except that, for the new players that I've DM'd for, Fighter is a very nice class for them because it brings a blend of options for accomplishing a singular goal which allows the new players to experience a taste of what the system has to offer without being overwhelming.

Incidentally, I can try to tell you till I'm blue in the face that I disagree with you. You can also tell me till you're blue in the face that fighters are the most useless class in the game. We're going to disagree and I'm fine with that. You should be too. We're not playing at the same table so it doesn't matter that we disagree. I'm leaving because I'm done smashing my head against a brick wall. I'm done fighting a culture of blindness.

You're arguing with the wrong guy, Florian is pro-Fighter (or at least, pro-letting-people-play-Fighters-without-telling-them-they're-causing-badwrongfun-for-everyone-else).

[AnimeTheCat]

End of the day, I´m mainly amused about what has been "proven" that Fighters can´t do and suck at.
Incidentally, the same things they do over and over again since the dawn of (D&D) time, to the pleasure and amusement of countless players.


You're arguing with the wrong guy, Florian is pro-Fighter (or at least, pro-letting-people-play-Fighters-without-telling-them-they're-causing-badwrongfun-for-everyone-else).

oh... It's a case of Mondays on a Friday. Florian, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your comment. I didn't read it properly because I'm done trying to argue with a rock. Truly, I'm sorry for that.

Psyren, Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It made me reread the post and I understand better what Florian was trying to say.

Again, Florian, Sorry.

[Mordaedil]

:smallconfused: Kinda curious that you apologize to eachother as if feelings were hurt or something.

I think the point has kinda becomed distilled to the point where we discuss mere subjective distinctions though.

[Psyren]

I reckon fighters mostly still exist because of tradition rather than anything else.

I reckon it's far more than mere mindless inertia, for the reasons I gave above.

[Mordaedil]

I reckon it's far more than mere mindless inertia, for the reasons I gave above.

I still think it could have been given a decent boost without horribly unbalancing the game.

[Psyren]

I still think it could have been given a decent boost without horribly unbalancing the game.

I agree completely, and it's one of the reasons I play PF Fighter exclusively :smallsmile:

[Lans]

It might be worth discussing what feats a high, mid, and low op fighter would have at 20, and the general route they get there

Edit-A new payer might take dodge, mobility, power attack to shock trooper, and go into rapid shot

[DEMON]

A new payer might take dodge, mobility, power attack to shock trooper, and go into rapid shot

Even at low OP, I assume the player is going to make conscious decisions towards a particular play style and focus on numbers:

Such as:
- Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization (Dwarven Waraxe), Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing), Flay Foe, Slashing Flurry, Power Attack, Improved Sheild Bash, Shield Specialization, Agile Shield Fighter

- Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization (Composite Greatbow), Ranged Weapon Mastery (Piercing), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Far Shot, Piercing Shot

At mid OP, special maneuvers and/or tactical feats should start showing up.

Edit: Also, ACFs in place of regular feats thould start showing up at higher optimization levels. And the non-Fighter feats should be used for stuff other than combat, to help with Fighters out of combat usefulness.

[OldTrees1]

It might be worth discussing what feats a high, mid, and low op fighter would have at 20, and the general route they get there

Edit-A new payer might take dodge, mobility, power attack to shock trooper, and go into rapid shot

Well a mid OP fighter is likely to have some multiclassing(dips/prestige classes) to grab non feat features that further synergize with their feat choices, so a feat list in and of itself would not be a complete story. However it would be a decent partial image.


Combat Reflexes, Staggering Strike, Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Knockback, Imperious Command, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Knock-down, Aberrant Blood, Inhuman Reach, Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Spiked Chain), Dungeoncrasher, Improved Dungeoncrasher

with dipped/racial features like Dragon Wings for all day flight, +1d6 Sneak Attack to activate Staggering Strike and enter Scarlet Corsair, & Scourge of the Seas(Scarlet Corsair 5) to turn Imperious Command into an AoE

[ColorBlindNinja]

With the sheer number of bonus feats Fighters get, a new player might pick a few good ones by complete accident.

[logic_error]

With the sheer number of bonus feats Fighters get, a new player might pick a few good ones by complete accident.

Unfortunately a lot of feats are good by synergy and not by their stand alone power.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Unfortunately a lot of feats are good by synergy and not by their stand alone power.

True, it takes a specific combination of feats to get good results.

This is part of the reason I don't think Fighters are noob friendly.

[Psyren]

In a low-level module, where we can clearly see nerfed monsters like immobile shadows and dragons that do nothing but hover and try to use their breath weapon, the new player's choice of feats does not have to require handbook levels of optimization.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In a low-level module, where we can clearly see nerfed monsters like immobile shadows and dragons that do nothing but hover and try to use their breath weapon, the new player's choice of feats does not have to require handbook levels of optimization.

- Hovering dragons can cause a ton of problems, the bonus from cover isn't that great.

Edit: That Shadow can still TPK, if the party insists on fighting it.

- What about Savage Tide? That starts at level 1, and I hear it's quite deadly.

[Psyren]

- What about Savage Tide? That starts at level 1, and I hear it's quite deadly.

Yep, I figured that was your ulterior motive behind making that thread. I'm not going to read every single AP to try and find the particulars you missed, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yep, I figured that was your ulterior motive behind making that thread. I'm not going to read every single AP to try and find the particulars you missed, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of having ulterior motives, thank you very much. :smallmad:

I happen to have an interest in difficult modules/games, I mentioned Savage Tide because I heard it was difficult.

[DEMON]

Yep, I figured that was your ulterior motive behind making that thread. I'm not going to read every single AP to try and find the particulars you missed, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think it was ulterior. I mean, it was pretty obvious to see right from the start for anyone who participated in this thread :smallbiggrin:

[dascarletm]

I'm not sure why the answer to this thread isn't: "It's a game, and some people want to play a fighter, so who cares if they do?"

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sure why the answer to this thread isn't: "It's a game, and some people want to play a fighter, so who cares if they do?"

Because those that do play Fighter decided to elaborate on that by detailing their personal reasons for playing Fighter.

The Opening Poster took a few pages but eventually was able to comprehend the crystal clear reasons.


Everything after that and a bit before that is your standard giantitp BS hyperbolic shouting match

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not sure why the answer to this thread isn't: "It's a game, and some people want to play a fighter, so who cares if they do?"

We answered the question about "why play a Fighter" some time ago.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Psyren]

I don't think it was ulterior. I mean, it was pretty obvious to see right from the start for anyone who participated in this thread :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. Shame on me.



Everything after that and a bit before that is your standard giantitp BS hyperbolic shouting match

I got some interesting low-level APs to adapt out of it at least.

[dascarletm]

Because those that do play Fighter decided to elaborate on that by detailing their personal reasons for playing Fighter.

The Opening Poster took a few pages but eventually was able to comprehend the crystal clear reasons.


Everything after that and a bit before that is your standard giantitp BS hyperbolic shouting match


We answered the question about "why play a Fighter" some time ago.

Edit: Ninja'd

Ah, (didn't want to read through 20 pages) carry on then citizens.

[DEMON]

Speaking of low level adventures, let's get back to the supershort and (I think) supereasy A Dark and Stormy Knight.

Do you think a Fighter could solo that adventure? Do you think a Wizard could? How about the other base classes? Which one(s) do you guy think could/couldn't solo the adventure, assuming mid-op 1st level builds (i.e. not build to fail, but no cheese involved)?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Speaking of low level adventures, let's get back to the supershort and (I think) supereasy A Dark and Stormy Knight.

Do you think a Fighter could solo that adventure? Do you think a Wizard could? How about the other base classes? Which one(s) do you guy think could/couldn't solo the adventure, assuming mid-op 1st level builds (i.e. not build to fail, but no cheese involved)?

The biggest issue with soloing that module is the traps.

I think a Beguiler with a Crossbow could do it.

Edit Upon review, the single trap that appears doesn't look too bad.

I think a Wizard with the right spells prepared, and some luck could clear it, I'm not sure about the Fighter. I'll crunch some numbers later.

Edit 2: After some analysis, I don't think the Fighter makes it; the trap that I (ironically) disregarded, probably kills him.

[DEMON]

The biggest issue with soloing that module is the traps.

I think a Beguiler with a Crossbow could do it.

Edit Upon review, the single trap that appears doesn't look too bad.

I think a Wizard with the right spells prepared, and some luck could clear it, I'm not sure about the Fighter. I'll crunch some numbers later.

Edit 2: After some analysis, I don't think the Fighter makes it; the trap that I (ironically) disregarded, probably kills him.

So you think the +10 attack 1d4+1 dart trap kills the fighter, but not the Wizard? Strange, my analysis was pointing in the exact opposite direction.

For the record I was considering a Dwarven Fighter wielding a heavy shield and a dwarven waraxe with Shield Specialization feat and Dwarven Fighter substitution level.

[dascarletm]

Speaking of low level adventures, let's get back to the supershort and (I think) supereasy A Dark and Stormy Knight.

Do you think a Fighter could solo that adventure? Do you think a Wizard could? How about the other base classes? Which one(s) do you guy think could/couldn't solo the adventure, assuming mid-op 1st level builds (i.e. not build to fail, but no cheese involved)?

I would contest that being able to solo an adventure would be bad. DnD is fundamentally (not always) a team game. I would think that not needing others to help achieve victory is detrimental to the design goal in general.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So you think the +10 attack 1d4+1 dart trap kills the fighter, but not the Wizard? Strange, my analysis was pointing in the exact opposite direction.

By the number crunching I was doing, the Fighter would have been too low on HP to survive the Dart trap, it wouldn't have killed the Wizard.


For the record I was considering a Dwarven Fighter wielding a heavy shield and a dwarven waraxe with Shield Specialization feat and Dwarven Fighter substitution level.

Ah, the Fighter I was using didn't have a shield, but was fighting two-handed; the extra AC from the shield would have made a difference.

Edit: He was also human, had about a 16 in CON, and took Improved Initiative. Is that too high Op?

[DEMON]

I would contest that being able to solo an adventure would be bad. DnD is fundamentally (not always) a team game. I would think that not needing others to help achieve victory is detrimental to the design goal in general.

I am not disputing that, actually. But this particular adventure is really quite easy and super short (it's also free, so feel free to look it up and decide for yourself) so I thought it would be an interesting option to evaluate the different classes on their level one prowess.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I am not disputing that, actually. But this particular adventure is really quite easy and super short (it's also free, so feel free to look it up and decide for yourself) so I thought it would be an interesting option to evaluate the different classes on their level one prowess.

I'm pretty sure a Beguiler aces this one, and I think a Warblade or a Barbarian would do quite well.

[DEMON]

Ah, the Fighter I was using didn't have a shield, but was fighting two-handed; the extra AC from the shield would have made a difference.

Edit: He was also human, had about a 16 in CON, and took Improved Initiative. Is that too high Op?

For a level one one-shot, I think it's suboptimal, actually.

My build has more HP (unless you also took Toughness), more AC and most likely still enough damage to one-shot most opponents.

I've actually played this module in a 3-man group (Dwarven Fighter, similar to this one, Elven Ranger with Trapfinding and Sifter Shapeshift Druid) and my Ranger had actually the hardest time.

[ColorBlindNinja]

For a level one one-shot, I think it's suboptimal, actually.

Really? That's interesting, I would have thought the extra damage would be better.


My build has more HP (unless you also took Toughness), more AC and most likely still enough damage to one-shot most opponents.

Your AC is almost certainly better, your HP too since you picked a Dwarf; I could never bring myself to take Toughness, but I could work it in if I was desperate.


I've actually played this module in a 3-man group (Dwarven Fighter, similar to this one, Elven Ranger with Trapfinding and Sifter Shapeshift Druid) and my Ranger had actually the hardest time.

That doesn't surprise me, I was under the impression that Rangers work best outdoors.

[DEMON]

I went with 32 point buy:
STR 18
DEX 12
CON 18 (16+2 racial)
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 6 (8-2 racial)

Skills: Knowledge Dungeoneering 4
Feats: Axe Focus, Shield Specialization


Really? That's interesting, I would have thought the extra damage would be better.

With 18 STR and dwarven waraxe, you're doing 1d10+4 with +6 to attack. If you need extra damage, you can always drop the shield and wield the axe 2-handed for an extra +2 damage. Most opponents won't last more than a round anyway.


Your AC is almost certainly better, your HP too since you picked a Dwarf; I could never bring myself to take Toughness, but I could work it in if I was desperate.

With 18 CON (including the racial bonus), the Dwarven Fighter starts with 16 HP. Heavy shield with specialization is +3 AC. Armor is strongly wealth dependant, but at least +4 is a given and then there's also +1 from DEX... for a total of 18 AC.

That doesn't surprise me, I was under the impression that Rangers work best outdoors.[/QUOTE]


That doesn't surprise me, I was under the impression that Rangers work best outdoors.

Trapfinding, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, stealth and perception skills... the location wasn't the problem. Feat-less archery was.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I went with 32 point buy:
STR 18
DEX 12
CON 18 (16+2 racial)
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 6 (8-2 racial)

Skills: Knowledge Dungeoneering 4
Feats: Axe Focus, Shield Specialization



With 18 STR and dwarven waraxe, you're doing 1d10+4 with +6 to attack. If you need extra damage, you can always drop the shield and wield the axe 2-handed for an extra +2 damage. Most opponents won't last more than a round anyway.



With 18 CON (including the racial bonus), the Dwarven Fighter starts with 16 HP. Heavy shield with specialization is +3 AC. Armor is strongly wealth dependant, but at least +4 is a given and then there's also +1 from DEX... for a total of 18 AC.

That Fighter should be able to survive the module.


Trapfinding, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, stealth and perception skills... the location wasn't the problem. Feat-less archery was.

Ah, OK.

[DEMON]

I'm pretty sure a Beguiler aces this one, and I think a Warblade or a Barbarian would do quite well.

Are you just using silent image in the last encounter?

A Crusader should have no issues here, Barbarian should do fine as well, more so with Whirling Frenzy and maybe pounce.Warblade should be fine with a reasonable selection of maneuvers. Cleric and Druid are a no-brainer.

I don't think a Duskblade can make it, Rogue is out for sure and I think Scout and Ranger are as well.

[Eldariel]

Trapfinding, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, stealth and perception skills... the location wasn't the problem. Feat-less archery was.

It's silly how Rangers often forget their martial weapon proficiencies and the fact that Guisarme, Greatsword and company are extremely efficient with no investment... Particularly the 3gp Guisarme on the first level - so extremely cheap for how good it is and how much it does.

[Florian]

It's silly how Rangers often forget their martial weapon proficiencies and the fact that Guisarme, Greatsword and company are extremely efficient with no investment... Particularly the 3gp Guisarme on the first level - so extremely cheap for how good it is and how much it does.

Same silliness on the Fighter side. It´s often overlooked that you can TWF a shield, for example.

[Eldariel]

Same silliness on the Fighter side. It´s often overlooked that you can TWF a shield, for example.

Yeah, true, though the penalties are hefty if you don't have a feat investment making it mostly something to beat up Oozes with. Rangers have the problem of being "written" into combat styles by their combat style class feature even though others are important, useful and potentially more powerful early on (particularly two-handing reach on first levels). It takes stepping back a bit to pack a good melee weapon as an archer Ranger for when it's needed. Of course, feat investment makes the primary style eventually more efficient generally, but early on such considerations hardly apply.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Are you just using silent image in the last encounter?

The Beguiler shouldn't get hit by the thrown javelin (she has Mage's Armor); zombies are slow, you can just shoot it with a crossbow and move away and it can't get to you. Silent Image might work too, though.


A Crusader should have no issues here, Barbarian should do fine as well, more so with Whirling Frenzy and maybe pounce.Warblade should be fine with a reasonable selection of maneuvers. Cleric and Druid are a no-brainer.

I agree.


I don't think a Duskblade can make it, Rogue is out for sure and I think Scout and Ranger are as well.

I don't have much experience with those class, so I'll take your word for it.

Edit: Except for the Rogue, I've played one of those, and I agree she won't survive.

[AnimeTheCat]

A few questions on the various assessments.

A light crossbow requires a move action to reload so unless rapid reload was taken the beguiler will take an attack from the zombie at some point if a crossbow is being used.

The vargouille starts with a dc 12 fort save shriek that paralyzes for 2d4 rounds so unless it's prevented from using that ability a wizard or beguiler has about a 50% chance of success, unless they have a better than 14 con which would start to stretch point buys thin after an 18 int and 14-16 dex. Also, thats assuming you still have spells available to use at that point. If youre using a spell to deal witg the 8 rats, 2 spiders, 2 hobgoblins, and the trap, you're going to either be down to one or no first level spells left.

I believe you when you say the wizard would survive, but I wonder how because of resources expended and the fort saves (spiders and shriek)

Could you elaborate, just so I can see your reasoning/number crunching.

[Lans]

Even at low OP, I assume the player is going to make conscious decisions towards a particular play style and focus on numbers:
.

At this point I am thinking 3 gradients of optimization isn't enough. A focused build is at least some what optimized, maybe we should consider non-optimized, and badly optimized as options?

[DEMON]

It's silly how Rangers often forget their martial weapon proficiencies and the fact that Guisarme, Greatsword and company are extremely efficient with no investment... Particularly the 3gp Guisarme on the first level - so extremely cheap for how good it is and how much it does.

Nah, didn't forget. I wanted to play an archer, but found myself switch to a glaive more often than not.

At 1st level, Rangers are not yet "limited" to any particular combat style. Alas, with 12 STR it wasn't that hot, but it did keep me alive throughout the module.

[Eldariel]

Nah, didn't forget. I wanted to play an archer, but found myself switch to a glaive more often than not.

At 1st level, Rangers are not yet "limited" to any particular combat style. Alas, with 12 STR it wasn't that hot, but it did keep me alive throughout the module.

Yeah, I suppose 1st level is much a question of stats too. High Str + Dex makes switch-hitting easy and makes your subsequent archery superior to boot, but sometimes you have to pick.

[DEMON]

At this point I am thinking 3 gradients of optimization isn't enough. A focused build is at least some what optimized, maybe we should consider non-optimized, and badly optimized as options?

I don't know. Obviously, there are plenty of unoptimized/badly optimized Fighters, but they are pretty much DOA and hardly an indicator of any class's power.

At that point, it all depends on the optimization floor, which, admittedly isn't too high for fighters. But at that point you're also more reliant on the chassis itself and that's where the d10 HD, full BAB and good Fort save kick in, versus the poor Ref and Will save and... not much else.

[ColorBlindNinja]

A few questions on the various assessments.

A light crossbow requires a move action to reload so unless rapid reload was taken the beguiler will take an attack from the zombie at some point if a crossbow is being used.

Take two move actions, the shoot on your next turn, then move away.


The vargouille starts with a dc 12 fort save shriek that paralyzes for 2d4 rounds so unless it's prevented from using that ability a wizard or beguiler has about a 50% chance of success, unless they have a better than 14 con which would start to stretch point buys thin after an 18 int and 14-16 dex. Also, thats assuming you still have spells available to use at that point. If youre using a spell to deal witg the 8 rats, 2 spiders, 2 hobgoblins, and the trap, you're going to either be down to one or no first level spells left.

- Color Spray takes care of most of those monsters, the trap will injure but not kill the Wizard/Beguiler.

- The Wizard will have around 4 1st level spells, possible more if she has a 20 in INT or specialized, the Beguiler will have around 4 first level spells and can disarm the trap.

- Re-checking things, it does look like that both classes will be out of 1st level spells by the time they reach the Vargouille, unless they have a 20 in INT, the Wizard specializes, or they buy a wand of Mage's Armor (probably too expensive).


I believe you when you say thewizard would survive, but I wonder how because of resources expended and the fort saves (spiders and shriek)

Could you elaborate, just so I can see your reasoning/number crunching.

- I expect both the Wizard and the Beguiler to win initiative against most of the monsters, and Mage's Armor should ensure that most of the monsters can't hit them.

- The Spider will likely hit them, though, but both classes should pass the Fort save on average rolls.

- Upon review, the trap will probably kill the Wizard if it isn't disabled (Mage's Hand might work here).

[AnimeTheCat]

Yeah, true, though the penalties are hefty if you don't have a feat investment making it mostly something to beat up Oozes with. Rangers have the problem of being "written" into combat styles by their combat style class feature even though others are important, useful and potentially more powerful early on (particularly two-handing reach on first levels). It takes stepping back a bit to pack a good melee weapon as an archer Ranger for when it's needed. Of course, feat investment makes the primary style eventually more efficient generally, but early on such considerations hardly apply.

If a ranger so chose, he/she could pick up improved shield bast at level 1 and then at level 2 go down the two weapon fighting path with a light shield in the offhand. It's going to be the same damage as a dagger, but it would be two weapon fighting without too much feat investment and would give a small boost to AC. If at later levels the Over sized two weapon fighting feat was taken you could do the same with a heavy shield which would also benefit from power attack. It takes finagling, but you could do a two weapon fighting sword and board ranger pretty decently I think.

[DEMON]

The Beguiler shouldn't get hit by the thrown javelin (she has Mage's Armor); zombies are slow, you can just shoot it with a crossbow and move away and it can't get to you. Silent Image might work too, though.



A light crossbow requires a move action to reload so unless rapid reload was taken the beguiler will take an attack from the zombie at some point if a crossbow is being used.

On top of the reloading issue, a zombie also has a DR 5/slashing which can prove impossible to overcome for a 1st level crossbow and even shortbow user. So unless you silent image it to a 5x5 featureless wall and then shoot it a zillion times with a shortbow hoping for 5+ dmg, you're not gonna kill it.

Edit: Shortbow + serpentstongue arrows. You're welcome ;)


Yeah, I suppose 1st level is much a question of stats too. High Str + Dex makes switch-hitting easy and makes your subsequent archery superior to boot, but sometimes you have to pick.

You're right. It's all on me choosing a weapon style that is not supported very well at that level. I built that as a glorified rogue - had 20 in Dex, Tactile Trapsmith feat - and then found myself struggling with unsupported weapon style and too low stats for decent melee alternative. :smallredface:

[AnimeTheCat]

Take two move actions, the shoot on your next turn, then move away.
- Color Spray takes care of most of those monsters, the trap will injure but not kill the Wizard/Beguiler.
- The Wizard will have around 4 1st level spells, possible more if she has a 20 in INT or specialized, the Beguiler will have around 4 first level spells and can disarm the trap.
- Re-checking things, it does look like that both classes will be out of 1st level spells by the time they reach the Vargouille, unless they have a 20 in INT, the Wizard specializes, or they buy a wand of Mage's Armor (probably too expensive).
- I expect both the Wizard and the Beguiler to win initiative against most of the monsters, and Mage's Armor should ensure that most of the monsters can't hit them.
- The Spider will likely hit them, though, but both classes should pass the Fort save on average rolls.
- Upon review, the trap will probably kill the Wizard if it isn't disabled (Mage's Hand might work here).

What spells does the wizard prepare though? It doesn't seem feasible for the wizard to take 15 minutes after each encounter to prepare her next spell. Also, if your wizard has 18 int she will have 2 spells per day based only on her int score. At 20 she gets 3, and if she's a specialist she gets 4, but that also means she's giving up 2 other schools (which isn't that big of a deal I know).

At 18 int the beguiler is getting 4 spells per day as well and would have a search and disable device check of +8 before racial modifiers if any. The trap has a DC 20 search and disable device meaning on average rolls, without racial modifiers, the beguiler does not find the trap and does not disable it either. At 20 int and +9 search and disable the beguiler still does not find and disable on the average roll. Additionally, the attack is +10 which would likely hit the beguiler on an average roll dealing 2-5 HP which could be well over half of the starting HP due to d6 HD.

All of that aside, the first encounter is 8 rats dealing 1 damage each. unless every rat is caught in a 15' cone, there's a decent chance that the few remaining will hit the wizard or beguiler because the beguiler might not have mage armor up at that time (which may not make much of a difference in AC 2 points or so depending on the light armor the beguiler is wearing). on the average roll the rats are hitting anything below AC 15 which would include the wizard (unless mage armor was already cast). With Studded Leather armor I would believe a beguiler to have an AC of 16 pre mage armor and 17 post mage armor. a better spell for the beguiler to cast would be shield, but it's not on their spell list.

While i'm not saying I disagree that the wizard or beguiler could/couldn't survive, I just am having a hard time seeing any class really survive the module alone unless it is set up and built for this express dungeon. I would say that the martial classes probably have the better chance of lucking their way through it because of the higher HD, but that's an opinion :smallsmile:

[DEMON]

What spells does the wizard prepare though? It doesn't seem feasible for the wizard to take 15 minutes after each encounter to prepare her next spell. Also, if your wizard has 18 int she will have 2 spells per day based only on her int score. At 20 she gets 3, and if she's a specialist she gets 4, but that also means she's giving up 2 other schools (which isn't that big of a deal I know).

At 18 int the beguiler is getting 4 spells per day as well and would have a search and disable device check of +8 before racial modifiers if any. The trap has a DC 20 search and disable device meaning on average rolls, without racial modifiers, the beguiler does not find the trap and does not disable it either. At 20 int and +9 search and disable the beguiler still does not find and disable on the average roll. Additionally, the attack is +10 which would likely hit the beguiler on an average roll dealing 2-5 HP which could be well over half of the starting HP due to d6 HD.

All of that aside, the first encounter is 8 rats dealing 1 damage each. unless every rat is caught in a 15' cone, there's a decent chance that the few remaining will hit the wizard or beguiler because the beguiler might not have mage armor up at that time (which may not make much of a difference in AC 2 points or so depending on the light armor the beguiler is wearing). on the average roll the rats are hitting anything below AC 15 which would include the wizard (unless mage armor was already cast). With Studded Leather armor I would believe a beguiler to have an AC of 16 pre mage armor and 17 post mage armor. a better spell for the beguiler to cast would be shield, but it's not on their spell list.

While i'm not saying I disagree that the wizard or beguiler could/couldn't survive, I just am having a hard time seeing any class really survive the module alone unless it is set up and built for this express dungeon. I would say that the martial classes probably have the better chance of lucking their way through it because of the higher HD, but that's an opinion :smallsmile:

I can see a Gray Elf Beguiler (20 INT, +2 racial to search) detecting the trap. He can also use a longbow (with serpentstongue arrows) as the go to weapon.

[Eldariel]

I can see a Gray Elf Beguiler (20 INT, +2 racial to search) detecting the trap. He can also use a longbow (with serpentstongue arrows) as the go to weapon.

It's a bloody chest. You have like 0 excuse not to take 20 on finding it. All you need is Trapfinding to find it.

[AnimeTheCat]

It's a bloody chest. You have like 0 excuse not to take 20 on finding it. All you need is Trapfinding to find it.

The rules wholesomely disagree with you though.


Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

Edit: my point is on the disarming of the trap with a 10 would not succeed at. it's a DC 20 disable device check. If you try to take 20, you will fail at least once triggering the trap and taking the attack against you.

[Eldariel]

Edit: my point is on the disarming of the trap with a 10 would not succeed at. it's a DC 20 disable device check. If you try to take 20, you will fail at least once triggering the trap and taking the attack against you.

Once you find it you just set it off with a 10' pole or something. I wouldn't bother trying to disarm it.

[AnimeTheCat]

Once you find it you just set it off with a 10' pole or something. I wouldn't bother trying to disarm it.

How would you open a chest with a 10 foot pole? Also, finding one could be an issue as well, unless you just carry one around with you.

[Eldariel]

How would you open a chest with a 10 foot pole? Also, finding one could be an issue as well, unless you just carry one around with you.

Well, you raise the lid. It's not locked. You can also just attack it with the pole just as well to trigger it. And well, I'd frankly never go on an adventure without a 10' pole. It's been a staple since OD&D days for a reason. Particularly to test and trigger all kinds of traps: pressure plates, pit traps, strings, etc.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What spells does the wizard prepare though? It doesn't seem feasible for the wizard to take 15 minutes after each encounter to prepare her next spell. Also, if your wizard has 18 int she will have 2 spells per day based only on her int score. At 20 she gets 3, and if she's a specialist she gets 4, but that also means she's giving up 2 other schools (which isn't that big of a deal I know).

Color Spray is probably your best bet, Mage's Armor would be nice too.


At 18 int the beguiler is getting 4 spells per day as well and would have a search and disable device check of +8 before racial modifiers if any. The trap has a DC 20 search and disable device meaning on average rolls, without racial modifiers, the beguiler does not find the trap and does not disable it either. At 20 int and +9 search and disable the beguiler still does not find and disable on the average roll. Additionally, the attack is +10 which would likely hit the beguiler on an average roll dealing 2-5 HP which could be well over half of the starting HP due to d6 HD.

Taking 20 on Search checks is typically assumed in these cases.


All of that aside, the first encounter is 8 rats dealing 1 damage each. unless every rat is caught in a 15' cone, there's a decent chance that the few remaining will hit the wizard or beguiler because the beguiler might not have mage armor up at that time (which may not make much of a difference in AC 2 points or so depending on the light armor the beguiler is wearing). on the average roll the rats are hitting anything below AC 15 which would include the wizard (unless mage armor was already cast). With Studded Leather armor I would believe a beguiler to have an AC of 16 pre mage armor and 17 post mage armor. a better spell for the beguiler to cast would be shield, but it's not on their spell list.

- With Mage's Armor cast (it lasts an hour), the Wizard/Beguiler should have an AC of 17 or so.

- The rats are pretty small, Color Spray should hit most, if not all of them.


While i'm not saying I disagree that the wizard or beguiler could/couldn't survive, I just am having a hard time seeing any class really survive the module alone unless it is set up and built for this express dungeon. I would say that the martial classes probably have the better chance of lucking their way through it because of the higher HD, but that's an opinion :smallsmile:

- The Beguiler has the most plausible chance of winning, the Wizard would probably have to have a very specific spell set.

- 10' poles would help the Wizard and Beguiler alike in the trap department.

- Druids probably ace this one too, with their spells and animal companion.

[AnimeTheCat]

Well, you raise the lid. It's not locked. You can also just attack it with the pole just as well to trigger it. And well, I'd frankly never go on an adventure without a 10' pole. It's been a staple since OD&D days for a reason. Particularly to test and trigger all kinds of traps: pressure plates, pit traps, strings, etc.

Where... where do you keep it? And does attacking the lid trigger it? The text says opening the lid triggers it, not attacking it. but still, where do you keep a 10 foot pole?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Where... where do you keep it? And does attacking the lid trigger it? The text says opening the lid triggers it, not attacking it. but still, where do you keep a 10 foot pole?

In your backpack, or in your hands?

[Eldariel]

In your backpack, or in your hands?

I prefer strapped on your back, much like polearms.


Where... where do you keep it? And does attacking the lid trigger it? The text says opening the lid triggers it, not attacking it. but still, where do you keep a 10 foot pole?

The text specifically calls out attacking the chest triggering it, and pole being able to open it.

[AnimeTheCat]

In your backpack, or in your hands?

I prefer strapped on your back, much like polearms.
The text specifically calls out attacking the chest triggering it, and pole being able to open it.

First, derp on me :smallbiggrin:

Second, what about combat? If it's on your back and you're not in a room that's 10 feet tall that has to cause problems. I dunno... just carrying around a 10 foot stick seem cumbersome to me. Meh, if you're carrying it around all them time ok then.

As far as carrying something on your back, especially something 10 feet long, that would cause tons of problems going through doors and the like. Polearms were rarely carried on the back because of those reasons. Back scabbards fro bastard and great swords (zweihander types) were highly UNcommon because there was no effective or efficient way to carry it other than leaning on the shoulder or with the hilt in the crook of your arm/elbow. additionally with polearms and greatswords there was no easy way to draw such a weapon from a scabbard on the back.

However, I'm mixing too much real world in with game mechanics and it doesn't work that way. 10 foot pole on your back, carry on.

[JustIgnoreMe]

You can also tie a rope to it and drag it behind you. Drop the rope in combat, or when fleeing.

(Speaking as a LARPer, it's hard enough getting a 6 foot polearm through doors, let alone a 10 foot pole)

[OldTrees1]

The 10ft pole, like the 6ft wooden plank, are held(one person per item) and dropped at the beginning of combat. So it is relatively easy to go pick them up later.

The 1lbs bricks, are usually stowed in the pack.

The bag of marbles is normally placed upright in a pocket.

The crowbar and pickaxe are normally strapped to the pack.

[DEMON]

While expensive as all hell and then some, collapsible (12 ft) pole is easy to carry around and you should have enough gp to do so on most PCs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

While expensive as all hell and then some, collapsible (12 ft) pole is easy to carry around and you should have enough gp to do so on most PCs.

What book are those from? Arms and Equipment?

[OldTrees1]

What book are those from? Arms and Equipment?

dungeonscape

it has everything you need except for a kitchen sink(don't ask what you use a kitchen sink for in a dungeon)

[ColorBlindNinja]

dungeonscape

it has everything you need except for a kitchen sink(don't ask what you use a kitchen sink for in a dungeon)

Well how else are you going to clean you utensils? :smallwink:

Thanks, by the way.

[Beheld]

Since this comes up in this thread.

A challenging encounter is supposed to use up 20% of the parties resources, not be like a 50% death rate, that just isn't what challenging means. You take on 4 encounters a day of CR = party level, if each one had a 50% death chance, well, you'd be dead as **** at the end of the first day.

pg. 49 "An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PCs’ level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources—hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on."

The 3.5 DMG has rules for reducing party size, they clearly say that a Single PC of level X is a party of Party level X-4.

So a level 8 PC can face either 4 challenging EL 4 enemies that use up 20% of resources each, or you can face one CR 8 "Very Difficult" encounter.

Of course, the basic math of the 50% is evident from how if you take a bunch of NPCs that are just the PCs, but replacing some of their permanent with items consumables they use instead, and run a mirror match up, and just like that you, have a "50%" chance.

Likewise, you can have in fact, a Mirror of Opposition, that creates an exact copy of the party, that is also a 50% chance.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Since this comes up in this thread.

A challenging encounter is supposed to use up 20% of the parties resources, not be like a 50% death rate, that just isn't what challenging means. You take on 4 encounters a day of CR = party level, if each one had a 50% death chance, well, you'd be dead as **** at the end of the first day.

pg. 49 "An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PCs’ level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources—hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on."

The 3.5 DMG has rules for reducing party size, they clearly say that a Single PC of level X is a party of Party level X-4.

So a level 8 PC can face either 4 challenging EL 4 enemies that use up 20% of resources each, or you can face one CR 8 "Very Difficult" encounter.

Of course, the basic math of the 50% is evident from how if you take a bunch of NPCs that are just the PCs, but replacing some of their permanent with items consumables they use instead, and run a mirror match up, and just like that you, have a "50%" chance.

Likewise, you can have in fact, a Mirror of Opposition, that creates an exact copy of the party, that is also a 50% chance.

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

[OldTrees1]

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

In general BUT never in specific.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In general BUT never in specific.

Ah, OK, I get it.

[Beheld]

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

Technically. "No."

Let me put it another way.

If you are a Demon of CR X, vs a NPC Fighter, vs and NPC Wizard, vs a Hydra, vs a Golem, ect.

People don't have identical chances to win.

But they should all be about as strong, and the PC fighter should have a "50%" chance against them in the abstract.

But in specific, there should be monsters that are harder or easier for certain types of PCs. So if the Fighter beats the Golem, goes even against the Demon, but loses the Hydra, that's cool. And if the Wizard goes even against the Demon, loses to the Golem, but beats the Hydra every time, that's also cool.

If you are a party of 1, inevitably some encounters will be easier and some harder than their CR, The DMG even states as much using Undead without a Cleric examples (although that's not so much about dying to the fight, although it can be, but about healing the damage caused after).

So the SGT recognizes the abstract 50%, and tests it by testing PCs against a set of encounters to represent all of them.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Technically. "No."

Let me put it another way.

If you are a Demon of CR X, vs a NPC Fighter, vs and NPC Wizard, vs a Hydra, vs a Golem, ect.

People don't have identical chances to win.

But they should all be about as strong, and the PC fighter should have a "50%" chance against them in the abstract.

But in specific, there should be monsters that are harder or easier for certain types of PCs. So if the Fighter beats the Golem, goes even against the Demon, but loses the Hydra, that's cool. And if the Wizard goes even against the Demon, loses to the Golem, but beats the Hydra every time, that's also cool.

If you are a party of 1, inevitably some encounters will be easier and some harder than their CR, The DMG even states as much using Undead without a Cleric examples (although that's not so much about dying to the fight, although it can be, but about healing the damage caused after).

So the SGT recognizes the abstract 50%, and tests it by testing PCs against a set of encounters to represent all of them.

I was thinking only theoretically, I realize that the CR is borked beyond belief.

[ayvango]

I have a home brew fix where I add some fighting styles to the dead levels. Sword and shield types get a set of perks, while pole arms get another, etc... just something to differentiate them.
I get another home brew fix. No extra class features, but fighter could retrain his bonus fighter feats by spending 1 hour practising with his weapons (which gives him fatigue: no pain - no gain). He does not need to rest before retraining unlike wizard.

[Beheld]

I was thinking only theoretically, I realize that the CR is borked beyond belief.

No no, I mean that 100% if CR is actually balanced.

What happens in D&D is that the Fighter loses to the Hydra, the Golem, and Demon, the Wizard wins if he's smart, really smart, and smart against all of them. Or loses if he's not.

But if CR is balanced, PCs shouldn't be better or worse, overall, but they should be better or worse against specific enemies.

If Fighters aren't better than Wizards against Golems, what is the point of Fighters or Golems? (or Both)? One or more of those things is flawed.

Also, CR is very very very well balanced. People saying it is borked are wrong, and always have been.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No no, I mean that 100% if CR is actually balanced.

OK, sorry I misunderstood.


What happens in D&D is that the Fighter loses to the Hydra, the Golem, and Demon, the Wizard wins if he's smart, really smart, and smart against all of them. Or loses if he's not.

Sounds reasonable.


But if CR is balanced, PCs shouldn't be better or worse, overall, but they should be better or worse against specific enemies.

If Fighters aren't better than Wizards against Golems, what is the point of Fighters or Golems? (or Both)? One or more of those things is flawed.

OK.


Also, CR is very very very well balanced. People saying it is borked are wrong, and always have been.

:smallconfused: Wait, what? Could you elaborate as to what you mean by that?

[Beheld]

:smallconfused: Wait, what? Could you elaborate as to what you mean by that?

Monsters do a very good job of challenging "real characters" at about the rate they are supposed to, where Real characters are most full casters, Rogues, and probably all but at least Warblades of the Tome of Battle classes.

There are some few very poorly CRed monsters, and that sucks, but the very fact that people pull out a random "this monster is soooo crazy" is mostly evidence that the rest of them totally are well CRed, or how did you instantly know this one was wrong?

The other problem is that people either talk about how fighters are so bad that monsters are too good (Problem not with monsters) or that Wizards are so good that monsters are bad (see fighter thread for my general point about how people just generally don't run monsters like they are supposed to be run.) Or that monsters are push overs because I dive 500 splat books for a super build, which doesn't really reflect play much, things like Shocktrooper Uberchargers and Arcane Thesis stacking incantatrixes aren't the game, things like competent Druids and Clerics and Wizards that cast the good spells and take the decent feats are. And to those, casting Save or Lose X and having some clean up makes you about challenged by PCs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Monsters do a very good job of challenging "real characters" at about the rate they are supposed to, where Real characters are most full casters, Rogues, and probably all but at least Warblades of the Tome of Battle classes.

There are some few very poorly CRed monsters, and that sucks, but the very fact that people pull out a random "this monster is soooo crazy" is mostly evidence that the rest of them totally are well CRed, or how did you instantly know this one was wrong?

The other problem is that people either talk about how fighters are so bad that monsters are too good (Problem not with monsters) or that Wizards are so good that monsters are bad (see fighter thread for my general point about how people just generally don't run monsters like they are supposed to be run.) Or that monsters are push overs because I dive 500 splat books for a super build, which doesn't really reflect play much, things like Shocktrooper Uberchargers and Arcane Thesis stacking incantatrixes aren't the game, things like competent Druids and Clerics and Wizards that cast the good spells and take the decent feats are. And to those, casting Save or Lose X and having some clean up makes you about challenged by PCs.

There are more than a few monsters that are far too weak/strong for their CR, but I'm not going to start that argument, so I'll just say I disagree.

[Beheld]

There are more than a few monsters that are far too weak/strong for their CR, but I'm not going to start that argument, so I'll just say I disagree.

There are certainly "a few" monsters that are too weak or too strong. They are very rare compared to total monsters at that CR.

If 12 CR 6 monsters are mis CRed, that's not great, but there are 186 CR 6 monsters in the game. So that's a pretty good rate. And I'm not sure there are even 12.

[Florian]

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

Wrong way to look at it. Remember that equal CR means 100% win but expending 20% resources for a party of 4, where resources are an abstraction of hp, spell slots and items (including after-action healing and restoration).
Upping CR or reducing the party size will have an either-or effect, either resource expenditure goes up, or chance of winning goes down.
Tangentially, this is the reason behind the x5 cost increase for consumables for one-shot or single-encounter scenarios.

This in turn should give you a hint that CR isn´t measured in chance of winning but resources spent, leading back to an earlier point of this discussion as well as picking up a current topic:
- If you don´t have to spent the resources, the challenge/encounter was miscalculated and not worth the CR
- If you circumvent the challenge/encounter in any way, you should not be awarded the XP unless specific circumstances are keyed to the encounter.

Also, as Beheld already mentioned, critters are based on a "rock, paper, scissors" principle adjusting expectation on what class or tactic they can be easier or harder for.