PDA

View Full Version : Bending Classes Playtesting Analysis



Mephibosheth
2007-11-10, 08:46 PM
Since the original thread is getting a bit cluttered, I thought it might be a good idea to start a new thread for analyzing the performance of the Avatar d20 bending classes. For ease of reference, here are the original threads:

Bending Base Classes (http://tjwatter.googlepages.com/home) - Version 1.0 (mostly for reference at this point)
Bending Base Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54063) - Version 2.0
Playtesting Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62392) - OOC

Battles:
Lightweight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62645) (lvl 10) Battle #1
Welterweight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62833) (lvl 15) Battle #1
Featherweight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63055) (lvl 5) Battle #1

Also for reference, here's a handy Bending skill chart, thoughtfully compiled by Xiagu:
{table=head]Level|MBM1, 14 Wis|Roll, 14 Wis||MBM, 16 Wis|Roll, 16 Wis||MBM, 18 Wis|Roll, 18 Wis
1|+9 (4+SF+Wis)|19||+10|20||+11|21
2|+12 (Synergy)|22||+13|23||+14|24
3|+13|23||+14|24||+15|25
4|+14|24||+15|25||+16|26
5|+15|25||+16|26||+17|27
6|+16|26||+17|27||+18|28
7|+17|27||+18|28||+19|29
8|+19 (16 Wis)|29||+20|30||+21|31
9|+20|30||+21|31||+22|32
10|+21|31||+22|32||+23|33
11|+22|32||+23|33||+24|34
12|+23|33||+24|34||+25|35
13|+24|34||+25|35||+26|36
14|+25|35||+26|36||+27|37
15|+26|36||+27|37||+28|38
16|+28 (18 Wis)|38||+29|39||+30|40
17|+29|39||+30|40||+31|41
18|+30|40||+31|41||+32|42
19|+31|41||+32|42||+33|43
20|+32|42||+33|43||+34|44
[/table]
1 - Maximum Bending Modifier

So far, the following comments have been made:

Deflect Bending needs to be more useful, especially when flat-footed - Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3495626#3495626) is a revision of Deflect Attack that broadens the scope of the ability, makes it easier to use and attack at the same time, and allows for limited use while flat-footed. It has the approval of posters so far.

We need to abandon the Vitality Points/Wound Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) system - So far, there hasn't been consensus on whether or how to do this.

We need to scale back damage dealing capabilities - While this option seems to have wide support, it's still debatable. On the one hand, we want to avoid combats where whoever wins initiative automatically wins, and welterweight battle #1 definitely demonstrated the power of direct damage in this case. On the other hand, we need to find some way of balancing reduced damage dealing capabilities against abilities that hamper, immobilize, or otherwise end combats just as decisively.

Earthbenders need a nerf in general - Earthbenders can deal impressive direct damage, they have high hit dice, good armor proficiencies, and impressive battlefield control capabilities. Are they overpowered? If so, how should we fix them?

I think those are all the issues that have been raised so far. If I've forgotten any, please let me know and I'll happily add them. I'm going to try to keep this first page updated, but I make no promises.

Finally, let me reiterate that the stated objective of this project is to create a system that represents the TV show as accurately as possible. We're off to a great start at doing so so far. Also, please limit comments on this thread to the bending classes. I'd like to keep this as organized as possible.

Mephibosheth

TheLogman
2007-11-10, 09:20 PM
I think maybe the way to go with Earth Benders is to not allow much armor. Granted, they are kind of mountains in of themselves, but their bending requires a lot of body movement to preform effectively, especially since most of their bending is a sort of unarmed attack. In addition, most of the best Earthbenders (Toph, most the Earthbender fighters, King Boomi (sp?)) fight with little or no armor at all.

Earthbenders are kind of the most powerful anyway though, the versatility of the Earth, the Strength of a Boulder, the Defense of a Mountain.

Mephibosheth
2007-11-10, 09:49 PM
I'm comfortable with their Medium armor proficiency. The armor in these (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/218/086.jpg) screenshots (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/218/095.jpg) looks Medium to me. I think the concern is more with the fact that they deal as much damage as Firebenders with their Earth Blasts, and combine that damage dealing power with walls of stone, immobilization abilities, catapult, and a host of other versatile forms.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-10, 10:32 PM
I agree that the earthbender should have medium armor. When I pointed it out before, I was just showing how the Earthbender is better in everyway than the Firebender. Which is completely unbalanced.

Xiagu
2007-11-10, 10:36 PM
That's not true, us Firebenders get some cool ways to apply our blast damage, and Earthbenders get... ...everything else.

Well, the first step is to decrease the Earthbender's blast damage die. Then, well, I'm stumped. Maybe make some of the seeds full-round actions?

TheLogman
2007-11-10, 10:40 PM
Well, here's an idea, why not allow Firebenders to add more of a martial boost to their attacks? This way, they could exceed the Earthbenders on damage output, but be beaten when it comes to Defence/Battlefield control. For instance, we could allow the Firebenders to add bonus DC to their Firebending level to deal extra damage or advance the die, (The limit for this would be derived from their level somehow) or we could allow them to add their Strength bonus to damage they deal with their fire akin to a Composite Bow, a stronger punch should kind of equal stronger Fire Blast anyway.

Xiagu
2007-11-10, 10:48 PM
Well, here's an idea, why not allow Firebenders to add more of a martial boost to their attacks? This way, they could exceed the Earthbenders on damage output, but be beaten when it comes to Defence/Battlefield control. For instance, we could allow the Firebenders to add bonus DC to their Firebending level to deal extra damage or advance the die, (The limit for this would be derived from their level somehow) or we could allow them to add their Strength bonus to damage they deal with their fire akin to a Composite Bow, a stronger punch should kind of equal stronger Fire Blast anyway.

Grrrr! Firebending is all about breath control, young grasshopper! :smalltongue: This was yelled at various people in the show, so it's rather non-canon to allow a strength bonus. Maybe a Wisdom bonus would be more appropriate.

Who else thinks that the damage die for earth blast should be decreased?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-10, 10:53 PM
I would agree to decrease the damage dies of the earth blast. Really, water and earth hurt the same amount when used with the amount of force benders put behind it. Also, I would like to advocate again that the progression should be dropped to 2dX at 5th, 3dX at 10th, 4dX at 15th and 5dX at 20th. This still makes them deal more damage than martial artists, but makes it a bit more reasonable given the number of attacks the get.

Ceiling009
2007-11-10, 11:09 PM
I've been running a mixed DnD game with the Bender 2.0 version, with some quiet little feats and seeds... of my own making... but I do want to say that under what I've found about the way things work, Firebenders are ridiculous sources of damage. But, the Earthbender can easily just as win by default with Rift alone. Their damage probably needs to be scaled down, all of the benders, excluding air who doesn't have a blast at all... but; how about since it's a seed, you remove all damage dice, but keep the die size. Change Blast to 10 DC, and for every ten you beat the DC you do one more die of the appropriate die. So a maximized bender does 2d6 at first level, but it doesn't grow up in level until they can get 30 at level 9, and so on... this also promotes more uses of the seeds, as in my game it was just much easier to blast versus use seeds. Hmm...

DracoDei
2007-11-10, 11:52 PM
Ok, I am going to just jump in blind here and say that the weakness of earth is stereotypically that it is slow... thus Earthbenders should be hurting for Initiative, and Reflex DCs and/or to-hit with their attacks...

Enlong
2007-11-11, 12:23 AM
So what's the word on the Vitality/Wound point system? Are we still using it?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 12:49 AM
So what's the word on the Vitality/Wound point system? Are we still using it?

How about a vote?

I'm for going with hit points and upping the natural healing a smidge.

Enlong
2007-11-11, 12:54 AM
I vote for Hit Points as well, especially after seeing that first Welterweight battle.

Partysan
2007-11-11, 04:51 AM
I don't know, I think the vitality system fits. The persons in the series are mostly never really hurt in a fight and recover quite fast.
We could change the system, so that critical hits work normally with multipliers but apply to vitality instead of wound points. Or the critical hits apply to wound points but don't deal their full damage there, that's ridiculus. We have around 14 WP and deal about 80 damage.
However I think it's a good idea to scale down the bender blast damage a bit. Someone mentioned making some seeds to fullround actions, that makes sense to me, too.
-wait: the blast does have 9d6, meaning an average damage of ~32 damage. That is not so much. However I'd agree with making the earth blast 9d4 instead of 9d6.
How about giving the firebender some new seeds with creative uses?

Orzel
2007-11-11, 06:54 AM
I'd reduce earth blast to d4s and give them a super earth blast ability. Earthbenders tend to strike with many small rocks or a one huge rock attack.

As for WP/VP. reduce the blast dice to 1 die on crits.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 09:28 AM
I don't know, I think the vitality system fits. The persons in the series are mostly never really hurt in a fight and recover quite fast.
We could change the system, so that critical hits work normally with multipliers but apply to vitality instead of wound points. Or the critical hits apply to wound points but don't deal their full damage there, that's ridiculus. We have around 14 WP and deal about 80 damage.
But at that point all we have is the HP system with a faster natural healing rate, like I suggested before.


-wait: the blast does have 9d6, meaning an average damage of ~32 damage. That is not so much. However I'd agree with making the earth blast 9d4 instead of 9d6.
How about giving the firebender some new seeds with creative uses?
The problem however, is that it is usable at will to replace an attack. This means it should be balanced to weapon attacks and it is not. Also, the high damage makes it more attractive than using seeds so lowering damage would increase seed use.

@ Orzel - what do you mean by reduce the blast die on crits? Do you mean to lower the actual potential damage?

Xiagu
2007-11-11, 10:22 AM
^ Orzel probably means that it should be only 1 damage per die, i.e. 9d6 to wound = 9 damage, not instant death.


However I think it's a good idea to scale down the bender blast damage a bit. Someone mentioned making some seeds to fullround actions, that makes sense to me, too.
-wait: the blast does have 9d6, meaning an average damage of ~32 damage. That is not so much. However I'd agree with making the earth blast 9d4 instead of 9d6.
How about giving the firebender some new seeds with creative uses?

I suggested fullround actions for earthbenders! :smallbiggrin:

And yeah, as Tataraus said, we get to do 9d8/9d6/9d4 damage 3-4 times a turn, with no per day limit, like casters.

Well, for Firebenders, all we really have is blast damage and some cool ways to modify it. Nerfing the damage progression makes lightning better, though... ...20d6 empowered damage! Except even a maxed out 18 Wis lvl 20 firebender can't automatically succeed on making it all the time...

Maybe a way for Firebenders to control lava, with less penalties than for Earthbenders? Lava seems predominantly fire to me. Ideas?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 10:36 AM
Maybe a way for Firebenders to control lava, with less penalties than for Earthbenders? Lava seems predominantly fire to me. Ideas?

Actually, It seems through the episodes that Firebenders can control lava somewhat while Earthbenders cannon at all.

Of course if damage progression is reduced, all other damage will have to be at least considered to be reduced so we don't change have everyone spamming a certain seed.

Mephibosheth
2007-11-11, 10:44 AM
Here are my thoughts:

HP vs. WP/VP Debate
Why not... do both! I can see merits of both systems, so why don't we just write up a paragraph or so about the various systems and allow DM's to make their own decisions? We can even include a sidebar with Lord Tataraus' faster HP recovery system if we want to. We don't have to pin this down completely.

Reducing Blast Damage
I support it, but I'd almost rather see all blasts deal d6's (yes, I know that I was the one who gave Waterbenders d4 damage dice in the first place, but I've changed my mind :smallbiggrin:) but the progressions vary. I like +1d6 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 for Waterbenders and Earthbenders, and perhaps +1d6 at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 for Firebenders. That way, Waterbenders and Earthbenders cap off at 5d6 and Firebenders cap off at 7d6, still a respectable total but not quite so powerful. Remember that dealing damage is pretty much all Firebenders have going for them, so they should stay pretty powerful in this regard.

Earthbender Balance
I think that, once we reduce the damage output for Earth Blasts, Earthbenders aren't quit as overpowered. I think that reducing the damage dealt by the Catapult seed to 1d6 for every 10 points of the Earthbending check might be a good idea. I'm also having second thoughts about the Head-On Defense ability. It really represents the flavor of the Earthbender's solidity and straight-forward style of combat, but it does eliminate a major weakness of the class at a pretty early level. What about changing the ability to allow the Earthbender to add her Constitution bonus to Reflex saves instead of her Dex bonus? That would be less powerful, but might still keep the flavor.

Immobilization Seeds
The Welterweight battle ended so quickly that this didn't really come into play, but Waterbenders and Earthbenders can end fights just as quickly as direct damage-dealers by using their various methods of immobilization. Earthbenders have Rift, Steady Stance and Immobilize, while Waterbenders can apply the Freeze/Melt seed to pretty much anything (at a very low cost, I might add) to render them equally helpless. I would suggest creating a standard rule for this setting that these type of immobilization abilities do not render an opponent completely helpless (and therefore Coup de Grace-able). If a bender wants to make an opponent completely helpless, it should require a hefty bump in the bending DC, to the tune of +20 or so (imho). This way benders can only automatically render an opponent helpless at 18th level or higher (at the earliest), at which point it's easier to break out and other classes have equally powerful abilities.

Lava Bending
The only time I can remember seeing a bender actually directly control lava, the bender is a Firebender (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/201/906.jpg) (and the Avatar as well). All other times it seems like the benders affect it indirectly, using Earthbending to channel it (http://screenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/306/287.jpg) and block its flow or using Airbendering to cool it down and stop it from moving forward (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/114/832.jpg). I wouldn't be opposed to moving the Lava Flows seed to Firebenders.

Those are my thoughts.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 11:11 AM
HP vs. WP/VP Debate
Why not... do both! I can see merits of both systems, so why don't we just write up a paragraph or so about the various systems and allow DM's to make their own decisions? We can even include a sidebar with Lord Tataraus' faster HP recovery system if we want to. We don't have to pin this down completely.
Great idea! I'll do that, though I'm using the HP system for playtests now so we don't get another Welterweight Battle #1.


Reducing Blast Damage
I support it, but I'd almost rather see all blasts deal d6's (yes, I know that I was the one who gave Waterbenders d4 damage dice in the first place, but I've changed my mind :smallbiggrin:) but the progressions vary. I like +1d6 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 for Waterbenders and Earthbenders, and perhaps +1d6 at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 for Firebenders. That way, Waterbenders and Earthbenders cap off at 5d6 and Firebenders cap off at 7d6, still a respectable total but not quite so powerful. Remember that dealing damage is pretty much all Firebenders have going for them, so they should stay pretty powerful in this regard.
A decent fix. I could agree with this, or have the same progression for all (capping at 5 dice) but up the Firebenders to d8s with Earth and Waterbenders at d6. Just throwing more options out there.


Earthbender Balance
I think that, once we reduce the damage output for Earth Blasts, Earthbenders aren't quit as overpowered. I think that reducing the damage dealt by the Catapult seed to 1d6 for every 10 points of the Earthbending check might be a good idea. I'm also having second thoughts about the Head-On Defense ability. It really represents the flavor of the Earthbender's solidity and straight-forward style of combat, but it does eliminate a major weakness of the class at a pretty early level. What about changing the ability to allow the Earthbender to add her Constitution bonus to Reflex saves instead of her Dex bonus? That would be less powerful, but might still keep the flavor.
I agree with basically all of this. Adding Con mod to reflex is better than replacing it all together, that's just too much, even more powerful than all good saves. Especially since reflex is one of the most used.


Immobilization Seeds
The Welterweight battle ended so quickly that this didn't really come into play, but Waterbenders and Earthbenders can end fights just as quickly as direct damage-dealers by using their various methods of immobilization. Earthbenders have Rift, Steady Stance and Immobilize, while Waterbenders can apply the Freeze/Melt seed to pretty much anything (at a very low cost, I might add) to render them equally helpless. I would suggest creating a standard rule for this setting that these type of immobilization abilities do not render an opponent completely helpless (and therefore Coup de Grace-able). If a bender wants to make an opponent completely helpless, it should require a hefty bump in the bending DC, to the tune of +20 or so (imho). This way benders can only automatically render an opponent helpless at 18th level or higher (at the earliest), at which point it's easier to break out and other classes have equally powerful abilities.
Agreed.


Lava Bending
The only time I can remember seeing a bender actually directly control lava, the bender is a Firebender (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/201/906.jpg) (and the Avatar as well). All other times it seems like the benders affect it indirectly, using Earthbending to channel it (http://screenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/306/287.jpg) and block its flow or using Airbendering to cool it down and stop it from moving forward (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/114/832.jpg). I wouldn't be opposed to moving the Lava Flows seed to Firebenders.
We have yet to see an Earthbender bend lava, but have seen multiple instances of Firebenders bending lava (the Avatar Roku and the Fire Lord episode) I would much rather have Firebenders get that seed.

Lakoda
2007-11-11, 11:19 AM
Since I haven't been annoying today.


We have yet to see an Earthbender bend lava, but have seen multiple instances of Firebenders bending lava (the Avatar Roku and the Fire Lord episode) I would much rather have Firebenders get that seed.

Didn't Fire Lord Ozi (spelling?) pull the heat off of the lava in that episode. It didn't appear that (as a firebender) he could bend the lava directly. This is all speculation on my part, and is just my opinion. I'll be quiet now :smallbiggrin: .

I have a question on the Vit/Wound system thing. What exactly was it's short coming? Couldn't we just modify it to fit the bending world instead of dropping it all together? Sorry if then has been dealt with already, I tried to find discussion on it but couldn't.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 11:26 AM
I have a question on the Vit/Wound system thing. What exactly was it's short coming? Couldn't we just modify it to fit the bending world instead of dropping it all together? Sorry if then has been dealt with already, I tried to find discussion on it but couldn't.

I don't think there was discussion just that battle did not go well. It showed that one lucky roll can instantly kill no matter DR. So your guy with full health just drops dead without even knowing what hit him. Now this isn't a bad thing in the right game, but Avatar does not support it. The only thing close to that was Azura's lightning that nearly (or did) kill Aang but he had been bashed around a lot before hand. The value of it in the first place was purely the fast recovery, but the deadliness of the system seems to be too much to make the heal rate wroth it, especially with high rates of attack. Iy is much easier to have faster natural healing with HP system.

Attilargh
2007-11-11, 12:24 PM
I've begun to have a sneaking suspicion we've been given way too much money in the Arena. 'Benders have very few ways of raising their Blast attack bonus while exceptional armour is so very easy to get. This leads to situations where a 'Bender has to roll numbers around 18 to hit something smaller than the broad side of the arena. Which is kind of a... Bummer.

Xiagu
2007-11-11, 12:43 PM
I've begun to have a sneaking suspicion we've been given way too much money in the Arena. 'Benders have very few ways of raising their Blast attack bonus while exceptional armour is so very easy to get. This leads to situations where a 'Bender has to roll numbers around 18 to hit something smaller than the broad side of the arena. Which is kind of a... Bummer.

^ Yeah, when I see character sheets with +36 attack bonuses while my poor Firebender only has a +19 for blasts, I get rather depressed... :smallfrown: But really, all we can do is burn feats on Weapon Focus(Fire Blast) et al...


Lava Bending
The only time I can remember seeing a bender actually directly control lava, the bender is a Firebender (http://dvdscreenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/201/906.jpg) (and the Avatar as well).
*snip*

This was exactly what I was thinking of when I was talking about lavabending. Earthbenders probably could bend lava; after all, it's just really hot rock, right? If metal is bendable, lava definitely is, as metal is refined and has other stuff done to it, while lava's just really hot.


Didn't Fire Lord Ozi (spelling?) pull the heat off of the lava in that episode. It didn't appear that (as a firebender) he could bend the lava directly. This is all speculation on my part, and is just my opinion. I'll be quiet now :smallbiggrin: .

It's spelled Ozai, but you have the wrong Fire Lord. The Fire Lord who pulled the heat off the lava was Fire Lord Sozin. And I mentioned this before, here:

In the sixth episode of chapter 3, Sozin draws heat away from the lava, sorta like the way Iroh can redirect lightning. This is a little like the Quench use of the Intensity seed, but instead of putting out a fire, you're lowering the intensity, or heat. If this were to be made into a use of Intensity, it would probably either (a) decrease the die size or (b) decrease the number of dice.

You can all see what we're talking about here (http://screenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/306/322.jpg) and here (http://screenshots.avatarspiritmedia.net/306/323.jpg).

Partysan
2007-11-11, 01:11 PM
Yeah, when I see character sheets with +36 attack bonuses while my poor Firebender only has a +19 for blasts, I get rather depressed... But really, all we can do is burn feats on Weapon Focus(Fire Blast) et al...
What do you think I did? It cost me 6 feats and a lot of money to get there, and I don't even have a use for it because of your pathetic AC :smallwink:

TheLogman
2007-11-11, 02:11 PM
Okay, new idea, maybe assign sizes to Earth Blasts, from Tiny all the way to Huge. Their dies per Blast remain the same progression, but every 5 levels, their Blasts (and Die sizes) get larger and larger, from Tiny, (1-4), to Medium (5-9) to Large (10-14) and finally Huge (15-19) and maybe as a Capstone Gargantuan (20)

Mephibosheth
2007-11-11, 02:16 PM
Okay, new idea, maybe assign sizes to Earth Blasts, from Tiny all the way to Huge. Their dies per Blast remain the same progression, but every 5 levels, their Blasts (and Die sizes) get larger and larger, from Tiny, (1-4), to Medium (5-9) to Large (10-14) and finally Huge (15-19) and maybe as a Capstone Gargantuan (20)

An interesting idea, but I think it complicates the issue too much. What happens when an Earthbender is trying to bend in a constricted space? Is the bender limited to a smaller size Earth Blast (and thus, smaller damage)? Plus, weapon size damages scale differently than our blast damage progression, which would make it harder to balance with the rest of the system. It's an interesting idea, but I'm more comfortable with Earthbenders getting a normal damage progression and just saying that the blast gets larger/denser/more powerful/whatever.

Ceiling009
2007-11-11, 03:16 PM
Hmmm... the thing about VP/WP is that in Star Wars, no one got the ability to do more than 3d6 + X per shot of a blaster rifle, with a decent crit range (normally less than 18-20), and most melee weapons were either considered out of use, or exotic, save for the light saber. Now since what you're using here, where the Crit ranges get larger, (especially for things like rapiers and better), and with abilities that broaden even that, of course you're going to have problems. Damage is also another consideration, with WP being Con, getting up above 5d6 is pretty hefty, especially range, even Jedi... wait they do. And to me, when I've played that game, either everyone on the party was a Jedi or no one was a Jedi. In the newest reincarnation of Star Wars, they've removed the VP/WP system, and decided that at first level every one gets 3x their max hit die. Also it seems they get swift actions to heal themselves quite a bit once a day... something about healing a quarter of their HP if they're about half way down...

Lakoda
2007-11-11, 05:38 PM
I don't think there was discussion just that battle did not go well. It showed that one lucky roll can instantly kill no matter DR. So your guy with full health just drops dead without even knowing what hit him. Now this isn't a bad thing in the right game, but Avatar does not support it. The only thing close to that was Azura's lightning that nearly (or did) kill Aang but he had been bashed around a lot before hand. The value of it in the first place was purely the fast recovery, but the deadliness of the system seems to be too much to make the heal rate wroth it, especially with high rates of attack. Iy is much easier to have faster natural healing with HP system.

Use vit/wound but don't make crits drain from wound, have them work like normal from vit. Seems kind of odd but gaining more HP as you aged never made much sense to me in first place. :smallwink: Just my two cents.

Darkbane
2007-11-11, 06:46 PM
The problem with that method is it ends up acting just like the normal HP system, with the added complication of WP.

Lakoda
2007-11-11, 06:49 PM
True... but the complication might be worth the faster healing and all. Also, that might be a reason to give a little less vit.

Xiagu
2007-11-11, 07:28 PM
Okay, I'm going to step in and give my slightly biased opinion, after my quick defeat:
Firebenders need a better BAB.

Look at our character sheets; I have a puny final attack bonus of +25/+20/+15, while Tataraus has +33/+28/+23/+18, and Partysan has +36/+31/+26/+21! Something's wrong when other classes can get attack bonuses higher than your armor class. Upping Firebender's BAB wouldn't fix this, but it would give them a fighting chance...

All the benders are plauged by their measly 'average' BAB, which goes up to +15. Even with a big Dexterity score, it probably won't even go above +20. Without magical enhancements, you may need to roll a 16 or higher just to hit someone. Couple that with the Ocean Sentinel and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3502277&postcount=15) is what you get... *shudder*


Reducing Blast Damage
I support it, but I'd almost rather see all blasts deal d6's (yes, I know that I was the one who gave Waterbenders d4 damage dice in the first place, but I've changed my mind :smallbiggrin:) but the progressions vary. I like +1d6 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 for Waterbenders and Earthbenders, and perhaps +1d6 at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 for Firebenders. That way, Waterbenders and Earthbenders cap off at 5d6 and Firebenders cap off at 7d6, still a respectable total but not quite so powerful. Remember that dealing damage is pretty much all Firebenders have going for them, so they should stay pretty powerful in this regard.

This looks okay with me; it also keeps Firebenders where they should be in damage progression, at the top. Currently, they're kind of lacking in the attack department... Giving them a good BAB will balance them with the slightly nerfed earthbender, and all the blast damage will be nerfed anyways, so it won't be a big damage increase.

But until us Firebenders have more interesting seeds, direct damage is going to be all we've got, and why shouldn't we be the best at it? Besides, fluff-wise fire is one of the 'fast' elements.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-11, 07:41 PM
I think the benders need to up the class defense and I would agree with firebenders getting full BAB, but only if they get the same damage as the other benders. Though, part of your problem Xiagu was attacking an OS in melee, never attack a counter build. A bender's strength is in range.

Xiagu
2007-11-11, 07:52 PM
Psssh, if I had a higher BAB I would have gotten the following:
Attack Rolls: (hitting attacks in red)
Sword #1 Attack 1 - (1d20+28)[11](39)
Sword #1 Attack 2 - (1d20+23)[9](32)
Sword #1 Attack 3 - (1d20+18)[12](30)
Sword #2 Attack 1 - (1d20+28)[19](47)
Sword #2 Attack 2 - (1d20+23)[7](30)
Sword #2 Attack 3 - (1d20+18)[9](27)

Damage Rolls: (1d6 sword + 9d6 Fire Blast + sword extra damage, so DR applies to the first roll + extra damage) (missed rolls & die rolls removed)
Sword #1 Damage 1 - (10d6+5)(41)
Sword #1 Damage 2 - (10d6+5)(48)
Sword #2 Damage 1 - (10d6+4)(43)

Sum, including DR and that crit I got, is:
41 - 7 = 34 damage
48 - 7 = 41
50 - 7 = 43 damage
Sum is 118 damage. Consider yourself pwnt! :smallbiggrin:
You would have been at 2 hp. No, I think my problem was attacking an OS in melee and not rolling well enough to kill him before he acted. :smallbiggrin:

@V: True, but you still can't go above +21 as your ranged BAB with only an 'average' BAB.

GryffonDurime
2007-11-11, 07:59 PM
Zen Archery is a golden feat for Benders.

Attilargh
2007-11-12, 03:37 AM
Zen Archery is a trap, as 'Benders need Dexterity for AC, Reflex Saves, Tumble and Balance. With a high point buy, one's Wisdom will be only marginally better than one's Dexterity, and the feat won't pay itself off.

Of course, the other feats that actually help 'Benders aren't that much better.

Partysan
2007-11-12, 09:55 AM
I don't think any bender should have full BAB.
While I understand your tactics it WAS a critical thing to go into melee with a dedicated melee class while beeing lets call it a gish yourself. He has full BAB because he can't do anything else but fight. You can bend.
Bzt I raelly think that fierbenders should get some additional Seeds. Maybe I'll try to be creative.

Mephibosheth
2007-11-12, 10:58 AM
I agree that we shouldn't give benders full BAB. I think one of the main reasons benders (esp. Firebenders) were having such a hard time hitting anything was that, (iirc) for the purposes of the playtesting battles, class defense bonus and AC bonuses from armor stacked. The class defense bonus system wasn't balanced to accommodate stacking armor bonuses and class defense bonuses, which combined with the large amounts of gold to result in pretty ridiculous armor classes.

Partysan
2007-11-12, 11:04 AM
Yes, hitting is difficult. But that actually fits the avatar feeling quite well, as in the series benders of equal level fighting each other would not hit each other very often.
However I would not let the masterwork bonus give an automatical AC bonus, that's just too much. The stacking of AC bonus and armor is not so much the problem but the masterwork triples the AC bonus of the armor atm.

Attilargh
2007-11-12, 11:57 AM
Doesn't work all that well, as not hitting just draws combats to absurd lengths. I don't care if an episode is 20 minutes long, I do not want to roll dice all that time. Besides, we must remember that neither hit nor vitality points measure the amount of blood you can lose or ribs you can get broken. While not-hitting someone with a fireball for 3d6 points of damage might (and does) feel a bit absurd, hitting someone with that same fireball would get so ugly we'd have to move Avatar into a late-night timeslot way off Nick.

With the current gear rules, the ACs have gotten pumped so high that my Firebender can not hit the opposing Wind Warrior without rolling natural 20. Which is of course not a problem for him, because he can splunk the money on über-masterwork fans that utterly negate any bonuses my armour might give me. The problem is not with the 'Benders' medium BAB, it's the absurdly divine gear that is way out of place in a setting where the main characters steal their threads off some poor guy's clothesline.

Rogue 7
2007-11-12, 12:02 PM
Agreed. There was significant confusion (at least on my part) about the way the mastercrafting system and whatnot worked, combined with the stacking, made for crazy stuff. I don't hit Darkbane on anything but a 17+, I think. If I was running the system (not that Lord T's not doing a good job), I'd just use the straight-up D&D system for armor, instead of the variants most of us haven't worked with before.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 12:42 PM
And all of the above is why I keep trying to balance the masterwork system. I've recently added this rule:


In the avatar world, all weapons, armor and tools can gain up to 5 levels of masterwork. This levels are as follows in order: Item of... Masterwork, Renown, Fame, Glory, Legend. All bonuses that the masterwork quality applies are multiplied by the level of masterwork of the item. Additional levels of masterwork cannot be gained, only created as such. Masterwork levels grant armor and shields a +1 bonus to AC per level and grant weapons a +1 to hit per level. The base cost of masterwork applied to armor and shields is now 300gp. You must meet the prerequisite level to benefit from a certain level of masterwork as shown by the table below.

{table=head]Character Level|Maximum Masterwork Level

1-3|
1


4-7|
2


8-11|
3


12-16|
4


17-20|
5

[/table]
Emphasis mine.

ErrantX
2007-11-12, 01:32 PM
Well, having gone over the playtests and read people's responses, this is my weigh in on things.

Bender damage needs to be pulled back a little, as Meph said here:

Reducing Blast Damage
I support it, but I'd almost rather see all blasts deal d6's (yes, I know that I was the one who gave Waterbenders d4 damage dice in the first place, but I've changed my mind ) but the progressions vary. I like +1d6 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 for Waterbenders and Earthbenders, and perhaps +1d6 at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 for Firebenders. That way, Waterbenders and Earthbenders cap off at 5d6 and Firebenders cap off at 7d6, still a respectable total but not quite so powerful. Remember that dealing damage is pretty much all Firebenders have going for them, so they should stay pretty powerful in this regard.

I think that's fair and workable still, bender's blasts are a lot like a warlock's eldritch blast and they can only do that once per round. I'd consider increasing those damage die pools by 1d6 each, so at level 1 it's 2d6 and so on. Also, I agree that the DCs for rendering something helpless should be increased by at least +15, if not more. Being the victim of a coup de grace in round 2 fighting an Earthbender or Waterbender would suck. The Earthbender nerfs are also acceptable.

As much as I want to say that the mastercraft stuff is viable, it may not be in the end. Especially with the Armor as DR rule and Class Defense bonus. Either we need to pick either normal AC rules and use Mastercraft like you've designed Tataraus, or we need to drop it back (or at the very least scale it differently) and use the RAW so unless the AC bonus (half of the Armor's listed bonus mind you, the other half is DR) is higher than your Class Defense total bonus, you get diddly squat from it except for DR. And I'm fine with that, personally. But the stacking has got to stop.

Meph said it best when he said we should allow DM's to use either HP or V/W, though I will still stubbornly insist that V/W is the better option for our setting.

Also, as Martial Artists get full BAB, are they just out and out replacing fighter? If not, I'd suggest putting Martial Artist down to 3/4 BAB and not completely rob the fighter of all of his dignity. The vast array of powers that the Martial Artist gets are overall better than fighter bonus feats if they have full BAB. If the consensus has been reached that fighter is gone, then whatever I guess. But I don't think fighter should go away, and to help balance out the vast cheese-factor capability of the Martial Artist (as we've seen in playtest), I'd say ramp back their BAB. The fighter needs to have something to be worthwhile, especially with Martial Artists being able to take fighter only feats (which I'd remove as well).

-X

Ceiling009
2007-11-12, 02:11 PM
I think the general consensus on the Martial Artist (at least the point) was to replace the Fighter, and in fact even the Ranger. The only close combat classes not replaced are the Rogue and the Barbarian; As Rogues have more than just a striker role, and Barbarians are quite different enough that they can stay.

About Armor and Class Defense Bonus; I do like choose one or the other more; with the condition that you can at least take a feat or some class ability that allows for at least half the Armor Class Value to stack with Class bonus. It makes for a more costly investment than the armor cost, cause really in this setting, (well according to canon) many people don't wear armor, and many of the best fighting individuals we've seen never wear armor, and if they do; it's light at best (maybe medium for a few).

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 02:16 PM
First off, the Martial Artist is meant to replace all melee classes (rogue doesn't count as melee). The fighter is crap and I've never liked it so above all else, fighter is gone. Though Eighth Seraph is making another class(es) to be a variant to the Martial Artist. Of course the Martial Artist will be balanced based on the cheese presented in the playtest.

As for the AC issue, I am thinking of removing the stacking or having armor grant only DR and you get your class defense bonus as the only AC boost. If the latter option is chosen, then the masterwork levels will not grant AC boost (obviously).

Any comment on the above?

Edit: The MA doesn't replace Barb either, though I don't know if it fits in the setting.

Rogue 7
2007-11-12, 02:24 PM
Stand Still has made it difficult for me to do anything against the Ocean Sentinel, and he closed before I could make a move. This may be a function of the arena, but the fact that benders are useless close in, combined with stand still's ability to keep them close, is more than a little annoying. I can't judge whether or not it's overpowered, though.

ErrantX
2007-11-12, 02:25 PM
Good to know about the dropping of fighter. I don't agree with it, but I can go with it just the same. I know a lot of people have no love for fighter (I don't understand why, I love fighter :smallfrown: ) and either give it nifty new things to spruce it up or replace them all together with martial disciples from ToB.

I'm glad we're in agreement on the AC thing and armor thing, and yeah, the MW bonuses would just add DR and reduce penalties. Works for me.

@Ceiling009:

I don't know if I'd want to have a feat or class feature that would allow the stacking, that's really powerful at any level. That and everyone would take it. It's too good not to.

-X

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 02:28 PM
Stand Still has made it difficult for me to do anything against the Ocean Sentinel, and he closed before I could make a move. This may be a function of the arena, but the fact that benders are useless close in, combined with stand still's ability to keep them close, is more than a little annoying. I can't judge whether or not it's overpowered, though.

Because your playing the bender wrong against a melee class. A bender's strength is control and range. That's how I killed the Firebender so fast, he went into melee, however, if he kept his distance and blasted with fewer attacks from range, he would have killed me faster than I killed him.

Darkbane
2007-11-12, 02:29 PM
Also, tripping is very effective against benders. I haven't pulled it off yet, but if I do, Galon gets a -10 to bending, a -4 to AC, and he can't get up without provoking another AoO.

Edit: And the reason he's in melee is because I used my first action to run all the way across the arena to close with him.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 02:34 PM
Also, tripping is very effective against benders. I haven't pulled it off yet, but if I do, Galon gets a -10 to bending, a -4 to AC, and he can't get up without provoking another AoO.

Edit: And the reason he's in melee is because I used my first action to run all the way across the arena to close with him.

True, that's why he should strategize with his melee team mate to help him retreat, then have the melee-er keep you from advancing and he can provide support.

Ceiling009
2007-11-12, 02:35 PM
I know it's really good, and everyone would take it, but then that's at a cost of feat that they could go elsewhere. Since fighters are gone, most classes only have 8 feats to choose from, and granting that everyone chooses that feat, then only 7. You play a bender, you have to choose skill focus or you're rather useless, so now only 6. The problem may now lie with the style focus of the MA, where you choose a style and you basically replace a lot of feats with those styles; so as they level along they can choose other feats that may enhance their current style set or be a complete set of other abilities, like being ranged proficient; while being a MBF. Which in Standard DND is a lot harder than it seems.

Partysan
2007-11-12, 02:57 PM
1. About Armor, I'll repeat: The stacking of armor and Defense Bonus is not the problem. The problem is, that the armor does have not +3 but +8 AC due to the mastercrafting. That's why I'd say just remove the automatic AC bonus from the mastercraft and you're fine.

2. I support the MA replacing the fighter, however we could try to make a style that gets some bonus feats, if all people want so. (though the MA gets already 3 of them)

Archangel Yuki
2007-11-12, 03:19 PM
I might of missed this, but when I was looking at ves. 1.0, it listed lesser, normal, and greater seeds, while the 2.0 post shows no such things. Were they done away with?

Darkbane
2007-11-12, 04:00 PM
V. 1 had specific bending forms, each of which did something special, modeled after the warlock. V. 2.0 moves away from the warlock, replacing the forms with combinable seeds, all of which is governed by a skill check.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-12, 04:10 PM
As for the AC issue, I am thinking of removing the stacking or having armor grant only DR and you get your class defense bonus as the only AC boost. If the latter option is chosen, then the masterwork levels will not grant AC boost (obviously).

Any comment on the above?


I would really like some input on the quoted proposals. Thoughts?

Also, remember that this is a thread to discuss benders only, not MA. If you do have questions/comments/whatever please post them in the Martial Artist thread to prevent derailment of this thread.
Thank you.

ErrantX
2007-11-12, 04:25 PM
I second it. Remove the stacking and I say no stacking feat.

-X

Uthug
2007-11-13, 10:04 AM
I third it. Give some thought to the poor airbender. His dodge bonus is supposed to be an advantage for him in addition to his class bonus, but now, almost every other bender can have armor that gives much more AC than the Airbender's dodge bonus. At almost every level.

Edit: And they lose it once they're flat-footed, as demonstrated in the Lightweight battle 1, while the rest sit there laughing in their masterworked armor.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-13, 10:08 AM
Just to clarify, X and Uthug, you are agreeing to the removing the stacking, but not to removing the AC bonus from armors, correct?

Uthug
2007-11-13, 10:15 AM
Well yes. I'm quite sure that it'd probably balence out quite nicely, so that Earthbenders can wear their masterworked full plates and lose their class defence bonus while the airbender can have his class defence bonus and dodge bonuses. This also works quite well with your level limit for stacking levels of masterwork, though I'm not sure how that would work in campaigns as masterwork weapons have to be created that way. It would be just funny to have players dump their weapons every couple of levels.

ErrantX
2007-11-13, 12:51 PM
Just to clarify, X and Uthug, you are agreeing to the removing the stacking, but not to removing the AC bonus from armors, correct?

Stacking is bad, and I'd remove the MW AC bonus from armor (just adding it to the overall DR) and keep it on shields (as it's a shield bonus).

-X

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-13, 01:02 PM
So how about:
Masterwork armor gains bonus AC or DR based on additional masterwork levels. If the base DR of the armor is less than the AC, increase the DR with the first and third masterwork levels and AC with the second, fourth and fifth masterwork levels. Otherwise, increase the AC with the first, third and fifth masterwork levels and the DR with the second and fourth masterwork levels.

A bit confusing maybe, but it has some balance to it, what do you think? Or should we just go back to normal masterwork rules for armor?

ErrantX
2007-11-13, 01:35 PM
Play test your idea, it might work. The traditional rule is simply you take the AC value of the armor (bonuses included) and divide by 2. Half goes to AC and the other to DR, lowest to DR. The staggering might simply be just that.

-X

Mephibosheth
2007-11-13, 02:08 PM
I support the idea of reverting to the RAW of the Class Defense Bonus system (i.e. armor bonus and class defense bonus don't stack).

I'm not sure how I feel about the masterworking system we're using at the moment. On the one hand, it does allow for some enhancing items while maintaining the non-magical nature of the system. On the other hand, it still seems to money-dependent. There's really very little equipment dependency in the show, and I think we should incorporate that into our system, not only in the interest of accuracy but also in the interest of balance. If we limit wealth more severely, we won't get the massively-high AC's we're seeing in the playtesting battles.

Lakoda
2007-11-13, 02:45 PM
I wanted to see what others thought about the MW system before I pipped in (and subsequently mad a fool of myself). I like the MW system especially for a low/no magic environment like the Avatar-verse. However like Mephibosheth the show isn't item dependent. The MW/CMS bonus system solves some issues that would otherwise need to be addressed - not major concerns, just points of interest.

1. money sink/rescaling
2. meaningful rewards for players
3. mechanisms for classes to "de-specialize" a little (like a Wind Warrior adding some means to acquire some protection from Fire...or anything for that matter)
4. along the same lines as the previous point; mechanisms to avoid cookie-cutter characters....less of a problem for benders, feats often aren't enough as you don't interact when them as visually as armor/weapons or other special items.

Of these, I think 2 & 4 are the most important .... look at how pivotal Sokka's sword was for his character or how important Katara's mother's waterbender betrothal choker is for her. Unfortunately for balance a lot of players (and certainly their characters) identify a lot with their items/gear.

Whatever the group decides to go forwards with I have a good feeling that this group can make it work for my concerns as well.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-13, 03:39 PM
I support the idea of reverting to the RAW of the Class Defense Bonus system (i.e. armor bonus and class defense bonus don't stack).

I'm not sure how I feel about the masterworking system we're using at the moment. On the one hand, it does allow for some enhancing items while maintaining the non-magical nature of the system. On the other hand, it still seems to money-dependent. There's really very little equipment dependency in the show, and I think we should incorporate that into our system, not only in the interest of accuracy but also in the interest of balance. If we limit wealth more severely, we won't get the massively-high AC's we're seeing in the playtesting battles.

Have you ever noticed how much money is talked about in the show? Seriously, they mention it a lot. Also, whats wrong with having the PCs earn it like Sokka did? I wouldn't say he has the ranks or feats to make masterwork weapons, but it was his master that did the crafting and based on what was said about him earlier, I'd say he can make very masterwork weapons. Also, you can just have the weapon "reforged" to a higher quality by paying the difference in cost as if you sold your sword and bought a new one, but fluff-wise it was just reworked into better quality. As for the small equipment dependency, I'd say that's due to everyone except Sokka being a bender, they are like casters and don't need equipment as much.

levi
2007-11-13, 04:43 PM
Armor Class

I've never like the RAW armor as DR system. Which is kinda odd because I agree with the idea in princible, but not in practice.

I understand that standard DnD's armor class system is pretty rediculous, but I accept that because the entire combat system is rather abstracted and it's simply an extension of that. It may be kinda silly and requires some special rules (like touch attacks) and a bit of creativity to imagine the results of some combat rolls, but it works.

I also agree with the reasoning for armor as damage reduction instead. In reality, armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to damage. In fact, it almost always makes you easier to hit. So armor as DR makes a lot of sense.

However, the Unearthed Arcana rules don't go all the way. For whatever reason, it was decided that armor should make you harder to hit and harder to damage. This makes absolutely no sense. It abandons the simplistic abstraction of baseline DnD, only to replace it with a more complex system that doesn't really do what the variant is supposed to, represent armor in more realistic fashion.

What ought to be done is to use a system where armor grants damage reduction only. This makes much more sense. Due to the max Dex bonus to AC, armor actually makes you easier to hit, and the DR makes you harder to damage.

Of course, at this point "Armor Class" is a silly name for that particular stat, so you simply do like Star Wars did and call it Defense. Since armor no longer grants Defense, the concept of touch attacks becomes nearly redudant and the character's number of seperate Defense stats is reduced from four to two. Overall, it actually simplifies the combat system a great deal.

In this system, Defense is strictly limited. The max Defense you can have is 10 + Dex Mod + Size Mod + Class Defense + Misc Bonuses. As we're going all human at this point, size mod is redundant. Therefore only class defense and misc defense bonuses need to be considered for balancing perposes.

Also, as firebenders are the only class that does energy damage (and therefore bypasses DR), they gain a small boost as well.

Hit Points

While I am generally a fan of the Wounds/Vitality system, I have to agree that Avatar is closer to a Hit Points system. People shrug off massive ammount of damage and only get injured by plot damage.

What I would recommend is a system based on Hit Points with a faster natural healing rate. Also, a character should only be considered physically injured in a serious way when they hit negative HP. At that point some sort of system would be needed to specify exactly what that means, but I think it'd work well. This is epic beyond even baseline DnD, but I think it'd function nicely for a highly cinematic setting like Avatar.

Bender Balance

Fire benders are what MMO players call a DPS class. They've got nothing else going for them. Therefor they should be the best. In fact, they should signifigantly out damage all other sorts of benders.

Immobilization should be difficult to do well. In other words, at low DCs it should be relatively easy to avoid and/or escape from and not render the subject helpless. At higher DCs more powerfull entrapments should be availible. Inducing a Helpless or otherwise effectively fatal state should have a really high DC, such as only doable at around 17th level and above.

Earthbenders have the largest collection of seeds and a lot of other things in thier favor. This could definetly be toned down a bit. Although, the number of seeds for the other classes should be increased, rather than reducing the Earthbenders because the existing seeds cover earthbending techniques pretty well. (Except sandbending, my pet style. Arg.)

However, lava-bending does seem a bit non-earthbender. Based on what little canon material we have on lava-bending, I'd venture that it's a multi-style technique and, thus, only usable by the Avatar. (Furthmore lava does massive damage, so keeping it out of the hands of PCs is desireable.)

Equipment

As I've stated before, I still think mastercrafting should be combined with crafsmanship to create a system where all bonuses are bought individually and none are automatic.

Also, I think the wealth by level guidelines should be compleatly scrapped. DnD is very item heavy. Avatar is very item light. PC wealth should be miniscule by DnD standards and items beyond mundane should be very expensive. Items should be used more for plot advancement and characterization than as simply another stat boost.

I'd venture that mastercraft anything is quite rare. (And usually non-combat stuff like masterwork Pai Sho sets.) Higher levels would be priceless, like artifacts in DnD.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-13, 05:14 PM
levi - I agree with most of your points, in fact I only disagree with two of them:
1 - Armor actually does make you harder to hit, but not as much as normal AC leads one to believe. Of course to use a weapon properly one learns where to hit the opponent, but still, limited targets armor creates is a hefty bonus.

2 -
I'd venture that mastercraft anything is quite rare. (And usually non-combat stuff like masterwork Pai Sho sets.) Higher levels would be priceless, like artifacts in DnD.If one uses the masterwork system as I have set up, normal masterwork is actually quite common. Its not yet custom made, but the higher quality stuff. Items of Renown are the custom-made stuff and are more uncommon, but still known widely. Items of Fame are, well, famous. These are items created by the best of the craftsmen. Items of Glory are near legendary, probably made by someone in ages passed and only one every century can get to that quality. And items of legend are, well, legendary; a quality only the great X of Y could create and is a priceless artifact.

That's my views.

Uthug
2007-11-14, 06:28 AM
Maybe the reason for this is that in the setting, why high levels of masterwork are uncommon is because in a war period, the focus is on quantity, not quality, AKA fire nation troops. All the good quality stuff should logically go to the leaders/heroes of the setting, like the firelord? Though I'm not sure whether he actually wears armor. Thus, if the PCs were supposed to save the day or do some other tremendous deed, I think that they would logically be provided with the means to complete the task and some equipment to aid them in their quest.

Well that didn't really contribute anything to the discussion, just my personal opinion.

I think that if armor provides DR, it should be against certain types of damage. For example, a chainshirt might provide defense against slashing weapons but might not prevent a piercing weapon like a rapier from penetrating it. Or maybe I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe specific weapons might have the capability to penetrate the DR offered by certain armors instead. This makes more sense as you can't really expect a wall of spikes to penetrate a chainmail the same way a rapier does? Of course, this complicates matters much more.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-14, 12:40 PM
Well, Uthug, that might be possible, assuming we take into account only the core armors then it would look something like this:
{table=head]
Armor|
Category|
AC|
DR

Padded|Light|+1|none
Leather|Light|+1|1/slashing or bludgeoning
Studded leather|Light|+2|1/slashing or bludgeoning
Chain shirt|Light|+2|2/bludgeoning
Hide|Medium|+2|1/slashing or bludgeoning
Scale mail|Medium|+2|2/piercing
Chainmail|Medium|+3|2/slashing or bludgeoning
Breastplate|Medium|+3|2/piercing
Splint mail|Heavy|+3|3/piercing
Banded mail|Heavy|+3|3/-
Half-plate|Heavy|+4|3/-
Full plate|Heavy|+4|4/-
[/table]

Rogue 7
2007-11-14, 02:22 PM
Something I've noticed about the firebender's flame wall seed- it's an automatic 2d6 area effect damage, unlimited by uses per day. That strikes me as slightly unbalanced at low levels- there's never any incentive to use anything else.

Attilargh
2007-11-14, 02:46 PM
If I had a decent chance of hitting, trust me, I would use Fire Blasts. Potential 6d6 damage per round? Yes please. Heck, if your character stood still for a few rounds, I could even come in and Fire Sweep his face off. :smalltongue:

However, Wall of Fire is a bit problematic. I would personally give the targets a Reflex save for half, and nix the tertiary damage which makes the area of effect really hard to manage while still being pretty much useless.

Rogue 7
2007-11-14, 02:51 PM
I agree on the reflex save- that should solve a lot of trouble.
6d6'll pretty much kill me in one round is my problem. Also, it's tough to move when giant water tentacles keep slamming into you.

Eighth_Seraph
2007-11-14, 05:13 PM
Alright. Now, I've only read the first page due to time constraints, but I like that there's serious thought going into this. Since I generally won't have time to go through all of your consensuses, I'd like to request occasional posts on the main thread telling me what I need to fix. One thing that I did see was the Lava Flows seed and its relations to firebenders. I'm surprised I didn't put that in beforehand, since the Nickelodeon site officially names it "a firebender's greatest technique", comparable to bloodbending for waterbenders. I'll add it to the firebender seed list.

Please let me know of any other decisions you guys come to.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-14, 05:52 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there has been consensus made to make the following changes as presented by Mephibosheth:


Reducing Blast Damage
I support it, but I'd almost rather see all blasts deal d6's (yes, I know that I was the one who gave Waterbenders d4 damage dice in the first place, but I've changed my mind :smallbiggrin:) but the progressions vary. I like +1d6 at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 for Waterbenders and Earthbenders, and perhaps +1d6 at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 for Firebenders. That way, Waterbenders and Earthbenders cap off at 5d6 and Firebenders cap off at 7d6, still a respectable total but not quite so powerful. Remember that dealing damage is pretty much all Firebenders have going for them, so they should stay pretty powerful in this regard.

Earthbender Balance
I think that, once we reduce the damage output for Earth Blasts, Earthbenders aren't quit as overpowered. I think that reducing the damage dealt by the Catapult seed to 1d6 for every 10 points of the Earthbending check might be a good idea. I'm also having second thoughts about the Head-On Defense ability. It really represents the flavor of the Earthbender's solidity and straight-forward style of combat, but it does eliminate a major weakness of the class at a pretty early level. What about changing the ability to allow the Earthbender to add her Constitution bonus to Reflex saves instead of her Dex bonus? That would be less powerful, but might still keep the flavor.

Immobilization Seeds
The Welterweight battle ended so quickly that this didn't really come into play, but Waterbenders and Earthbenders can end fights just as quickly as direct damage-dealers by using their various methods of immobilization. Earthbenders have Rift, Steady Stance and Immobilize, while Waterbenders can apply the Freeze/Melt seed to pretty much anything (at a very low cost, I might add) to render them equally helpless. I would suggest creating a standard rule for this setting that these type of immobilization abilities do not render an opponent completely helpless (and therefore Coup de Grace-able). If a bender wants to make an opponent completely helpless, it should require a hefty bump in the bending DC, to the tune of +20 or so (imho). This way benders can only automatically render an opponent helpless at 18th level or higher (at the earliest), at which point it's easier to break out and other classes have equally powerful abilities.
Emphasis mine on the crunchy changes.
In light of Eighth Seraph's last post here, I'd like to get a green light to post these changes to be made as determined by the play-test analysis group.

So, at least five green lights I post, at least three red lights and we go with more discussion.

ErrantX
2007-11-14, 06:19 PM
I green light the changes, I think they would go towards balancing out the battle sculpting powers of the Earthbenders, even out the damage between them and Firebenders, and give Waterbenders a little more oomph.

-X

levi
2007-11-15, 12:14 AM
Armor actually does make you harder to hit, but not as much as normal AC leads one to believe.

Um, how? A person in armor is at best as mobile as an unarmored person, and quite likely less mobile. Therefore, they are easier to hit. One could say that they are harder to hit effectively. This is the usual justification for AC in general. However, DR also makes one harder to hit effectively and does so without making you harder to hit.


Of course to use a weapon properly one learns where to hit the opponent, but still, limited targets armor creates is a hefty bonus.

Well, to simulate that sort of thing, we'd need targeted shots, partial armor, and all that jazz. Don't go there.

RE Masterwork Stuffz

You do have a point. Well thought out.

Mephibosheth
2007-11-15, 12:24 AM
Green light!





What, did you expect me to red light the changes I suggested?

Ceiling009
2007-11-15, 12:51 AM
Hmmm... Green light those changes.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-15, 01:07 AM
*snip*

So as not to derail the thread, I suggest you research how armor really works. I am not an expert and not qualified to explain it to you, I can only insist what I say is true then rub it in your face once you yield to the fact of what I say is true :smalltongue:

On topic, I've got 3 greens and no reds, keep 'em coming. Also, any comment on the bypassing changes to armor as shown above? Or we can ignore it as unnecessarily complex for our purposes.

Xiagu
2007-11-15, 09:43 PM
Green light the reduction in blast damage and balancing the earthbender, and that bit about immobilization not rendering you completely helpless...

...but I'd like to see more discussion before an arbitrary +20 DC for immobilization gets ruled in...

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-16, 12:22 AM
...but I'd like to see more discussion before an arbitrary +20 DC for immobilization gets ruled in...

Fair enough, I'll leave the actual DC change up to the posters in the bender thread.

levi
2007-11-16, 07:23 AM
So as not to derail the thread, I suggest you research how armor really works. I am not an expert and not qualified to explain it to you, I can only insist what I say is true then rub it in your face once you yield to the fact of what I say is true :smalltongue:

Given your smilely, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that. However, people have mentioned that there seems to be some issues with the current set of rules being used for armor, so I don't think discussing would really be derailing the thread.

Perhaps my ideas are totally out to lunch, or perhaps people would prefer to use an official variant of some sort rather than creating a new one, or perhaps there are balance issues that my ideas wouldn't properly correct. But a reasoned discussion is the best way to handle this sort of thing, rather than brushing off what I see as a legitimate suggestion to address a legitimate balance consern that some members have commented on.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-16, 08:51 AM
Given your smilely, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that. However, people have mentioned that there seems to be some issues with the current set of rules being used for armor, so I don't think discussing would really be derailing the thread.

Perhaps my ideas are totally out to lunch, or perhaps people would prefer to use an official variant of some sort rather than creating a new one, or perhaps there are balance issues that my ideas wouldn't properly correct. But a reasoned discussion is the best way to handle this sort of thing, rather than brushing off what I see as a legitimate suggestion to address a legitimate balance consern that some members have commented on.

The smiley was to signify that the "rub it in your face" part was a joke. As for the whole armor thing, considering no one else has mentioned anything about it, I assume that it is considered irrelevant by the group as a whole and does really fix anything. Remember that realistic is not exactly what we need. Also, I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the topic to argue my side, I only know basic stuff.

levi
2007-11-16, 12:40 PM
As for the whole armor thing, considering no one else has mentioned anything about it, I assume that it is considered irrelevant by the group as a whole and does really fix anything.

No one else mentioned armor issues? The entire second page is almost entirelty about how ACs where too high. With the alternative I suggested, armor dosn't grant AC at all, so the stacking of armor and defense bonuses would be a non-issue.

Also, with Firebenders being the only ones dealing enegy damage, they'd be the only ones who could bybass DR and several people felt that Firebending needed an increase in damage output. In effect they, they would have.


Remember that realistic is not exactly what we need. Also, I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the topic to argue my side, I only know basic stuff.

Ok, I'm cool with that. Forget realism. I'd argue that "armor as damage reduction only" works better for the setting from a game mechanics perspective.

As it was decided to use the Defense Bonus variant, armor class can be quite good without using any armor at all. This is a good thing as it accurately reflects the setting, in which armor isn't worn by many people.

However, as armor dosn't do a whole lot at this point, it was also decided to use the Armor as DR variant. (At least, I presume that was the reasoning.) This is good as it provides those characters that do wear armor something unavailble to those that do not.

It was also decided to allow Armor Bonuses and Defense Bonuses to stack. I presume the reasoning was that with the lower Armor Bonuses provided by the variant, the resulting ACs wouldn't be overly high.

While that may have been the case, a pleathora of enhanced armor was purchased and the resulting ACs where too high as many posters on this thread agreed. A solution was clearly needed.

I suggested that armor not provide any boost to AC because that would render the stacking issue moot. Furthermore, it provides a clearly defined game function for armor, rather than the current dual functions armor provides. It provides a handy boost to martial characters that choose to focus on survivability over mobility, while not being a "required" peice of equipment like it is in DnD. I belive this accuratly reflects the setting.

Anyway, this is your show and you've apparently decided to persue other solutions. I'm not trying to be abrasive, but the way you've brushed off my idea without being willing to argue as to why rather annoys me. As you're not willing to discuss it, this will be my last post on the subject unless someone else brings it up. (I hope this dosn't come across as a flame, it's not intended to be.)

Keep up the good work.

P.S. I green light the suggested changes.

Mephibosheth
2007-11-16, 01:49 PM
I'd like to see more discussion before an arbitrary +20 DC for immobilization gets ruled in...

Originally my -20 figure was just an estimate, something to spur discussion. However, the more I think about it, the more I like that number (or -15 at the very lowest). Looking at the classes, the easiest way to immobilize someone is to combine Water Blast (DC 5) with Freeze/Melt (DC 5), requiring a DC 14 Waterbending check. A Waterbender with a Wisdom of 14 can take 10 and succeed every time at level 1. With seeds like the Earthbender's Immobilize or Rift and the Waterbender's Wave the DC's get higher, but are never completely beyond the pale. If we impose a really steep penalty, we make it so that benders have to roll a bending check to succeed almost every time, a situation I support. Thus, in order to render someone helpless, an Earthbender would have to make an Earthbending check of at least 45 (DC 25 for Immobilize [Capture], -20 to render helpless), and a Waterbender would have to make a DC 44 Waterbending check to use Wave to immobilize (DC 15 for the seed, DC 5 for Freeze/Melt, DC 4 to combine for a total of DC 24, -20 to completely immobilize). In either case, only an extremely high level bender would be able to take 10, and most would still have to roll even at level 20.

I could see a -15 penalty also being appropriate, but if we want to severely limit these auto-win coup de grace chances, a hefty penalty will be necessary.

Incidentally, were I DM, I would rule that the Water Blast/Freeze combo cannot render anyone helpless. Either the attacker has to chip through the ice to attack (ruining the helpless condition) or there's not enough water involved to result in complete helplessness.

ErrantX
2007-11-16, 02:19 PM
Incidentally, were I DM, I would rule that the Water Blast/Freeze combo cannot render anyone helpless. Either the attacker has to chip through the ice to attack (ruining the helpless condition) or there's not enough water involved to result in complete helplessness.

I agree, the DC should be increased by 20 (15 at minimum) and I would also say that there's simply not enough water involved to result in complete helplessness as it would mostly just form on one's torso (might be enough for creative waterbenders to freeze to give some small penalties to AC or something).

-X

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-16, 02:34 PM
I agree, the DC should be increased by 20 (15 at minimum) and I would also say that there's simply not enough water involved to result in complete helplessness as it would mostly just form on one's torso (might be enough for creative waterbenders to freeze to give some small penalties to AC or something).

-X

Seconded on both points.

Ceiling009
2007-11-16, 02:58 PM
In the few episodes that Katara did freeze someone up, namely Zuko in the North Pole, and Jet to a tree... and actually two earthbender boys to walls... They were never quite helpless, just not able to move. In fact, Zuko could bend when encased in ice, and I'm sure Jet would have broken through sooner or later... and not waited for the Ice to melt. The part about not enough water becomes a moot point when you've got the Bloodbender feats, which ever are floating around, I would say that 20 is too high for immobilization, as a water blast, wave, Freeze should impart a very long period of entanglement. Not full immobilization. A +10 to the check to cause entanglement, and a +20 to cause Daze; as Daze, though always given as a low spell is very powerful if it lasts longer than a round. True helplessness... If skill checks we're critable... I would probably make it a function of that; but they aren't. A +30 to the check for full helplessness. As Coup de Grace are evil.

Eighth_Seraph
2007-11-16, 04:57 PM
Alright; looking through the problems and mistakes you guys have found so far, I'd like to thank all of you for taking all this time to improve the bending classes, it really means alot that you're putting this much effort into it!

One thing that I do have a bit of a problem with is the decision to change Head-On Defense. In case it wasn't noticed, I re-wrote it from Meph's original verion, so it doesn't use Fortitude saves instead of Reflex saves in all cases. Please note:

Head-On Defense – Beginning at 7th level, whenever an earthbender makes a Reflex save to dodge or avoid being hit by something made of a material she can bend, she may make a Fortitude save instead.
This means that things like falling ceiling-type traps, rolling boulders, the Catapult and Earthen Wall seeds are all fair game; anything else is still resolved with Reflex saves. I'm also not sure what Con to all Reflex saves would represent, since the earthbender would still be trying to avoid...whatever it is that she's avoiding.

If what I just explained is old news, then please let me know, but I think that Head-On Defense as written is pretty balanced. Could we have a re-vote on this?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-16, 05:01 PM
Alright; looking through the problems and mistakes you guys have found so far, I'd like to thank all of you for taking all this time to improve the bending classes, it really means alot that you're putting this much effort into it!

One thing that I do have a bit of a problem with is the decision to change Head-On Defense. In case it wasn't noticed, I re-wrote it from Meph's original verion, so it doesn't use Fortitude saves instead of Reflex saves in all cases. Please note:
This means that things like falling ceiling-type traps, rolling boulders, the Catapult and Earthen Wall seeds are all fair game; anything else is still resolved with Reflex saves. I'm also not sure what Con to all Reflex saves would represent, since the earthbender would still be trying to avoid...whatever it is that she's avoiding.

If what I just explained is old news, then please let me know, but I think that Head-On Defense as written is pretty balanced. Could we have a re-vote on this?

While it is much better than it was before, I would still prefer adding con to the reflex save than replacing the save altogether. Adding con to reflex is basically the same as using fort instead, except you don't get the boost from the base fort save. That's the reasoning for adding con. To replace a save altogether, even under certain circumstances is just too powerful.

Edit: Not to sound mean or anything, but this proposal has been up for 5 days and the voting has been up for 3 days. That is more than enough time to intervene. I realize you do have other things to do, but the voting was the final say and you had every right to red light all of the changes or parts of it. To ask for a re-vote now breaks the system.

Eighth_Seraph
2007-11-16, 05:37 PM
Tataraus, you may remember that I made it clear that I wouldn't be doing much with this thread at all. I'm sure you've also noticed that almost all that I've done in regards to the bending thread has been revising the generous contributions of geniuses like yourself, X, Xiagu, and Mephibosheth. I expected this project to have finished months ago (late August was my most extreme estimate) with the four bending classes; so it's largely interfering with, well, everything else that I do. If there is such a thing as 'plenty of time' for me to be doing this, it isn't three days.

I have an incredible appreciation for what you guys are doing, but in the matter of assisting in the review process, I'll only be able to meaningfully contribute over the weekends, since anything more than 30-minute increments is very difficult during the school week, which is really not enough for me to keep up with your (rightfully) significant decisions on the nature of the classes. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm lagging behind the progress of my own project; but it really can't be helped.

Anyway, I would still like to take a vote regarding Head-on Defense in light of the new function it was given. If the consensus remains that it be changed, then I'll change it; but it would take five votes to do so.

The vote options for Head-On Defense are as follows:

A) Keep as written (See spoiler)
Head-On Defense – Beginning at 7th level, whenever an earthbender makes a Reflex save to dodge or avoid being hit by something made of a material she can bend (soil, stone, or some other form of earth), she may make a Fortitude save instead. The object provoking the save may be bent, shattered, or simply stopped, as appropriate for the situation.
B) Change to Constitution bonus to Reflex saves

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-16, 06:28 PM
Fair enough, Eighth,

I vote for the change. (B)

ErrantX
2007-11-18, 01:36 PM
I prefer the original. While it is more complicated, it is more thematic.

-X

Xiagu
2007-11-18, 02:23 PM
I also vote for the original; it makes more sense, fluffwise, as when earthbenders would have to dodge a giant rock, they usually split it in half or reduce it to dust.

Ceiling009
2007-11-18, 09:43 PM
This is response to someone in the first thread, or the bending thread, about really high DCs of forms and the like...

That's probably my one concern, some of the DC's are approaching either epic level, or just so out of reach, it's kinda silly to think that a decent non-optimized player could anything more than just a simple water blast. I know the DC's are high cause if you optimize, you can easily reach that 50 DC just to perform puppet... actually at level 17. With 21 Wis, you have a +5 mod, with 20 ranks in bending, form mastery, which I think can grant you a +10 and +5 from synergy and Skill focus... so you have a 40. Take a 10. 50 to the check of 50. Target I think get's a save of 24 (fort) to not be controlled. Or pulling off some of the nicer combinations of seeds with what's done in the show... I guess it's just a matter of optimization...

Well, let's take the elite array, and add points accordingly, 18 wis, so a +4; lets say this player didn't optimize all his skill points into bending, maybe he wanted some tumble or concentration, and only really had like 12 int, (elite array remember?) They can actually get all 20 ranks, easily, unless for some reason they cross classed a lot of skills... They didn't bother with skill focus, or even form mastery, cause they maybe wanted other more interesting options, (I think it would be funny to get stunning fist), So now their taking a 10 is now reduced to 36. There is a lot you can do with a 36. But not puppet; in fact you could never do puppet unless you have a nat 20 house rule on skills. Your highest without house rules and the like is a 46, once again you can do a lot, but not at all what I think Katara can do, or Pakku, or even Hama.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-18, 09:50 PM
*snip*

Exactly, the puppet DC is extremely high because only two benders can do it and only then on the full moon. You would have to optimized to use it when its not a full moon. So, an unoptimized character would be like most of the other benders. No one can use lightning like Fire Lord Ozai can, justs just optimization. The same with how powerful Azura is. Zuko, however, is not as powerful and can't even use lightning though he can redirect it. He isn't optimized as Fire Lord Ozai or Azura.

This is similar with Toph, she has devoted her entire life to earthbending and is optimized enough to be the only metalbender.

Ceiling009
2007-11-18, 10:29 PM
So with these examples has any bothered to stat out any of the main characters? Would Azula be able to constantly pull off lightning at a reasonable playable level? (7 through 12) or would it be like almost level 17, where with all those optimized features you could get a 50 to specific seed DC? I mean she has to be able to at least reach a minimum of 20 before taking a 10 to constantly use almost every form and blast with Blue fire... Which can be done at actually level 12 (just a blue fire blast anyway). Or Katara doing the giant clouds of mist, on the ocean, or that giant wave/blast to almost capsize that ship? I don't even know how Toph works out... I think it's just curiosity and a bit of wonder, since the main characters here are barely out of puberty, while in a standard game characters reaching levels above ten are considered near legends and already have folk songs sung about them... and nearing 20, they are legends, and are forces on the same reckoning as countries...

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-18, 10:38 PM
So with these examples has any bothered to stat out any of the main characters? Would Azula be able to constantly pull off lightning at a reasonable playable level? (7 through 12) or would it be like almost level 17, where with all those optimized features you could get a 50 to specific seed DC? I mean she has to be able to at least reach a minimum of 20 before taking a 10 to constantly use almost every form and blast with Blue fire... Which can be done at actually level 12 (just a blue fire blast anyway). Or Katara doing the giant clouds of mist, on the ocean, or that giant wave/blast to almost capsize that ship? I don't even know how Toph works out... I think it's just curiosity and a bit of wonder, since the main characters here are barely out of puberty, while in a standard game characters reaching levels above ten are considered near legends and already have folk songs sung about them... and nearing 20, they are legends, and are forces on the same reckoning as countries...

It is obvious that benders commonly reach mid-levels. Not just the heroes, thus the average level is much higher than a normal setting (FR aside). In fact, it is probably much closer to FR. Though I would not say anyone is epic (except a fully-fledged avatar), the most powerful benders are definitely 17-20th level. I'd say Fire Lord Ozai, and probably Bumi are both 20th level. As for Katara and Toph, I'd say 10th or so with Azula being 12th-14th.

Orzel
2007-11-18, 11:07 PM
I'd say the average "I know bending" bender is between level 1-3. Those in the military, like the firebender solider mook or basic earthbending chump, are around level 4-5th. They can take out punk villagers but get whooped by single blast of heroic character. The average "person with a name" is level 8-12. I'd but the heroes, the fire nation royalty and general, and anyone who fought them longer than a few seconds at 8th-12th. I'd only put the nation leaders and kings above level 15. There's probably a couple thousand level 8s but only maybe 10 people above level 15.

As for optimization, only Azula, Katara, and Toph (even took a flaw, the munchkin!) seem optimized. Also few high level benders are single classes. Zuko is multiclassed in a warrior class at least 20%.

Lord Tataraus
2007-12-01, 10:38 PM
One more nerf to immobilize and its kin needs to be made, as you can tell by this poor soul after failing the reflex save:
There's no point in making Strength Checks. If Boggo took 10 with that, his Earthbending check result was 40, meaning that the Strength Check has to be 30 or higher, and that is simply impossible. Not to mention that I have no ranks in Escape Artist (why did I put ranks into Sense Motive instead? Nobody's going to Feint), so that other one is impossible as well. I don't know if I can even do Total defense anymore, so next round I will get buried. I just lost the entire battle right now. That's it. It's over for me.
So, how to change it?

Enlong
2007-12-02, 05:29 PM
I think the main problem lies in the DC of the Strength check required to break free. Y'see, the problem is we're opposing a skill check with an attribute check. An Earthbender is likely to have completely maxed out their Earthbending check, and if the battles are any indication, will take 10 at every opportunity. Those ranks in the skill are something that's very hard to overcome, especially in the Avatar setting, where attribute enhancing items are pretty much nonexistant, and a person's Strength is not going to be over a maximum of 23 by level 20, for a maximum Strength Check of 26 (+6 modifier). If an Earthbender uses the Capture form of Immobilize, he or she can exceed that with their Earthbending check by level 4, and that's assuming 10 Wisdom. They can exceed that Strength Check by taking 10 by level 14. They can do it with a Natural 20 by using Arrest by level 11. And this is all assuming they have a Wisdom score of 11 or lower, and have no other extra bonuses, like Skill Focus, to their Earthbending Check. Realistically, a Bender will have as high a Wisdom score as possible, and will take Skill Focus (XBending) whenever possible.
So the problem is, how to reduce the DC? I think that the Arrest form's required Strength Check should be reduced to about 1/2 the skill check result. For example, in my situation, the DC to escape would've been 20, hard, but certainly manageable.
I am not sure about Capture, except that having to make a Strength Check equal to the Earthbending Check is simply ridiculous. If anyone knows a good number to reduce it, I'm all ears.
Also, Taratus said that an Escape Artist check also could let you escape. I don't see it on the description of the forms, but I think it's OK as it is. A Skill Check opposing a Skill Check is fine by me.

Enlong
2007-12-03, 09:01 PM
What happened here? Did I somehow kill the thread?

FlyMolo
2007-12-03, 09:51 PM
nope. It's only been 28 hours between posts.

I totally agree, though.

Another interesting thing is that by high levels, most benders can't make the attack rolls to hit things. They're reduced to making ice shard attacks. Which can be devastating under standard rules, but under armor as DR rules and with cold resistance 5, can be totally ignored.

Ceiling009
2007-12-04, 12:28 AM
Actually, ice shards under standard rules is not all that great. Maybe at first level, but by higher levels, clerics could easily out damage it. It does about 42d4? with a 54 check? (if you do it like I do, a nat 20 on a skill check adds 10... so that's a 64 check) or at a 44 check 32d4? taking a 10, (with a 64... 48d4)... That sounds ungodly yes... it really does, but that means on average 21, 16, or 24 points of damage, with a save for half. Remember what harm does... at level 20... is a guaranteed 150 points of damage, unless saved for half, 75 points of damage. I'm just pointing that out.

As for hitting things... I don't think benders really rely on blasts on later levels, you're better off doing damage or effects based on saves, either entangling, immobilizing, generally be a nuisance. Except for Bloodbending... I don't think anyone would ever use the seed, especially with the way it's being handled.

Attilargh
2007-12-04, 02:37 AM
The fact that it evens out later does not matter a dime if someone (like, hey, me) prefers the low levels. You wouldn't argue wizards to be balanced because they suck at low levels. Ice shards are front-loaded, and need to be fixed. (Preferably before Rogue 7 realizes he's got them and shreds my poor playtest Firebender to ribbons. :smalltongue: )

Ceiling009
2007-12-04, 03:23 AM
It was mentioned that Ice Shards get to be +5 per shard extra, changes out those numbers significantly, and makes less front loaded at first level... no more 14d4 (28) save for half at first level.

Errr... noting that I did my math wrong in my earlier post. It should be 84, 64, and 98 save for half. which is still pretty puny compared to the 75 from a saved harm spell. Hmmm, actually thinking about it, I did my math wrong some more, so it's 54, 64, and 44 minus 19 to figure out the extra shards added... So it should be either 28d4 (56), 38d4 (76), or 48d4 (96).

Anyway, if you change the extra shard to be +5; the numbers aren't anyway near as bad in the beginning, but they are so much worse are the end. I want to be nice and start off with a 18 wisdom.at first level with 4 ranks, and skill focus, can't get the skill synergy yet. So taking 10 it's a 21 check, nat 20 means 31, my house rule is 41. So now that means, 4d4 (8), 8d4 (16), or 12d4 (24) save for half. At level 20 with 22 Wis and max ranks, its going to be 14d4 (28), 18d4 (36), or 22d4 (44), save for half.

At first level, you can outright knock a barbarian unconscious; but at later levels Ice Shards isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Xiagu
2007-12-04, 06:07 AM
This is, of course, assuming that DR & Cold Resistance applies to each shard seperately? What if it didn't? Then they wouldn't be totally nerfed at high levels...


I'd say the average "I know bending" bender is between level 1-3.
Currently, to do any classic 'bending', they'd have to be at level 2-3 just to get Manipulate/Play with Fire/etc...

Attilargh
2007-12-04, 10:57 AM
It was mentioned that Ice Shards get to be +5 per shard extra, changes out those numbers significantly, and makes less front loaded at first level... no more 14d4 (28) save for half at first level.
...Oh. I must've missed that. Oopsie.

Rogue 7
2007-12-04, 02:04 PM
The fact that it evens out later does not matter a dime if someone (like, hey, me) prefers the low levels. You wouldn't argue wizards to be balanced because they suck at low levels. Ice shards are front-loaded, and need to be fixed. (Preferably before Rogue 7 realizes he's got them and shreds my poor playtest Firebender to ribbons. :smalltongue: )

Oh I know I've got them, I just haven't had a chance to use 'em. That damn ocean sentinel in my face since turn 1 has been a bit of an obstacle.

Xiagu
2007-12-09, 03:26 PM
Oookay, most of the Avatar Project threads seem to be deadish... :smallconfused:

About the issue with extremely high immobilization DCs:
Frostburn pegs the Strength DC to break out of ice as 23, as long as you're within 5 feet of the surface of the ice you're trapped in. (from the Entombed's ability Immure.) And that's when you're completely covered in a thick layer of ice.

Don't know where to find the break DC for stone, though...

This discussion has been moved to the bending thread, apparently...

Pirate_King
2007-12-26, 09:25 PM
Hah, so this is gigantic. I thought of putting together some bending classes a day ago, and thought I'd check the forums I haven't visited in quite some time to see if anyone's already done it, and wow. I've been out of it for too long. But! I've looked over some things, and I may have missed it, but as breath is a big thing for fire bending, wouldn't constitution make more sense as an ability to base some things off of rather than str or wis? and for blue fire, adding 30 to fireblasts 5DC to make it a d8 rather than d6 seems excessive. perhaps make it a feat with wisdom or constitution prereqs? And, since all the bending classes are dependent on their bending skill ranks, perhaps 4 + int rather than 2 might be appropriate, though I could be off on that. just thought I'd through a bit in.

Edit:
Okay, got some fun ideas to toss in

Perhaps to balance the more powerful seeds (and to make knowledge(bending) more important), Benders should require a certain number of ranks in knowledge bending before they can learn those seeds, particularly the obscure or hard to accomplish things like lava bending, bloodbending(which still needs the full moon worked into it somehow)

have we made weather important for water and fire benders? Seasonal bonuses, night vs day bonuses, full moon, mid-day, lunar and solar eclipses, etc?

one more thing: bonus seeds known, for appropriate int bonuses?