PDA

View Full Version : A Debating Initiative



DruchiiConversion
2007-11-12, 09:01 PM
I'm sick of circular argument loops where things go round in circles with people pulling out items, feats and abilities their character should never have.

As a result, I'd like to make a character bank. A build focusing around each of the core PHB classes, fully statted out with items and feats, which are designed and optimised to be able to handle any challenge as best as it can - and would realistically be allowed in a game.

As a result of this, we'll clearly be able to see which classes have the biggest weaknesses, and we'll have some *average* builds to better be able to throw around facts in debates. I'm looking at you, Wizard vs Monk.

However, naturally I'm going to need your help. It's a mammoth task for one person to carry out, and if one person does it alone it's completely biased anyway. So here's a rough plan:

First, we need to establish what threats exist in a normal campaign. We have to assume a full range of threats, including flying things, invisible things, casting things, repulsive things, sneaky things, and just plain brutal things.

Then, the builds need to be made, tinkered with, and voted on so people are mostly happy with them. If two (or more) obvious variations emerge which are roughly equally effective, both should be taken as 'normal' builds.

Finally, we can see who does what best, what screws what over, and we can have a clear reference to prove that taking a 140,000gp item specifically to beat a single spell is not normal.

Do people think this is a decent idea? I'm just trying to cut down on the circular arguments. I imagine they tire more people than just me.

....
2007-11-12, 09:06 PM
Erm...

I don't think this will work, simply because its easily possible to make a druid or wizard or cleric better than a fighter or ranger or paladin without doing to many insane min/max things.

And the poor monk is looking for a razor blade over there.

Reinboom
2007-11-12, 09:09 PM
I am willing to contribute into this. I am also tired of seeing circular logic.

One important thing that needs to occur, however, is multiple build levels. There are many 'default to level 20 builds', that occur.

To me, the best level to build any custom creation around is 12 to 14, personally... however, there's more levels than that.
So..
Level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 builds of each class.

Also, some ground rules on builds need to occur, and something very important: What do people actually use?
For example, Elite array is a common default in debates/arguments/conversations. I rarely see it used in actual practice however. I believe a 28 or 30 point build is more common.
Also, everything for character creation has to be done with an average. For example, average HP and set stats (array or point buy). Reason: Rolls can alter effects drastically for such things.

More or less - more common grounds need to be defined first.


Erm...

I don't think this will work, simply because its easily possible to make a druid or wizard or cleric better than a fighter or ranger or paladin without doing to many insane min/max things.

And the poor monk is looking for a razor blade over there.

I believe the actual idea is to not just state that - but prove it.

....
2007-11-12, 09:17 PM
I believe the actual idea is to not just state that - but prove it.

Good luck.

Nebo_
2007-11-12, 09:56 PM
I fail to see how this will prove anything. All it will do is show off one build and how that works. This is D&D, the possibilities for each class are nigh unlimited. One build doesn't prove anything.

Ralfarius
2007-11-12, 10:01 PM
I fail to see how this will prove anything. All it will do is show off one build and how that works. This is D&D, the possibilities for each class are nigh unlimited. One build doesn't prove anything.
I am obliged to agree with Nebo because of his sweet Pipboy avatar.

Kizara
2007-11-12, 10:05 PM
Also, you need to define allowed material and whether you are building an archtype or a class.

For instance "melee heavy hitter" "melee non-str precision fighter" "charger" "raging charger" "archer" "divine archer" I could go on, for a very long while.

Cause if you say "Fighter" "barbarian" etc, meaning only the class and no PrCs, you aren't painting a picture most people would find realistic or helpful.

Crow
2007-11-12, 10:07 PM
I'll participate. Are we talking about just SRD/Core? Multiclass? Singleclass?

If people use setting-specific PrC's and feats, care needs to be taken that they only take features from one setting.

Crow
2007-11-12, 10:09 PM
I don't think this is meant to be a contest.

As I understand it, the poster is tired of things like wizards who "would obviously have memorised" 6 different 9th level spells.

He wants a database of "made to play" characters. Ones that would be used in an actual game. Not theoretical builds.

DruchiiConversion
2007-11-13, 02:23 PM
Yeah, that's PRECISELY it.

The goal isn't to say "This is the best build, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, I win!". That's pointless.

It's to say. "Here's what people do. Your monk didn't spend 7/8ths of his Wealth by Level on that item, because by that level he needs to be able to fly or he's useless against a bunch of really common threats." It's to say "Why the devil does your Sorceror have a 9th level spell known which exists for no reason other than to annihilate a specific flavour of monk?". And most of all, it's to see if there's anything where there's an inherent contradiction - they simply don't HAVE the resources or possibilities up to handle anything reasonably well.

Obviously, though, one big problem is breadth. Core-only is one thing, Core & Complete is another, but all-books-ever is murderously difficult to evaluate. I'd go for Core + Complete Series first, to give a fair approximation of what your average game allows. Am I way off base here?

(And yes, as I originally posted if there is more than one archetype available for a character class' path, it should be explored if they're both viable.)

But okay, if there's at least some people thinking it might do good (and a little controversy. :)) I'll try and put together a decent comprehensive list of the threats to an average party, by level. That way, there's something up for direct critique and evaluation.

JaxGaret
2007-11-13, 02:33 PM
This is a most excellent idea.

However, I think you may find it an insurmountable task if you try to tackle all of the archetypes at once. My suggestion is to break it down into easily digestable chunks - perhaps start with a single representative build for each PHB base class, see how much work that takes, and go forward from there.

I say, for completeness' sake, stat out each build from level 1 to level 20. That way you can see the organic progression of the character build, and it really doesn't take much more work that way.

Also, don't hesitate to suggest this idea on the CO boards over on the Wiz forums. You may get a fair number of posters over there willing to help out with this project.

Kaelik
2007-11-13, 03:07 PM
Obviously, though, one big problem is breadth. Core-only is one thing, Core & Complete is another, but all-books-ever is murderously difficult to evaluate. I'd go for Core + Complete Series first, to give a fair approximation of what your average game allows. Am I way off base here?

That's a fine thing to say, but it actually invalidates 90% of the arguments on this board, since every argument eventually boils down to Darkstalker (from Lords of Madness) versus a Pimped out Wizard (Who uses Core + Completes + Spell Compendium + Libris Mortis). With an occasional throw in of CoDzillas, the Clerics of which use Libris Mortis.

DruchiiConversion
2007-11-13, 03:17 PM
That's a fine thing to say, but it actually invalidates 90% of the arguments on this board, since every argument eventually boils down to Darkstalker (from Lords of Madness) versus a Pimped out Wizard (Who uses Core + Completes + Spell Compendium + Libris Mortis). With an occasional throw in of CoDzillas, the Clerics of which use Libris Mortis.

So I am way off base, yes? Your average campaign allows these books? If other people (or analysis of allowed/banned books in the Play by Post threads of this forum) confirm this to be the case, I'll simply widen the parameters to make it more representative of what really happens in games.

JaxGaret
2007-11-13, 03:24 PM
So I am way off base, yes? Your average campaign allows these books? If other people (or analysis of allowed/banned books in the Play by Post threads of this forum) confirm this to be the case, I'll simply widen the parameters to make it more representative of what really happens in games.

There is no "representative of what really happens in games".

The only three plausible consensus-building book access options are Core-only, SRD-only, or allow everything under the sun that is official WotC.

Anything in between will leave someone out in the cold.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-13, 03:40 PM
I'd suggest doing Core-only simply for reasons of scope. Core has eleven classes, assuming we don't do NPC classes; adding all splatbooks does, what, triple that?

I'd suggest 30-point buy, because it's a nice round number. No multiclassing, because the point is to prove something about the classes. No templates, or races with a level adjustment, for the same reason. Prestige classes should be fair game.

Maybe if people want the scope we could allow prestiging from any splatbook, but there are a handful that are universally considered cheesy (IOT7C, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, and possibly Abjurant Champion) and should be forbidden. No nightsticks or sarrukhs, either :smallbiggrin:

How about three versions of each character (five is more work and doesn't really prove all that much more), one at low level 6, one at medium level 12, and one at high level 20.

Kaelik
2007-11-13, 03:45 PM
So I am way off base, yes? Your average campaign allows these books? If other people (or analysis of allowed/banned books in the Play by Post threads of this forum) confirm this to be the case, I'll simply widen the parameters to make it more representative of what really happens in games.

First, yes, my average campaign allows those books. Secondly, we talk on forums to discuss options. As such, books that give options are sometimes mentioned for those options. Since all books provide such, they are all mentioned eventually.

Most arguments start something like,

WF=Wizard Fanboy

OP: I have this idea for feat X.
WF: Wizard pwns your build.
*Seven page argument about Wizards winning.*

So yes, the Spell Compendium is important, since that's what people are talking about. Whatever book feat X is in is also important, since that's what we were talking about.

As Jax said, there are three/two options. Core and Everything. What people play in a game is so incredibly non-standard that I have never once played in a single game with the same allowances. I have in fact, never played in a game without house rules, and never played with the same house rules for more then one campaign. How is it even possible to evaluate what the "average allowance" is, and why does it matter if no game in the universe actually plays with the "average allowance?"

JaxGaret
2007-11-13, 03:49 PM
I think you're going to have to have multiple power levels for each archetype.

For instance, if you're making a "tank", there's the average tank, a well-built tank, and a highly-optimized tank.

You would do the same for each archetype. One problem is that there are just so many archetypes. You'd undoubtedly start with the ones that show up in board discussions the most often, to make things easier.

Kaelik
2007-11-13, 03:51 PM
No multiclassing, because the point is to prove something about the classes.

Is that what we are trying to prove? Usually the argument boils down to Batman versus non-caster. As such, multi-classing is one of the few advantages that non-casters have.


Maybe if people want the scope we could allow prestiging from any splatbook, but there are a handful that are universally considered cheesy (IOT7C, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, and possibly Abjurant Champion) and should be forbidden. No nightsticks or sarrukhs, either

Incantrix and Abjurant Champion? What has happened to the world when those PrCs are considered cheesy? I could find 30 levels of PrC I'd rather take then Incantrix, and lets not even get started on the AC argument.

JaxGaret
2007-11-13, 03:58 PM
Incantrix and Abjurant Champion? What has happened to the world when those PrCs are considered cheesy? I could find 30 levels of PrC I'd rather take then Incantrix, and lets not even get started on the AC argument.

Incantatrix is still one of the better PrCs. And Planar Shepherd and IotSV are still brokenly overpowered.

The AC is not in and of itself overpowered, it just highlights the power disparity between casting classes and non-casting classes.

Kaelik
2007-11-13, 05:29 PM
Incantatrix is still one of the better PrCs. And Planar Shepherd and IotSV are still brokenly overpowered.

The AC is not in and of itself overpowered, it just highlights the power disparity between casting classes and non-casting classes.

I know that Incantrix is a good PrC, and I never questioned the broken overpoweredness of IotSFV/Planar Shepard. All I said was that AC and Incatrix are not cheesy.

Chronos
2007-11-13, 05:55 PM
I'll volunteer to contribute a Core-only (or possibly SRD-only) rogue, if we can get the parameters nailed down. But I don't have the books to go any wider scope than that.

Crow
2007-11-13, 07:12 PM
I call monk. SRD only.

(just to clarify, this isn't a joke...I'll take monk if we do core/SRD only)

Nebo_
2007-11-13, 09:25 PM
Whatever someone makes, no matter how good a representation of the class it is, there will always be something left out that someone else thinks is necessary. This will just result in more arguements. Surely it will solve the arguements over those specific builds, but there is simply too much choice, too many options to say 'look, sorcerers aren't overpowered because this build doesn't have optimal spell choices'. It won't work and people who think it will should take a serious look at what you're actually trying to achieve here.

Reinboom
2007-11-13, 09:33 PM
I believe doing just core would be appropriate.
Then, based on the reactions - and the information uncovered there - move to doing one step further at a time. Something like
Core Only
Core + Completes + Compendiums (+ tomes of?)
Core + All non-setting (Eberron, FR, etc.) WotC Splat
All WotC

-edit-
Also: I support the 6-12-20 idea.

Icewalker
2007-11-13, 09:39 PM
I think you're going to have to have multiple power levels for each archetype.

For instance, if you're making a "tank", there's the average tank, a well-built tank, and a highly-optimized tank.

You would do the same for each archetype. One problem is that there are just so many archetypes. You'd undoubtedly start with the ones that show up in board discussions the most often, to make things easier.

Most of the discussions are about wizards who were put together to be better than you, so I'd go with highly-optimized, but not cheese-like.

I suggest you start by splitting it into the classes, and doing each class one at a time. the 6-12-20 idea sounds like the best one.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-13, 09:56 PM
I think we need to split this into manageable bits, people.


Let's start with a classic lineup: Meleer, skillmonkey, arcaneer, diviner, and fifth wheel. And, to start easy, it'll be core only, with fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, and bard. Once we have those, we'll move onto the barb, pally, sorcerer, etc. Is it a good idea?

Crow
2007-11-13, 10:10 PM
In response to Mr. Kelimon, I nominate Monk in place of Bard. It is well-documented that Bards are no longer considered to be a sub-par class. Monk on the otherhand is almost universally reviled. It is on these grounds that I make my nomination, as the Monk's need is greater.

WrstDmEvr
2007-11-13, 10:23 PM
I believe we also need a list of threats for them to overcome? The characters are trivial until we can figure out what we need them to do. Like others have said;

Flying
Invisibility
Extreme Heat
Extreme Cold
Extreme thirst
Various resistances/SR's, etc.
Brute Force(high powered creatures)
Traps

Just my two cents here, probably need major revision(and addition)

Jack Zander
2007-11-13, 10:39 PM
First level characters couldn't deal with half of the stuff on that list. Unless you are talking about the higher level battles in which case I'll shut up.

Reinboom
2007-11-13, 10:48 PM
Perhaps this could be sorted into multiple groups?
One group to build the quick 'dungeons' that features 4 encounters, each with one of these issues to overcome.
The rest to build the characters.

Blasterfire
2007-11-13, 11:28 PM
Are the characters going to be deigned assuming that they are going to have similarly diversified and optimized allies to back them up?

Also, I may be able to contribute a fighter build, although it might not be the best (I'll do it if nobody else steps up)

illathid
2007-11-14, 12:01 AM
Perhaps this could be sorted into multiple groups?
One group to build the quick 'dungeons' that features 4 encounters, each with one of these issues to overcome.
The rest to build the characters.

I might be willing to do this aspect of the challenge. A more complete list of challenges would be good though.

Would all the challenges be CR appropriate or would we mix it up?

Also, for the creature encounters I assume we wouldn't be giving class levels, just templates and such, correct?

Reinboom
2007-11-14, 12:39 AM
I believe CR appropriate for the first 3, then +1 CR for the last fight would be appropriate. Or perhaps the dungeons are continual.
IE: CR appropriate for first 3, CR +1 for next 3, CR +2 for next 3. Then end. No party should get through that straight. (though a party -will-, it would be a good test, still)

What's needed more is what challenges each level range is expected of..
For example, I would not give the ECL 6 party into flying. ECL 12 and ECL 20 should definitely have 1 flying encounter minimum, however.

Different aspects of encounters:
Traps: These aren't monsters, but may contain monsters. Each part needs at least 1 trap. Preferably 2 or more.
PC Like monsters: These could effectively be just a lower level party, or very humanoid like party. The widest strategies available here.
Puzzles: These are demons/devils, swarms, and the similar. Very specific set of weaknesses and defenses.
Glass Cannons: Hard hitting enemies with nearly no defense.
'Awesome': Monsters that are only made to hurt a party: Dragons for example.
Anti-Puzzle: This is like a mix between puzzle and glass cannon, but slightly backwards. Example: Rust monsters.

Chronos
2007-11-14, 12:54 AM
I believe we also need a list of threats for them to overcome?I don't see that as being a part of this initiative. The idea here, as I understand it, is that whenever anyone in some other thread comes up with a challenge, we then use these characters as a baseline for addressing those challenges. We don't need to make up any challenges of our own.

Further suggestions for guidelines:

I think we should assume 25 point buy. Random stats are no good for something like this, and point buy lets the SAD classes get an 18 if they want it, while still letting the MAD classes have a bunch of 14s. I say 25 points specifically, because that's closest to the default method of 4d6 drop one. Also, it's easier to adapt a low-point build to better scores than it is to adapt a high-point build to lower scores.

We should probably disallow evil alignments. The idea is to present typical characters that people might actually play, and most campaigns are non-evil. So my rogue can't take Assassin, and the warrior-types can't go Blackguard.

Again on the "typical characters" score, I think we should assume that each of these characters is a member of a standard four-character party, with one each warrior, arcane caster, divine caster, and skillmonkey (with the character filling whichever role is closest). So my rogue could assume a cleric, wizard, and fighter on the same team, but not a bard, since the rogue fills the skillmonkey role. This means, for instance, that we can get inexpensive spells cast on request (without paying for the casting itself), the spellcasters have targets for their buff spells, and folks don't have to invest in cross-class skills that another party member could handle.

Crow
2007-11-14, 01:04 AM
Spells should only be available from out of the "iconics" we create. If the "typical" wizard doesn't get it, neither do you.

JaxGaret
2007-11-14, 01:13 AM
Spells should only be available from out of the "iconics" we create. If the "typical" wizard doesn't get it, neither do you.

What do you mean by this, could you clarify?

Chronos
2007-11-14, 01:16 AM
Spells should only be available from out of the "iconics" we create. If the "typical" wizard doesn't get it, neither do you.Oh, sure, but a wizard can have any spells he wants during downtime (as long as they're not from a prohibited school). I'm thinking, for instance, of things cast into a Ring of Spell Storing (the ring itself would of course come out of my WBL). I'm not saying "I have the wizard cast Greater Heroism, Cat's Grace, and Reduce Person on me before I go on my recon mission", because the wizard might not have those spells on his typical daily preparation list.

DruchiiConversion
2007-11-14, 06:23 AM
I don't see that as being a part of this initiative. The idea here, as I understand it, is that whenever anyone in some other thread comes up with a challenge, we then use these characters as a baseline for addressing those challenges. We don't need to make up any challenges of our own.

Actually, it's a pretty important part. It's essential that there's a reasonable, CR-appropriate system characters should adhere to. That way, it's easy to say "Right, this Fighter build doesn't have access to Flight until level 18, and because it's a melee build it needs to be able to. Flying creatures seem to start at CR7, so between levels 7 and 18, this Fighter build is going to need to be teamed up with an archetype which can allow at least two creatures to Fly.". Note that this is very different to the common strategy in Monk vs. X debates which is 'My monk is obviously buffed with Mind Blank, Cat's Grace, Greater Magic Fang, etc etc'. Nuh-uh, the typical archetypal wizard has nowhere near enough 8th level spells to Mind Blank his whole party every day, and in your average party you are simply not going to have access to that one spell which wins this specific challenge. So you can't have it.

And that's the point. To prevent people pulling out ridiculous one-trick-horse builds and wealth distributions with the knowledge that it's impossible to call someone on that without sounding whiny, and attempting to win on their terms is basically impossible because emulating other classes' typical abilities is easy provided you're willing to burn cash like it's going out of fashion.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-14, 06:40 AM
Okay, so, let's set things up.


For the sake of tradition, we'll go with bard (Yes, I know Monk needs love, but we're trying to standardize a bit, so let's be orderly), fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric. This will be the default adventuring group, which we'll do first. Also, PHB races only, no MM races. Pixie lovers are out, sorry pals.


Now, we need to get a few standard adventures for testing. I propose "A dark and stormy night" for level 1's, but that might be me. We should also find adventures for level 5, 10, 15, and 20.


Then, we need to select some monsters that are classic to face off against. Maybe some orcs and zombies for level 1, as an example.


Any suggestions? We need to get this show on the road and a-rockin', so any help is appreciated.


Oh, and who is going to build/play what?

Grynning
2007-11-14, 07:04 AM
I've never done PbP before, but I am interested in the project. I am somewhat of an anti-powergamer, so I think it's a good plan to have "baselines" for all the base classes.
I'm best at melee class and skillmonkey builds, I'm rubbish with spell-selection.
Just a question though, under the rules of posting on the board, don't we have to stick to SRD/core only? I thought you couldn't put up details about stuff that wasn't OGC. If we're fully statting and gearing characters that might give too much away. I don't think it would hamper the project too much, considering that most of the Wizard cheese is from Core anyways (except Celerity).

DruchiiConversion
2007-11-14, 07:07 AM
I'm not so fond of using published adventures to provide a decent balance of encounters. For the simple reason that... they don't. It's almost impossible to find a completely balanced published adventure with respect to the foes encountered, because there's no reason for the author to attempt to do so - it's often better not to.

I'd propose making our own. Some things - e.g. Swarms - can be brutal at low levels, especially to Batman wizards, but I'm willing to bet there isn't a swarm in 'A Dark and Stormy Night', right? I liked the idea about having two groups, one for making characters and one for making dungeons (or encounter-strings, at least). Perhaps that's the best way?

EDIT: Good point, I'm not sure we are allowed to move beyond the SRD. I think Core Only is a decent guideline, though - it's a mammoth undertaking without adding the exponentially many other options open in other sources.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-14, 07:10 AM
'Kay. So, the plan is, we create/steal from the homebrew board an adventure, which features a variety of enemy kinds, and pit our standardy chars against it. Is that the idea.

Grynning
2007-11-14, 07:17 AM
I guess so. We should pick teams and someone should set up the post that we submit characters to...something like the OoTS stat thread.

Reinboom
2007-11-14, 07:20 AM
'Kay. So, the plan is, we create/steal from the homebrew board an adventure, which features a variety of enemy kinds, and pit our standardy chars against it. Is that the idea.

I don't believe it so much an adventure as a 'dungeon' (or area). Just quick encounter, encounter, encounter, encounter, etc.
Everything in the discussions seem to boil down to combat anyways.

Of course, certain basic capabilities need to be addressed as well...

So... for a level 6 starting dungeon, for example:
Make the first door required to even get into the dungeon locked. And trapped.
Followed immediately by a glass cannon fight. Etc.

Also, will it be 1-5-10-15-20 or 6-12-20 ? I personally prefer 6-12-20. Or even 1-6-12-20.

I'm willing to do the sorcerer (any level but 1) and/or dungeon assistance.

Grynning
2007-11-14, 07:24 AM
With as many people as there are on this board, the characters could even be designed by teams.
So we could have Team Fighter, Team Cleric, Team Rogue, Team Wizard (or Sorcerer), and Team Bard (or Monk).
Another set for the encounter design, teams divided up to design the various types of baddies that SweetRein laid out.

I think this would get more "iconic" characters rather than those that represent individual play styles.

Last Edit before I have to sleep: I think 1 - 6 - 12 - 20 would work, as those are all feat or ability score adding levels and most classes have even level based progressions.

DruchiiConversion
2007-11-14, 07:32 AM
I really would very much like a 'Team Monk' as well as a 'Team Bard', to be honest. Monks, as I'm sure we're all aware, get proportionally more discussion time on these boards than... hell, than D&D, I'm starting to think. They're in need of it more than anyone else.

Are there any objections to this? Team Arcane, Team Divine, Team Warrior, Team Rogue, Team Bard, Team Monk, and Team DM?

bugsysservant
2007-11-14, 07:33 AM
For level progressions, I vote 3,6,12,18. Three is a good low level that isn't as fragile as one, six is the typical mid level where prestige class levels really come into play, 12 is the best mid high level, and by 18 you get a few 9th level spells without going all the way to twenty which few campaigns do. Admittedly, this can deprive a few classes of useful capstones, but no PHB class really relies on a level cap too much if they have one at all.

Grynning
2007-11-14, 07:33 AM
Those in favor, say Aye.

"Aye!"

Please PM me with my assignment (and the names of the others on my team), I must sleep now. I will contribute as much as I can over the next week.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-14, 08:48 AM
Hmm...


Let's say 3-6-12-20. 18 restricts you from those last levels, so I think 20 is better there.

Chronos
2007-11-14, 05:52 PM
Wait, so what we're basically doing now is a play-by-post game? What would that accomplish beyond all the other play-by-post games that already exist in other sections of the board? I'm confused.

Grynning
2007-11-14, 05:58 PM
From my understanding, this isn't exactly a PbP game, more of a playtest/revisit of the base classes to definitively establish their relative power. Basically we want to have several people collaborate to come up with "the" fighter, "the" wizard, etc. so that when people start arguing that "x class sucks in y situation because of z" there is a resource that can be referenced. Another goal is that we want to eliminate the "my wizard has this this and this going all of the time because I said so" argument by seeing how much can actually be pre-planned for with each class.

Crow
2007-11-14, 05:59 PM
This is going the wrong way. We shouldn't be trying to PbP or anything like that. The idea is to come up with a list of challenges that a character would reasonably be expected face at a said level. Something that needs to be done is not "filling" a dungeon, but determining which types of challenges each class is normally expected to "solve" (A fighter shouldn't need to be expected to have the ability to dispel a wall of force for example). Still there will be bleed-over in the classes, which is why identifying these is important.

After that, we make "ready to play" characters, designed with the premise that they would be expected to face the challenges on our list. This leaves us with "practical build" characters to use in comparisons.

There is no need to limit ourselves to certain classes either. We can do them all.

Chronos
2007-11-14, 06:05 PM
Now, see, I thought that the idea was to come up with the characters first, and then, whenever some challenge comes up on the boards (which they do with great regularity), we could say "Well, the standard wizard and the standard rogue could beat that challenge, but the standard cleric and the standard barbarian can't". This approach makes sense to me, because in a real game, you'll have a lot more challenges than characters, and you won't know what all the challenges will be in advance. If we have a pre-made list of challenges, then we can build specifically for those challenges, but that's not a situation reflective of a real game.

Crow
2007-11-14, 06:25 PM
That is why we need to determine what the "Standard" Barbarian, or Cleric is expected to encounter.

We are not trying to create Jack of All Trade characters, or are we? I may have misunderstood along the way.

Alternatively, if we run a PbP test, the dungeon in question needs to be merely an un-ending series of challenges run in an "Iron Man" fashion. Whoever gets the furthest with consistency is the strongest at that level.

Another way would be for everyone participating to run the character through it at home with another player. Then we get multiple results, and can "average" them out, as well as it being much faster.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-11-14, 07:11 PM
I know that we've moved on from this, but I would be interested in building the ultimate batman wizard at 20, with all sources allowed. Anyone willing to help?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-14, 08:06 PM
Uuh, we're trying to build core-only builds.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-11-14, 08:38 PM
Uuh, we're trying to build core-only builds.

And he quoteth Kaelik:


That's a fine thing to say, but it actually invalidates 90% of the arguments on this board, since every argument eventually boils down to Darkstalker (from Lords of Madness) versus a Pimped out Wizard (Who uses Core + Completes + Spell Compendium + Libris Mortis). With an occasional throw in of CoDzillas, the Clerics of which use Libris Mortis.

If we're sticking to what the OP said, then he has a point, no?

Crow
2007-11-14, 10:16 PM
Most of the arguments around here end up discussing how things aren't balanced even in core to begin with...Core is a good place to start, which isn't to say that we can't expand into more sources after that.

"Ultimate" batman wizards have been done to death on the CharOp boards. Different variations have been well-documented, using every bit of WotC material already.

TimeWizard
2007-11-15, 12:08 AM
When we're done with this, can we debate initiative? because I want to prove that it's impossible to go first in situations where you don't know you're in trouble so a wizard fanboy can argue with me. I understand if we'll have to time box our discussion.

Chronos
2007-11-22, 01:29 AM
OK, I've finished my rogue build. I assumed 25 point buy, and since we never decided what we wanted them to be able to handle, I decided to build something that could handle any challenge. Once the build is finished, this guy should be able to sneak right under the nose of anything in the MM I of CR 22 or less or any character except a Spot-optimized druid, and steal anything not nailed down and most things that are, without anyone being the wiser. And with support from a wizard of at least 5th level, he should be able to kill anything he can sneak past in the surprise round. At lower levels, of course, the bound is a bit lower, but he should still be able to apply basically the same tactics against any CR-appropriate challenge.

Goblin would have been slightly better than halfling, but I figured halfling was more iconic. If using goblin instead, increase the speed to 30, add another +2 to Move Silently, add 60' darkvision, and decrease Charisma by 2 (with a corresponding reduction to UMD, Dance, and Disguise).

I didn't put any emphasis on social skills, since we decided we'd have a bard in the party, and the bard is much better suited to that role. The rogue's charisma is at least enough that his presence won't detract from the bard's checks, though.

Finally, I assumed full price for all items (except for the casting of Continual Flame, for which I only counted the component cost). If the party spellcasters make some of the gear, that might allow me to afford more loot.

Nemo the Halfling:Halfling rogue 12/shadowdancer 1/rogue 7
Ability scores (25 point buy - If using 32 point buy, raise Dex to 19):
Str 10 (12 - 2)
Dex 16 (14 + 2) plus all level-up points
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 11

Feats:
1 Improved Initiative
3 Stealthy
6 Combat Reflexes
9 Dodge
12 Mobility
15 Two-Weapon Fighting
18 Quick Draw

Special abilities:
10 Skill Mastery (Disable Device, Hide, Move Silently, Search, Sleight of Hand)
14 Slippery Mind
17 Defensive Roll
20 Crippling Strike

Skills (10 per level):
Level 1:{table]Disable Device|4 (+6)
Hide|4 (+11)
Listen|4 (+6)
Move Silently|4 (+9)
Open Lock|4 (+7)
Search|4 (+6)
Sleight of Hand|4 (+7)
Spot|4 (+4)
Use Magic Device|4 (+4)
Balance |4 (+7)[/table]
Level 6:{table]Disable Device|9 (+13)
Hide|9 (+20)
Listen|9 (+11)
Move Silently|9 (+18)
Open Lock|9 (+14)
Search|9 (+11)
Sleight of Hand|9 (+12)
Spot|9 (+9)
Use Magic Device|9 (+9)
Balance|5 (+8)
Decipher Script|3 (+5)
Tumble|1 (+4)[/table]
Level 12:{table]Disable Device|15 (+19, mastered)
Hide|14 (+27, mastered)
Listen|15 (+17)
Move Silently|15 (+26, mastered)
Open Lock|15 (+22)
Search|15 (+17, mastered)
Sleight of Hand|15 (+20, mastered)
Spot|15 (+15)
Use Magic Device|15 (+15, +17 with scrolls)
Balance|5 (+10)
Decipher Script|5 (+7)
Perform (dance)|5 (+5)
Tumble|1 (+6)[/table]
Level 20:{table]Disable Device|23 (+28, mastered)
Hide|23 (+43, mastered)
Listen|23 (+26)
Move Silently|23 (+41, mastered)
Open Lock|23 (+37)
Search|23 (+26, mastered)
Sleight of Hand |23 (+35, mastered)
Spot|23 (+24)
Use Magic Device|23 (+25, +27 with scrolls)
Balance|5 (+17)
Decipher Script|5 (+8)
Perform (dance)|5 (+7)
Disguise|5 (+7)
Tumble|1 (+13)[/table]


Equipment:

Level 1:Mundane items:{table]Item|Cost|Weight
*Backpack|2|.5
Bedroll|.1|1.25
Block and tackle|5|5
Caltrops|1|2
*2 candles|.02|-
*2 pieces chalk|.02|-
Crowbar|2|5
*Fishhook|.1|-
*Flint and steel|1|-
Grappling hook|1|4
Hammer|.5|2
Ink|8|-
Pen|.1|-
*Bullseye lantern|12|3
*Mirror|10|.5
*2 flasks oil|.2|2
*10 sheets paper|4|-
Miner's pick|3|10
10 pitons|1|5
*Belt pouch|1|.125
*1 day's rations|.5|.25
4 days' rations|2|1
*50 feet silk rope|10|5
Sewing needle|.5|-
*Signal whistle|.8|-
Soap|.5|1
Shovel|2|8
Tent|10|5
*Waterskin|1|1
Whetstone|.02|1
*Wooden holy symbol|1|-
*Thieves' tools|30|1
*Traveler's Outfit|-|1.25
*Leather armor|10|7.5
*Dagger (4)|8|2

*Burrs (8)|-|-
*100' Fishing line|.2|-

Pack mule|8|-
2 days feed|.1|20
Saddlebags|4|8

Total|143.66|107.375
Total carried||24.125 (Max load 24.75 pounds)[/table]
* indicates items generally kept on person. All other items are on mule
Level 6:Level 1 gear minus mule
Plus:
Mundane Items{table]Thieves' tools upgraded to mwk.|70
Climbing kit|80
Disguise kit|50
*Padded black cloak (mwk. tool for Hide and Move Silently)|100
*1 dagger upgraded to mwk.|300
*Mwk. sling|300
*10 bullets|.1
10 cold iron bullets|.2
10 silver bullets|20.1
Mwk. darkwood longspear|350
Lead scroll case|2[/table]


Alchemical items:{table]Acid (2)|20
Alchemist's Fire (2)|40
*Antitoxin (2)|100
*Everburning lantern|25
Holy Water (3)|75
*Smokestick (2)|40
Sunrod (2)|4
Tanglefoot bag (2)|100
Thunderstone (4)|120
*Tindertwig (10)|10[/table]

Magic items:{table]Universal Solvent|50
Unguent of Timelessness|150
Silversheen|250
Dust of Tracelessness|250
Elixir of Hiding|250
Elixir of Sneaking|250
Wand of Acid Splash|375
Wand of Ray of Frost|375
Wand of Prestidigitation|375
Feather token (tree)|400
Feather token (boat)|450
Wand of Reduce Person|750
Wand of Magic Aura|750
Wand of Hide from Animals|750
Potion of Gaseous Form|750
Hand of the Mage|900
Salve of Slipperiness|1000
Scroll of Antimagic Field|1650
Handy Haversack|2000[/table]

{table]total|12,745[/table]

Level 12:
Level 6 plus:{table]Universal solvent (1)|50
Dust of Tracelessness (1)|250
Elixir of Hiding (4)|1000
Elixir of Sneaking (4)|1000
Feather token (tree) (1)|400
Feather token (boat) (1)|450
Hat of Disguise|1800
Sovereign glue|2400
Dust of Sneezing and Choking|2400
Rope of Climbing|3000
Marvelous Pigments|4000
Gloves of Dexterity +2|4000
Wand of Cat's Grace|4500
Wand of Silence|4500
Wand of Flame Blade|4500
Immovable Rod (2)|10,000
Tan bag of tricks|6300
Decanter of Endless Water|9000
Necklace of Adaptation|9000

Dagger upgraded to silver,+1|2020
Sling upgraded to +1|2000
Mithral chain shirt +1|1100

Total|87,065[/table]

Level 20:
Level 12 plus:{table]Lead handkerchief wallet|1
Sovereign Glue (1)|2400
Dust of Sneezing and Choking (2)|4800
Sustaining Spoon|5400
Rod of Wonder|12,000
Winged Boots|16,000
Portable Hole|20,000
Ring of Invisibility|20,000
Luck Blade|22,060
Cloak of Resistance +5|25,000
Tome of Leadership +1|27,500
Pale green ioun stone|30,000
Gloves of Dexterity upgraded to +6|32,000
Ring Gates|40,000
Ring of Freedom of Movement|40,000
Ring of Protection +5|50,000
Rod of Lordly Might|70,000
Manual of Dex +5|137,500

Adamantine dagger +1, holy, returning|39,002
Mwk. adamantine dagger (2)|6,004
Mithral Shirt upgraded to +5 of etherealness|73,000

Total|759,731[/table]