Defining Standard Optimization for Pure Damage Dealers [Archive]

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 01:17 AM

I noticed a lot of people are playing well below the intended difficulty of the game yet they claim that the game is intended to be played at their level and not higher. So let's objectively figure out what the strength of a "standard optimization" character is. So we can objectively determine whether a table is high op or low op.

So what is standard optimization? In my opinion, if the developers of the game are doing it, then that is intended. Therefore a character using these intended actions is playing at standard optimization. For example, the FAQ says you can use divine metamagic persistent spell on non-emanation spells with fixed range like mass lesser vigor. Therefore Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell on mass lesser vigor is standard optimization. Massing nightsticks to get an arbitrarily high number of persistent spells per day however, is never mentioned anywhere in the books so that is probably high optimization and not standard.

I am going to be mostly focusing on damage output because defense is teamwork and magic items. Your BFC wizard is the one that prevents the monster from killing your party. Damage on the other hand, is the character's solo ability. So if a damage dealing character cannot deal enough damage then he is not optimized, but if a damage dealing character cannot survive a full attack from a monster he can still be considered optimized because it's someone else's job to keep him alive. Uberchargers are the primary example of this.

I am also going to be focusing on casters because magic items don't increase their damage output. Their gear is mostly for defensive and utility purposes. Martials on the other hand need to spend most of their money on offensive equipment and their performance varies widely.

Note: If you are someone who thinks taking an alternate class feature at 1st level and using it exactly as intended by the developers without any interactions with other abilities is "cheese", then this thread is probably well out of the optimization level you're used to. Please be aware of that if you engage in this thread.

Alright, so lets get started. I think the most straightforward standard optimization character is Wilder using Astral Construct. It has been used officially by WotC for playtesting and is responsible for the Astral Construct nerf introduced in Complete Psionic. Can't get more standard than that because they literally used this character as the standard for balance.

Wilder's ability to acquire Astral Construct:
4th level construct: 6th level - This is the earliest level a Wilder can cast Astral Construct on the account of needing the Expanded Knowledge feat.
5th level construct: 7th level
6th level construct: 8th level
7th level construct: 10th level
8th level construct: 11th level
9th level construct: 13th level

So if we stat these constructs out for pure melee, then we can figure out the expected damage output of a standard optimization damage dealing character. I will be using the boost construct feat as no astral construct user would ever leave home without it.

Abilities: Extra Attack, Buff, Rend (chosen for simplicity. Power attack is arguably much better)
4th level construct: 2 slams +12 melee (1d6+9). Average damage per round: 25
5th level construct: 3 slams +15 melee (1d8+11). Average damage per round: 46.5
6th level construct: 3 slams +19 melee (1d8+13). Average damage per round: 52.5
7th level construct: 3 claws +22 melee (1d8+14) & 2d6+21 rend. Average damage per round: 83.5
8th level construct: 3 claws +27 melee (1d8+16) & 2d6+24 rend. Average damage per round: 92.5
9th level construct: 3 claws +30 melee (2d6+18) & 2d6+27 rend. Average damage per round: 109

So there you have it. Standard optimization damage dealers are expected to deal
6th level: 25 damage per round
7th level: 46.5 damage per round
8th level: 52.5 damage per round
10th level: 83.5 damage per round
11th level: 92.5 damage per round
13th level: 109 damage per round

Another straightforward character is a blaster who uses maximize spell and empower spell. Not only do these have a special interaction with each other, but Arcane Thesis specifically calls these two out. Also Twin Spell because the FAQ specifically called out Twinned Maximized Spell.
Lets use orbs for this example instead of scorching ray, fireball, cone of cold, horrid wilting, etc. because they're the most famous line of blasitng spells in Spell Compendium.
So a wizard with Arcane Thesis: Lesser Orb of Fire, Arcane Thesis: Orb of Fire, Maximize Spell, Empower Spell, and Twin Spell will do...
1st level: 4.5 damage per round
3rd level: 13.5 damage per round (lof empower)
5th level: 24 damage per round (lof maximize)
7th level: 45 damage per round (lof twin)
9th level: 63 damage per round (lof empower twin)
11th level: 80 damage per round (lof maximize twin)
13th level: 99 damage per round (of maximize empower)
15th level: 154 damage per round (of empower twin)
17th level: 180 damage per round (of maximize twin)

Lines up pretty closely to the astral construct wilder

Another straightforward character is Fiendbinder. This is actually a complicated class to stat out because the class can have as many minions as their wallets allow, they have their own spellcasting to buff them all (girallon's blessing in particular is 10min/level and drastically increases their damage output), and it takes a standard action to direct one minion so having too many doesn't have much benefits (though using one as a mount frees up an action).
So for this exercise, I will assume the character casts 0 buffs, is at wealth by level, and all the minions die at each level up so his available funds for minions is current-level-WBL minus previous-level-WBL

8th level: (27,000-19000)/2700 = 2 Babaus
2 claws +12 melee (1d6+5) and bite +7 melee (1d6+2)
+6d6 sneak attack
x2 for 2 Babaus
= 87 damage per round

9th level: (36000-27000)/3600 = 2 Succubi
2 claws +7 melee (1d6+1)
x2 for 2 Succubi
= 9 damage per round

10th level: (49000-36000)/4900 = 2 Hellcats
2 claws +13 melee (1d8+6) and bite +8 melee (2d8+3)
+1d8+3 rake
x2 for 2 Hellcats
= 81 damage per round

11th level: (66000-49000)/6600 = 2 Vrocks
2 claws +15 melee (2d6+6) and bite +13 melee (1d8+3) and 2 talons +13 melee (1d6+3)
x2 for 2 Vrocks
= 93 damage per round
+ spore? telekinesis?

12th level: (88000-66000)/8800 = 2 Cauchemar Nightmares
2 hooves +23 melee (2d6+10 plus 1d4 fire) and bite +18 melee (2d6+5)
x2 for 2 Cauchemar Nightmares
= 102 damage per round

13th level: (110000-88000)/11000 = 2 Retrievers
4 claws +15 melee (2d6+10) and bite +10 melee (1d8+5) and eye ray +8 ranged touch (12d6)
x2 for 2 Retrievers
= 239 damage per round

14th level: (150000-110000)/15000 = 2 Hezrous
Bite +14 melee (4d4+5) and 2 claws +9 melee (1d8+2)
x2 for 2 Hezrous
= 56 damage per round

15th level: (200000-150000)/20000 = 2 Barbed Devils
2 claws +18 melee (2d8+6 plus fear)
x2 for 2 Barbed Devils
= 60 damage per round

16th level: (260000-200000)/26000 = 2 Ice Devils
Spear +20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/×3 plus slow) and bite +14 melee (2d6+3) and tail +14 melee (3d6+3 plus slow)
x2 for 2 Ice Devils
= 143 damage per round

17th level: (340,000-260,000)/34000 = 2 Mariliths
Primary longsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19-20) and 5 longswords +25 melee (2d6+4/19-20) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4)
x2 for 2 Mariliths
= 274 damage per round

I'm assuming all attacks hit just for simplicity. Because if these monsters are intelligently played like giving them greatswords instead of using natural attacks, buffing them with spells, using their feats (power attack), using their SLAs especially for BFC, you properly equip them, and you spend your money wisely and all that stuff, I think their damage output is gonna surpass what is mentioned above.

Last but not least we have Planar Binding. FCI directly tells PLAYERS to use PrCs specifically designed for planar binding if they want to play a demon summoner. Complete Mage also tells PLAYERS to use planar binding if they're playing a summoner archetype. Tons and tons of PrCs and feats and spells and such are specifically designed to use Planar Binding (malconvoker). Also, an entire setting is built around Planar Binding (Eberron and elemental crafting). So it's open and shut that using Planar Binding is Standard Optimization.

I will be using Infernal Bargainer because it's in player's guide to faerun and I'm using it all by itself with no additional planar binding boosters.

9th level: Lesser Planar Binding, Stitched Devil
bite +14 (1d8+7) and 4 claws +12 each (1d6+3)
= 37.5 damage per round

11th level: Planar Binding, Ice Devil (there's probably a better monster)
Spear +20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/×3 plus slow) and bite +14 melee (2d6+3) and tail +14 melee (3d6+3 plus slow)
= 71.5 damage per round

15th level: Greater Planar Binding, Balor
+1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+13/19-20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+6 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle)
= 104 damage per round

Keep in mind this character is capable of binding more than 1 monster like Fiendbinder and monsters have a bunch of utility options, and you got more money to gear them up with magic items, etc. etc.

So as you can see, ballpark, these unquestionably standard characters roughly line up damage wise. So I think it's safe to say that any character whose damage output is not similar to the above 4 builds is substandard and therefore low-op and not standard op.

If you disagree, go ahead and voice your opinion and your evidence. That's what this thread is for. Discussion.

These are standard optimization tricks I've found while combing randomly through the books and FAQ

Retraining every level for non-character-correction purposes. One of the examples directly say to use the sleep spell until it stops working and retrain it out for something cool.
Metagaming with nonlethal damage. Warforged explicitly deal nonlethal damage to themselves before going into combat.
Savage Species in its entirety. Many questions in the FAQ address SS specifically. So using Assume Supernatural Ability with Alter Self or Polymorph is standard optimization.
Anthropomorphic characters. So using an anthropomorphic bat for wis casting classes is standard optimization.
Changelings looking like constructs and undead
Treating corpses as objects
Using Spell-like Abilities to fulfill caster level requirements. Direct example is PrC, but no reason it also can't be used for magic item creation.

Player choosing order of stacking effects.
Twinned Maximized spell giving two maximized spell effects.

Feats being Ex abilities
Divine Metamagic on spells you can't normally persist due to not having high enough spell slots.
Using Divine Metamagic for scroll and wand creation

Using equipment of summoned creatures (aka potions)

Every single thing in all the books when used by itself with no other interactions. Such as unearthed arcana's warrior skeleton. Abrupt Jaunt to dodge int mod attacks. etc.

pabelfly

2022-05-21, 03:23 AM

AvatarVecna

2022-05-21, 04:07 AM

I want to show you some example characters and their feat lists from Complete Divine, since this is the book that the Divine Metamagic feat came from.

Church Inquisitor (level 9): Combat Casting, Glorious Weapons, Skill Focus (Sense Motive), Spell Penetration
Contemplative: (level 13): Combat Casting, Extra Turning, Lightning Reflexes, Martial Weapon Proficiency: Battleaxe, Weapon Focus: Battleaxe
Divine Oracle: (level 8): Combat Casting, Iron Will, Skill Focus (Knowledge Religion)

These are all characters with Cleric levels, all have Turn or Rebuke Undead, in classes that fully advance Cleric spellcasting. In fact, one of them has "Extra Turning", not to fuel Divine Metamagic, but to actually turn undead characters.

Your idea of standard optimization, and what WOTC did to optimize their characters, is vastly different.

Seconded. People aren't saying "your optimization standards are waaay high" because they're personally uncomfortable trying that hard - they're saying that because your idea of what WotC expected builds to look like is vastly, incomprehensibly out of line with the actual stat blocks they made. "Lots of people asked a question, so WotC answered the question" is not the same thing as "WotC intended people to use this combo as a stepping stone to ultimate power, and is trying to subtly hint that anybody who thinks this combo is too powerful is bad and stupid".

AvatarVecna

2022-05-21, 04:22 AM

Contemplative: (level 13): Combat Casting, Extra Turning, Lightning Reflexes, Martial Weapon Proficiency: Battleaxe, Weapon Focus: Battleaxe

I felt a need to comment on this in particular.

MWP and Weapon Focus on a build for a PrC with Poor BAB and a d6 HD. They don't even have Divine Power or Righteous Might prepared. They made a full-cleric-casting build with an extra domain to pick from, with basically no ability to frontline, and sunk two feats into using a weapon that's just really ****ty. They didn't even sink two feats into a slightly less ****ty weapon: they could've taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe. Same crit threat range, same crit multiplier, same number of feats - only difference is that the exotic one deals an extra point of damage.

It's not even a good weapon by exotic weapon standards, and those aren't good feats by normal feat standards. But this, this right here, is what people are talking about. This is the level of effort that WotC put into optimizing builds, this is what they were expecting. They made a casting-focused build of a casting-focused PrC and gave it proficiency in a ****ty weapon when they could've at least given it proficiency in a slightly less ****ty weapon instead. This is what they felt was appropriate for a mid-high level caster to be spending resources on, and you expect me to believe they secretly fully understood the destructive potential of metamagic reduction? You are out of your mind.

Saintheart

2022-05-21, 04:42 AM

I felt a need to comment on this in particular.

MWP and Weapon Focus on a build for a PrC with Poor BAB and a d6 HD. They don't even have Divine Power or Righteous Might prepared. They made a full-cleric-casting build with an extra domain to pick from, with basically no ability to frontline, and sunk two feats into using a weapon that's just really ****ty. They didn't even sink two feats into a slightly less ****ty weapon: they could've taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe. Same crit threat range, same crit multiplier, same number of feats - only difference is that the exotic one deals an extra point of damage.

Not to further pile on WOTC, but they didn't even have to spend the two feats to get the same thing. War domain is straight out of the PHB, free MWP and Weapon Focus in any martial weapon, which includes the battleaxe.

Either way:

(1) This whole debate has such a strong flavour of Category Error it's very likely only to end in the same sort of place that alignment debates end up.

(2) My own 2 cents are that WOTC didn't key towards any sort of strength in optimisation because (a) optimisation is not easy and (b) they were building a new system which had to appeal to a wide audience, i.e. the system was built to a low level of system mastery. Game store casuals, weekend warriors, newbies. In that scenario you don't expect complexity in sample builds, the idea is to show the audience a character that does what the highlighted feature does, with the rest of it basically an afterthought.

Tzardok

2022-05-21, 04:45 AM

and sunk two feats into using a weapon that's just really ****ty. They didn't even sink two feats into a slightly less ****ty weapon: they could've taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe. Same crit threat range, same crit multiplier, same number of feats - only difference is that the exotic one deals an extra point of damage.

Ah, but it is a cleric of Garl Glittergold, and Garl's favoured weapon is the battleaxe. Whoever wrote that felt that the flavour points outweighed any practicality.

pabelfly

2022-05-21, 04:57 AM

AvatarVecna

2022-05-21, 06:20 AM

Not to further pile on WOTC, but they didn't even have to spend the two feats to get the same thing. War domain is straight out of the PHB, free MWP and Weapon Focus in any martial weapon, which includes the battleaxe.

Either way:

(1) This whole debate has such a strong flavour of Category Error it's very likely only to end in the same sort of place that alignment debates end up.

(2) My own 2 cents are that WOTC didn't key towards any sort of strength in optimisation because (a) optimisation is not easy and (b) they were building a new system which had to appeal to a wide audience, i.e. the system was built to a low level of system mastery. Game store casuals, weekend warriors, newbies. In that scenario you don't expect complexity in sample builds, the idea is to show the audience a character that does what the highlighted feature does, with the rest of it basically an afterthought.

Very slight point in their favor: AFAICT, Garl Glittergold doesn't have the War domain available to select. So this particular Contemplative couldn't have done that.

Biggus

2022-05-21, 07:19 AM

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 08:45 AM

You don't have to look at the sample PCs at all. The monsters define the appropriate power level. "Standard optimization" is the level of optimization that allows you to go roughly 50/50 against creatures of a CR equal to your level. That's what the CR rules say you should do, that's what it means to be appropriately optimized.

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 09:59 AM

(2) My own 2 cents are that WOTC didn't key towards any sort of strength in optimisation because (a) optimisation is not easy and (b) they were building a new system which had to appeal to a wide audience, i.e. the system was built to a low level of system mastery. Game store casuals, weekend warriors, newbies. In that scenario you don't expect complexity in sample builds, the idea is to show the audience a character that does what the highlighted feature does, with the rest of it basically an afterthought.

The 4 sample characters I use are unoptimized.
1. Naked Wilder using Astral Construct
2. Naked Wizard using arcane thesis following the exact example from the feat description.
3. Fiendbinder who spends 100% of its money on minions and under the assumption all previous minions die on level up.
4. Planar Binding used as is.

I doubt anyone would consider these "complexity". And their damage outputs roughly line up.

If you think these are not standard optimization and instead high op then I'm all ears. Fiendbinder's progression in particular is completely spelled out. In my opinion I think it's impossible to argue that using mariliths at 17th level is high-op.

Not to mention the Astral Construct Wilder was literally used as the standard for balance when they introduced the astral construct nerf in complete psionic.

WotC actually published the PCs they used to playtest things like monster CR, in the book Enemies and Allies (p.53-64). Insofar as there's an official level of optimization the game is designed for, that's it, and it's very low-op, so much so that you'd almost have to deliberate sabotage your character to be much lower-op. Look also at the famous characters who've been statted like Elminster, who are supposed to be the great powers of the world; with only one or two exceptions, they're as low-op as the PCs.

So I think your statement "a lot of people are playing well below the intended difficulty of the game" is completely wrong.

There's an official illustration of a red wizard using greater planar binding to bind a Pit Fiend. Which is in line with the 4 characters I used to define standard optimization.

Your idea of standard optimization, and what WOTC did to optimize their characters, is vastly different.

Again, the 4 characters I used are used exactly as described in the books and has been used by WotC personally as the standard for balance.

1. Cause of the complete psionic nerf and the various PrCs that overcome the nerf temporarily
2. Using a combo that is explicitly used as an example in multiple feat descriptions.
3. Spelled out progression with very little wiggle room.
4. Multiple splatbooks and entire settings are built around this spell. And is constantly recommended by WotC for player use.

Dimers

2022-05-21, 10:34 AM

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 10:56 AM

wefoij123, I think you're using a very different definition of "standard" than most people on this forum. Unless you can convince people that "standard" means "the strongest few examples that can be found out of a sample of hundreds or thousands" then you're unlikely to get people to shift their opinions to match yours. Because the builds you're presenting are clearly not typical or normal for what's been published.

And incidentally, you can throw the wilder out the window as an example, due to your own argument: if it caused a nerf to exist, then WotC must have judged it to be too powerful.

First, I'm using WotC's definition of standard. Not this forum. This forum apparently views 1st level wizard grabbing abrupt jaunt as "cheese", the tricks in the FAQ as overpowered, and using Astral Construct is high-op. That's... well... severely substandard in my opinion.

Second these are not the strongest examples. These are the consistent and well defined examples that I'm familiar with. Astral Construct cannot be strengthened by magic items. Its damage output is flat. Fiendbinder likewise is completely flat. And metamagic is completely flat too.
I'm using well defined, consistent, and flat examples with very little wiggle room. Not strongest. There is no way anyone would call Fiendbinder "strongest" when a normal planar binder does everything it does better and for free too. Or Astral Construct for that matter.

Thirdly your logic about throwing Wilder out makes no sense. Complete Psionic, after introducing the nerf, created a lot of astral construct related things that undoes this nerf with resource investment. And buffed Wilders alot too. So it's clear that the post-nerf Wilder is where WotC wants Wilders to be at.
To claim that a post-playtested class should be thrown out is ridiculous.

pabelfly

2022-05-21, 11:04 AM

Again, the 4 characters I used are used exactly as described in the books and has been used by WotC personally as the standard for balance.

1. Cause of the complete psionic nerf and the various PrCs that overcome the nerf temporarily
2. Using a combo that is explicitly used as an example in multiple feat descriptions.
3. Spelled out progression with very little wiggle room.
4. Multiple splatbooks and entire settings are built around this spell. And is constantly recommended by WotC for player use.

With just Complete Divine and Players Handbook, you could have Divine Metamagic and Permanent Metamagic on a character. WOTC thought a character with full Cleric casting martial build should instead have feats including Lightning Reflexes, Extra Turning, Martial Weapon Proficiency Battleaxe and Weapon Focus (Battleaxe).

You can't pick a few extreme outliers and say that it represents the generality of WOTC optimisation levels. Especially when such examples exist in the same subset of the source material.

Zanos

2022-05-21, 11:06 AM

Batcathat

2022-05-21, 11:22 AM

Second these are not the strongest examples. These are the consistent and well defined examples that I'm familiar with. Astral Construct cannot be strengthened by magic items. Its damage output is flat. Fiendbinder likewise is completely flat. And metamagic is completely flat too.
I'm using well defined, consistent, and flat examples with very little wiggle room. Not strongest. There is no way anyone would call Fiendbinder "strongest" when a normal planar binder does everything it does better and for free too. Or Astral Construct for that matter.

Would you say there are much weaker and less optimized examples to be found? And if there are, why are they less representative than your examples?

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 11:33 AM

With just Complete Divine and Players Handbook, you could have Divine Metamagic and Permanent Metamagic on a character. WOTC thought a character with full Cleric casting martial build should instead have feats including Lightning Reflexes, Extra Turning, Martial Weapon Proficiency Battleaxe and Weapon Focus (Battleaxe).

You can't pick a few extreme outliers and say that it represents the generality of WOTC optimisation levels. Especially when such examples exist in the same subset of the source material.

Our difference of opinion is that I use player progression as the standard where as you use sample NPCs as the standard.
I use PrC progressions, official spell progressions, and FAQ sanctioned tricks.
You use official NPCs.

You can't get more flat than astral construct in my opinion. And as I have shown, it is not an outlier. Blaster wizards are on par with it too.

You don't have to look at the sample PCs at all. The monsters define the appropriate power level. "Standard optimization" is the level of optimization that allows you to go roughly 50/50 against creatures of a CR equal to your level. That's what the CR rules say you should do, that's what it means to be appropriately optimized.

This approach is tricky because just because you can deal damage doesn't mean you can survive damage inflicted on you. According to your definition a barbarian who can one shot everything if he wins initiative and gets one shot by every if he loses initiative is standard.

I think it's better to stick with explicitly spelled out player progressions instead of sample NPCs or combat with actual monsters. There's also the mis-CRing of monsters on top PCs being good/bad against different types of monsters.

Would you say there are much weaker and less optimized examples to be found? And if there are, why are they less representative than your examples?

Yes there are some really bad PrCs. But lot of them are never mentioned outside their splatbook.
Wilder and Wizards are core examples.
Fiendbinder is referenced and recommended in FCI
Planar Binding is completely ingrained and inseparable to the entire system.

So I think these hold more water than unplaytested underperforming PrCs that is never mentioned again in other books.

edit:
I'm gonna say core naked wizard/wilder are the standard and not PrCs who worsen these two class's performances.

nedz

2022-05-21, 12:31 PM

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 01:06 PM

This approach is tricky because just because you can deal damage doesn't mean you can survive damage inflicted on you. According to your definition a barbarian who can one shot everything if he wins initiative and gets one shot by every if he loses initiative is standard.

"Balance" is not the only metric worth caring about. That doesn't mean measuring balance effectively is bad.

I think it's better to stick with explicitly spelled out player progressions instead of sample NPCs or combat with actual monsters. There's also the mis-CRing of monsters on top PCs being good/bad against different types of monsters.

Sticking with PC progressions instead of evaluating against challenge is how you get the Monk. What the game is fundamentally about is overcoming challenges. If your metric for "is this balanced" does not engage with the challenges, you're not going to get useful results. PCs matching up well or poorly against various monsters (or the fact that some monsters are mis-CRed) is only an issue if you use a sample size that's too small. Different characters should succeed against different individual monsters, so long as they succeed at similar overall rates.

But lot of them are never mentioned outside their splatbook.

So are a lot of the good ones. The vast majority of everything is never mentioned after the first time it appears.

Planar Binding is completely ingrained and inseparable to the entire system.

You're going to need to explain that one, because it seems to me that you could very easily drop planar binding without touching the overwhelming majority of the system.

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 01:12 PM

There are a whole bunch of sample builds in the back of PH II.
I'll stick with the Cleric options for consistency.

Defender
Extra Turning, Improved Turning, Iron Will, Spell Focus (evocation), Sacred Radiance, Combat Casting, Tower Shield Proficiency, Lunging Strike.

Destroyer
Extra Turning, Divine Justice, Weapon Focus (any), Divine Armour, Smiting Spell, Power Attack, Combat Casting, Armour Specialisation (heavy).

Healer
Combat Casting, Sacred Healing, Divine Ward, Extra Turning, Brew Potion, Sacred Purification, Quicken Spell, Extra Turning.

These are low op builds.

Funny you should mention that.
Wizard Blaster
Combat Casting, Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Penetration, Craft Wand, Arcane Toughness, Precise Shot, Empower Spell, Craft Staff, Maximize Spell, Greater Spell Penetration, Arcane thesis, Quicken Spell
--PHBII p.214

Anarchic Initiate
Wilder7/Anarchic Initiate 4
...
Wilder Powers Known
...
1st—Astral Construct
--Complete Psionic p.21

These are standard optimization.

You're going to need to explain that one, because it seems to me that you could very easily drop planar binding without touching the overwhelming majority of the system.
All of eberron's elemental crafting.
Every single fiend related thing in the game. Planar Binding is the only method of fiend interaction in the entire game.
Planar Ally similarly is the main way a cleric receives direct servants of their deities. Any and all deity related things involve planar ally significantly. Check their descriptions.

If you don't consider any of these an "overwhelming majority" then so be it.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 01:19 PM

All of eberron's elemental crafting.

Starting off strong with "we need this to be a core part of the game because it interacts with a setting-specific crafting mechanic".

Every single fiend related thing in the game. Planar Binding is the only method of fiend interaction in the entire game.

Or, you know, plane shift. Hell, summon monster lets you interact with plenty of fiends. But, again, if you want to deal with creatures from the lower planes you can just go there.

Planar Ally similarly is the main way a cleric receives direct servants of their deities.

But is that really "inseparable to the entire system"? It's true that if Clerics didn't get planar ally, they couldn't cast planar ally, but does anything in the system rely on them doing that? What if instead of summoning the servants of their gods, they just didn't do that?

If you don't consider any of these an "overwhelming majority" then so be it.

I would love for you to provide a definition of "overwhelming majority" which these meet.

Batcathat

2022-05-21, 01:31 PM

So, if you're trying to determine the standard, wouldn't it make more sense to base it on all the examples available, rather than cherry-pick the most powerful ones? Lamborghinis exists, but I wouldn't call it a standard car.

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 01:44 PM

Starting off strong with "we need this to be a core part of the game because it interacts with a setting-specific crafting mechanic".

{Scrubbed}

Or, you know, plane shift. Hell, summon monster lets you interact with plenty of fiends. But, again, if you want to deal with creatures from the lower planes you can just go there.

But is that really "inseparable to the entire system"? It's true that if Clerics didn't get planar ally, they couldn't cast planar ally, but does anything in the system rely on them doing that? What if instead of summoning the servants of their gods, they just didn't do that?

I would love for you to provide a definition of "overwhelming majority" which these meet.

If you read as much d&d material as I have, you would know just how important planar binding and planar ally is to the setting. Virtually all fiend related campaigns revolve around these two spells. And you would know just how ingrained fiends are to the entire system.

I have been saying because of Planar Binding's extensive use by NPCs, because of the extensive amount of support the spell has received in terms of feats and PrCs, and because of its extensive recommendation by the books for players to utilize, it is not a high-op trick. It's a standard core trick.

If you think such an extensively used spell is not standard then so be it. You're entitled to your opinion.

So, if you're trying to determine the standard, wouldn't it make more sense to base it on all the examples available, rather than cherry-pick the most powerful ones? Lamborghinis exists, but I wouldn't call it a standard car.

Properly geared up characters using the recommendations in Magic Item Compendium and other stuff, most of the sample characters can deal the damage I have listed for blasters and wilders. A nice magic weapon with power attack goes a really long way. I'm pretty sure most of the barbarian sample NPCs can deal the damage I listed out in the first post. Rage, two handed weapon, and power attack is a very high damage option and the barbarian PrCs increase this damage even further.

And I've been saying "ballpark". Meaning if these characters deal about 66-75% of the damage I listed out, it's within the "ballpark". Astral Construct and spells are limited use a day so it makes sense standard unlimited use is a little weaker in the burst damage department.

However if you do not get the proper gear, martials in particular will do substandard damage. So a standard optimization game is where players optimize their characters to at least deal as much damage as the 4 naked flat progression characters I have statted out in the first post. And less means it is low-op.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 01:55 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed} But you're the one who made an argument for why something was an inherent and inseparable part of the system that started off by citing to setting-specific mechanics.

If you read as much d&d material as I have, you would know just how important planar binding and planar ally is to the setting. Virtually all fiend related campaigns revolve around these two spells. And you would know just how ingrained fiends are to the entire system.

Existing campaigns are a poor argument about optimization standards. Those campaigns were not published when the game was released. Balance is a property of the system, not what happened to be done with it.

I have been saying because of Planar Binding's extensive use by NPCs, because of the extensive amount of support the spell has received in terms of feats and PrCs, and because of its extensive recommendation by the books for players to utilize, it is not a high-op trick. It's a standard core trick.

Bear in mind that what you said is that planar binding is "ingrained and inseparable to the entire system". Thus far you've pointed out that it gets mentioned in setting-specific stuff, and that there's non-core material that supports it. Do you know what else that's true of? Monks. Maybe they're the standard level of optimization that cannot be separated from any part of the system.

AvatarVecna

2022-05-21, 03:29 PM

Seconded. There's an entire subsystem that very clearly outlines the games intended difficulty.

I want to build on this point.

Take a character. Any character. Literally any character you care to create. Assuming they have only levels in PC classes, their CR is going to be equal to their character level, definitionally.

Take that same character, and make a 100% identical version of them. Same feats, same spells, same items, same tactical skill. Pit them against each other. Anybody who thinks about it for more than two seconds should be able to agree that you and your clone have the exact same chance to beat each other, and that means you have a 50% chance of winning, no matter what strategy you use - because the clone could use the exact same strategy.

Two creatures of the same CR (literally "Challenge Rating") are considered to be roughly equal in terms of the challenge they provide to players. This is explicit from WotC regarding their expectations: this CR 13 creature is, generally speaking, right around as difficult to fight as this other CR 13 creature. That's literally what a "Challenge Rating" exists to define. This particular statistic is to show how tough WotC thinks enemies should be considered to be.

The above three points, taken together, mean that a creature whose CR is equal to your character level, regardless of their build, should be considered somewhere around a 50% chance of winning. This is what WotC expects of people. Thus, if you are building a character who can reliably solo creatures whose CR equals his character level, or even creatures whose CR exceeds his character level, you have not made a character that is in line with WotC expectations, you have made a character that exceeds expectations.

This is all based on the basic, fundamental functions of the subsystem WotC designed for approximating how challenging enemies are to fight. And I'm not saying it's bad to beat these expectations. I'm not saying it's bad to be able to solo creatures of your CR or higher. It's valuable to the team if you're able to fight that hard. What I'm saying is that this is pretty explicitly the level of competence WotC expected out of PCs. The fact that they made a lot of powerful, abusable mechanics that can allow even very low-level characters to punch waaaaaaay up is not an indication that they expected that to be the standard, it is an indication that they didn't put as much thought into the various mechanical combos as two decades worth of arguing among a hundred thousand internet strangers have.

You're literally pretending that a line of spells being "famous" means that WotC intended them to be the standard by which blasting spells are measured. But WotC didn't create them and be like "these are the new standard for blasting" - that was the community. The online community found this line of spells that had a lot of potential as the main component for a blasting build, and the online community made them famous specifically because they were head and shoulders above the rest of the competition. The spells that are "famous" because of actions taken by WotC are the legacy spells that show up in every edition (the ones that have some AD&D wizard's name on them). Those are spells whose fame can be directly attributed to WotC, and it's not because they're powerful.

I'm gonna say core naked wizard/wilder are the standard and not PrCs who worsen these two class's performances.

In the same "you clearly don't know what you're talking about" vein, wilder isn't core. It's OGL. There is a difference.

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 05:36 PM

Just to set the record straight, since you people keep detracting from my original post by using sample NPCs.

I am using PrC progressions and Spell progressions as the basis of "standard optimization". Not sample NPCs. I just indulged you people in your sample NPC claims because I found a arcane thesis blaster and wild surge astral construct. But that is not my point. Once again I am using PrC progressions and Spell progressions.

If you want to see me cherry pick PrCs then I direct you no further than Incantatrix, Ur-priest, and Dweomerkeeper.
You take the wizard blaster from PHBII, add Incantatrix, and you got pretty much something very close to the mailman.
Ur-priest gives its blessing for players to get a free wish 1/year.
Dweomerkeeper and its free wish spam should be self evident. And it reduces metamagic just like Incantatrix

But instead of cherry picking these OP PrCs, I used Wilder, a core class, using Astral Construct, a core ability that was playtested and nerfed in a supplement.
I used a naked wizard with no PrCs or additional metamagic reducers other than the one Arcane Thesis.
I used Fiendbinder, a suboptimal class that no one will ever go, because its progression is spelled out. No player creativity here like polymorph.
And I used an extremely widely used core spell.

I gave my reasons, because these builds' damage output does not rely on equipment. So they're flat. As in it really doesn't get better or worse.
Martials on the other hand, completely lives and dies with their gear. A naked martial or a martial with mundane gear only is worthless. They need to be at wealth by level.
So for simplicity, I used spellcasters whose damage output is indepenent of their equipment instead of martials.

You guys throwing sample NPCs designed for new players or sample NPCs designed for parties to kill are non-sequiturs. If you want to gauge intended player strength you look at classes and PrCs by themselves with no shenanigans.

The damage output of these spellcasters are within the same ballpark of each other. So I conclude that standard optimization means damage dealing characters need to deal similar damage to wilder astral constructs.

Are we clear on my stance?

So come up with a quote that says Astral Construct Wilders post nerf are not standard op but overpowered as hell
Or that a blaster wizard that is in fact used as a sample PC build is not standard op but overpowered as hell
Or that a truename class that no one will ever go is not standard op but overpowered as hell
Or that a extensively used, recommended, and supported spell is not standard op but overpowered as hell

Or agree with me that this is the upper-limit of standard optimization and damage dealing characters who are not within the ballpark of the figures I gave in the 1st post are low-op.

Batcathat

2022-05-21, 05:47 PM

You guys throwing sample NPCs designed for new players or sample NPCs designed for parties to kill are non-sequiturs.

The thread is about figuring out how powerful the designers intended characters to be... but you don't understand why people would look at the example characters the designers made, the monsters characters are intended to fight and the system specifically designed to illustrate how challenging those fights should be? :smallconfused:

Or agree with me that this is the upper-limit of standard optimization and damage dealing characters who are not within the ballpark of the figures I gave in the 1st post are low-op.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the lower limit of "standard optimization"?

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 05:53 PM

You're literally pretending that a line of spells being "famous" means that WotC intended them to be the standard by which blasting spells are measured. But WotC didn't create them and be like "these are the new standard for blasting" - that was the community. The online community found this line of spells that had a lot of potential as the main component for a blasting build, and the online community made them famous specifically because they were head and shoulders above the rest of the competition.

To be fair to him, the things he's doing with those spells work pretty much as well with any other blasting spell. You can cast a Twinned Empowered Maximized fireball as easily as a Twinned Empowered Maximized orb of fire, and it will be lower level (and better in some circumstances, as you may be able to hit multiple enemies with it -- though I don't know that he can make that argument, with his resolute reject of "circumstances" as a meaningful standard).

Or that a extensively used, recommended, and supported spell is not standard op but overpowered as hell

How about you come up with an argument for why planar binding is the standard that doesn't apply to Monks. Your argument proves too much (that's what people mean when they accuse you of cherrypicking, not that you have picked the most favorable possible arguments). There are many things with as much evidence for them being "the standard" as the ones you have chosen, and you have provided no mechanism for distinguishing between them.

AvatarVecna

2022-05-21, 05:59 PM

Are we clear on my stance?

We're all very clear on what your opinion is. We just all disagree with your conclusions. I'm sure you're the only one who knows the truth behind WotC's intentions, though.

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on 280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 06:06 PM

The thread is about figuring out how powerful the designers intended characters to be... but you don't understand why people would look at the example characters the designers made, the monsters characters are intended to fight and the system specifically designed to illustrate how challenging those fights should be? :smallconfused:

Monster characters intended to fight? If you want to do this I'm game. Just, tell me how we're gonna objectively go about this.

Animals are a joke to every character out there. If we use them even low-op characters will perform extremely well.

Fiends on the other hand, with their various special abilities, flight, incorporeality, save or dies, damage reduction, regeneration, etc. How are you gonna measure this? A melee barbarian probably can't handle fliers without the wizard dropping it to the ground and grounding it. But what if he doesn't have said wizard to do that for him? This is a team effort so how are we going to measure individual performance with monsters?

If you figure this out I'm game. I think we can't figure it out so I rejected the idea and instead looked at the damage numbers of flat spells and PrCs. You see how the latter is much, much easier to measure right?

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the lower limit of "standard optimization"?

We stat out 3 of the 4 party roles at the low end standard optimization. And then we put the damage dealer in there. If he cannot pull his weight against the toughest monster whose CR = party ECL then that is low-op.

I don' t know how to measure this. The damage dealer is not the sole damage dealer. But you get the point, if the character cannot pull his own weight at such a normal difficulty he is low-op. That is in my opinion the line for lower limit of standard optimization. And I suspect the number is gonna be within the ballpark of the figures I gave.

Zanos

2022-05-21, 06:06 PM

We're all very clear on what your opinion is. We just all disagree with your conclusions. I'm sure you're the only one who knows the truth behind WotC's intentions, though.
{Scrubbed}

JNAProductions

2022-05-21, 06:10 PM

Monster characters intended to fight? If you want to do this I'm game. Just, tell me how we're gonna objectively go about this.

Animals are a joke to every character out there. If we use them even low-op characters will perform extremely well.

Fiends on the other hand, with their various special abilities, flight, incorporeality, save or dies, damage reduction, regeneration, etc. How are you gonna measure this? A melee barbarian probably can't handle fliers without the wizard dropping it to the ground and grounding it. But what if he doesn't have said wizard to do that for him? This is a team effort so how are we going to measure individual performance with monsters?

If you figure this out I'm game. I think we can't figure it out so I rejected the idea and instead looked at the damage numbers of flat spells and PrCs. You see how the latter is much, much easier to measure right?

We stat out 3 of the 4 party roles at the low end standard optimization. And then we put the damage dealer in there. If he cannot pull his weight against the toughest monster whose CR = party ECL then that is low-op.

I don' t know how to measure this. The damage dealer is not the sole damage dealer. But you get the point, if the character cannot pull his own weight at such a normal difficulty he is low-op.

"That sounds hard. Let's do the easy thing instead!" is not exactly compelling when it comes to proving your position the correct one.

And do tell, how does a straight Monk compare? Can they hit your damage numbers?

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 06:15 PM

Before I continue, let me just take a poll here.

How many people here are saying a wilder using astral construct is overpowered and not standard optimization?
edit: Lets take a poll on all 4 builds. How many people here think each of these builds in the 1st post is overpowered?

"That sounds hard. Let's do the easy thing instead!" is not exactly compelling when it comes to proving your position the correct one.

And do tell, how does a straight Monk compare? Can they hit your damage numbers?

By not going vow of poverty and using magic weapons.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 06:21 PM

But what if he doesn't have said wizard to do that for him?

Well, he would lose. Which, assuming he does it enough, suggests that perhaps melee Barbarians are not performing at an appropriate power level.

You see how the latter is much, much easier to measure right?

There's a joke that goes like this:

Guy sees someone looking around near a streetlight at 11PM. So he goes up and asks the guy what he's looking for. Second guy says he's trying to find his keys. First guy asks where he saw them last. Second guy points a way off to some bushes in the park. First guy asks why he's looking here if that's where he left the keys. Second guy says "this is where the light is".

That, at its core, is the problem with your argument. There are lots of stats, and they are at demonstrably different power levels. So you can't prove much by looking at damage values, even if it is easier. Sure, if things were just one way, you could point at that way and say "this is how things are supposed to be". But it is demonstrably true that things are lots of ways. So whatever mechanism you're going to use to decide how things are supposed to be needs a way to convince someone who accepts the mechanism that one way is right and other ways are wrong. "Test PCs against challenges" has that. "Look at all these stats" doesn't, because people will always be able to point at stats which are at some other power level.

We stat out 3 of the 4 party roles at the low end standard optimization. And then we put the damage dealer in there. If he cannot pull his weight against the toughest monster whose CR = party ECL then that is low-op.

That seems extremely confounded. What if the toughest monster happens to be one that the party in question has a particularly good or bad matchup against? What if that party has particularly weak or strong synergies with the damage dealer? What if they're just plainly overpowered and can carry a subpar damage dealer? It seems much easier to test in isolation. That's how software testing is done.

JNAProductions

2022-05-21, 06:23 PM

By not going vow of poverty and using magic weapons.

A 6th level Monk has two attacks per round with Flurry Of Blows at +3 to-hit before stat bonuses.
They deal 1d8 damage with their Unarmed Strike, but it's cheaper to enhance a weapon, so let's go with a 1d6 damage weapon.
You'd be looking at around 2,150 of 13,000 GP for a +1 Quarterstaff. Actually, 4,300-it's a double weapon. So, let's go siangham. 2,153 GP for a +1 version.
If we assume the Monk has a 16 in Strength and Dexterity, they'd be dealing 1d6+4 at +7 to-hit per attack, two attacks if they don't need to move.
That's not just -5 on the hit bonus, it's -10 on damage too compared to the Construct!

Now, they do have about 11,000 GP to spend. So we can up the Strength by 2 for 4,000 GP, netting us +8 to-hit, for 1d6+5 damage each. Now we're only 4 points of hit behind, and 8 points of damage if both hit!

We've spent just shy of half the GP on items to strictly increase the damage.

Mechalich

2022-05-21, 06:23 PM

And how many people here are saying a wizard using arcane thesis, maximize spell, and empower spell is overpowered and not standard optimization?

A properly built Tier 1 character, played correctly, is in fact overpowered (above ~level 8) because the game is not balanced around the capabilities of Tier 1 characters. Paizo, which had a still limited but substantially greater understanding of how the system actually worked than WotC ever did, roughly balanced their game around Tier 3. Starfinder, to go even further, simply made Tier 3 equivalents (half-casters with maxed spells of level 6) the upper level and eliminated the top two tiers outright.

Standard Optimization is best defined as the amount of min/maxing necessary to meet the array of commonly presented level appropriate challenges. This is best found in the various published adventure modules which, again, cluster around Tier 3. There's some variation, especially with D&D compared to Pathfinder, in large part because just as the WotC design team was bad at understanding character capabilities and tactics, they were equally bad at understanding the monster equivalents, leading to many enemies that were drastically overpowered or underpowered compared to the adventurers they were supposed to face.

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 06:48 PM

A 6th level Monk has two attacks per round with Flurry Of Blows at +3 to-hit before stat bonuses.
They deal 1d8 damage with their Unarmed Strike, but it's cheaper to enhance a weapon, so let's go with a 1d6 damage weapon.
You'd be looking at around 2,150 of 13,000 GP for a +1 Quarterstaff. Actually, 4,300-it's a double weapon. So, let's go siangham. 2,153 GP for a +1 version.
If we assume the Monk has a 16 in Strength and Dexterity, they'd be dealing 1d6+4 at +7 to-hit per attack, two attacks if they don't need to move.
That's not just -5 on the hit bonus, it's -10 on damage too compared to the Construct!

Now, they do have about 11,000 GP to spend. So we can up the Strength by 2 for 4,000 GP, netting us +8 to-hit, for 1d6+5 damage each. Now we're only 4 points of hit behind, and 8 points of damage if both hit!

We've spent just shy of half the GP on items to strictly increase the damage.

{Scrubbed}

6th level astral construct wilder does 25 damage a round in a full attack.

Monk with 18str using a quarterstaff with flurry of blows is 1d6+4 x 2 = 15 damage a round. So it's about 60% damage of the astral construct.
We got 13,000gp. 2,000 to make it a +1 weapon to do 17 damage a round. 68%
Spend 6000gp to make it a sonic weapon to do 22 damage a round. 88%

It's within "ballpark" for sure. Astral Construct is limited times per day that gets less with unlucky rolls of psychic enervation while Monk, while doing less damage, lasts until his hp gives out, which could be forever if he has a divine metamagic persistent spell cleric who cast mass lesser vigor just like in the FAQ.

Spending half his gp on it? So what. Martials are supposed to use most of its money on damage. Wilder can't increase his damage with magic items. He can only use money to last a bit longer.

What is the point you're trying to prove here?

A properly built Tier 1 character, played correctly, is in fact overpowered (above ~level 8) because the game is not balanced around the capabilities of Tier 1 characters. Paizo, which had a still limited but substantially greater understanding of how the system actually worked than WotC ever did, roughly balanced their game around Tier 3. Starfinder, to go even further, simply made Tier 3 equivalents (half-casters with maxed spells of level 6) the upper level and eliminated the top two tiers outright.

Standard Optimization is best defined as the amount of min/maxing necessary to meet the array of commonly presented level appropriate challenges. This is best found in the various published adventure modules which, again, cluster around Tier 3. There's some variation, especially with D&D compared to Pathfinder, in large part because just as the WotC design team was bad at understanding character capabilities and tactics, they were equally bad at understanding the monster equivalents, leading to many enemies that were drastically overpowered or underpowered compared to the adventurers they were supposed to face.

So just to be clear...
the example in Arcane Thesis's feat description uses it to reduce a maximized empowered spell's cost by 2.
And you are saying doing exactly this is overpowered?

RandomPeasant

2022-05-21, 06:50 PM

The relationship between power and T1 casters is a little bit weird. On the one hand, you do have things like Incantatrix or Dweomerkeeper that break the game. But, to be honest, you have those for non-casters too. An Ubercharger doesn't have a single spell to their name, and they break the game in the same way as a Mailman (and, frankly, are in many respects more problematic than a BFC-focused or Buffbot caster). And while casters have many powerful non-combat capabilities, it's much harder to clearly classify those as overpowered, because there are far fewer defined non-combat challenges than there are defined monsters. It's certainly true that teleport negates certain types of challenges, but unless you want to argue "walk a long way" is a challenge that's appropriate for 20th level characters, people have to get teleport at some point, and since only casters do, it means that you are implicitly accepting that one of them is appropriately powered in this respect. As far as actual monsters go, you can make an argument either way. It's true that carefully-built casters overshoot balance targets, but if you aren't actively optimizing they hit them pretty neatly up until very high level, which I would argue is the more important goal. People should not have to engage in the type of CharOp shenanigans that get thrown around on the internet to have an effective character.

Particle_Man

2022-05-21, 07:23 PM

wefoij123

2022-05-21, 07:29 PM

I have only a few minor points to add to the discussion:

1) I would assume that we are using the default array for stats rather than 32 point buy?

2) Later books are thought to be more balanced (if nothing else the game designers had time to learn from their mistakes) so maybe look at those?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

1) I was thinking 25 but 32 is fine too.
3) That's not me. I don't even know what that is. It's a saturday and I just felt like talking shop with strangers. But seeing people here say a naked wilder's damage output is overpowered, and seeing people here say that using a naked wilder's damage output as a measuring stick is wrong because...??? Is a bit frustrating.

Damage output of martials vary from 10 to 1000, and everyone has their own opinion on what standard optimization is. So instead of martials I used a class that cannot vary its damage output and has been used as the standard for balance for an entire splatbook. And then used other flat classes/spells to show that their damage output is on par with the class that cannot vary its damage output, thus showing that this kind of damage output per level is standard. And somehow this is flawed logic.

Maybe you can explain other people's objections to me better.

Particle_Man

2022-05-21, 08:28 PM

I will leave others to explain their views {Scrubbed}

Fwiw by default array I don’t mean 25 point buy exactly. It is a little less flexible than that as the ability scores are set at 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 (in any order). I don’t know of many games that use this in practice but those are the scores that example characters are assigned and I believe that designers used for play tests.

Seward

2022-05-21, 08:45 PM

It is interesting to try to approach this problem from rules clarifications, but it not really an approach to the problem I agree with.

I find published adventures to be the best examples of what the Devs assumed was reasonable, including level ranges. It's helpful also when (like in RHOD) you get dev notes in the sidebars saying what they were thinking, so you can adjust it to the party.

I was a player, GM, playtester and (once) an author in Living Greyhawk, and in that campaign the campaign organizers built around an assumption that a typical adventure would include about 3 EL+3 encounters or maybe some EL+2 with additional puzzles, traps, noncombat challenges. It worked pretty well in the 2002-2008 time frame, although a bunch of material was published in 2008 right as the campaign was dying that didn't get included and are routine parts of charop (such as Tome of Battle) or are very common but were only available if you got lucky and played a year 8 adventure that offered what you needed (most ACF, most MIC stuff that wasn't published earlier, most Spell Compendium stuff that wasn't published earlier, Races Dragon/Draconomicon). All along BOED and LM were very very rare.

Beyond that the campaign organizers simply banned a bunch of stuff (which included obviously problematic stuff like nightsticks, but other stuff they just didn't like) reserved some things for NPC only (mostly "For the EEVILS" kinds of feats/spells/magic items) and had an entire category of stuff you had to encounter on an adventure or get as a favor during an adventure to access (all ACFs, some prc's and even base classes, a large category of commonly Charop spells, any magic item not a basic enhancement, resistance, deflection bonus costing over 750gp, consumables over 750gp etc).

So player charop was stomped on a bit by whatever the campaign organizers decreed, plus limited to some extent by not being able to count on access to the thing you need. Players would often change their build goals based on suddenly getting access to something new, and that was seen as desirable.

====================
Ok, really long preamble to the important part.

We wrote those adventures for WIDE level ranges, for even average party levels. That is some were written for levels 2-16, the same adventure scaled for a party of average L2 characters and others for a 6 mostly L15 characters (you retired at L16, having a 6 character party bumped average level by 1, minimum 4 characters allowed). Odd level parties were allowed to "play up" or "play down", which is why Tier 16 existed.

In the later campaign it was more common to use a narrower range of levels (2-8 or 10-16 say) because it really can be a challenge to actually scale encounters over such a broad range. (I was a popular playtester in my region because I'd built tools to rapidly playtest with random party compositions at each tier with a 4 lvl+1 characters, 5 Level+0 characters or 6 level-1 characters and would often be the only person to actually playtest some tiers of one-off convention type adventures before release due to time constraints)

Still I have to say though. Within the level of charop allowed by Living Grehawk, EL+3 worked surprisingly well, out of the box, using normal MM rules, npc gear for PC-type enemies etc. For a group of players with less options, EL+2 as recommended by the DMG would probably give a similar outcome.

There were some exceptions. Elementals scale weirdly. They are weak in tier 2-4, normal at tier 6 and 12+, strong at tier 10 and absolutely overpowered at L8 if in their element (no pun intended) 3 Huge earth elementals in a tight cave where they can earth glide their bulk, 3 huge air elementals in an open plain, 3 huge water elementals underwater is MUCH MUCH more dangerous than at other tiers.).

Another one we had trouble with is Half-Fiend. It scales by monster hit dice and can cast blasphemy. Slap it on a "advance by 4 hit dice per CR" critter and you can just instant-kill any party playing in tier (not just paralyze, stun, kill outright) any party that doesn't have silence or a ready-to-disrupt type action available when it gets an action. Which for most parties may well be before any even get an action if surprised.

Threats of this at higher tiers helped keep Divine Spellpower Holy Word shenaningans in check in some regions until campaign direction toned both down, basically Mutually Assured Destruction gentleman agreements until the campaign caught up with the problem.

Both players and GMs would sometimes use battle interactives (supposed to be dangerous but one-off events) to highlight their biggest cheese in a way that was still fun but would then get attention. (as a player, my contribution was TK'ing 12 size large warmaces with GMW3, guided shot, a +4/+4 bardsong and Prayer at the Big Bad with a level 10 character (I was also getting a caster level boost from a one-time favor), and doing so much damage it broke up the rhythm of the fight, turning the tide (the critical bit being that his cleric henchman had to change actions to a heal, letting other people get action advantage and shut them down). That attack paused everything to be sure such a weak character could do all that, but that was normal when somebody brought out new cheese for everybody to admire. (as a side note, I really never had to do that level of overkill with TK in normal play, except in a party that at L14 consisted of a bard, a medic-support cleric, a support cleric/mutt of some kind and a L4 fighter playing cause all other tables were full. Nobody, included the GM, minded me busting out all that offense routinely to help that table succeed. The only other time I ever busted out the size large fully enchanted greatswords was an all-arcane run where we were all showing off our favorite tricks to each other before our characters retired, playing up to L16 while at L15. The other arcane casters used prepped tk spells and even a limited wish tk spell to get in on the "fun" after seeing it in action)

====

So I came out of that thinking that for a published adventure, they assume the kinds of options a core character can do. If you allow a lot of books/options but limit the most egregious cheese (on both player and encounter side) maybe bump the EL+1 past level 5, maybe +2 as you pass level 14.

If you allow open access to everything, (cheaper magic items + crafting options in MIC, huge spell lists including SC, tome of battle for melee if desired, all the races/dragon/alignment oriented books, setting specific stuff blah blah) maybe add another EL+1 once the characters have time and cash to make use of all that stuff.

It's similar in a way to the "Pathfinder 1.0" adjustment". L1-4 the traits and initial archetype stuff is the only difference, not really enough to justify changing EL. Published adventures in 3.5 work fine. In 5-10 (think RHOD) the extra feats, effective extra skills by consolidation of skill points, archetype abilities and such start to add up, and you are probably bumping the EL +1 around L5 and thinking about +2 by level 9. (this is why Pathfinder Society ends at level 11, Pathfinder L12 is surprisingly close to being able to play Living Greyhawk EL16 adventures without much modification). Now I played fairly early pathfinder 1.0. With all the splatbook creep you may need to adjust further up for older adventures, just as you have to in D&D.

==
Anyway that's my 5 dollars (way more than 2 cents) on this topic. My view of expected charop is considerably below most on this board, Organized Play tends to be higher charop than most casual home games although system mastery among long time Organized Play folks vs a random "lets try D&D" homegame plays as much into outcomes as just more character options. I think the basic EL system works, but has to be shifted upward as more options get added on the player side that actually improve encounter outcomes. (Including a splatbook may not do that. Hexblade was nothing to write home about....Duskblade...that one can cause a shift in party power level for a similar character concept vs just a fighter/wizard)

icefractal

2022-05-22, 03:26 AM

The first question is what are you measuring - methods or outcomes?

Because one thing you could measure is "amount of optimization", defined as the delta in power between a particular build and a "naive" use of the the same class. Naive as in "naive algorithm", not like gullible.

This is different than final power output though - a highly optimized Fighter may still be less powerful in combat than a moderately optimized full-caster, and less powerful than even a barely-optimized caster in non-combat utility.

Another, and what seems more likely from the OP, is final output power. Well, there have been attempts made at this before - try searching for "Same Game Test". You test an Xth level character against a series of CR X challenges (mostly fights, but the lists I've seen included some traps and such), and see what their success rate is, with 50% being "standard".

There are arguments that can be made against this methodology - it doesn't handle force-multiplier characters like Bards, for instance. But on the other hand, it's a lot more practical than trying to run bunch of 4v4 fights and quantify how much contribution each party member made. Not perfect or all-encompassing, but I haven't actually seen a better way to quantify power in practical terms.

Incidentally, my personal metric for "moderately optimized for power" is having at least a 90% success rate against 99% of book-standard foes of CR <= level. Not that there's anything wrong with being below that, and in fact I usually prefer asymmetric characters that would fail the 99% universality standard, but if power is the point that's what I'd consider a baseline.

Seward

2022-05-22, 07:59 AM

Twurps

2022-05-22, 11:27 AM

{Scrubbed}

I might be totally wrong here, but I think you're confusing 'maximum allowed' and 'standard' in your prefix to optimization. I know 'optimization' kind of sounds like taking the best option available', but the point of optimization, and standard optimization in particular is that people have to know a) that the particular combo/setup exists, and b) that that particular combo/setup will outperform all the countless other combo's out there. As long as that part hasn't been figured out and generally accepted, it's not 'standard'. And it's easy to **it on WotC for not understanding this, but that would be grosly underestimating the power of collective knowledge sharing on the internet.

As a testament to that strength, have a look at the development of the game of chess. I picked chess because the basic rules are very simple (at least compared to D&D), and yet the amount of options are virtually endless. (again much like, maybe even more than, D&D) The game has been around for a LONG time (and without errata's I might add) pre-internet, and lot's of smart people have pondered over it, presumably for many more hours than D&D playtesting occurred. And yet, with the advent of the internet, chess theory has exploded, many new openings/varients were invented, and openings previously thought to be very strong are now laughed away as 'old school' or 'romantic'.

So let's give the WotC guys a break, and accept that 'what their rules allow' and 'what they expected to happen' are 2 vastly different things.

Lans

2022-05-22, 04:38 PM

Just because something is standard opt doesn't mean it isn't also overpowered. If I was going to make a crocodile Dundee type of character I might decide to go scout and take a few feats getting Boomerang Daze, which is broken, and easily in range of standard optimization. Astral Construct on a wilder would be either standard opt or just above, as would VoP on a soul knife or incarnate.

icefractal

2022-05-22, 05:24 PM

Not to mention that there's different axes of optimization, which matters when you talk about whether something is 'overpowered' or not. Just from GMs I've played with, any of these factors might be important or not:
* Combat numbers in normal situations
* Combat numbers in the worst-case situation - some GMs are fine with a character that hits way above it's level 90% of the time, but hate it when a character has no weak points
* Combat numbers in the best-case situation - conversely, some GMs are fine with characters that always win combat smoothly, but don't want to ever see too huge of numbers or too instant a defeat of the foes
* Knot-cutting abilities - some GMs are really wary of them, others aren't bothered at all
* SoD / SoS effects - some GMs are fine with mowing through foes in general, but don't want "boss" creatures ever getting one-shotted
* Spotlight time - even a fairly "weak" character could have a lot of this if they focused skills on optional/solo areas, like intrigue and scouting.

wefoij123

2022-05-22, 07:41 PM

My metric is simpler for my own characters. "Can I contribute enough in noncombat encounters to find that part of the game enjoyable (for some characters this is more roleplay than capability)" and "Can I always find something useful to do in any combat round".

I'm just measuring pure damage dealing characters. Because trying to gauge the non-damage dealing part of the game is a lot more complicated. Perhaps a better title for this thread is "Defining Standard Optimization for Pure Damage Dealers".

In your experience, what is the average damage output of a pure damage dealing PC in your EL+2 or EL+3 games? Is it much lower than the numbers on the first post? Or have you never encountered such PCs and everyone sacrificed combat ability for noncombat stuff? Which is totally fine btw, there's no reason to play pure damage dealing characters if you don't enjoy it. And as you clearly pointed out, the DM should adjust the difficulty of encounters to the party.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

I might be totally wrong here, but I think you're confusing 'maximum allowed' and 'standard' in your prefix to optimization.

It's not like that at all.

I run an extremely high op table. No one goes planar binding anymore because I allow mirror mephit familiars. So all the minion players go mirror mephit. I fully allow multiple turning pool divine metamagic persistent spell clerics. I fully allow uberchargers. And the OP PrCs like dweomerkeeper, Ur-Priest, and Incantatrix are allowed too.

But it got me thinking, what is standard op? What is normal difficulty?

D&D is primarily a combat game. It fails as a simulation. And as with any game, unless you are playing at "Story Mode Difficulty", you need to do some optimization. You can't beat games at normal difficulty without either researching builds online or a lot of trial, error, and optimization. Otherwise it fails as a combat game. It's why a lot of games these days have very easy character respecing. Even D&D 3.5 joined the trend with its retraining and rebuilding rules.

I noticed a lot of people think grabbing whatever looks cool and putting it in their character with absolutely no regards to performance is standard optimization instead of low optimization, and people who, after losing a lot of characters to various things like save or dies, optimize their characters so they don't die in that way anymore are "munchkins" instead of standard.

So this whole thing is to see what the actual "standard difficulty" that WotC had in mind is. I'm using pure damage dealing characters because they are one dimensional. They do one thing and only that thing so they're easy to measure which is what I'm doing. If a PC sacrifices damage for out of combat things, that's fine, it's just that this PC is no longer a good example to use as a measurement in this thread. And I also used flat characters because there's no real variance in performance. Their damage output does not rise or fall at all.

I'll say it again. Astral Construct Wilders is the standard WotC used for the entirety of Complete Psionic. So it can't get more standard than that. And I noticed the Astral Construct Wilder's damage output lined up nicely with the arcane thesis wizard blaster. And roughly with fiendbinder and Planar Binding. So I included these other 3 as corroborating builds. Showing that Astral Construct is NOT an exception but is the norm.

You mentioned maximum allowed? Yeah, that's why I keep saying "ballpark". The maximum allowed and minimum allowed for the same role in the same optimization level shouldn't be too drastic. Which is why I say any character whose damage output is not within the ballpark of the figures I listed in the first post are low-op. Is that unreasonable?

What is "ballpark"? Well, lets just say if we got two damage dealers in the same party, "ballpark" is the amount of damage the weaker damage dealer deals without feeling like his character is worthless. I think that's 2/3rds of the astral construct wilder. I could be wrong here though.

So let's give the WotC guys a break, and accept that 'what their rules allow' and 'what they expected to happen' are 2 vastly different things.

I am showing that the damage output listed in the 1st post is in fact "what they expected to happen." You don't see me talking about uberchargers/mailman/free wishes here do you?

Just because something is standard opt doesn't mean it isn't also overpowered. If I was going to make a crocodile Dundee type of character I might decide to go scout and take a few feats getting Boomerang Daze, which is broken, and easily in range of standard optimization. Astral Construct on a wilder would be either standard opt or just above, as would VoP on a soul knife or incarnate.

So how much lower than the astral construct wilder do you think a pure damage dealing character can be while still being at standard optimization?

I've read the posts in this thread over, and I think I got the reason why there's friction here. {Scrubbed}

I think {Scrubbed} people here think "low-op" is an insult. It's not. If you're someone who plays low-op, there's nothing to be ashamed. Lots of people play on story mode in games. Don't treat low-op as some kind of a naughty word. If you don't enjoy optimizing then there's no reason for you to play at a table where optimization is mandatory.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}
So it's clear this person is playing at a low op table. There is no other explanation of why a person thinks a single maximized spell is "cheese", but instead of accepting that or giving actual evidence of why an astral construct wilder, a blaster wizard that has been used as a sample PC build in the back of PHBII, and a suboptimal PrC is "overpowered" {Scrubbed}

A 6th level Monk has two attacks per round with Flurry Of Blows at +3 to-hit before stat bonuses.
They deal 1d8 damage with their Unarmed Strike, but it's cheaper to enhance a weapon, so let's go with a 1d6 damage weapon.
You'd be looking at around 2,150 of 13,000 GP for a +1 Quarterstaff. Actually, 4,300-it's a double weapon. So, let's go siangham. 2,153 GP for a +1 version.
If we assume the Monk has a 16 in Strength and Dexterity, they'd be dealing 1d6+4 at +7 to-hit per attack, two attacks if they don't need to move.
That's not just -5 on the hit bonus, it's -10 on damage too compared to the Construct!

Now, they do have about 11,000 GP to spend. So we can up the Strength by 2 for 4,000 GP, netting us +8 to-hit, for 1d6+5 damage each. Now we're only 4 points of hit behind, and 8 points of damage if both hit!

We've spent just shy of half the GP on items to strictly increase the damage.

And this person doesn't know how to build a damage dealing monk.
Truth is I don't either. I have very little experience with monks. So when this person put this really badly built monk as proof of why the figures in the 1st post are too high, I just grabbed a sonic damage weapon and the monk ended up being almost as strong as the astral construct. And I could've made it stronger but he made a quip about how more than half the money was spent on damage. On a pure damage dealing monk.
So this person probably also plays at an low op table.

People should not have to engage in the type of CharOp shenanigans that get thrown around on the internet to have an effective character.

{Scrubbed}

But this last statement explained it all. This person is playing at a low-op table and doesn't want his table to be labeled "low op".

{Scrubbed}

So going forward here, I probably won't be responding to people who play at low op {Scrubbed}

No really. From all the people who disagree with me. I have yet to see a single person give me a reason why the Fiendbinder PrC progression is overpowered, why a metamagicked spell progression is overpowered, or why Astral Constructs are overpowered. The only thing I've seen is "focusing on damage is wrong" and a barrage of sample NPCs, and when I counter that with a few sample NPCs myself I am labeled a "Cherry picker".

{Scrubbed}

This whole "discussion" in this thread was just me repeating again and again to look at pure damage dealing player progressions because I'm meausring damage dealers, and that the examples I used are flat, not optimized, and actually used as a basis for balance. No actual progress in the subject/discussion made. Except Seward's extremely informative post. Thank you for that.

truemane

2022-05-22, 08:50 PM

Metamagic Mod: closed for review.

truemane

2022-05-23, 10:45 AM

Metamagic Mod: thread re-opened. Let's everyone please keep to the topic under discussion and not start crossing the streams with things that might have been said in other threads. And let's also dial it back with the personal attacks. This thread, and every thread: If you can't engage with the assumption of good faith and best intentions on all sides, then don't engage.

Batcathat

2022-05-23, 11:33 AM

The only thing I've seen is "focusing on damage is wrong" and a barrage of sample NPCs, and when I counter that with a few sample NPCs myself I am labeled a "Cherry picker".

The difference is, no one else (that I've seen) present a few sample NPCs and say that their optimization level represent "standard optimization" or the intent of the designers. If there are less optimized NPCs and more optimized NPCs, it seems odd to designate either as the standard.

JNAProductions

2022-05-23, 11:36 AM

I'd also point out that the standard, if Wizards were truly intentional about it, should've been set with Core.
So, a Core-only Monk should be able to meet the benchmark. And without too much difficulty too! It is, after all, the standard, not the high-power.

wefoij123

2022-05-23, 12:19 PM

The difference is, no one else (that I've seen) present a few sample NPCs and say that their optimization level represent "standard optimization" or the intent of the designers. If there are less optimized NPCs and more optimized NPCs, it seems odd to designate either as the standard.

Those pure damage sample player builds can all deal the damage in the 1st post with the right gear. But some people might say optimizing your gear like that is high-op. Some people might say vow of poverty monk is high op. I've met actual people who thought VoP monk was overpowered. So how do we settle this? How do we settle how much damage per level is standard when performance can vary so widely depending on your gear and feat build?

Once again, by looking at flat player progressions. You can't increase their damage output with magic items. So if several immovable, invariable player progressions line up pretty closely to the same numbers then we can conclude that optimizing your gear and therefore your damage output to these levels is standard.

The non-pure damage sample player builds however, could possibly lag a little behind because they sacrificed combat ability for other things.

Sample NPCs are for players to kill, not copy. So they shouldn't be used at all in this discussion.

I'd also point out that the standard, if Wizards were truly intentional about it, should've been set with Core.
So, a Core-only Monk should be able to meet the benchmark. And without too much difficulty too! It is, after all, the standard, not the high-power.

Wilder Astral Construct is core. It's literally core-only stuff. And half-built.

Seward with his incredibly informative post showed that the system did go under a power creep. Instead of CR = ECL WotC found the balance to be CR = ECL+3. I know Age of Worms went ECL+3.

Core-only, the other builds do suffer just a tad bit. Planar Binding loses 2hd, the blaster wizard has to rely on lesser orb of fire a little longer. But they're still in the same ballpark.

And if you replace the sonic weapon with a shocking/flaming weapon in the monk build I gave, the damage output actually increases but is subject to elemental resistances. So against humanoids at least the monk can deal similar damage to the astral construct wilder.

Batcathat

2022-05-23, 12:35 PM

Once again, by looking at flat player progressions. You can't increase their damage output with magic items. So if several immovable, invariable player progressions line up pretty closely to the same numbers then we can conclude that optimizing your gear and therefore your damage output to these levels is standard.

But even if we accept your damage-based way of measuring, looking at just some builds presents the same problem as just looking at some NPCs. A few examples does not a standard make.

Sample NPCs are for players to kill, not copy. So they shouldn't be used at all in this discussion.

Right, and by looking at what PCs are supposed to fight, we can possibly get an idea of how powerful the PCs are "supposed" to be. Isn't that the entire point of the CR system?

Remuko

2022-05-23, 12:52 PM

Wilder Astral Construct is core. It's literally core-only stuff. And half-built.

This has already been said to you before, but I'll repeat it. Wilder and Astral Construct a NOT core. Core is Players Handbook, DM Guide, Monster Manual 1. Nothing else. Anything beyond those 3 books is not "Core".

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 01:00 PM

The first question is what are you measuring - methods or outcomes?

This is an important point, though I would somewhat disagree with how you're defining the "methods" side of things. To my mind, "method" is a question of what you use to optimize, not just the delta relative to the class (which is still largely outcome-driven). So method questions would be about things like how optimized it is to go Rainbow Warsnake, which is an extremely powerful build, but could reasonably be argued to involve no more optimization-as-input than playing a Beguiler who dips Mindbender for a level to get telepathy.

Not perfect or all-encompassing, but I haven't actually seen a better way to quantify power in practical terms.

I'm pretty sure the Same Game Test is what I was thinking of; thanks for the reminder. I would point out that it also has the benefit of creating a dispute-resolution methodology. If I think Druid build X is standard optimization but you think Druid build Y is standard optimization, the SGT allows us to run them both and see which one hits the target. It's not clear to me how OP's "here are some builds that exist" methodology is supposed to handle that. Sure, those builds exist. But other builds that hit lower (or higher, to be fair) targets also exist. How on earth are we supposed to clear up which ones are "correct"?

Not to mention that there's different axes of optimization, which matters when you talk about whether something is 'overpowered' or not. Just from GMs I've played with, any of these factors might be important or not:

I've also seen something like "stuff that violates default assumptions about how the game works is overpowered". The most common example of this (though not the one I've personally seen) is people who think the Warlock is overpowered because it gets magic you can use at-will, and magic isn't supposed to be at-will. Never mind that the magic it gets is basically all underpowered for the level it gets it.

But it got me thinking, what is standard op? What is normal difficulty?

If only there were some sort of system for rating the difficulties of challenges. Maybe if we had a nice, pre-defined, pre-labeled data set from the designers of the game, we could use that to evaluate how powerful specific builds are. But you're probably right that there's no way to "rate" how much of a "challenge" something is in a game as complicated as D&D, and we have to look to sample progressions.

You don't see me talking about uberchargers/mailman/free wishes here do you?

But why not? What's missing in your methodology is the step where you demonstrate that these examples of "things that exist in the system" and not some other examples of things that exist in the system are the ones we should defer to.

But this last statement explained it all. This person is playing at a low-op table and doesn't want his table to be labeled "low op".

I'm really not. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm playing at low-op. In fact, I would venture to say that I support a higher power level for the game than probably 90% of people here. If that's "low-op", you've skewed your definitions to the point of uselessness.

You can't increase their damage output with magic items.

Except you totally can. Metamagic rods make a blaster Wizard better unless he's already applying every possible metamagic. There are magic items that will boost the allies you get from planar binding. I assume there's some sort of item-based stuff you can get for psionics, but I don't actually know.

So if several immovable, invariable player progressions line up pretty closely to the same numbers then we can conclude that optimizing your gear and therefore your damage output to these levels is standard.

So if I can find four builds at a given power level, that power level is the standard?

Alabenson

2022-05-23, 03:11 PM

The inherent issue with the OP's argument here is the assertion that just because something can be found in core that its use, and its optimal use, can be used as a baseline for what WoTC expected. Unfortunately, as has been observed many, many times on this forum, there was a vast gap between what is possible with the tools WoTC presented in core and what they expected players to do with said tools.
We do actually have a fairly good idea as to what WoTC did expect from players, as there are several places with WoTC provided stat blocks for characters which were explicitly said to be intended to be appropriate for use as PCs. These can be found in the back of the PHBII, in the back of the adventures The Lord of the Iron Fortress and Bastion of Broken Souls, as well as in Enemies and Allies. Furthermore, while the CM doesn't actually contain sample PC statblocks, it does have rather dubious advice regarding playing various arcane spellcasting archtypes, including spell and feat suggestions, that demonstrates WoTC's lack of general system mastery even deep into 3.5's lifecycle.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 03:44 PM

And you're saying these are not standard op because sample PCs without proper magic gear can't match the numbers of PCs used for WotC playtesting?

I am asking you to explain why I can't point to any other build, many of which are more or less powerful than the ones you have presented, and declare that to be "standard optimization". You've got this sort-of argument about "flatness", but that seems pretty obviously false, as there are items you could buy that make these characters more effective. For instance, investing in a lesser metamagic rod of quicken would allow your blaster mage to toss on a true strike or true casting to make their damage output more reliable. Perhaps that's less than the variance other builds get from items, but it's wrong to claim these things are totally flat (especially when the distinction between "flat with respect to items" and "flat with respect to additional/different feats" seems quite arbitrary).

If I'm understanding everyone who disagrees with me, you're all saying Astral Construct Wilders and Arcane Thesis Wizards are too high op even though WotC playtested them and produced an incredible number of support for these builds?

No. I'm saying that is the wrong question to ask. Maybe these builds are high op. Maybe they are low op. Maybe they are right at the middle of possible optimization. I'm not asking about that. I am asking you to justify the framework you are using to declare these builds to be "standard optimization". Because it seems to me that we can use that framework to declare that "standard optimization" consists of everything from a Monk to a Dweomerkeeper, which is a definition of "standard optimization" that is so broad as to be entirely useless.

JNAProductions

2022-05-23, 03:52 PM

"officially playtested and an entire splatbook designed around it" is not good enough in your opinion?

I'm not picking sample NPCs. I'm picking a build that WotC used as the standard for balance for one of their splatbooks.
You're the one picking sample NPCs.

Do you have evidence that this was used as their playtest material?

InvisibleBison

2022-05-23, 03:56 PM

"officially playtested and an entire splatbook designed around it" is not good enough in your opinion?

You're talking about Complete Psionic here, yes? Because it seems to me that there's a lot of stuff in that book that doesn't have anything to do with astral constructs. Do you have any actual evidence to back up the claims you're making here?

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 03:56 PM

"officially playtested and an entire splatbook designed around it" is not good enough in your opinion?

Monks were officially playtested. Monks have at least as much splat support as any build you have named, and more than most of them. Can we safely conclude that the stock core Monk is the standard for optimization?

Rleonardh

2022-05-23, 03:59 PM

Monks were officially playtested. Monks have at least as much splat support as any build you have named, and more than most of them. Can we safely conclude that the stock core Monk is the standard for optimization?

Depressing thought 😅

If that's true than a dragon pitfiend or of that type is end game boss with a 30 to 40% chance of party of 4 not bring a total tpk. Maybe 1 to 2 survivors.

wefoij123

2022-05-23, 04:03 PM

You're talking about Complete Psionic here, yes? Because it seems to me that there's a lot of stuff in that book that doesn't have anything to do with astral constructs. Do you have any actual evidence to back up the claims you're making here?

entire splatbook is exaggeration. Bad of me to do it.
Most if not all of the astral construct stuff in that book is because of the astral construct wilder.

Monks were officially playtested. Monks have at least as much splat support as any build you have named, and more than most of them. Can we safely conclude that the stock core Monk is the standard for optimization?

Sure. Monks are capable of dealing the damage in the 1st post with the right magical gear. Some say optimizing magical gear is high op. Some say it's not. How do we settle this? In my opinion we use a thoroughly playested build that can't really alter its damage output because WotC is fully aware of these numbers and OK'd it.

And the game underwent a power creep. Take a look at MiC. So core-only is not standard.

I'm not gonna repeat myself anymore.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 04:10 PM

Most if not all of the astral construct stuff in that book is because of the astral construct wilder.

So we've gone from "the entire splatbook is based on this" to "the things in the splatbook that are related to this are related to it". By that standard, what isn't "standard optimization"? All the things that reference Paladins in Complete Divine reference Paladins, does that make the Paladin "standard optimization"?

Monks are capable of dealing the damage in the 1st post with the right magical gear.

Now you're arguing in circles. Why should we optimize the Monk up to that standard instead of optimizing the blaster Wizard less so that he compares directly to the Monk? Surely you agree that's possible, so why isn't it correct?

In my opinion we use a thoroughly playested build that can't really alter its damage output because WotC is fully aware of these numbers and OK'd it.

Except those builds absolutely can alter their damage. I have given you examples of how to do it. Hell, the whole thing the blaster Wizard is doing is altering damage. Why is "standard optimization" Empower + Maximize + Twin and not Maximize + Twin or Empower + Maximize + Twin + Split Ray?

Mechalich

2022-05-23, 04:46 PM

Depressing thought 😅

If that's true than a dragon pitfiend or of that type is end game boss with a 30 to 40% chance of party of 4 not bring a total tpk. Maybe 1 to 2 survivors.

WotC did not playtest high level play. They playtested levels 1-6. Everything else operates at a level of 'ah, whatever,' mechanical rigor.

Seward

2022-05-23, 04:57 PM

Depressing thought 😅

If that's true than a dragon pitfiend or of that type is end game boss with a 30 to 40% chance of party of 4 not bring a total tpk. Maybe 1 to 2 survivors.

Um. Monk is a perfectly good martial in terms of "can it kill a pit fiend by itself in one round at level 20 with a full attack". It will need magic item and spell support, but that is also true of any melee at level 20.

While I've only played straight monk to L12 and effectively straight monk to L15 (there was a 2 bab/3 level dip into other things because I don't care for spell resistance as a class feature and ACFs weren't a thing then, but it was still a monk in terms of capabilities and how it played) I can scale up what I did easily enough and get enough hits that "miss on a 2" and do enough damage to do that without much effort.

It is EASIER to get to that level with a bog standard 2h weapon+power attack+full bab build, but if you want to kill any single target at L20 of CR20 in one action, the easiest way is usually to use your action to move a melee next to that enemy. Assuming the player and party have decided to make perfectly normal and expected choices to ensure the basic martial chasse will function.

The trouble with the tier 4-5 class isn't that they can't kill CR appropriate creatures at any level, generally within a single round of actions. It is that they often can't do much else and they never have the plot-breaking potential of the tier1-2 types. Monk, Fullbab+2h, Fullbab+2WF, Fullbab+Archer, it can always be done. You might do it a bit differently based on the build but it isn't really that hard. You need to be able to hit, and to do meaningful damage when you hit. If you can do that, you'll be better action economy than trying to do what you do with spells in many many situations.

Assuming of course they get their WBL and use it combined with easy hour/level buffs when such buffs are in spell slots that aren't impacted (or maybe use some WBL to buy pearl of power or lesser rod of extend or whatever to help out). And start with enough strength and prioritize strength/damage enough to stay relevant via feats and gear. If your GM starts muttering about a "low magic" campaign or talking about "Christmas Trees of magic items" just go with a full caster and give up. The martials need their WBL to function, not just to get "more plusses".

AvatarVecna

2022-05-23, 05:12 PM

I'm not gonna repeat myself anymore.

*presses X*

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 05:33 PM

Monk is a perfectly good martial in terms of "can it kill a pit fiend by itself in one round at level 20 with a full attack".

This is exactly the "are you measuring optimization as an input or an output" issue that was brought up earlier. I'm sure you can make a Monk that hits whatever arbitrary damage target. Hell, there's enough non-class cheese that you can make a Commoner that does that. But if you're trying to measure optimization, that's probably not what you're talking about.

The trouble with the tier 4-5 class isn't that they can't kill CR appropriate creatures at any level, generally within a single round of actions. It is that they often can't do much else and they never have the plot-breaking potential of the tier1-2 types. Monk, Fullbab+2h, Fullbab+2WF, Fullbab+Archer, it can always be done.

This is wrong. T1s are not T1 because they have plot-breaking tools. T1s are T1 because they are effective without needing to optimize significantly. As a Wizard, you can be effective just by casting good spells. It requires significant system mastery to make a Monk or Truenamer that is merely "not useless". The idea that Wizards are T1 because plots crumple in the face of teleport just reflects a lack of imagination about the plots that can exist.

JNAProductions

2022-05-23, 06:09 PM

I mean, Emperor Tippy made a Monk that can solo every Elder Evil in a row.

We (the average forumgoer) KNOW Monks can kick butt. But... Well, Wizards didn't know how. And your typical Monk, built the way Wizards built their PCs, sucks.

Hell, remember that old "Dead Levels" article? The one that added stuff for classes like Fighter, but said something along the lines of "Monks get no dead levels! They're such a good class!"

Page 55, Enemies and Allies. The Monk Ember. At level 10, she has three attacks for 1d6+4 or 1d10+2 damage each. That's a whopping 22.5 damage! If she hits with all of them. And gets to full attack.

Increase her to level 15, and she has five attacks for 1d6+6 or 1d12+3. That's 47.5 if all attacks land with the better damage, which, according to you, she should have by level 7.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 06:36 PM

Multiple astral constructs out at one time was too much for WotC. So just double the numbers in the 1st post and you know what was too much for wotc.

How do you know that was the appropriate inference to draw? Maybe they thought it was too complicated to have multiple astral constructs out and nerfed it for that reason.

With this fact in tow, I looked at Arcane thesis, saw that arcane thesis specficially encouraged players to use empower and maximize together with this feat. So I statted out what the damage output of a wizard who uses these 3 feats together would be like. And it lined up nicely with the astral construct damage.

You know, for someone who complains about people bringing up sample NPCs, you're resting an awful lot on "there's an example with these three feats somewhere".

Because it lined up nicely, I thought hey! This is probably the damage output of a standard optimization character.

So you would say you connected the two dots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMHgxGSuBG8)? "I found two things that are like each other" is an incredibly low standard. A Truenamer and a Monk are like each other. Is that "standard optimization"?

What exactly are you even trying to prove by mentioning quicken rods?

That the numbers you are presenting as "flat" are anything but. Part of your argument seems to be that these are good things to use as a baseline because they are "flat" and don't vary with other optimization. If sticking a quicken rod and a couple of buffs in there makes the damage go up (and it is hard to see how it wouldn't) that means these builds aren't "flat".

When Every single thing you've been saying for the past 3 pages could be answered with the phrase "Because the Wilder is a definite example of what WotC was comfortable/uncomfortable with" that I have been repeating endlessly?

Except that answers exactly none of the things I've been saying. I'm asking you to explain why an unoptimized Monk isn't in the set "things WotC was definitely comfortable with". I don't care what other things are or aren't in that set. Maybe it contains Wilders. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it contains Dweomerkeepers. Maybe it doesn't. But what I am asking you to answer, what you have repeatedly not answered, is whether or not a stock Monk is in that set.

Several people here tried to use monks as the reason why an astral construct wilder's damage number is too high.

No, that's not what we're doing. The argument is not "no possible Monk could do this". It's not anything to do with the Wilder at all. The argument is that there are things that are objectively much less powerful than the examples you are using that meet the exact same standards you are using for your examples. Yes, if you optimize it enough you can do very high damage numbers with the Monk. That's not the point, because the question is whether a Monk that doesn't do that meets your criteria. If it does, that implies that "standard optimization" is an interval from "can't damage a Pit Fiend" to "kill a Pit Fiend in one round", which is maybe not useful.

Quertus

2022-05-23, 06:55 PM

Only on page 1, but I'm kinda with the OP on this one. Sort of. Provisionally. Hear me out.

The OP wants to look at damage. OK. Suppose a Fighter could swing his sword, and deal 7 damage.

Suppose my character then flexes his Infinity Gauntlet, blows up the universe, then creates a new universe, identical to the first, except that his target... has taken 7 more damage.

Perfectly balanced, the Gauntlet Flexer and the Fighter, right?

So... do we care about the final outcome, or about how we got there?

Or, to state my point more clearly, what exactly does "Standard Optimization" mean?

In the OP, the OP hints at a definition of "Standard Optimization" that goes something along the lines of, "anything that WotC explicitly published together, described together, placed in the same build, or otherwise connected, they clearly had thought of together, and is it is therefore unreasonable for such combinations not to be included in the definition of 'Standard Optimization'.".

And I'm fine with this not-definition. In fact, I rather support this not-definition (what with having WoD Mage Storyteller not let me cast rotes straight out of the book because that's not how they viewed the spheres working and all :smallmad:).

However, the OP then takes a 90-degree turn, and says - if I understand correctly - the equivalent of, "and anything that is balanced with WotC-approved combinations is therefore, obviously, also balanced".

And... yes, balance is a range, not a point. If "7" was in the balance range for the Fighter, then "7" is in the balance range for the Gauntlet Flexer. I can't disagree with that.

However.

If the Gauntlet Flexer is just using the Gauntlet, straight out of the book, but the Fighter is combining options from 20 different books with sketchy readings of how those options work, then I feel that it is possible that the Gauntlet Flexer is working "as designed", whereas the Fighter is High Optimization, even if they are only "expected performance".

*If* "Standard Optimization" is defined by what options you combine, rather than by performance.

If optimization level is defined by performance, then, well, of course you can look at the performance of various WotC builds and options... and define the Floor and Ceiling of "Standard Optimization" from the floor and ceiling of "everything published".

And, if it's performance that is the defining factor of optimization, then... isn't the OP correct? Is there any point that the OP has made that fails to follow logically from defining Standard Optimization from the performance shown from WotC-published combinations?

I felt a need to comment on this in particular.

MWP and Weapon Focus on a build for a PrC with Poor BAB and a d6 HD. They don't even have Divine Power or Righteous Might prepared. They made a full-cleric-casting build with an extra domain to pick from, with basically no ability to frontline, and sunk two feats into using a weapon that's just really ****ty. They didn't even sink two feats into a slightly less ****ty weapon: they could've taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe. Same crit threat range, same crit multiplier, same number of feats - only difference is that the exotic one deals an extra point of damage.

It's not even a good weapon by exotic weapon standards, and those aren't good feats by normal feat standards. But this, this right here, is what people are talking about. This is the level of effort that WotC put into optimizing builds, this is what they were expecting. They made a casting-focused build of a casting-focused PrC and gave it proficiency in a ****ty weapon when they could've at least given it proficiency in a slightly less ****ty weapon instead. This is what they felt was appropriate for a mid-high level caster to be spending resources on, and you expect me to believe they secretly fully understood the destructive potential of metamagic reduction? You are out of your mind.

I mean, you're probably right, but it does occur to me that Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, similarly wasted his feats (on Run, Endurance, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Shuriken), for similar fluff reasons (ooops, adding quote:)

Ah, but it is a cleric of Garl Glittergold, and Garl's favoured weapon is the battleaxe. Whoever wrote that felt that the flavour points outweighed any practicality.

Yet I do understand quite a bit about optimization. So I suppose it's not impossible that WotC actually employed geniuses who built terribly unoptimized "fluff" characters while secretly understanding their own rules. Right?:smallamused:

So, if you're trying to determine the standard, wouldn't it make more sense to base it on all the examples available, rather than cherry-pick the most powerful ones? Lamborghinis exists, but I wouldn't call it a standard car.

Nope. It makes the most sense to cherry pick "here is where you can draw the line, here are the boundary conditions". If you've ever tested code, you'd appreciate that boundary conditions are where it's at. :smallbiggrin:

I want to build on this point.

Take a character. Any character. Literally any character you care to create. Assuming they have only levels in PC classes, their CR is going to be equal to their character level, definitionally.

Take that same character, and make a 100% identical version of them. Same feats, same spells, same items, same tactical skill. Pit them against each other. Anybody who thinks about it for more than two seconds should be able to agree that you and your clone have the exact same chance to beat each other, and that means you have a 50% chance of winning, no matter what strategy you use - because the clone could use the exact same strategy.

Two creatures of the same CR (literally "Challenge Rating") are considered to be roughly equal in terms of the challenge they provide to players. This is explicit from WotC regarding their expectations: this CR 13 creature is, generally speaking, right around as difficult to fight as this other CR 13 creature. That's literally what a "Challenge Rating" exists to define. This particular statistic is to show how tough WotC thinks enemies should be considered to be.

The above three points, taken together, mean that a creature whose CR is equal to your character level, regardless of their build, should be considered somewhere around a 50% chance of winning. This is what WotC expects of people. Thus, if you are building a character who can reliably solo creatures whose CR equals his character level, or even creatures whose CR exceeds his character level, you have not made a character that is in line with WotC expectations, you have made a character that exceeds expectations.

This is all based on the basic, fundamental functions of the subsystem WotC designed for approximating how challenging enemies are to fight. And I'm not saying it's bad to beat these expectations. I'm not saying it's bad to be able to solo creatures of your CR or higher. It's valuable to the team if you're able to fight that hard. What I'm saying is that this is pretty explicitly the level of competence WotC expected out of PCs. The fact that they made a lot of powerful, abusable mechanics that can allow even very low-level characters to punch waaaaaaay up is not an indication that they expected that to be the standard, it is an indication that they didn't put as much thought into the various mechanical combos as two decades worth of arguing among a hundred thousand internet strangers have.

You're literally pretending that a line of spells being "famous" means that WotC intended them to be the standard by which blasting spells are measured. But WotC didn't create them and be like "these are the new standard for blasting" - that was the community. The online community found this line of spells that had a lot of potential as the main component for a blasting build, and the online community made them famous specifically because they were head and shoulders above the rest of the competition. The spells that are "famous" because of actions taken by WotC are the legacy spells that show up in every edition (the ones that have some AD&D wizard's name on them). Those are spells whose fame can be directly attributed to WotC, and it's not because they're powerful.

In the same "you clearly don't know what you're talking about" vein, wilder isn't core. It's OGL. There is a difference.

That makes an assumption, that "being able to defeat things at CR+X" isn't actually within Standard Op. That assumption may be in error.

That is, balance is a range, not a point. It is possible to define "Standard Optimization" by output such that "any character who fails against 90% of CR-4 foes" to "any character who defeats 90% of CR+4 foes" all lie within "Standard Optimization". Fall below those metrics, and you are "Low Op"; rise above them, and you are "High Op".

Not "do you agree that this is the exact correct definition of 'Standard Optimization'," but do you agree that it is not entirely unreasonable to be able to create a range definition thusly?

The thread is about figuring out how powerful the designers intended characters to be... but you don't understand why people would look at the example characters the designers made, the monsters characters are intended to fight and the system specifically designed to illustrate how challenging those fights should be? :smallconfused:

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the lower limit of "standard optimization"?

How people are looking at such things is... suboptimal. Thus my attempt to reframe those data points via this post.

Quertus

2022-05-23, 07:25 PM

OK, got through the thread, I see I'm not the only one questioning the "inputs or outputs" (much better wording, btw) issue of the definition.

The difference is, no one else (that I've seen) present a few sample NPCs and say that their optimization level represent "standard optimization" or the intent of the designers. If there are less optimized NPCs and more optimized NPCs, it seems odd to designate either as the standard.

But to designate *both* as the standard? To say, "The range of 'Standard Optimization' must include all of WotC published builds"? Is that not fair?

But even if we accept your damage-based way of measuring, looking at just some builds presents the same problem as just looking at some NPCs. A few examples does not a standard make.

Looking at all humans might give you a range of standard human height. Looking at the tallest humans might give you the ability to draw a boundary line of "human height" and "taller than human height".

Right, and by looking at what PCs are supposed to fight, we can possibly get an idea of how powerful the PCs are "supposed" to be. Isn't that the entire point of the CR system?

Well, no. No, that is not the entire point of the CR system. But it is perfectly reasonable to use it to reverse-engineer that information. :smallwink:

I am asking you to explain why I can't point to any other build, many of which are more or less powerful than the ones you have presented, and declare that to be "standard optimization".

You can. What if they're all "Standard Optimization"? What if the totality of that build space defines the range of "Standard Optimization"?

I mean, Emperor Tippy made a Monk that can solo every Elder Evil in a row.

We (the average forumgoer) KNOW Monks can kick butt. But... Well, Wizards didn't know how. And your typical Monk, built the way Wizards built their PCs, sucks.

Hell, remember that old "Dead Levels" article? The one that added stuff for classes like Fighter, but said something along the lines of "Monks get no dead levels! They're such a good class!"

Page 55, Enemies and Allies. The Monk Ember. At level 10, she has three attacks for 1d6+4 or 1d10+2 damage each. That's a whopping 22.5 damage! If she hits with all of them. And gets to full attack.

Increase her to level 15, and she has five attacks for 1d6+6 or 1d12+3. That's 47.5 if all attacks land with the better damage, which, according to you, she should have by level 7.

Ember should be dealing 47.5 damage by level 7, not 15, *if* her role is "dealing damage".

It's important to complete the sentence. (Hint: that's not Monk's default role)

RandomPeasant

2022-05-23, 07:34 PM

You can. What if they're all "Standard Optimization"? What if the totality of that build space defines the range of "Standard Optimization"?

Then what use is "standard optimization" as terminology? Saying "this falls into the power range between Monks and planar binding" is kind of like saying "this contains radiation at somewhere between the level that's found in a banana and the one that's found in the Elephant's Foot".

JNAProductions

2022-05-23, 08:10 PM

Ember should be dealing 47.5 damage by level 7, not 15, *if* her role is "dealing damage".

It's important to complete the sentence. (Hint: that's not Monk's default role)

What else should she be doing? What else CAN she do?

AvatarVecna

2022-05-23, 08:24 PM

That makes an assumption, that "being able to defeat things at CR+X" isn't actually within Standard Op. That assumption may be in error.

That is, balance is a range, not a point. It is possible to define "Standard Optimization" by output such that "any character who fails against 90% of CR-4 foes" to "any character who defeats 90% of CR+4 foes" all lie within "Standard Optimization". Fall below those metrics, and you are "Low Op"; rise above them, and you are "High Op".

Not "do you agree that this is the exact correct definition of 'Standard Optimization'," but do you agree that it is not entirely unreasonable to be able to create a range definition thusly?

You're misunderstanding the point of that post. To make a long story short, OP's argument is that "standard optimization is whatever WotC expected of players". That's a statement I think I can agree with. I'm sure WotC did some amount of playtesting with particular builds, looked at how the builds performed vs how they were expected to perform, and made adjustments. I think that if we were ever going to have a universally-agreeable definition of "standard optimization", it would be the only level of optimization that is both official and has a good deal of evidence to support it in the original text. WotC's expectations for player capabilities might not be in line with where the community tends to settle, but those expectations are what the system is designed around, so it makes sense that if anything is considered "standard optimization", it would be WotC's expectations.

The problem I and others take with the OP is that they then pull out caster tactics, particularly powerful tactics, and make the argument that WotC fully playtested with the potential of these particular spells and combos, and fully understood the power and versatility they bring to the table. OP makes the argument that Planar Binding showing up in non-core NPC spell lists, after core had been released and thus online people could point out how broken the spell was, is WotC's tacit approval that yes, Planar Binding is WotC-level optimization. Same for metamagic reduction stuff. And I disagree with that conclusion. I don't think these mechanics existing without further revision is proof that their more powerful applications have the full WotC seal of approval, and are thus "standard optimization".

I'm not saying I think metamagic reduction blasting is overpowered - it's a lot of damage, but it's not exactly skipping plot lines the way some spells can do straight out of the box - but like...if we're defining "standard optimization" as "what WotC expected", we have explicit evidence for what WotC expected.

% of total
Encounter
Description

10%
Easy
EL lower than party level

20%
Easy If Handled Properly
Special (see below)

50%
Challenging
EL equal to party level

15%
Very Difficult
EL 1-4 higher than party level

5%
Overpowering
EL 5+ higher than party level

Easy: The PCs win handily with little threat to themselves. The Encounter Level for the encounter is lower than the party level. The group should be able to handle an almost limitless number of these encounters.

Easy if Handled Properly: There’s a trick to this kind of encounter—a trick the PCs must discover to have a good chance of victory. Find and eliminate the evil cleric with greater invisibility first so she stops bolstering the undead, and everything else about the encounter becomes much easier. If not handled properly, this kind of encounter becomes challenging or even very difficult.

Challenging: Most encounters seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way. These are challenging encounters, about equal in Encounter Level to the party level. The average adventuring group should be able to handle four challenging encounters before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources. If an encounter doesn’t cost the PCs some significant portion of their resources, it’s not challenging.

Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more dangerous than an overpowering one, because it’s not immediately obvious to the players that the PCs should flee.

Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don’t, they will almost certainly lose. The Encounter Level is five or more levels higher than the party level.

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. A single lvl 14 character is PL 12. A single CR 17 creature is EL 17. Thus, a marilith is an Overpowering encounter for a single lvl 14 character. That character should run. If they don't, they will (and I quote) "almost certainly lose". If you have built a lvl 14 character who has a good chance of beating CR 17 creatures in 1v1s, you are explicitly outside WotC's expectations, regardless of if you're a monk or a wizard or anything in between. This is what they expected. Explicitly.

Everything else is corroborating evidence. We can point to basically every NPC stat block in existence and point out how their feat choices and spell choices are largely garbage, how they pick unoptimal level splits for multiclassing and PrCs, and how obvious picks that are more in line with OP's optimization expectations are basically never taken by anybody. We can point out how, in Enemies And Allies, we get multiple builds for each of the Iconic Characters, which gives us some insight into how WotC expected PCs to be built - these are designed by WotC, but they're sample PCs, not sample NPCs. And we can point out how they're the exact same kind of trash as most WotC NPCs are.

BuT NoOoOoOoOoO

For example, the FAQ says you can use divine metamagic persistent spell on non-emanation spells with fixed range like mass lesser vigor.

"FAQ said persistent spell can be applied to mass lesser vigor, therefore WotC fully expected you to DMM Persist the spell, and that is standard optimization."

I am also going to be focusing on casters because magic items don't increase their damage output. Their gear is mostly for defensive and utility purposes. Martials on the other hand need to spend most of their money on offensive equipment and their performance varies widely.

"I'm focusing on casters because their offense mostly comes from just casting. It's not because I think wrecking encounters is low-op, and mages can do that with a single spell, while getting similar results with noncasters would require insane combos. It's because...because magic items."

I think the most straightforward standard optimization character is Wilder using Astral Construct. It has been used officially by WotC for playtesting and is responsible for the Astral Construct nerf introduced in Complete Psionic. Can't get more standard than that because they literally used this character as the standard for balance.

"I think the most straightforward standard optimization is a non-core minionmancy build that I myself call power creep in this same exact thread."

Last but not least we have Planar Binding. FCI directly tells PLAYERS to use PrCs specifically designed for planar binding if they want to play a demon summoner. Complete Mage also tells PLAYERS to use planar binding if they're playing a summoner archetype. Tons and tons of PrCs and feats and spells and such are specifically designed to use Planar Binding (malconvoker). Also, an entire setting is built around Planar Binding (Eberron and elemental crafting). So it's open and shut that using Planar Binding is Standard Optimization.

I will be using Infernal Bargainer because it's in player's guide to faerun and I'm using it all by itself with no additional planar binding boosters.

"WotC suggests that summon builds use summon spells, therefore the most powerful lvl 6 spell in the game with a big upgrade is standard optimization."

This is what people are pushing back against. They're pushing back against gaslighting about the FAQ content. They're pushing back against how he's showing off "standard optimization" pretty much exclusively with metamagic reduction and minionmancy builds. They're pushing back against the idea that WotC expected you to be able to solo a demon much higher level than you.

Zanos

2022-05-23, 09:27 PM

Note: If you are someone who thinks taking an alternate class feature at 1st level and using it exactly as intended by the developers without any interactions with other abilities is "cheese", then this thread is probably well out of the optimization level you're used to. Please be aware of that if you engage in this thread.
Assuming this is a reference to my previously summarized opinion on Abrupt Jaunt; I will expand. I was referring to the difference in performance at low levels between a wizard with and without jaunt; being able to avoid int mod attacks or full attacks per day at low levels drastically increases the survivability of a wizard. It doesn't make the character invincible, but it can, in favorable circumstances, cause them to effectively negate damage that exceeds many times their maximum health.

I don't think something has to be an obscure combination of many different mechanical pieces with weird interpretations of the English language to be considered cheese. Anything that bends the game around its existence is cheesy, IMO. Abrupt Jaunt can definitely meet that standard in a lot of games I've played in, to the point where I saw characters dipping 1 wizard level to avoid int mod attacks per day; the ability is a better melee negate than basically any other class has at level 1. No classes explicitly centered around negating damage even get something as good. Now with that said, does that meant that Abrupt Jaunt is cheese in every game? No, there are some DMs where it's perfectly appropriate or even not worth taking, depending on a wide range of factors. But no other single character option for wizard makes them more survivable.

And I expand that opinion to mechanics in general. I think that sufficient torture of the rules can be cheese, but for the most part, people aren't really going to mind too much if you have a tortured reading of the rules to make a character that performs as expected in the campaign that it's in. And most DMs are far more willing to bend or break rules for characters that are underperforming so they can perform as intended. But you can absolutely destroy most campaigns with straightforward readings of core abilities. Planar Binding an entire army is relatively straightforward rules wise, and doesn't really involve any esoteric ability combinations. Yet most people would agree that a character that planar binds an entire army of demons and fights all the encounters with said army is messing up the balance of their campaign pretty badly. Polymorph is a rules straightforward, although complex ability. It doesn't take a lot of thought to pick a polymorph form for your frontliners that has 30+ str and a ton of natural armor and break the systems math over your knee at level 7. Does that make planar binding armies cheese? Does it make polymorph abuse cheese? Usuallly, sure, but I still played in campaigns where it was appropriate to the power level. And being appropriate to the power level is key; a 4x per day melee negate at level 1 is, frankly, outside the scope of the power of most games. And most players probably are going to want to throttle their DM if they say that a level 1 wizard with and without abrupt jaunt are both CR 1. Some abilities, even when used as intended, are much, much more powerful. This is actually intentional to some degree, as the Ivory Tower game design article expands on, but goes overboard in some cases.

With regards to the terms being defined here, OP has insisted that "standard optimization" is the level that game designers intended for characters to perform at, and has overgeneralized specific examples of the designers doing things to mean any interaction of the outlined mechanics. This is pointless, because it's very clearly outlined what level the designers expected characters to perform at. That is, they should be able to roughly handle a CR = APL encounter by expending 1/4 of their daily resources. And less or more encounters, up to nearly certain death, depending on the difference in CR from APL. Of course we can argue that most folks on this forum don't play in such a way that the CR system meets the written expectations, but that's a different discussion from what the designers intent was. The intent is very clearly spelled out.

AvatarVecna

2022-05-23, 10:55 PM

Assuming this is a reference to my previously summarized opinion on Abrupt Jaunt; I will expand. I was referring to the difference in performance at low levels between a wizard with and without jaunt; being able to avoid int mod attacks or full attacks per day at low levels drastically increases the survivability of a wizard. It doesn't make the character invincible, but it can, in favorable circumstances, cause them to effectively negate damage that exceeds many times their maximum health.

I don't think something has to be an obscure combination of many different mechanical pieces with weird interpretations of the English language to be considered cheese. Anything that bends the game around its existence is cheesy, IMO. Abrupt Jaunt can definitely meet that standard in a lot of games I've played in, to the point where I saw characters dipping 1 wizard level to avoid int mod attacks per day; the ability is a better melee negate than basically any other class has at level 1. No classes explicitly centered around negating damage even get something as good. Now with that said, does that meant that Abrupt Jaunt is cheese in every game? No, there are some DMs where it's perfectly appropriate or even not worth taking, depending on a wide range of factors. But no other single character option for wizard makes them more survivable.

And I expand that opinion to mechanics in general. I think that sufficient torture of the rules can be cheese, but for the most part, people aren't really going to mind too much if you have a tortured reading of the rules to make a character that performs as expected in the campaign that it's in. And most DMs are far more willing to bend or break rules for characters that are underperforming so they can perform as intended. But you can absolutely destroy most campaigns with straightforward readings of core abilities. Planar Binding an entire army is relatively straightforward rules wise, and doesn't really involve any esoteric ability combinations. Yet most people would agree that a character that planar binds an entire army of demons and fights all the encounters with said army is messing up the balance of their campaign pretty badly. Polymorph is a rules straightforward, although complex ability. It doesn't take a lot of thought to pick a polymorph form for your frontliners that has 30+ str and a ton of natural armor and break the systems math over your knee at level 7. Does that make planar binding armies cheese? Does it make polymorph abuse cheese? Usuallly, sure, but I still played in campaigns where it was appropriate to the power level. And being appropriate to the power level is key; a 4x per day melee negate at level 1 is, frankly, outside the scope of the power of most games. And most players probably are going to want to throttle their DM if they say that a level 1 wizard with and without abrupt jaunt are both CR 1. Some abilities, even when used as intended, are much, much more powerful. This is actually intentional to some degree, as the Ivory Tower game design article expands on, but goes overboard in some cases.

With regards to the terms being defined here, OP has insisted that "standard optimization" is the level that game designers intended for characters to perform at, and has overgeneralized specific examples of the designers doing things to mean any interaction of the outlined mechanics. This is pointless, because it's very clearly outlined what level the designers expected characters to perform at. That is, they should be able to roughly handle a CR = APL encounter by expending 1/4 of their daily resources. And less or more encounters, up to nearly certain death, depending on the difference in CR from APL. Of course we can argue that most folks on this forum don't play in such a way that the CR system meets the written expectations, but that's a different discussion from what the designers intent was. The intent is very clearly spelled out.

Sorry, that part was something I quoted and forgot to cut out of my post. It's actually from the first post in the thread, and I don't agree with it. I wasn't trying to call anybody out, and I'm gonna go remove it.

Batcathat

2022-05-23, 11:35 PM

But to designate *both* as the standard? To say, "The range of 'Standard Optimization' must include all of WotC published builds"? Is that not fair?

Sure, I guess that could work (it certainly beats picking a few examples and designating it the standard). Though I would question the point of a "standard optimization" that included such a broad variety of optimization levels.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-24, 12:17 AM

You're misunderstanding the point of that post. To make a long story short, OP's argument is that "standard optimization is whatever WotC expected of players". That's a statement I think I can agree with.

I think that statement is bad, though the methodology you're using (compare things to challenge ratings) is correct. "What WotC expected of players" is a question of intent we have no good way of answering. "WotC" isn't even a single person, so the question may well not have a single answer. Focusing on intent also has the result of privileging edge cases. If something is at a power level you have no problem with and behaves in a straightforward way, you're not going to have any reason to explicitly state it's allowable. It's only the problem children that get explicit statements, so saying "they said you could do X means they supported X" is a bit like saying "they put a check for null here, so they want the variable to be null".

Challenge ratings and SGTs are a better framework for measuring balance because they can be derived entirely from the text, without needing to engage with any questions of expectations or intent. I don't care whether WotC thought Owlbears or Displacer Beasts or Beholders were strong or weak or whatever. I can plug them into the mathematical formula for predicting threat levels, test characters against them, and see the results. That is, insofar as anything about D&D can be, objective.

Sure, I guess that could work (it certainly beats picking a few examples and designating it the standard). Though I would question the point of a "standard optimization" that included such a broad variety of optimization levels.

That's the fundamental issue that OP just doesn't engage with. No one (or at least I'm not) is saying "these things are definitely outside standard optimization as you've defined it". What I'm asking is "it sure seems like the way you've defined standard optimization would include things way weaker than these, why doesn't it". And it just slides off like water on a duck.

wefoij123

2022-05-24, 02:47 AM

If optimization level is defined by performance, then, well, of course you can look at the performance of various WotC builds and options... and define the Floor and Ceiling of "Standard Optimization" from the floor and ceiling of "everything published".

You got it close. I was talking about performance. You got that part right.
I was saying astral construct wilder is something WotC playtested and nerfed, so its numbers are definitely what WotC had in mind for normal play. Because if something got nerfed, then it's something that was examined fully by the developers and is now at a level the developers are happy with. In addition other flat progression things happened to line up with the Wilder's numbers therefore Wilders are not an extreme exceptional case but the norm and therefore standard optimization is probably close to the astral construct wilder's numbers. That's pretty much it.

The other stuff is mainly that all these tricks and combinations, having made it into books or the FAQ, are also Ok'd by WotC so using these to hit the numbers presented by the astral construct wilder are standard optimization too. I'm pretty sure you've seen your share of people calling divine metamagic persistent spell automatically as OP when in actual practice, it's not that good. Unless you actually go all the way with it and get a ton of it undispellable with CL boosters, divine metamagic quicken spell does a lot more and pure martials are superior on the account of not having an achilles heel called dispel magic.

And then cue the incredible number of people who say
1. Why aren't the poorly built sample NPCs aren't the standard? I answered this again and again and again and again.
a. Because Wilders were fully examined, nerfed, and WotC put ways to undo the nerf. Therefore these are numbers wotc are happy about.
b. Other flat progressions have similar numbers to the wilders.
c. the sample NPCs damage can reach the wilder's level if they gear up properly. So the question isn't whether they can or can't reach the wilder's numbers, because the answer is yes they most definitely can, but whether that level of gear optimization is high op or standard op.
again and again and again. I say optimizing magical gear on mundanes to wilder's level is standard op. They say sample NPCs can't reach those numbers. I say they can. Then they ignore it and go back to sample NPCs can't hit those numbers. So I repeat again. again and again and agian.

2. Core only. I answered this too. Game got a power creep. MiC is one of the biggest power creep for players. Complete psionic is 2006 release. MiC is 2007 release. If a splatbook releases powerful magic items that are significantly cheaper than their predecessors, of course player strength is gonna rise. How high should it rise? Ubercharger? No, I say lets use astral construct wilder. I think that level of damage output is what WotC had in mind. Their response? Sample NPC can't hit those numbers. Or Core only Monk can't hit those numbers. Which brings me to....

3. Monk. Monks can't hit Wilder numbers. At least 3 people in this thread repeated this point even after I showed them a simple sonic weapon can let the monk reach the damage of an astral construct wilder

So instead of giving reasons why claiming that the damage numbers from a class that cannot increase its damage numbers with magic items, a class that was playtested, a class examined at 2006, nerfed, and received ways to un-nerf is what WotC had in mind for a standard game is wrong.
Instead of giving reasons why claiming that the damage numbers from a naked blaster spellcasters is what WotC had in mind is wrong when its numbers line up nicely with the astral construct wilder.
Instead of giving reasons why claiming that Fiendbinder's damage output is what WotC had in mind is wrong when it's flat and roughly lines up with the above 2.
Instead of giving reasons why optimizing a mundane's magical gear to the point they can hit the above 3's damage output is standard optimization is wrong
It's sample npc can't hit those numbers and core only and monk. Round we go. Then accuse me of talking in circles.

Then add in the hair splitters. Technically complete psionic has a lot of other non-astral construct things so the splatbook didn't use astral construct wilder for everything. Yes that's true. Completely. You pointing that out does what?

Technically expanded psionics handbook is not "core". It's core psionics. Yes that's true. Completely. You pointing that out does what?

I say the minimum damage output of a maximized empowered blasting wizard with arcane thesis is this. So at the minimum these numbers are approved by WotC because it also lines up with Astral Construct Wilder. And the response is... Technically a naked blaster spellcaster can increase its damage with metamagic rods so it's not flat. So what? What does this have to do with anything? What was it? Why not use twin split ray? Because neither the arcane thesis spell description nor the FAQ used the two together. So using those two would result in some poeple going "that's multiple splatbook crossing and this game is designed for core+1 therefore an unintended interaction".

I'm done. I'm either waiting for this thread to die and go to the 2nd page so I can delete. Or I'm waiting for new blood like you to not say the same things these other people are saying.

Seward is the only person that said something different. He's the only one who said as a playtester, his experience is that standard is ECL+3. Unfortunately it seems he doesn't remember the damage output of the players who played in ECL+3. That would've been a great progress in the discussion on whether I am right or wrong about using Wilder's numbers as the standard for pure damage dealing classes. But I don't blame him. There are so many ways characters can contribute to combat with things other than damage so pure damage dealers would probably have been a rare sight.

And then cue the guy who calls in tippy monk to say wilder's numbers are TO.

You can. What if they're all "Standard Optimization"? What if the totality of that build space defines the range of "Standard Optimization"?

Because Vow of Poverty monk is a flat player progression that, if put in the same game as a naked core-only blaster wizard, would say the encounters are too hard or the wizard is a munchkin. As he cannot contribute to encounters that are CR=ECL let alone ECL+3, VoP monk is not standard optimization.

And cue all the people who would say VoP monk has as much ground to be called standard op when it's clear it hasn't been examined, playtested, and nerfed/buffed like the Astral Construct Wilder. And we repeat once again how I say something that received special attention from WotC has more clout than a one time mentioned failure build and then cue all the people who say I'm arbitrary and that sample NPCs can't reach the numbers on the 1st post.

I bite and show two NPCs that can hit those numbers naked. And I'm called a cherry picker. Makes me think, if I go find a sample barbarian capable of hitting those numbers with minimal gear, I'll still be called a cherry picker.

I don't care. I'm not reading these people's posts anymore. Just waiting for the thread to either die or new blood to say something different.

Mechalich

2022-05-24, 03:30 AM

I think that statement is bad, though the methodology you're using (compare things to challenge ratings) is correct. "What WotC expected of players" is a question of intent we have no good way of answering. "WotC" isn't even a single person, so the question may well not have a single answer.

There is published content though. WotC expected players to be able to beat published encounters and modules within given level ranges. This is obviously a fairly wide zone, since there are clearly some outlier modules and WTF fights in the published record. Expected power level also slowly ratcheted upward across the course of the full publication cycle of the edition, but at least some of WotC's employees were aware of gradual power creep in options and option synergy.

Batcathat

2022-05-24, 03:55 AM

I bite and show two NPCs that can hit those numbers naked. And I'm called a cherry picker. Makes me think, if I go find a sample barbarian capable of hitting those numbers with minimal gear, I'll still be called a cherry picker.

Yes, because you keep picking individual examples, whether builds or NPCs, and saying that they (and no others) represent the whole and the intent of the designers. Personally, I doubt there's any collective idea of standard optimization among all the designers but even if there is, I doubt this is the best way of figuring it out (again, the CR system should give a much better idea of how powerful characters are "supposed" to be, considering that's kind of what it's made for).

InvisibleBison

2022-05-24, 07:26 AM

I was saying astral construct wilder is something WotC playtested and nerfed, so its numbers are definitely what WotC had in mind for normal play. Because if something got nerfed, then it's something that was examined fully by the developers and is now at a level the developers are happy with.

I see no reason why this must be correct. For one thing, developers are not perfect. It's entirely possible that they over-nerfed astral construct, which would mean that it is underpowered, not appropriately powered. But more importantly, nowhere in Complete Psionic does it say that astral construct was nerfed because having multiple astral constructs at once was too powerful. There are plenty of other reasons why it could have been nerfed, and we have no reason to favor one over another.

lylsyly

2022-05-24, 08:45 AM

I finally got around to reading the whole thread. Personally, I do not think you can define "standard optimization" because it will vary from group to group.

(1) Both the examples I am going to give below have been playing 3.5 for roughly the same amount of time and are happy with their game.

Example One: My group 1 rotating DM and 6 players. Unusual ability generation that usually results in scores well above a 32 point buy. Usually play gestalt with all 1st party sources open and most dragmag and some 3rd party accepted.

What would your idea of standard optimization be for our table?

Example Two: Another group here in town that has 1 permanent DM and 4 players. Straight up 4d6 drop lowest score generation They only use PHB, DMG, MMI.

What would your idea of standard optimization be for their table?

(2) Pick a set of allowable sources (core only, all 1st party, everything under the sun). Now pick ONE class. Standard optimization for that class is going to vary wildly depending on which set of sources you are allowing.

TLDR; I don't think you CAN define "Standard Optimization!" Nor should you try ;-)

pabelfly

2022-05-24, 08:48 AM

From the Player's Handbook, four of the eleven classes have no spellcasting whatsoever, and another two classes only get fourth-level spells by level twenty. It's strange that TC hasn't figured the power level of these classes into his musings on standard optimization when they make over half of the classes available in Player's Handbook.

Lans

2022-05-24, 09:11 AM

Not caught up- I think standard optimization is more of a process, looking at what you want to do and spending a few resources to boost it. Taking improved trip on a barbarian and a couple of feats to boost your chance would be comparable to a wilder with Astral Construct and boost Construct.

Higher than standard would involve looking at the monsters opposed trip rolls and the expected DPR the construct will do to various enemies.

As for whether wizards expected Wilders manifesting ACs as what is expected, maybe, but maybe they thought it was nerfed just inside of too over powered and that is the high point

RandomPeasant

2022-05-24, 09:12 AM

I was saying astral construct wilder is something WotC playtested and nerfed, so its numbers are definitely what WotC had in mind for normal play.

This does not follow at all. It's not even clear to me (though perhaps there is an explicit statement somewhere I am not aware of) that astral construct wilder was playtested prior to being changed. Perhaps it was simply nerfed ad hoc. Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, it was nerfed for complexity reasons rather than power reasons.

Because if something got nerfed, then it's something that was examined fully by the developers and is now at a level the developers are happy with.

This is not obviously correct. Something getting nerfed once doesn't imply it's at a perfect power level. Consider a non-D&D example: the card Darkglare (https://hearthstone.fandom.com/wiki/Darkglare) in Hearthstone. As initially printed, it was a 3 mana 3/4 that refreshed two mana when you took damage. Then it was changed (not strictly nerfed, but generally accepted to be less powerful overall) to a 2 mana 2/3 that refreshed one mana. Then it was changed again to a 3 mana 3/4, which was again generally considered to be a power level decrease. There are plenty of examples like this in both Hearthstone and other games, and you could probably find something that looks vaguely like this in D&D (maybe the rules for polymorph). The inference you are drawing here is not correct.

the sample NPCs damage can reach the wilder's level if they gear up properly. So the question isn't whether they can or can't reach the wilder's numbers, because the answer is yes they most definitely can, but whether that level of gear optimization is high op or standard op.

But a Wilder can also be built and played in a way that produces smaller numbers. So why is optimizing up to the Wilder, rather than down to other things, the standard? No one is saying you can't reach the Wilder's numbers, we're asking why reaching those numbers instead of some other numbers are standard, and all you do to address those questions is make statements about the Wilder that are true of many other things as well.

Technically a naked blaster spellcaster can increase its damage with metamagic rods so it's not flat. So what?

So you keep going on about how these builds are good examples to use for "standard optimization" because they're "flat". If they aren't flat, that makes your argument wrong. That's true of all the claims you're complaining about. Maybe you don't think rebutting those claims implicates your argument, but if that's the case I would ask why you bothered to make them in the first place and why you keep making them over and over.

I'm either waiting for this thread to die and go to the 2nd page so I can delete.

You can delete whenever you want. But deleting your threads is going to make it difficult for people to believe you're arguing in good faith and easy for them to think you're trying to revise your arguments without admitting you made previous iterations of them.

Because Vow of Poverty monk is a flat player progression that, if put in the same game as a naked core-only blaster wizard, would say the encounters are too hard or the wizard is a munchkin. As he cannot contribute to encounters that are CR=ECL let alone ECL+3, VoP monk is not standard optimization.

Ah, see, that's interesting. If the VoP Monk is underpowered because of its performance in encounters, why not just use that as a standard? Why do we need to go on about all these dubious and ultimately meaningless claims of intent when we have a set of mathematical rules we can just use?

There is published content though. WotC expected players to be able to beat published encounters and modules within given level ranges. This is obviously a fairly wide zone, since there are clearly some outlier modules and WTF fights in the published record. Expected power level also slowly ratcheted upward across the course of the full publication cycle of the edition, but at least some of WotC's employees were aware of gradual power creep in options and option synergy.

Using published encounters and modules is just using CR with extra steps. The people who said "this is an adventure for 7th level PCs" also said "this is a monster for 7th level PCs", and the things they said the latter about are both more numerous and far easier to test. Trying to draw a clear power-level line through the edition is a dubious exercise. You have Heroes of Horror (containing the Archivist and Dread Necromancer) published within a month of Tome of Magic (containing the Truenamer). It's not really clear that adventures or antagonists line up like that either, especially with all the outliers you note. Just use the nice, large, labeled data set and move on with your life.

arkangel111

2022-05-24, 09:30 AM

WOW what a mess... this is a heated topic, let me drop my 2 cents. I think that a lot of assumptions are being made about character builds, and trying to define optimization based off the build instead of the design process. Optimization is the process by which you get the build, not the build itself. I think instead we should be looking at the types of decisions made by each level of optimizer. With that said here is my opinion on how to judge levels of optimization. feel free to disagree and and discuss, maybe this post can get back on track and we can reach some common ground.

levels of optimization for players

1. Taking feats/class options/spells based purely on description. - this level of player has no care that a greatsword is technically better than a greataxe on average, the read axe and wanted it. often times this is the first time player, usually the girlfriend that you are introducing to the game that has a token interest in your pastime. Likely has no desire to try to even make a good character, she wants bunny ears and pink armor because!!

2. Getting a concept and choosing ok options based on said concept - they understand that the greatsword is objectively better and will choose it over the greataxe but won't dive into splats to find better. The friend being introduced the first time to a TTRPG, but plays video games casually probably sits here. Unfortunately this player has yet to grasp the idea of what is truly out there rather than just making bad decisions.

3. WOTC stock builds - flavoring a character but often choosing only 1 or 2 points to focus on - these players will pick non-combat feats to sandbag a character weakness but may occasionally make a decent choice concerning their focus. Players who see a build provided by WOTC and have decided to dive enough into the books to make a tweak here and there, but can't really be bothered to spend hours diving through the books. usually not a first time player, or this is might be the friend that is a hardcore gamer but never played TTRPG before.

4. Look what I can do! - These players understand that WOTC has made some horrible decisions with most stock builds. They understand that in a combat heavy campaign feats that don't provide combat value are next to worthless. More than willing to create their own character from scratch, trusting that they'll be more effective than most of WOTC's build team. these players may have begun charting a character's build path from 1-20 but understand that game play may adjust their choices. They have also begun to explore the splatbooks.

5. Hyper focused damager - These players likely have the build planned from start to finish. Have dived through multiple sources and can bring to the table some truly horrific numbers. They can make nearly any concept into a killing machine, but tend to only focus on one aspect of the game, most often combat. These players use online guides religiously and rarely question the validity of the decisions, however tend to be unable to grasp the idea that the game involves more than just their niche. Unfortunately many of the MONK are OP group think they fall into this category.

6. Hyper focused builder - have enough system knowledge to build multiple concepts depending on party or table need, they have the ability to bring powerful builds to a table, but often these builds can only focus on a particular aspect at a time. where they differ from previous optimizer is that they understand the game has several ways to be played outside of one niche and have come up with ways to tackle each playstyle. Definitely use guides but, can sift through the players personal opinions and draw their own conclusions. And they understand the monk is objectively horribly designed.

7. Even constrained I am strong - These builders don't need every splatbook available for a class to produce competent characters. they can find game breaking combo's even when a DM actively works to countermand certain builds. They might use player guides, but more as reminders than to actually build a character, and often enjoy taking substandard choices and trying to break the game anyway. They are also able to understand that the true key to winning at combat is not damage, but action economy, and can often be strong without sacrificing a whole lot.

8. Theory crafters - More than willing to spend weeks and months tweaking a build to get every ounce of strength out of it. Most of GITP sits here though few of us actually play at this level. instead choosing to dumb down for actual gameplay.

9. Staple Guides - these players have enough system knowledge to create guides for new players, and are well respected in the online community. Often times it is their guide that people point to whenever questions are asked about said class or ability. No one questions whether they can make a competent build with any class, and often have good advice on playing a class they are not as familar with, due to their knowledge of game design.

10. Creators of game breaking combos that completely change the way the forums and online community think about various aspects of the game. CoDzilla, Pun Pun, and Diplomancer concepts all likely fall into this category. This is TO category and other than Tippyverse I don't think anyone plays at this level.

Personally I think if you judged the different players at a table based on the above most of the regular forum goers would be between 5-8 and most tables probably sit at 4-6 average. I think for a good game most players would prefer a DM 1 level above the highest player at the table. This system ignores builds entirely and focuses more on the why of decisions than the result of what you get. so what if you can make the D2 crusader, was it an original idea? Or did you dive into the forums because you wanted to say Thogg strong? anyways feel free to disagree and maybe we can come to a consensus without getting this thread closed...

Lans

2022-05-24, 09:43 AM

I see no reason why this must be correct. For one thing, developers are not perfect. It's entirely possible that they over-nerfed astral construct, which would mean that it is underpowered, not appropriately powered. But more importantly, nowhere in Complete Psionic does it say that astral construct was nerfed because having multiple astral constructs at once was too powerful. There are plenty of other reasons why it could have been nerfed, and we have no reason to favor one over another.

There is another option that they nerfed it down because it was too powerful, to the point that it was just under the point of being too powerful and would thus fall into being high powered If there are any designer notes they could be used to explain what they intended

wefoij123

2022-05-24, 12:04 PM

There is another option that they nerfed it down because it was too powerful, to the point that it was just under the point of being too powerful and would thus fall into being high powered

If that were true they wouldn't have included methods to undo the nerf. They made a PrC specifically that undoes the nerf 1/day.

And they wouldn't have released the sheer amount of metamagic reducers you see in the books. If a core-only maximize empower blaster wizard damage was too high, why would they constantly release stronger metamagic reducers? 1 reducer makes the wizard on par with the wilder. And that reducer specifically encourages using maximize and empower spell with him. You could say WotC did not expect every metamagic reducer in the game to be concentrated in one character which is why I stuck with the one, and used the official example mentioned in its feat description.

And the other two. So with that there's 4 things. 3 flat progression naked builds in the 1st post that can roughly hit the astral construct wilder's numbers.

If astral construct was alone I'd say you have a point. But it's not. Multiple naked flat progressions can hit that. And blaster wizard and planar binding wizard is most definitely an extensively playtested archetype seeing the sheer amount of support the two received in 3.5's lifetime. There's even an official art of a wizard using greater planar binding to bind a pit fiend in the same book that gives earlier access to the spell to PCs. So WotC is most definitely aware of what these spells are capable of.

WOW what a mess... this is a heated topic, let me drop my 2 cents. I think that a lot of assumptions are being made about character builds, and trying to define optimization based off the build instead of the design process. Optimization is the process by which you get the build, not the build itself. I think instead we should be looking at the types of decisions made by each level of optimizer. With that said here is my opinion on how to judge levels of optimization. feel free to disagree and and discuss, maybe this post can get back on track and we can reach some common ground.

I'm focusing on performance.
The examples in the 1st post are 3. Stock wotc builds. That's the entire basis of my argument. I found 4 stock builds with flat progressions with similar numbers, and I think wotc was completely aware of their damage output when they ok'd them seeing how one was nerfed with ways to un-nerf it temporarily, and two have received immense support across the entire edition.

So martials who do any of your numbers to hit the same performance as astral construct wilders is standard op. Even if it's 9 or 10. I noticed a lot of people claim something is game breaking (abrupt jaunt at 1st level for example) when it's actually not.

From the Player's Handbook, four of the eleven classes have no spellcasting whatsoever, and another two classes only get fourth-level spells by level twenty. It's strange that TC hasn't figured the power level of these classes into his musings on standard optimization when they make over half of the classes available in Player's Handbook.

Non-spellcasting classes can deal 10 damage a round or 500 damage a round depending on their gear.
Spellcasters on the other hand more or less deal the same damage with or without gear. Astral construct wilders deal the same damage independent of their gear.

Since WotC are aware of these naked flat spellcaster's numbers I say I think these naked flat spellcasters are standard and non-spellcasting classes optimizing to their level instead of 10 or 500 is standard and any lower is low op and any higher is high op.

I finally got around to reading the whole thread. Personally, I do not think you can define "standard optimization" because it will vary from group to group.

(1) Both the examples I am going to give below have been playing 3.5 for roughly the same amount of time and are happy with their game.

Example One: My group 1 rotating DM and 6 players. Unusual ability generation that usually results in scores well above a 32 point buy. Usually play gestalt with all 1st party sources open and most dragmag and some 3rd party accepted.

What would your idea of standard optimization be for our table?

Example Two: Another group here in town that has 1 permanent DM and 4 players. Straight up 4d6 drop lowest score generation They only use PHB, DMG, MMI.

What would your idea of standard optimization be for their table?

(2) Pick a set of allowable sources (core only, all 1st party, everything under the sun). Now pick ONE class. Standard optimization for that class is going to vary wildly depending on which set of sources you are allowing.

TLDR; I don't think you CAN define "Standard Optimization!" Nor should you try ;-)

The same for both. If both of your group does much more damage than an astral construct wilder it's high op. If it does more or less the same it's standard op. If it's lower it's low op. Measure their performance and judge from there.

I don't know how to judge the non-pure damage dealers like BFC wizards. So I'm keeping the discussion to pure damage dealers.
If your pure damage dealers (if you have any) cannot roughly meet the number of astral construct wilder then I believe that particular group is playing at low op.

The numbers wotc expects players to output while they designed all the monsters and adventures is standard. And I tried using unoptimized flat naked spellcasters that has received special WotC attention as a way to figure this number out.

If you think my approach is flawed or my reasoning is flawed, sure, lets discuss it. Why is using astral construct wilder and blaster wizards that copy the example in a feat description as a way to figure out expected player damage output wrong?

JNAProductions

2022-05-24, 12:28 PM

Why do your builds, which are not made by WotC, apply to their standard-but Ember, who was built and published by WotC, doesn't?

Because, again-Ember does 47.5 damage per round, if she can make it to melee with a full-round action available and all attacks hit, at level 15.

arkangel111

2022-05-24, 01:27 PM

1. Ok so you aren't really talking about optimization you are talking about end result. you are literally saying if a monk and an astral construct wilder reach X damage they are on the same level. Even if getting the monk to that same level took 200 books and several thousand hours they are the same level of optimization. I don't agree with this premise and I don't think anyone here will agree that that is a good way to judge optimization. it completely discounts system knowledge, level of involvement, and effort. It's not optimizing to take a copy of someone else's build and slap a new name on it. If you want to consider keeping this thread moving forward then we need to come to some sort of agreement on a good basis for judging. Personally I think optimization is more about the WHY than the WHAT, you may disagree and that's fine.

2. You often mention this astral construct nerf and how it must be exactly what WOTC intended in the end. I don't agree and here's why:
a. Splat books, and supplements and even adventures could all be looked at as mini patches to the various classes to help bring them in line with original intentions. In the beginning WOTC clearly thought just taking away some armor and HP would be enough to make a fighter and a wizard equal. Almost every source comes out with more direct support for mundanes than wizards. Most of the spellcaster support is a sideways or even a backstep for wizards, their primary support comes in odd combo's new spells open up. Where as mundanes were given the ToB. you might think it isn't direct support but by the time many of these patches came out mundanes had a place even if it was only iconic, besides who wants to completely destroy years worth of work that many people still play? it's easier instead to rename the new mundanes and call them a whole new class with an optional system.
b. How many online games do you play? 1 patch is never enough, in league of legends new champs often come out OP and get the ban hammer hard, then spend the next 5-6 patches creeping back up in power. Or perhaps they get a small hit, and spend the next 6 patches creeping down to the level desired. or a fundamental aspect of the game shifts and suddenly things that were perfect are no longer balanced at all and several things need to change. It's harder to patch these books, harder still to playtest the results, and quite frankly doesn't draw enough attention to warrant a fix. I mean realistically if you want to look more at what WOTC intended then you need to look at 5e and compare to 3.5. It is after all the most recent patch.

3. I don't remember reading anywhere that anyone thought your builds presented an OP build, just that they don't feel it's a real representation of WOTC optimization, and many people are just asking you to give a good argument for why those builds specifically represent an intended level of optimization. I don't believe they do because of the plethora of examples of crappy builds in official sources, in fact most builds waste at least 2-3 feats without directly affecting the character's role in any way. I also don't get your argument that a naked wilder or blaster is the intended optimization level because a monk or other class can reach the same level if they aren't naked... Nowhere in the DMG does it say to ONLY award gold to the fighter and rogue but under no circumstances give the wizard money. IF you wanted that as your argument wouldn't it be more fair to say that everyone needs to be naked and reach those numbers? I mean realistically would an astral construct wilder do more damage if he used his WBL to buy a single greatsword and gave it to his construct? what about an army of riding dogs to sick on the enemy? these are things he could do with his money that the monk cannot do, yet your saying the 2 are equal IF the monk spends money and ACW does not.

lylsyly

2022-05-24, 02:19 PM

If you are trying to "define" standard optimization then it must be a criteria that DOES affect all classes/builds not just damage dealers.

I'm not saying your wrong, just that you can't take 3 examples and say that those three eamples set the standard.

icefractal

2022-05-24, 03:20 PM

arkangel111

2022-05-24, 03:46 PM

I think that #3 example is 2 statements not 1, and neither cares about a specific build. The DM is more or less saying he only wants to play at level 4-6 but he's dropping a lot of content hoping to keep the levels 5 and above in check. A DM like your example usually also wants a lot of things run by them, NOT for story purposes but to have a measure of control. I would say the DM is likely no more than a level 6 optimizer himself and therefore understands how different sources can affect the power creep. Your end-result requirement also does nothing to the god wizard builds. The DM may want a low OP game but if the wizard deals 0 damage but makes every encounter pointless to face you do not have a low OP game despite being underpowered by your criteria.

I think #3 still doesn't give a good example of when the numbers matter. If instead the DM said I can only handle you guys at 42 DPS per round, then the end result is the only way to properly gauge a build. but you still end up with the above problem.

You may be right that my criteria does not account very well for group dynamics, you can't average a level 8 player with a level one and expect to play a level 4 game effectively. I kind of expected this argument and hadn't yet figured out a good metric, which is why I named my table player optimization instead of game optimization level.

vasilidor

2022-05-24, 05:20 PM

You know what?
I would consider a intelligently built switch hit fighter to be the baseline optimization for 3.5 D&D for combat builds.
using wealth by level to increase dex and strength and keep a pair of magic weapons (bow and greatsword) up to snuff.
This guy can do either, but is not focused on either. Yes, I know that the game encourages specialization, But I am assuming this guy is a part of a team of 4 at minimum. Each character of which are about as well built as him. It is very possible to build someone that outperforms him, yes.
I am defining intelligently built as making choices that actually help with ranged and melee combat here.

vasilidor

2022-05-24, 07:33 PM

For social builds I think they expect "any character who bothers to put ranks in Diplomacy" to be an effective social build.
I am going to put the baseline as a rogue who puts max ranks in diplomacy, bluff and sense motive as a baseline for social optimization.
For exploring a character who keeps up with survival for tracking, knowledge Geography for overworld travel and the physical climb and swim skills.
Crafting skills can also help with exploration, even in dungeons, as you can use available resources to build tools like a wagon shield to tank traps with.
The game does not actually expect most characters to have more than this for exploration or social encounters.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-24, 08:07 PM

And they wouldn't have released the sheer amount of metamagic reducers you see in the books. If a core-only maximize empower blaster wizard damage was too high, why would they constantly release stronger metamagic reducers?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the people who released a game where there are creatures you can summon with planar binding that can themselves cast planar binding didn't 100% understand all the ways the system they made fit together?

3 flat progression naked builds in the 1st post that can roughly hit the astral construct wilder's numbers.

This is another reminder that these builds are not in any meaningful sense "flat", and that when confronted with claims that they are not OP's response is "why does it matter if they're flat or not". I would sure like to know, because here he is again, presenting that as an important fact.

And blaster wizard and planar binding wizard is most definitely an extensively playtested archetype seeing the sheer amount of support the two received in 3.5's lifetime.

By this standard every archetype in the PHB is "extensively playtested" and we're back to there being no way to isolate the power level you want to define as "standard optimization".

Stock wotc builds.

"We have to use stock WotC builds, we can't use the pre-built NPCs WotC provided."

"So for this campaign, it's level 10, 32 point buy, all first-party stuff that's not setting-specific, and the group is mid to low-op so nothing too crazy." - End result IS a good metric.

Even here, you'll often run into trouble if you present builds that are extremely complicated or dependent on highly specific rules interpretations.

Quertus

2022-05-24, 08:32 PM

Seems I've got too many quotes in another thread. So I'll cut my replies at page 3 for now. Apologies in advance if I misquote anyone as I cut and paste additional quotes into here.

You got it close. I was talking about performance. You got that part right.
I was saying astral construct wilder is something WotC playtested and nerfed, so its numbers are definitely what WotC had in mind for normal play. Because if something got nerfed, then it's something that was examined fully by the developers and is now at a level the developers are happy with.

Well, "this is something that the developers actually looked at / tested, as opposed to the bulk of the content that may as well have been randomly generated and never looked at by sentient eyes" is at least a somewhat compelling argument for a reason to prioritize its validity over the majority of 3e content, I suppose.

Because Vow of Poverty monk is a flat player progression that, if put in the same game as a naked core-only blaster wizard, would say the encounters are too hard or the wizard is a munchkin. As he cannot contribute to encounters that are CR=ECL let alone ECL+3, VoP monk is not standard optimization.

Ah, then... you aren't defining the entire range by what WotC published, only the upper bound, and then setting the lower bound of Standard Optimization as "anyone who can participate in a party with someone from the upper bound"? If so, then how would you argue that your position is more valid than setting the lower bound to "the worst thing WotC produced", and the upper bound as "a character that someone in the lower bound could still expect to participate if placed into a party with"?

Then what use is "standard optimization" as terminology? Saying "this falls into the power range between Monks and planar binding" is kind of like saying "this contains radiation at somewhere between the level that's found in a banana and the one that's found in the Elephant's Foot".

Which (presumably) makes the sun high radiation, and a radiation-shielded room in deep space low-radiation?

Sure, I guess that could work (it certainly beats picking a few examples and designating it the standard). Though I would question the point of a "standard optimization" that included such a broad variety of optimization levels.

I think that's pretty implicit in the OP's argument: it has a "WotC seal of approval".

I mean, look at my "standard" range of optimization: from a Sentient Potted Plant to... Quertus, a Tier 1 Wizard with more custom information-gathering spells than there are spells in core, to... a "telepathic vampire" (think "Illithid Savant") who gave up an omni-power (think Wish) because it gave him analysis paralysis, to... at-will shapechange (that wasn't my fault - the GM foolishly added that to my sheet, not knowing what I could do with it), to... Cleric of AO (who doesn't recognize Clerics / give them spells) who rolled straight 1's for HP.

So, unless noted otherwise, it would be reasonable for you to expect that you could play anything in that range at my table, as it was "standard optimization" for my way of thinking. (Granted, there's a few bits of additional information necessary to make that true, as Quertus is only fun because his tactical ineptitude and personality prevent him from dominating every encounter like a poorly-roleplayed copy of his statistics otherwise could, for example.)

However, the OP has since clarified that they don't believe that the low end of WotC's output should qualify as "Standard Optimization", as they cannot meaningfully contribute when in a party with their WotC-created peers / betters, so... I guess it's kinda a moot point.

What else should she be doing? What else CAN she do?

Monk is not a Striker; Monk is not a Glass Cannon. Monk is a high-mobility[1], high-survival[2], skirmish fighter / mage killer.

Or so I'm told.

[1] Fast Movement, Tumble as a class skill, class features
[2] d8 HP, Wis to AC, all good saves, Evasion, class features

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal.

Eh, yes and no. The "Same Game Test" (SGT) provides a debatably clear point. But only a point, not a range. And balance is a range, not a point.

And I say that it's debatable, because it depends on just what you put into your sample "ECL X" encounters for your test as to how a level X character (let alone a level X ± Y character) will measure up.

*IF* the OP had been trying to define what size the range of acceptable outcomes from the SGT should be considered "Standard Optimization", then I would have supported the answer of min(SGT(all WotC established characters and combos)) - max(SGT(all WotC established characters and combos)).

However, as the OP has since clarified that that is not their position, it is a somewhat moot point.

Addendum: give me the SGT you want to use (they usually have 10-20 challenges, right?), and I'll build 1) a totally OP character who will hit an arbitrary 50% success metric; b) a totally UP character who will hit an arbitrary 50% success metric. Assuming you believe that such is possible, and don't actually need a demonstration, you can see that the SGT provides anything but a clear as crystal measure of a character's actual power, right?

Seward

2022-05-24, 08:42 PM

Because, again-Ember does 47.5 damage per round, if she can make it to melee with a full-round action available and all attacks hit, at level 15.

Welp, that statblock has to be wrong (15th level monks do 2d6 damage per swing unarmed+strength, and have 5 attacks. How do you get a .5 number?), but we've already talked about monks and how one built as an actual melee will perform instead of one built to fail (hint, if doing damage is a role and you are a martial, you start with 16 str and put all statbumps into strength. You also have a belt of strength+6 and boots of haste by level 15. I have no idea what is up with that Ember statblock but clearly she was not built to actually do any damage).

This is wrong. T1s are not T1 because they have plot-breaking tools.

This is actually the definition, as in literally, as nearly word for word. T2s are T2 because they have all the tools available but can only choose a subset of them, so they can't break the game in every single way that a divine prep caster or a wizard with an unlimited spellbook can.

From JaronK's original article that defined this whole stupid tier discussion.

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

If the bolded text above isn't a description of "plot breaking" because it is perhaps even worse than that, the second sentence is also basically a definition of "plot breaking". As in "I take one action and the current plot problem vanishes".

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes.

meanwhile down at tier 4

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well.....Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength

For martial classes, this "one thing" is generally "damage dealing without resource burn beyond cheap healing between fights". It is quite challenging to get a tier 1 to perform even briefly at the routine level of a tier 4 at similar optimization levels at that role (assuming that said martial can reliably reach the enemies to hurt them, which is why when I tried to build a wizard to perform that role well a few times a day, I used an single class fighter archer with expected feats and gear as a meterstick for my expected damage in that role)

Because D&D is mostly about defeating encounters with violence this "speciality" comes up a lot, and yes, some martial characters can solo an entire encounter, if the monster is suited to them or if it is one of the weaker nuisance encounters. Except for rare builds that somehow do damage without strength, they're also the "go to" to end an encounter that is "get past that obstacle" (by destroying it, lifting it or carrying the party as they climb past it/around it, or jumping over it, all using zero resources). Partnered with a healer they do ok as trapfinders "the hard way" too, although occasional builds (such as the monk I played, immune to half the stuff traps do and able to make saves vs the rest) was able to clear an assassin guild of traps once by just walking around and touching everything, opening every container and drawer etc. I took damage that wholeness of body handled pretty much on its own.

The difference between Tier 4 and Tier 5 is generally that Tier 5 doesn't even do its main thing well. Honestly I think of Monk as tier 4 if you know what you are doing but Tier 5 if you don't. It's a really good, magically durable light infantry that can either wait for a brute to get near them then kill it with aoos+full attack or it can use its mobility to get to enemies that aren't melee brutes, ignore whatever they do to try to get rid of the monk, then kill them with a full attack (and often have tools to lock said enemy in place with stun or a combat maneuver which will actually work on the non-brutes a lot).

If you do most anything else with a monk, yeah, it is going to kinda be useless in combat. So it is fragile from a build perspective. So is basically every spont caster without a pre-selected spell list such as warmage and beguiler. You can ruin any other tier 2 caster with bad spell known picks (and bad includes, "picked a good one, never use it for whatever reason")

finally a pet peeve about how VOP and Monk always seem connected.

VOP is only a good feat if the GM doesn't give out WBL. Full stop. For some reason people don't think Monks need the same magic item investment any other martial does (which is to say, str boost, con boost, ac boost, save boost and whatever gets you the highest damage output you can with your preferred weapon mix. What you buy will often depend on what long term buffs your party is willing to provide, and if you have to help them provide it, as with pearl power or lesser rods of extend)

JNAProductions

2022-05-24, 10:27 PM

Welp, that statblock has to be wrong (15th level monks do 2d6 damage per swing unarmed+strength, and have 5 attacks. How do you get a .5 number?), but we've already talked about monks and how one built as an actual melee will perform instead of one built to fail (hint, if doing damage is a role and you are a martial, you start with 16 str and put all statbumps into strength. You also have a belt of strength+6 and boots of haste by level 15. I have no idea what is up with that Ember statblock but clearly she was not built to actually do any damage).

"That statblock" is the Wizards of the Coast made statblock for an example Monk at level 15 from Enemies and Allies.

So, if the statblock is wrong (fully possible, I'll admit!) then we're dealing with a company that can't even make a basic NPC without screwing that up. And then we're to expect that same company was able to consistently make a baseline level of optimization throughout all their books?

I like Wizards of the Coast well enough. Magic The Gathering is fun. 5E is fun. 4E is fun. 3.5 is fun. But... When it comes to D&D, I'd hardly say they're paragons of diligence and accuracy. Especially in the 3.0 and 3.5 days.

EndlessKng

2022-05-24, 11:13 PM

Welp, that statblock has to be wrong (15th level monks do 2d6 damage per swing unarmed+strength, and have 5 attacks. How do you get a .5 number?), but we've already talked about monks and how one built as an actual melee will perform instead of one built to fail (hint, if doing damage is a role and you are a martial, you start with 16 str and put all statbumps into strength. You also have a belt of strength+6 and boots of haste by level 15. I have no idea what is up with that Ember statblock but clearly she was not built to actually do any damage).

That statblock was in 3.0, when 15th level monks did 1d12 instead (average 6.5). If I'm reading the old rules right, they had a separate attack progression for Unarmed Strikes from their BAB and Flurry gave one extra attack on top of that, for five per round in a flurry total, with a 3 strength for a modifier. Without a crit, that comes out to an average of 9.5 damage per attack, or 47.5 over a full+flurry.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-24, 11:47 PM

I think that's pretty implicit in the OP's argument: it has a "WotC seal of approval".

I would agree that it is implicit in OP's argument. But for that very reason, I find it deeply unpersuasive. "Things Wizards intentionally changed are intended, things they printed once aren't" is not a terribly compelling argument, precisely because there is no explicit "this is what we meant". Designers do multiple balance passes on things all the time across a wide variety of games. Many things that are changed once are changed multiple times. If anything, we should view any explicit change or ruling on something as evidence that it is more likely to be a problem, not less.

Eh, yes and no. The "Same Game Test" (SGT) provides a debatably clear point. But only a point, not a range. And balance is a range, not a point.

This is semantics, it is not useful. You can express the SGT as a range ("balance is 4/10 to 6/10"). You can express untestable standards as points ("balance is exactly the Astral Construct Wilder"). It's not even clear to me that the basic claim is correct. Acceptable balance may well be a range, but the thing you are targeting is still a point.

Assuming you believe that such is possible, and don't actually need a demonstration, you can see that the SGT provides anything but a clear as crystal measure of a character's actual power, right?

That's just Goodhart's Law. Implicit in the premise of the SGT is that you are not going to tune the character to the specific set of challenges that are involved in it. That you can engage in bad faith doesn't make an argument bad, it just means engaging in bad faith doesn't get you good results.

This is actually the definition, as in literally, as nearly word for word.

Yes, but that definition leads you to conclusions that are completely useless like "a Commoner with teleport is better than a Warmage". JaronK's version of class tiering is mostly directionally correct, but his definitions are useless and abiding by them makes you understand how D&D works less.

It is quite challenging to get a tier 1 to perform even briefly at the routine level of a tier 4 at similar optimization levels at that role

And this is why JaronK's definitions are bad. D&D isn't about "roles". It is about solving problems. Yes, an Ubercharger does stupid huge amounts of damage. But a Cleric Archer can do enough damage to solve problems that can be solved with damage, and dealing more damage than that doesn't mean anything. In MTG, Twin isn't a better deck than Burn because the former can do unbounded damage and the latter maybe a hundred if it plays every card from its deck.

When it comes to D&D, I'd hardly say they're paragons of diligence and accuracy. Especially in the 3.0 and 3.5 days.

This isn't quite correct. 3.0 was the only version of D&D that got explicit playtesting, and the part that was actually playtested (roughly the first four to six levels) is the most balanced D&D has ever been. The fact that 3e falls apart to various degrees for somewhere between a half and three-quarters of the levels is rightly ridiculed, but the part that was tested works. Because testing works.

wefoij123

2022-05-25, 05:15 AM

Ah, then... you aren't defining the entire range by what WotC published, only the upper bound, and then setting the lower bound of Standard Optimization as "anyone who can participate in a party with someone from the upper bound"? If so, then how would you argue that your position is more valid than setting the lower bound to "the worst thing WotC produced", and the upper bound as "a character that someone in the lower bound could still expect to participate if placed into a party with"?

I think wotc had a specific idea of how much damage a PC should do per round at each level, and I think wotc made spellcasters follow that specific idea when they built them. Which means the damage progression of flat spellcasters is how much damage per round standard optimization damage dealing PCs should deal. That's pretty much the gist of it. The following is a more detailed explanation.

WotC wants players to be able to handle monsters whose CR=ECL. Seward said this changed to CR=ECL+3.
Low end WotC player progressions cannot handle CR=ECL let alone CR=ECL+3. Therefore I think it's safe to conclude their damage numbers are not what WotC had in mind. Because if they were then they would at least be able to handle CR=ECL using 50% of their daily resources.
The 4 builds in my 1st post on the other hand, can.

I don't think you want me to repeat everything again so I'll be brief on the Astral Construct Wilder.
WotC thought 2 Astral Construct Wilders did too much damage. So they nerfed it to only 1 out max, but made a PrC specifically to un-nerf it 1/day. So from this we can tell WotC thinks 1 astral construct's damage output is ok for all encounters and 2 astral construct's damage output is ok for 1 encounter but not ok for every encounter. From this we know what is too much for standard optimization. 2 astral constructs is too much for standard optimization. Upper limit for standard optimization found.

Lets talk about blasters. In Core WotC knows how much damage a maximized empowered spell does. They thought it was too high so they nerfed it so that these two feats don't interact. So lets assume WotC knows how much damage a blaster wizard does with maximize + empower spell. Lets assume they did the math and know how much damage a maximized empowered fireball, cone of cold, scorching ray, magic missile, etc. does. Lets assume they are not that stupid or incompetent. So core-only blaster wizards' damage output is something WotC is ok with.

Afterwards, despite knowing the damage numbers, they still released an ungodly amount of metamagic reducers throughout the books and thus intentionally increased the damage output. So WotC thought in later supplements, empowered + maximize isn't too high, it's ok for it to be higher and that's why they released metamagic reducers.
Lets say WotC did not expect PCs to put every single metamagic reducer in all the books into one single character and deal 800 damage a round. So lets stick with just one metamagic reducer: Arcane thesis.
In Arcane thesis's feat description, it specifically mentions reducing the metamagic cost of empower + maximize by two spell slots. So if we are assuming WotC is not that stupid or incompetent, that WotC at least runs the numbers of how much damage an arcane thesis wizard with empower and maximize spell would do before releasing arcane thesis, then we know that the Arcane thesis blaster wizard's damage numbers is something WotC knows and is ok with.

Now here's the coincidence that spawned this thread. The nerfed astral construct wilder's damage output and arcane thesis blaster wizard's damage output line up pretty nicely. In addition, these two's progressions are flat. Magic items don't really increase or decrease their numbers. So from this we might draw a conclusion: WotC expects PCs to deal this much damage a round with their characters so they intentionally made both these flat build's damage numbers lineup with this much damage. In other words, their goal was the numbers in the 1st post, and built astral constructs and metamagic reducers specifically to hit those numbers. Which means those numbers are standard optimization.

Now I could be wrong, this all could just be one giant coincidence. So I looked at another flat progression that received a lot of support throughout multiple books, which was planar binding. I remember there being an official illustration of a wizard binding a Pit Fiend with Greater Planar Binding. I remember there being an official wizard enslaving a Balor with Greater Planar Binding. So WotC knows exactly what Greater Planar Binding is capable of and they still decided to buff it anyways. I statted out some outsiders and their damage output roughly lined up with the astral construct wilder and arcane thesis blaster wizard.

I looked at yet another flat player progression. Fiendbinder. 0 player book diving allowed in that one. You can tell they didn't want another polymorph in the game. So instead you get a fixed unchangeable list and that's it. No way to make the list bigger or better. And I statted all the monsters on the fiendbinder's list and their damage output roughly (emphasis on roughly) lined up with the astral construct wilder and arcane thesis blaster wizard.

So I thought to myself, this is not a coincidence. 4 flat progression classes doing roughly the same damage at every level.

And that's why I think the performance of my 4 builds on the 1st post is standard optimization and not the failure progressions that can't even handle CR=ECL.

If you are trying to "define" standard optimization then it must be a criteria that DOES affect all classes/builds not just damage dealers.

I'm not saying your wrong, just that you can't take 3 examples and say that those three eamples set the standard.

If I find a coincidence in flat PC progressions of the other PC archetypes, I'll make a new thread called "Defining Standard Optimization for ___" and replace ___ with BFC, save or die, party face, etc.

See my response to Quertus on my justification on why I think these 4 examples set the standard. I could be wrong and if you think I'm wrong feel free to share your opinion.

snip

I think the main problem between us is you define "optimization" number of books used to build a character with complete disregard of performance. And I'm the opposite. I think "optimization" is performance with complete disregard of number of books used.

For this thread, I am gonna stick with my definition of optimization. Because final performance determines whether a PC is ill suited for a particular table or not. Not how many books they used. And because that's the definition of "optimization" I've been using this entire thread. People are having a hard enough time understanding what I'm saying as it is.

Batcathat

2022-05-25, 06:11 AM

So I thought to myself, this is not a coincidence. 4 flat progression classes doing roughly the same damage at every level.

So WotC 1) had a very specific idea of how much damage "should" be done, 2) managed to design these four classes to fit that, 3) completely failed to account for it in a million other places, including the system they made to illustrate how powerful a character should be to fight a particular monster?

People are having a hard enough time understanding what I'm saying as it is.

While there might be exceptions, I feel like most people don't have a hard time understanding what you're saying, but just don't agree with you.

If you had said "Hey, here's a good way to measure optimization and some examples of what I think is the ideal amount" I'm sure some people would've agreed with you. But you said "Hey, here's a very roundabout way of figuring out what optimization WotC expects that's superior to all the other ways".

lylsyly

2022-05-25, 07:03 AM

If I find a coincidence in flat PC progressions of the other PC archetypes, I'll make a new thread called "Defining Standard Optimization for ___" and replace ___ with BFC, save or die, party face, etc.

See my response to Quertus on my justification on why I think these 4 examples set the standard. I could be wrong and if you think I'm wrong feel free to share your opinion.

I've already said that I didn't think you were wrong. I simply said that if you want to define standard optimization then it must be a standard that applies to ALL classes. As far as finding "flat" PC progressions? I still believe that that will vary by table, books allowed ect. If you are using WotC statblocks that are basically ALL messed up in one way or another to base your assumptions on well ...

Look at the playtested archetypes of the PC classes at level 5 in Enemies and Allies. How many errors in optimum feat choices can you find? Are their choices the standard? They are playtested as they are so that MUST be what WotC expected. I'm just saying.

Also, where is it said that the astral construct wilder was playtested?

Lans

2022-05-25, 07:58 AM

If that were true they wouldn't have included methods to undo the nerf. They made a PrC specifically that undoes the nerf 1/day.
g?

That prestige class produces inferior ACs opposed to a straight Wilder due to loosing a manifested level and a point of wild surge.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-25, 08:56 AM

Which means the damage progression of flat spellcasters is how much damage per round standard optimization damage dealing PCs should deal.

What about all those rounds where you're out of spell slots? If we want to know how much damage someone is expected to do per round, shouldn't we look at something like the Warlock that can do that damage in every round?

Because if they were then they would at least be able to handle CR=ECL using 50% of their daily resources.

This is not the expectation CR implies. In a party of four, you're expected to spend 20% of your resources on an encounter, so by simple linear scaling a single PC would spend 80%, not 50%.

From this we know what is too much for standard optimization.

I don't follow this inference. How do you know that two astral constructs is too much power? Maybe it's too much complexity, or WotC just thought it was conceptually cool to have this as a limit break effect and didn't care about the power implications at all.

So WotC thought in later supplements, empowered + maximize isn't too high, it's ok for it to be higher and that's why they released metamagic reducers.

Explain to me why this logic doesn't prove that SLA wish is standard optimization.

So I looked at another flat progression that received a lot of support throughout multiple books, which was planar binding.

Famously flat progression casting a spell with no meaningful limit on how often it can be used to summon creatures you can just give magic items that boost their stats.

Because final performance determines whether a PC is ill suited for a particular table or not.

Then why are you trying to create a universal definition of it? If someone thinks "standard optimization" means something that doesn't allow your astral construct Wilder or arcane thesis Wizard, do you think this will persuade them to allow it? Do you think it will even persuade them to change their terminology?

As far as finding "flat" PC progressions?

Y'all gotta stop giving him credit for this. These builds are not remotely flat. You can very easily change the outputs by making gear choices. To the degree they are "flat" it just means that, given the choices they made, they do the damage they do, which is again true of the Monk.

That prestige class produces inferior ACs opposed to a straight Wilder due to loosing a manifested level and a point of wild surge.

Weird, you'd think OP would mention something like that on his own. The class feature that undoes the nerf having a power cost to obtain sure seems like it implicates his argument somehow.

Lans

2022-05-25, 09:04 AM

Does anyone know what the last meta magic reducer printed was?

pabelfly

2022-05-25, 09:43 AM

Does anyone know what the last meta magic reducer printed was?

Complete Mage had Metamagic School Focus and that was released late 2006. Player's Handbook II has Arcane Thesis, and that was released mid 2006. I'm not sure if there were metamagic reducers later than that.

Seward

2022-05-25, 09:59 AM

As an aside, in Core, empower and maximize do interact, or at least stack.

fireball average 35 damage
Empowed fireball 52.5 damage
Maximized fireball 60 damage
Empowered Maximized fireball 77.5 damage

Metamagic rods were the only core way to speed this progression up. Metamagic school Focus took 6 years and 2 feats (or wizard+1 feat) to reduce it at all. Arcane Thesis is the only way you get to the kind of Mailman builds we do today, and the game was almost dead when PHB2 was released (it would be gone in another year). I don't know when incantatrix came out but it was never allowed in any campaign I played. That was probably the earliest metamagic reducer.

That said, I never noticed the arcanists who liked doing direct damage feeling useless. The martials could outperform them but they did meaningful damage, and were superior vs larger numbers of weaker opponents.

WotC wants players to be able to handle monsters whose CR=ECL. Seward said this changed to CR=ECL+3.

That isn't exactly what I said. Living Greyhawk assumed a 5 person table, with 4-6 allowed

The default adventure by year 3-4 assumed 5 PC's at expected party level could handle 3 EL+3 encounters (sometimes but not always in one day) in a typical one-session adventure.

The way the campaign scaled, 4 person parties were considered weak, so they were more commonly playing "down" as in "a party of average character level 5 would be playing the level 4 adventure, not the level 6 version of the advanture". Which means for them, the WOTC 4 person party, it was EL+2. Which is precisely what the DMG recommends, it's the center of the bell curve of the encounters.

For an individual character it is important to remember that a monster with CR=character level is an EL+4 encounter. It is only EL+0 if you have 4 characters.

to continue....

A 6 person party had 1 added to their expected character level. So that EL+3 encounter for a party of 5 level 4 characters would be EL+4 for a party of 6 level 3 characters. This occasionally caused issues with playbalance in both directions (action economy sometimes helps 6 weak characters, AOEs tend to be rather hard on them), which is why I playtested random parties at 4, 5 and 6 characters with "strong, average, weak" character levels for the given tier.

Your average Living Greyhawk (or Pathfinder Society) table was not role balanced. You'd get parties that were entirely martial with a paladin+wands providing healing and maybe somebody with a single sorcerer level casting the detect magic. You'd get parties that were all support characters, and they'd try to find the most combat capable person (often the highest level character if nothing else served) and buff the snot out of them. You'd get parties with a bunch of archers, or arcanists, or druids or something that would romp or struggle depending on if the adventure played to their strengths. Sometimes you'd get situations like my 8 intelligence dragon disciple being the "Scholar" with his 5 ranks of Kn Arcane and having a library search take months instead of hours. But we perservered.

At a given table if you had two players with good system mastery we could usually get to success on an adventure, working around the problems provided by other characters. At a typical 5 person convention table 2 would be good at the game, 2 would be contributing more at the "iconic" level and one would be basically taking up space (think somebody's daughter whose father encouraged her to play a druid because it had a pet, who couldnt' handle the complexity of a druid and defaulted to "I order my dog to attack and stand around"). Helping a party like that succeeded involved getting the weaker players to do the things they liked doing, which were often the things their characters were built do to, and trying to fill in all the stuff they didn't know how to do or weren't interested in doing.

When playtesting, my builds were core-only, commonly chosen builds that I'd seen a lot in actual play (like a lance-charger built human Paladin). On average they were weaker than the actual characters (who were tuned better even by more casual players, had better gear, and tended to also have a few favors and whatnot tucked away from prior adventures to bust out if things got dire). But I couldn't dumb down my own combat skills much, "weaker character build, higher system mastery" as a rough yardstick of a realistic party.

At conventions, results were a lot like my playtests (and I did this mostly to prep the GMs in our areas for conventions, of which I'd run quite a few sessions myself). In home games, where players knew each other and each other's characters and parties tended to be organized better in terms of roles, parties could get away with "playing up" a lot more, or needing only an average party to tackle some of the more challenging adventures (which might not be obvious, but playtesting had revealed that at, say, level 8 there was a problematic encounter, and they were playing at level 8)

arkangel111

2022-05-25, 10:44 AM

I'm not defining optimization based on books used, I'm defining it based on effort/system knowledge. It doesn't matter if you use only one book or 20, a good optimizer could likely make a better character restricted to one book than a bad one using 20. I just don't believe that a range of numbers can fully represent a character's power. it is quite possible to build a wizard that uses no damaging spells, yet ends encounters solo.

You're also using the argument that because WOTC left it alone it must be intentional design. Many of the most broken combo's were discovered on forums like this long after 4.0 was released. Your assumption is also that the exact same team was working on every WOTC build out there which we know to be false. I think you found an interesting coincidence, perhaps the same guy was in charge of statting out those blocks for each, or maybe someone was using another's as a reference. I think if you are gonna make the claim that it is an intended target number then you should be able to find a lot more than 4 examples. This is what people are saying about cherry-picking.

You state that the wizard's numbers match the ACW, but that's actually false. the wizard isn't using a fireball for a single enemy so you actually need to at a minimum double his numbers. there are also far better spells and combo's available for said wizard even in core, why are these not available? Your only looking at a single minute aspect of the game. how do their defenses compare? skill points? non-combat options. If this is truly the pivot point that WOTC wanted, as you claim, then these 4 builds should have nearly identical performances in all other aspects. If they aren't identical then again, why are these 4 builds somehow considered the standard optimization point for damage but not for anything else? I am sure we can find 5 stock builds that have similar numbers much lower or even much higher than what you have presented here, does that make them the pivot point? Here are 4 builds from 2 random books, didn't get same level but each is well below your examples...

Gilles Veprain (pg 212 MOI)
Human Incarnate 6 (level 6)
Atk +3 lawful longsword 1d8+4 (8.5) [16.5 below target]

Lovos the shadow wolf (pg 55 FoE)
Longstrider Shifter sorcerer 6/escalation mage3 (level 9)
Shadow power (empower) Lightning bolt 13d6 DC 15 (45.5) [you don't have level 9 so I averaged 8 and 10, 22.5 below target(68)]
6x lightning/day, can also empower enervation 4x/day but that's not damage

Brother Micah, the wolf-hammer (pg 73 FoE) (obviously a melee fighter)
Half-orc Monk 2 / paladin 4 / argent fist 4 (level 10)
unarmed strike 1d10+2 (+10 smite) / 1d10+2 (25) [58.5 below target]
can only smite 2x per day but I put the damage assuming best case. without 15 damage/rnd

Janilya, the Fearless (raging) (pg 87 FoE) (melee is literally all this girl does)
half-orc rogue 3/ barbarian 2 / thief of life 5 (level 10)
+1 greatsword of wounding 2d6+8 +1 con dmg +3d6 SA x2 (61 with 2 points con loss (-10hp) [22.5 below target]
can rage 1x a day and assuming ideal conditions for SA on both hits. without SA rage or living enemy 24 dmg/rnd

why would none of these be considered valid standards?

Lans

2022-05-25, 11:17 AM

Incarnate is a bad class to use, as it's a jack of all trades class

Tzardok

2022-05-25, 11:20 AM

I don't know when incantatrix came out but it was never allowed in any campaign I played. That was probably the earliest metamagic reducer.

Appeared for the first in Magic of Faerûn (2002) and was updated to 3.5 in Player's Guide to Faerûn (2004).

Quertus

2022-05-25, 12:44 PM

Also, where is it said that the astral construct wilder was playtested?

The fact that they updated (nerfed) it points to the fact that the designers actually looked at the balance of astral constructs, rather than just publishing and never looking at random word salad again (ie, most 3e balance).

You're also using the argument that because WOTC left it alone it must be intentional design.

No, the argument is that, because they didn't leave it alone, it demonstrate where they thought balance should be.

InvisibleBison

2022-05-25, 01:03 PM

No, the argument is that, because they didn't leave it alone, it demonstrate where they thought balance should be.

Except it doesn't demonstrate that. Complete psionic is silent on why astral construct was updated to only allow 1 at a time by default, so we don't actually know that this change was made because the developers thought it was balanced. And even if it was, there's no reason to think they were right - their track record elsewhere in the system is not particularly impressive.

Tzardok

2022-05-25, 01:13 PM

Complete Psionics has a reputation as being one of the worst books in 3.5, with unneccessary nerfs, useless classes, reprints from other sources and masses of mindblade feats that could have been condensed into a single one. One of the authors allegedly said that he hates psionics. I'll continue to assume that the nerf of the astral construct was done out of pure maliciousness.

Seward

2022-05-25, 01:22 PM

Apropro of not much, these were my playtest builds (28 point buy, martials always have at 16 starting strength before racial mods, primary casters 16 in primary casting stat, statbumps to str or primary casting stat till L8 then something at L12 that usually helped qualify for a feat or similar). They worked well to playtest Living Greyhawk mods (those EL+3 encounters for party of 5). All parties were assembled by random number generation, levels based on party size vs encounter to be tested (I didn't try to model the actual mixed level ranges we got at real tables, this approach worked well enough to not add that complexity)

The title in bold is how you would advertise yourself when signing up for a table. All of these were similar to commonly played characters, if not identical to any of them. All had WBL spent on mostly generic things (enh/resist stuff, weapons or pearl power/metamagic rod type things) all had common consumables (there was significant peer pressure for everybody to carry their own wand of cure light wound regardless of if they could use it, and have at least potions to cover buffs they might need frequently or for specific fights, such as oil of bless weapon or potion of fly). Assume any martial had a blunt, slashing, cold iron, silver, piercing option, plus consumables to defeat magic DR or alignment DR at low levels. Adamantine on a martial past about level 6 was normal, although not always on a primary weapon.

While these parties were often challenged by the adventures and occasionally somebody died, TPKs were extraordinarily rare. You don't need fancy builds to do well at D&D.

Arcane Caster - Grey Elf Wizard 1-15 Spellbook took the most obvious generic spells that everybody urges you to take (eg, glitterdust, haste, fireball, magic missile, black tentacles, dimension door, overland fight) usually not more than one of each spell, which ended in a fair mix of buff, battlefield control, direct damage and utility. Did not spend much WBL on spellbook beyond levelup spells, since this player isn't assumed to have the imagination to mix up spell list constantly as challenges change. Did have a pouch full of pearls of power and in lower levels scrolls scribed by herself to extend her endurance to expected 3 hard encounters/day. Is willing to devote spell slots for long duration spells on other party members but may not be able to sustain all day without other person providing pearl and/or lesser rod of extend. Feats in order were scribe scroll, Toughness, great fortitude, craft wondrous (to make all those pearls of power - Living Greyhawk had minimum caster level on those pretty low for the L1-3 types and lower cost of other resistance/stat buff items for self), improved initiative, empower spell, quicken spell, spell penetration, greater spell penetration, extend spell. Uses a raven familiar in not any especially useful fashion except to hang out with the scout and provide knowledge skill support and "oh crap" empathic link instant alerting if the scout gets into trouble. Skill set is "know it all" - Kn skills and spellcraft.

Archer - Wood Elf Ranger 1-15 starts with 18 str, 17 dex, statbumps to dex. Good at spot/listen/survival with 5 ranks in kn nature and kn dungeoneering, and decent ride/handle animal skill. Takes a horse animal companion and uses as a mount where that is practical. Skills in order are point blank shot, rapid shot, precise shot, endurance, weapon focus, many shot, improved crit, improved precise shot, quickdraw, far shot. Favored enemies are undead2.4.6, elementals0.4.6.8, plants 0.0.2.4, Evil outsider 0.0.0.2 - more or less trying to manage DR he can't penetrate with favored enemy bonuses rather than actually being better at that foe, until L15 when those are very common enemies. This guy starts out with silver and cold iron arrows and gets adamantium early. He goes from +1 bow to holy bow, as in core DR/evil penetration isn't easy for an archer. He uses a str+4 bow his entire career.

Artillery - Human Sorcerer 1-15 early spells are the default offensive (magic missile, flame arrow, fireball, black tentacles, cone of cold, chain lightning, delayed blast fireball). Next tier is the ones they're yelled at (er encouraged) to take by other party members when they level (mage armor, glitterdust, haste, dim door, wall force, disintegrate, limited wish). After that you start to fill in with buffs that help yourself (false life, overland flight) or your party if spammed (fly, resist energy, endure elements). I don't remember the exact details. Feats are spell penetration, improved spell penetration, improved initiative, empower, maximize, craft rod (to make maximize rods, to stack with empowered spells on top tier slots), quickdraw (for rod juggling, it still takes full round to cast a metamagic spell). Has a bat familiar to help spot hidden opposition. Skill set is max concentration and max bluff+charisma to make a decent secondary face. Has no Kn skills or spellcraft.

Cavalry - Human Paladin 1-15 fullplate, buckler, lance, longbow adj str for range+javelins, armor spikes or backup 1h weapons for close work. Uses the lance as a 2h reach weapon if he can't bring the mount into a confined area. Mount has a gear investment too, barding, amulet natural attacks+1 and cloak of resistance. Feats in order are mounted combat, rideby attack, spirited charge, power attack, imp crit(lance), combat reflexes, iron will. Spells focus on things like divine favor that can buff both self and mount. Skills are maxed ride and diplomacy.

Divine Caster Human Cleric 1-15, fancies himself a melee, so will prep those "buff for 3 rounds and become a melee" spells but in actuality tends to be more useful casting normal cleric spells. Luckily many buffs useful for a melee cleric also help the party. Also being aggressive will prep things like Holy Smite and Flame strike but not do anything to make them better. This being core, turning is only useful for turning, so some feats spent there. Pelor, Sun and Good domains. Feats in order are Improved Turning, Power Attack, Craft Arms/Armor, Quicken Spell, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes. Skills are Kn Religion and Concentration.

There was a category for people actually good at healing, good enough to make it an actually combat action. They were referred to as "Medic/Support", reflecting that if nobody is hurt they'd toss out party buffs instead. Generalists were Divine Casters, it was a similar distinction between a generalist Arcane Caster vs a damage dealing Artillery arcanist. I didn't include any of these in my playtest set, as you can't build them properly with core resources only. (you need augment healing, spells like close wounds, delay death and insignia of healing and some other odds and ends found outside of core)

Divine Caster Half-Elf Druid 1-15 was told "summoning druids are good" and when overwhelmed with complexity responded by sticking to tough summons with 1 attack, a durable animal companion with 1 attack and wildshape forms with 1 attack (after L8 mostly uses dire bat form). Does learn elemental languages to use them in utility roles or for complex tactics. Spell list is a mix of nature spells and healing with an odd flame strike or whatever thrown in for emergencies but far prefers to just summon stuff until the fight ends. WBL heavily concentrated on cloak and amulet because in LG you can take them off, wildshape, put them back on. Wild armor gets another big chunk of wealth later. Pearls of power are also a thing. Feats are in order spell focus conjuration, augment summoning, natural spell, quicken spell, improved initiative, ligntning reflexes. Good at spot/listen, Kn Nature and Survival.

Heavy Infantry - Dwarf Fighter 1-15 Fullplate Tower Shield Dwarf Waraxe, used Javelins for range.
feats in order were power attack, cleave, cbt expertise, wpn focus, wpn spec, quickdraw great cleave, improved crit, blindfight, greater weapon focus, greater weapon spec, Iron will, improved initiative, lightning reflexes. Skill points spent on jump/climb/swim to counter armor penalties.

Light Infantry - Half Orc Barbarian 1-15 chain shirt, reach weapon with falchion or armor spikes for close work, non-rage str adjusted bow and javelins for range. Feats in order were power attack, cleave, combat reflexes, improved crit (main weapon), iron will, lightning reflexes. Only 2 skill points per level, max intimidate, 1 point into jump so you don't fall prone when you succeed but not by 5, enough ride to guide with knees, enough handle animal to get it to do a trick on a take 10. This guy has a mount, and it is pretty disposable if he charges into combat with it. He keeps a lance on the mount, using it pretty much only on a charge.

Light Infantry - Human Monk 1-15. Feats in order were stunning fist, weapon focus (unarmed strike) Improved natural attack (unarmed strike), combat reflexes, exotic weapon proficiency (spiked chain), improved trip, power attack, improved crit (unarmed strike), ability focus (stunning fist), Blindfight. Skill points spent on tumble, spot/listen, hide/move silent and enough climb/jump/swim to get around.

Generalist - Gnome Bard. Face skills primarily with a side of know-it-all. No direct combat capability but had spells oriented to supercharging the party or individual party members in and out of combat, and also being an alternate source of some key spells such as Heroism, Silence, Haste, Invis 10' radius, dim door etc. I didn't take Glibness on this character, it didn't need it as much as other stuff. Had color spray, gnome bonus to DC and spell focus illusions and heighten spell to at least stun anything stunnable at all levels as pretty much its only go-to offensive option. Did have UMD at useful levels but didn't routinely carry a backpack of scrolls to do anything. Feats in order were Improved Initiative, spell focus (illusion), greater spell focus (illusion), heighten spell, extend spell, great fortitude

Generalists are also the realm of mystic theurges or anybody else who can kinda fill in a spellcasting combat role if nobody in the party can a lot better than nobody, but shouldn't bother if a "real" one is at the table. Something like a Gish would instead be light infantry, heavy infantry or archer depending on their capabilities.

Rogue - Halfling Rogue 1-15. Skills search/disable device, spot/listen, hide/move silent, open locks, slight of hand, enough climb and swim to get by, UMD exists but doesn't really equip stuff to use it that well (it's more an opportunistic thing with found loot or if nobody else can activate a CLW wand). Not a social rogue. Feats in order are weapon finesse, TWF, quickdraw, improved TWF, iron will, greater twf.

If you claim to be a rogue in Living Greyhawk, you should have been able to do the trapfinding/open locks thing. All else is pretty much optional but it is assumed you're probably good at either scouting or social skills and do something with sneak attack in combat that is worthwhile if set up to succeed by other party members. People will expect you to be pretty useless in combats where sneak attack doesn't work and are pleasantly surprised if you find a way to contribute. (I have a memory of a half-orc 2h weapon rogue with 20 starting strength...but full rogue. He was pretty solid in most fights if not as good at the sneaky stuff)

So that's it. One of each race included, most in their iconic classes. Very commonly seen builds in actual play, although of course none exactly the way I did it, but their in-combat stats and effectiveness was usually along those lines.

One reason the two UMD classes didn't carry items to use UMD with is that consumables were permanent expenses vs your WBL in Living Greyhawk and as such weren't popular beyond what you needed to be self-sufficient if the party mix was unbalanced and contribute to the party healing. You did not see a lot of UMD abuse unless the party came into enough wealth early in the adventure to "hit adventure cap" and the party felt free to burn up any found consumables or even shop for some and use them. I mostly saw UMD used for things like "Oh crap we are going into The City of Mummies and this party has no way to cast Hero Feast or even Free Movement. Does anybody have a favor to buy a scroll of that so we can avoid being paralyzed in fear on every encounter plus get immunity to poison? Yes? Anybody have enough UMD to activate it? Ok. Everyone agree to pitch in on the cost of the scroll? Yes? OK then....".

Quertus

2022-05-25, 01:27 PM

This is semantics, it is not useful. You can express the SGT as a range ("balance is 4/10 to 6/10"). You can express untestable standards as points ("balance is exactly the Astral Construct Wilder"). It's not even clear to me that the basic claim is correct. Acceptable balance may well be a range, but the thing you are targeting is still a point.

That's just Goodhart's Law. Implicit in the premise of the SGT is that you are not going to tune the character to the specific set of challenges that are involved in it. That you can engage in bad faith doesn't make an argument bad, it just means engaging in bad faith doesn't get you good results.

Yes, but that definition leads you to conclusions that are completely useless like "a Commoner with teleport is better than a Warmage". JaronK's version of class tiering is mostly directionally correct, but his definitions are useless and abiding by them makes you understand how D&D works less.

And this is why JaronK's definitions are bad. D&D isn't about "roles". It is about solving problems. Yes, an Ubercharger does stupid huge amounts of damage. But a Cleric Archer can do enough damage to solve problems that can be solved with damage, and dealing more damage than that doesn't mean anything. In MTG, Twin isn't a better deck than Burn because the former can do unbounded damage and the latter maybe a hundred if it plays every card from its deck.

This isn't quite correct. 3.0 was the only version of D&D that got explicit playtesting, and the part that was actually playtested (roughly the first four to six levels) is the most balanced D&D has ever been. The fact that 3e falls apart to various degrees for somewhere between a half and three-quarters of the levels is rightly ridiculed, but the part that was tested works. Because testing works.

Excellent post. Especially the parts that weren't directed at me.

Can you see how... hmmm... I'm bad with words... hmmm... how your "score of 40%-60% on the SGT", how presenting a range of valid scores, is substantively and viscerally different than presenting just a simple point of "50%"? How, when one is talking about something that is obviously conceptually a range, giving feedback that displays a range is good, as opposed to the "variable mismatch error" of returning a point? Assuming so, can you see how your reply is, in this regard, "better" than what has been presented for using SGT thus far in this thread?

However

Can you also see that your "40%-60%" is arbitrary, in a way that lacks the "crystal clarity" the post to which I was replying insisted was inherent to the SGT? Further, can you see how this range is arbitrary in a way that "look at everything WotC has published" or "look at things where there is evidence WotC has actually looked at the results of their creation / tested" is not?

...

Does "Goodhart's Law" say that "tests which produce dumb results are not good tests"? <asks Google, reads Wikipedia> Huh. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Huh.

... I don't know what practices the Wikipedia article is referring to, so I may be misunderstanding something (OK, I know I'm misunderstanding or straight up not understanding a lot, but I may also be making bad guesses), but... how, then, can one ever have a target, if having a target inherently invalidates the metric? Or is this another "letter of the law / spirit of the law" argument?

Consider my "SGT" argument to simply be the parallel of your "commoner with Teleport" argument - that the metric does not return results with sufficient accuracy for the reader. Yes, good versions of the SGT are usually better than JaronK's tier list, and I'll not say otherwise, but I've seen both some really bad implementations of SGT, and campaigns where one's score on even a reasonably sane SGT (but one made independent of the campaign) is no measure of how much performance and spotlight time one can expect of the character. Thus, my original quote on the subject (that was met with confusion, and thus shortened to exclude the second qualifier) was "balance to the table... and the module".

-----

IS the thing you're targeting a point? It's a multi-dimensional data construct, which in theory one can hammer such structures down to a single number, but... I've not seen good results "in the field", as it were.

And if I say, "target planet Earth", that could most reasonably be represented as a point (TK center of mass), a plane (broadside with a missile, teleporting to the surface), or a more complex data array (time travel to the surface) depending on what you're targeting with. And if you're targeting with a camera, teleporting the camera into the center of the Earth, or placing it facing the wrong way, is gonna be kinda embarrassing. So I think that there's some value to preserving the level of complexity beyond "single point" in many cases, including having a discussion about things that most reasonably map to more dimensions.

Right or wrong, the OP seems to have defined balance "Standard Op" as a range from "the strongest thing WotC published (and tested?)" (OK, not exactly fair to their stance, but I want to avoid the "cherry picking" argument) to "anything that can contribute when placed in the same party as said". It seems wrong to respond to that range with a point, at least without defining exactly why a point would be the superior data structure to use for defining "Standard Op".

Quertus

2022-05-25, 01:29 PM

Except it doesn't demonstrate that. Complete psionic is silent on why astral construct was updated to only allow 1 at a time by default, so we don't actually know that this change was made because the developers thought it was balanced. And even if it was, there's no reason to think they were right - their track record elsewhere in the system is not particularly impressive.

I didn't say that the argument was right, only that that was what the argument was. :smallamused::smalltongue:

wefoij123

2022-05-25, 01:37 PM

As an aside, in Core, empower and maximize do interact, or at least stack.

They stack without interacting with each other. Order of operations applying and letting maximize spell maximize the empowered damage die is them interacting. Them each doing their own thing without affecting each other is them not interacting.

That said, I never noticed the arcanists who liked doing direct damage feeling useless. The martials could outperform them but they did meaningful damage, and were superior vs larger numbers of weaker opponents.

I was focusing more on martials feeling useless for not optimizing their characters to the level of arcanists. Not the other way around. It is my opinion that martials should optimize their numbers to that of the 1st post (roughly, ball park) if they want to play at standard optimization.

I'm not defining optimization based on books used, I'm defining it based on effort/system knowledge. It doesn't matter if you use only one book or 20, a good optimizer could likely make a better character restricted to one book than a bad one using 20. I just don't believe that a range of numbers can fully represent a character's power. it is quite possible to build a wizard that uses no damaging spells, yet ends encounters solo.

I'm focusing solely on pure damage dealers. Pure blaster wizards. Pure damage martials.
Some people say martials who grab anything they find cool with 0 regards to performance is standard op.
Some people say martials who optimize their damage output to the level of blasters is standard op and the above is low op.
This thread hopefully will show which of these people is right.

I don't have a way to compare BFC wizards with blaster wizards. Their roles are different, and I did not find a way to measure intended BFC wizard performance. So for this thread I am focusing solely on damage dealers. If a PC sacrificed damage for other things, or if a PC is not a damage dealer, it is ill suited for this thread. Comparing damage output of blasters and martials is easy. Comparing performance of BFC wizards with martials is not. Lets get a consensus on how much damage a PC is expected to deal every level at standard optimization before we make a new thread discussing the performance of other archetypes.

You state that the wizard's numbers match the ACW, but that's actually false. the wizard isn't using a fireball for a single enemy so you actually need to at a minimum double his numbers. there are also far better spells and combo's available for said wizard even in core, why are these not available? Your only looking at a single minute aspect of the game. how do their defenses compare? skill points? non-combat options. If this is truly the pivot point that WOTC wanted, as you claim, then these 4 builds should have nearly identical performances in all other aspects. If they aren't identical then again, why are these 4 builds somehow considered the standard optimization point for damage but not for anything else? I am sure we can find 5 stock builds that have similar numbers much lower or even much higher than what you have presented here, does that make them the pivot point? Here are 4 builds from 2 random books, didn't get same level but each is well below your examples...
1. Fireball has a reflex save, significantly lower damage cap, and is spell resistance: yes.
2. Orb spells will consistently deal their damage on hit. No save. No spell resistance. So it's easier to use as a measurement.
3. Orb spells is the best spell for blasting in the game. There is no better spell. So it's the best spell to use here.
4. Orb spell damage output is in line with cone of cold. So they're not OP either. They're the best and they're not OP.

Gilles Veprain (pg 212 MOI)
Human Incarnate 6 (level 6)
Atk +3 lawful longsword 1d8+4 (8.5) [16.5 below target]

Lovos the shadow wolf (pg 55 FoE)
Longstrider Shifter sorcerer 6/escalation mage3 (level 9)
Shadow power (empower) Lightning bolt 13d6 DC 15 (45.5) [you don't have level 9 so I averaged 8 and 10, 22.5 below target(68)]
6x lightning/day, can also empower enervation 4x/day but that's not damage

Brother Micah, the wolf-hammer (pg 73 FoE) (obviously a melee fighter)
Half-orc Monk 2 / paladin 4 / argent fist 4 (level 10)
unarmed strike 1d10+2 (+10 smite) / 1d10+2 (25) [58.5 below target]
can only smite 2x per day but I put the damage assuming best case. without 15 damage/rnd

Janilya, the Fearless (raging) (pg 87 FoE) (melee is literally all this girl does)
half-orc rogue 3/ barbarian 2 / thief of life 5 (level 10)
+1 greatsword of wounding 2d6+8 +1 con dmg +3d6 SA x2 (61 with 2 points con loss (-10hp) [22.5 below target]
can rage 1x a day and assuming ideal conditions for SA on both hits. without SA rage or living enemy 24 dmg/rnd

why would none of these be considered valid standards?

1. Sample NPCs are for PCs to kill not use. It's why they have an EL next to them.
2. Stat blocks are wrong. So wrong. So much that they cannot be used for anything, not even for rule clarification. I know for a fact that every psionic stat block in magic of eberron is wrong. The author did not know all psi-like abilities are augmented to the abilitiy's manifester level. There's also persistent touch spells in one of the books. Not to mention some sample NPCs don't meet the entry requirements of the PrCs introduced in that very book.
In fact I remember zombie and skeleton stat blocks in MMI being wrong too.
3. Player progressions are significantly more accurate in describing expected player strength than stat blocks of sample NPCs.
4. The 4 things in the 1st post received significant more attention through out multiple books than the one-off error ridden never seen again stat blocks. Two of them exist even in core-only environments. 3 if you count psionic core.
5. The 4 things in the 1st post are NOT sample NPCs even though there are sample NPCs that are really close to these builds.
6. Your sample NPCs cannot even pull their own weight in CR=ECL encounters.
So who has more clout here? DMG's explanation of challenge rating + player progressions that has received significant attention throughout all the books, or your random stat blocks that were probably made by people who has 0 system mastery that are designed for players to kill?
I mean seriously. If the stat blocks of sample NPCs get their own PrC entry requirements wrong, you can tell just how much attention they received from WotC.

Seward

2022-05-25, 02:04 PM

3. Player progressions are significantly more accurate in describing expected player strength than stat blocks of sample NPCs.

I have to agree with this. When designing an arcanist who wants to do an archer role, I take a baseline actual archer and make sure I can keep up with its damage/round if everything hits, at least if I burn my top tier spells (or two once I can quicken).

I know an archer build along these lines will contribute strongly to any combat, so I know that any other damage dealer who can do similar damage at range (if at shorter range probably, as with most orb spells or scorching ray) is a worthwhile target for a character that prefers to do damage with her spells, rather than some other effect.

So I write it up. A basic archer has a Str+3 composite longbow, as nobody builds a martial without 16 strength unless they are an idiot (in my humble opinion) or are doing a size small build (where the ability to be mounted anywhere is worth a point of damage/hit and size bonus to attack can cancel your strength penalty or, if ranged/weapon finesse, actually improve your attack mod). The following benchmarks also assume picking up quickdraw to improve odds of getting a full attack, precise shot to hit in melee, special material ammo, oil of align weapon etc ASAP

Fighter, any medium size race
Pb shot, Prc shot at L1 (don't have a bow yet so rapid shot isn't helpful)
L2 rapid shot + strength bow +3
L3 Bow is a bow+1
L4 Weapon spec
L6 Iterative Attack
L8 Ranged Weapon Mastery, merciful bow (adds 1d6 to most things)
L9 boots of speed, improved crit (I assume this feat adds about 10% to damage on average)
L11 2nd iterative attack
L12 greater weapon spec,
pearl power 3 +lesser rod extend or pearl power 4 to get Greater Magic Weapon3
from friendly caster (it's cheaper than upgrading the bow)
L14 assume you can do +2d6 extra on most things in most fights (eg, a holy bow, with the merciful bow now only used as a backup vs non-evil enemies. You still want one primary bow, barring the unusual party where the GMW caster also has chain spell or a chaining rod)
L16 final iterative attack, and GMW4

Which gives you some basic useful benchmarks for single target damage.

L1: 6.5 damage is decent (str 16+javelin)
L2: 15 damage is decent (2 hits from str 3 bow)
L3: 17 damage is decent
L4: 21 damage is decent
L6: 31.5 damage is decent
L8: 48 damage is decent
L9: 70 damage is decent
L11: 88 damage is decent
L12: 110 damage is decent
L14: 129 damage is decent
L16: 162 damage is decent

I've never needed to playtest past level 16, so don't know how the archer's WBL plus remaining feat opportunities would boost that, except to say it is likely around 300 to be "decent" as "kill a Balor in one round with a full attack" is pretty much the benchmark. Replacing your existing bows with one that did splitting+force would probably get you there without much trouble.

You will note that the damage described above will routinely take out a "mook" or "fragile" enemy in one round at those levels and will take a big chunk off a brute or boss. That matches my experience in-game with archers that aren't designed to fail (as in low strength, don't invest in their bow etc)

The number to hit on a melee is a bit different. Somebody spending resources to be able to endure brute full attacks isn't expected to perform at the level of an archer or a light infantry because both of those aren't expected to do more than barely survive a full attack if they get unlucky (or overconfident) and fail to kill their target before it gets to act, and it opens up on them. For an archer it is similar to an arcane. You only have to be tough enough to endure a charge attack, and maybe an AOO as you run away. If you are eating a full attack you are an idiot, got surprised+low initiative and are likely screwed or don't respect the opposition's melee offense. (archers and arcanes engaging in long range duels vs capable opposition will take steps to be more durable, adding concealment, cover, or other protections as needed)

So when doing similar benchmarks for a tank, I look at a sword+board fullplate dude fighting one-handed with the weapon spec tree (which is kind of a placeholder for other stuff in other class builds) and without using power attack but still getting boots of haste, belt of strength, weapon upgrades etc on schedule.

For light infantry I actually treat 2h-barbarian types on a separate track from TWF/Flurry/Many Natural Weapon types - they should hit similar numbers but the 2H are doing it in fewer, stronger hits, which makes them benefit less from buffs but be affected less by DR. Still though, I pick the closest equivalent (a duskblade who channels only one big attack is more like a 2h barbarian type. A duskblade who has achieved L13 and gets his cheese on every attack would do better to be in the TWF/Flurry/Many natural weapon category)

Rogues are usually measured as light infantry if they can hurt the opposition at all. In the right conditions, if built along TWF/Flurry/Many Natural Weapons lines they can pump out insane damage. But it' is hard to do with their lack of feats etc. Pathfinder Unchained Rogue makes it a lot easier to do TWF, with weapon finesse free, dex to damage on one weapon by level 3 instead of strength and using a rogue-trick that you get every 2 levels to pick up another early feat (especially improved TWF right at L8 when you get Bab6, rather than waiting to L9)

I'll also point out those numbers above are if all attacks hit. In real play, attacks missing at low levels are very common (which is why getting 2 magic missiles at L3 is still a solid attack action because 7 damage will still drop a weak enemy, finish off a damaged enemy, even though it's only about 40% of what an archer can accomplish at that level - normal performance for an archer at that level is one arrow of 2 hitting - that magic missile because it auto-hits is in shouting distance of the archer's routine damage). In higher levels, 1-2 of your iterative attacks will usually miss, either via natural 1s or getting a low result on lower iteratives. Either that or you aren't power attacking enough (if in melee). For melee the existence of power attack can lead to misjudgements and cost a lot of damage in early actions till you choose correctly. Most players power attack for more than they should, statistically. Pathfinder 1e helped with that, as it limited how much you could power attack by based on BAB breakpoints, and limited the max damage you could get from it.

vasilidor

2022-05-25, 03:29 PM

As far as damaging a monster goes, a character should be able to do so successfully 60% of the time in a CR=ECL scenario. Actual damage output should be around level*3.5 for damage focus builds in a given round. Less if you can inflict some kind of rider effect or if it is an AOE. At level 20 this means dealing 70 points of damage 60% of the time.
This where I think the floor that players should aim for if they want to be damage dealers is.

I am uncertain as to where the ceiling for a damage dealer should be, but I know it can go much higher than this.

arkangel111

2022-05-25, 03:31 PM

ok so I just re-read your post. You refer to the FAQ quite a few times. The FAQ gets things wrong and has several instances where it contradicts itself. It is also not at all a standard for any table, and most people outside of these boards don't even know they exist. It is also bad form to use it as a standard, even if every answer were correct. Think about it this way, most people who are going to ask questions will fall into 2 groups, people who have a legitimate rules interaction question that affected a game session, or those that think they came up with some crazy new combo that breaks the game that they hope to rules lawyer into their next session. Most people in between will likely not get the energy together to even find out there is a FAQ and leave the DM to do his thing.

I was assuming you got these builds straight out of the book. since you didn't this gives you even less of a leg to stand on for this being standard optimization. since these are just arbitrary characters you made up why should they be the standard? is all that the ACW doing on their turn is directing the AC? It is a free action, don't they get the option to do other things? I mean your saying that is the standard damage because it lines up with your other 3 but in reality it's not lining up at all. the ACW could be using his turn to TK thrust for 10d6 (35) more damage each round, and that is hardly optimal and not augmented at all, but throws off all of your assumptions. You're also admittedly not using power attack even though its a melee brute and no one would argue that a melee brute taking power attack is even low optimization, but why not? because if you did, it would throw off your numbers and it wouldn't fit into the box you painted.

whether intentional or not I think that you thought you saw a pattern and then made the pattern happen by making choices and justifying them because it fit the pattern. I mean in essence you built 4 character's, and said this is standard OP so long as you follow the assumptions and arbitrary rules that I lay out. You aren't letting the builds use WBL except the Fiend binder but for some reason he must sacrifice all of his minions every level, which while he may lose some he'll often have far more than you present him with. The ACW is not allowed to take any actions with their own character. The wizard isn't allowed to summon. So long as all of these rules are followed then your numbers match up, but no one plays like that. If any of these characters grab a crossbow your numbers don't work, so how is "my character stands around and does nothing" standard optimization?

wefoij123

2022-05-25, 03:55 PM

So I write it up. A basic archer has a Str+3 composite longbow, as nobody builds a martial without 16 strength unless they are an idiot (in my humble opinion) or are doing a size small build (where the ability to be mounted anywhere is worth a point of damage/hit and size bonus to attack can cancel your strength penalty or, if ranged/weapon finesse, actually improve your attack mod). The following benchmarks also assume picking up quickdraw to improve odds of getting a full attack, precise shot to hit in melee, special material ammo, oil of align weapon etc ASAP

Fighter, any medium size race
Pb shot, Prc shot at L1 (don't have a bow yet so rapid shot isn't helpful)
L2 rapid shot + strength bow +3
L3 Bow is a bow+1
L4 Weapon spec
L6 Iterative Attack
L8 Ranged Weapon Mastery, merciful bow (adds 1d6 to most things)
L9 boots of speed, improved crit (I assume this feat adds about 10% to damage on average)
L11 2nd iterative attack
L12 greater weapon spec,
pearl power 3 +lesser rod extend or pearl power 4 to get Greater Magic Weapon3
from friendly caster (it's cheaper than upgrading the bow)
L14 assume you can do +2d6 extra on most things in most fights (eg, a holy bow, with the merciful bow now only used as a backup vs non-evil enemies. You still want one primary bow, barring the unusual party where the GMW caster also has chain spell or a chaining rod)
L16 final iterative attack, and GMW4

Which gives you some basic useful benchmarks for single target damage.

L1: 6.5 damage is decent (str 16+javelin)
L2: 15 damage is decent (2 hits from str 3 bow)
L3: 17 damage is decent
L4: 21 damage is decent
L6: 31.5 damage is decent
L8: 48 damage is decent
L9: 70 damage is decent
L11: 88 damage is decent
L12: 110 damage is decent
L14: 129 damage is decent
L16: 162 damage is decent

Yes! Thank you for your service!
This is the expected damage output of a standard optimization pure damage martial with 0 regards to defense. And it's above the numbers in the 1st post but still within the same ballpark.

I was assuming you got these builds straight out of the book. since you didn't this gives you even less of a leg to stand on for this being standard optimization. since these are just arbitrary characters you made up why should they be the standard? is all that the ACW doing on their turn is directing the AC? It is a free action, don't they get the option to do other things? I mean your saying that is the standard damage because it lines up with your other 3 but in reality it's not lining up at all. the ACW could be using his turn to TK thrust for 10d6 (35) more damage each round, and that is hardly optimal and not augmented at all, but throws off all of your assumptions. You're also admittedly not using power attack even though its a melee brute and no one would argue that a melee brute taking power attack is even low optimization, but why not? because if you did, it would throw off your numbers and it wouldn't fit into the box you painted.

I say I'm looking solely at damage multiple times, you multiple times talk about nondamage dealers
I say look at official spells/prc progressions that has been thoroughly playtested multiple times, you multiple times talk about sample npcs.
I say look at official spells/prc progressions that has been thoroughly playtested multiple times, you say arbitrarily built characters that have nothing to do with official stuff.
And I even said there are sample NPCs/recommended PCs with the exact build as the 1st post. Right here

5. The 4 things in the 1st post are NOT sample NPCs even though there are sample NPCs that are really close to these builds.
and I have to repeat this again. In this post. When I just mentioned it directly to you right before.
And now you're saying officially used builds for playtesting and progressions that have received significant wotc attention has less of a leg to stand on because they were never sample npcs when there are sample npcs that copy them?

I'm finding I have to repeat myself again and again to respond to you, so I'm sorry, but I'm gonna stop now.

As far as damaging a monster goes, a character should be able to do so successfully 60% of the time in a CR=ECL scenario. Actual damage output should be around level*3.5 for damage focus builds in a given round. Less if you can inflict some kind of rider effect or if it is an AOE. At level 20 this means dealing 70 points of damage 60% of the time.
This where I think the floor that players should aim for if they want to be damage dealers is.

I am uncertain as to where the ceiling for a damage dealer should be, but I know it can go much higher than this.

The numbers on the 1st post will go down if we don't assume all attacks hit. I just treated like all attacks will hit for simplicity. Other build's damage will increase just as much if we assume they all hit too so I don't think it's a big deal.

vasilidor

2022-05-25, 04:14 PM

Sewerd's post is probably closer to an actual in game average than what I posted. I was intentionally lowballing things to where I thought a good minimum was. I had also not checked to see if anyone else posted a similar thing while I was composing it.
What I posted is also not a one man monster slaying machine, but someone who operates as part of an overall team. on his own, this bare minimum dude I posted is going to struggle a lot.
Going off the link below may help to see what sort of ball parks we should be aiming for. Note it does not give average attack ratings or damage values, But I think it is an otherwise good reference.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?172050-3-5-Average-Monster-Stats

arkangel111

2022-05-25, 04:18 PM

wefoij123

2022-05-25, 04:36 PM

ok fine I admit I was wrong on the sample NPC's. I assumed you got these builds straight out of the book. you just made them up I concede that point. but why aren't you figuring the ACW using his action on his turn to contribute to damage? Or the wizards summoning ability? I mean hell your wizard blaster is using conjuration spells why aren't you adding in the planar binding damage or SM damage? or both?

Also you didn't address your justification for the use of the FAQ.

The mere mention of Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell has people yelling TO or OP. And I've seen people say a 1st level wizard grabbing abrupt jaunt is "cheese". The FAQ stuff is me trying to say a DMM:Persistent Spell cleric is standard optimization when his damage output is in line with the ACW. Because DMM:Persistent Spell is something WotC is fully aware of and gave the OK. So it's not some TO shenanigan. It's normal. Samething with using retraining rules to optimize your character for all levels instead of using it as "character correction". I've met my share of people who claim utilizing retraining rules to have fun at all levels is "abuse of mechanics".

The 1st post numbers is firstly a simple estimation and secondly me trying to keep the numbers low as possible. Seeing how people call even the slightest optimization as high-op, I intentionally didn't optimize at all. Naked flat progression. The numbers in the 1st post is the minimum the ACW can output. So at least these numbers are in standard optimization.

Summoner wizards do less damage than blasters and planar binding wizards. There is no point in mentioning them. In fact I know for a fact that summoner wizards gave up being called damage dealers and their place in the party is utility, not damage. SLAs and flanking.
I included planar binding wizards because these wizards in my experience were primarily about damage rather than BFC.

So once again, 1st post is a simple estimation with me trying to keep the numbers as low as possible to illustrate that in order for a pure damage dealing martial to be considered "standard op", they must at least optimize their character so that it can hit the numbers in the 1st post because standard op is not no op.

Now I could be wrong. That's why I made this thread. To have a discussion. Is there something more credible than flat spell/prc progressions that has received significant WotC attention? And the answer seems to be no. Seward, who was an official playtester, showed that he expects martials in a normal game not built to fail to output similar numbers as the 1st post.

All the naysayers on the other hand are saying, like you
1. Sample NPCs are more credible than explicitly spelled out player progressions that has received significant wotc attention over the years/books.
2. Mundanes cannot hit the numbers in the 1st post without going into tippy level of optimization.
3. I am being an arbitrary cherry picker because flat spell/prc progressions that has received significant wotc attention over the years/books have no basis for being called standard because sample NPCs can't hit those numbers.
again and again and again and again.

edit: ACW can only manifest astral construct 4-6 times a day so in my simple estimation he doesn't do anything that requires PP because he is preserving it for future encounters.

arkangel111

2022-05-25, 05:01 PM

wefoij123

2022-05-25, 05:03 PM

Your numbers aren't as low as possible. I take no actions... that would be as low as possible I mean your already saying that it's ok for the ACW player to take no actions and only let his minions attack but why does he need to even do that? hell why if you want as low as possible are you choosing any options that increase damage. give the AC improved initiative, or alertness or any of a myriad of other things to take his damage lower. your choices to not do this is what to me says you made choices to make your numbers match. IF you made choices that were different higher or lower, than your numbers wouldn't match and you wouldn't have this post. You deliberately chose options to make your numbers match and are saying any other choices are not valid because.

And now you're splitting hairs like those people who said technically not all of complete psionic's balance was based on the ACW.

Technically, doing nothing is lower damage than manifesting an astral construct. What does this have anything to do with the discussion here? Do I really have to spell out minimum damage while still doing their shtick without being intentionally stupid/built to fail?

I'm sorry but this is our last exchange.

JNAProductions

2022-05-25, 06:42 PM

If you can’t handle people critiquing your arguments, don’t post them.

We have no obligation to tell you you’re right when you’re wrong.

RandomPeasant

2022-05-25, 08:21 PM

Many of the most broken combo's were discovered on forums like this long after 4.0 was released.

IMO that's less compelling than arguing it from the other way. There are broken tricks that were pointed out to the designers and left in the game, or that were intentionally added in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. wish used to have a cap to the value of magic items it could create, stopping the most broken applications of SLA wish flat. People pointed out the Free Vacation: No Save trick with gate to the designers and were ignored. The time expired between 3.5 shapechange releasing and finding an infinite loop with it is negative, because Phoenix Duplication uses a 3.0 monster. If your argument is "things the designers did explicitly are standard optimization", you are arguing for an absurdly high level of optimization as "standard".

Incarnate is a bad class to use, as it's a jack of all trades class

No more so than a Wizard is. The Incarnate is a class with a lot of options that aren't very good. Somehow, people think this makes them "versatile" instead of just "bad".

Assuming so, can you see how your reply is, in this regard, "better" than what has been presented for using SGT thus far in this thread?

I don't know that I'd agree with that. It is different, and there are certainly situations in which that difference is useful, but I don't think it's inherently better. If I'm testing a function that returns a floating point, I'll probably add some fuzz factor to account for that. But I want to be damn sure that when I tell my banking software "move $5 from account X to account Y" it moves neither $4 nor $6.

Can you also see that your "40%-60%" is arbitrary, in a way that lacks the "crystal clarity" the post to which I was replying insisted was inherent to the SGT?

You're talking about separate things. The clarity of the SGT owes to its derivation from the rules, and the ability to point to results as a way of settling debates. Picking a specific target is arbitrary, but it can still prove that things hit or do not hit that point in a way that resolves differences, which "this is what I think the designers meant" simply cannot do.

Or is this another "letter of the law / spirit of the law" argument?

The idea of Goodhart's Law is that if you try to optimize for something by measuring X (with correlates with what you're optimizing for normally), people can warp your results by optimizing for X directly, weakening or removing the correlation between X and the target that made it a good metric in the first place. Which is exactly what you're doing here. The idea of the SGT isn't "here are some encounters, beat five of them", it's "here is a test to see in a character hits the expected balance target".

campaigns where one's score on even a reasonably sane SGT (but one made independent of the campaign) is no measure of how much performance and spotlight time one can expect of the character.

That's true, but it's true of any metric. If you have two characters that are different in any way other than "strictly better" and "strictly worse", you can imagine devising a campaign such that one or the other is better or worse. Maybe you have one character with "win any combat encounter instantly at will" and another with "+10 to Jump checks". Obviously the former is more powerful than the latter by any reasonable measure, but if your campaign is just a series of hurdles the latter will get the entire spotlight. The conclusion to draw from this is not that we should throw our hands up in the air and abandon the scientific testing of balance, but that we should be even more rigorous with that scientific testing, so that we understand it well enough to advise users about the likely impacts of changing it in specific ways.

IS the thing you're targeting a point? It's a multi-dimensional data construct, which in theory one can hammer such structures down to a single number, but... I've not seen good results "in the field", as it were.

I would ask you in the same way if the result of the SGT is even a point. The expectation isn't that every balanced character will defeat the same five encounters in a given SGT. Indeed, if that were to happen it would indicate that you had picked a bunch of encounters that were unreasonably difficult to handle. If, to use an extremely simplified example, your 8th level SGT is a Grey Render and a Mind Flayer, you'd expect some characters to defeat the Grey Render (the ones with good melee or kiting capabilities) and others to defeat the Mind Flayer (the ones with good mental defenses or ambush strategies).

They stack without interacting with each other. Order of operations applying and letting maximize spell maximize the empowered damage die is them interacting. Them each doing their own thing without affecting each other is them not interacting.

"Does not interact favorably" is not the same as "does not interact".

This thread hopefully will show which of these people is right.

How? You still have yet to provide a convincing accounting of why this power level is "standard optimization".

Orb spells is the best spell for blasting in the game. There is no better spell. So it's the best spell to use here.

Why would the best possible option be the correct one to use for defining standard optimization? A Standard Edition Toyota Corolla is not the best possible car.

Sample NPCs are for PCs to kill not use. It's why they have an EL next to them.

No they have an EL next to them because everything has an EL. Your character has an EL, it's just not relevant because we're not plugging your character in to the "monster" side of the calculator.

There's also persistent touch spells in one of the books.

Why is this not simply evidence that the question of "are touch spells fixed range" should be resolved as "yes"?

Naked flat progression.

This is your repeated reminder that these progressions are not flat and most or all of them can easily be improved through investment in magic items. OP is making up a distinction to make his argument stronger, and when challenged on it asks why it matters.

I am being an arbitrary cherry picker because flat spell/prc progressions that has received significant wotc attention over the years/books have no basis for being called standard because sample NPCs can't hit those numbers.

You are being called a cherry picker because every argument you use to select these builds could be applied to builds at different power levels. Is it true that you could make a Monk that deals this much damage? Sure. But it is also true that you could build a Monk that does substantially less damage and meets all the criteria you lay out for "standard optimization".

Lans

2022-05-25, 11:22 PM

No more so than a Wizard is. The Incarnate is a class with a lot of options that aren't very good. Somehow, people think this makes them "versatile" instead of just "bad".

".
I'll rephrase that the incarnate is the T5 of all trades

Seward

2022-05-25, 11:44 PM

Note that my benchmark made assumptions about the party, because of the campaign I was playtesting for and still use as a metric when thinking about 3.5.

In particular you will see me in many threads harping about Greater Magic Weapon/Fang being the default for any martial whose primary role is damage dealing once the primary casters can bust it out at CL12, and you see me devoting expected "weapon wealth by level" to that goal. When a martial can't get it due to party mix, he'll underperform my usual expectations. On a melee build you'll see me budgeting for strength items as well as weapon (and also, invisibly, adding a WBL tax for things like vest of resistance and amulet of health or at least ioun stone of health for any martial and making sure I don't spend too much on a weapon or something like boots of haste too early). But if they're Light Infantry or Archer, yeah, they'll be pushing that offense pretty hard on their WBL. A Heavy Infantry will get the offense boost a bit later as they need to spend more on defense and it takes them longer to get from +1 weapon to +3 weapon, or gauntlets of ogre power to belt of strength (boots of haste though are just as helpful to a tank - reflex save, ac and movement, so it arrives about the same time).

When I see a medic/support or generalist signed up I will mentally think "no damage there, but I'll be doing more damage and hitting more often, or at least we'll all be more resilient so the fight can take longer so we'll still win". But I need to be hitting my own baseline performance or know what I'm trading off to accept less than that, and what I'm contributing to make my subpar (but still meaningful) damage acceptable.

In Living Grehawk it was well known that primary damage dealers have a harder time "playing up" than most classes and medic/support or generalist types had the easiest time. It's those benchmarks, one or two CR can have big increases in hitpoints, and also sometimes AC or resistances or dr or whatever that can push you to irrelevance, where you can phone in a level 1 inspire courage to a level 16 table and if they don't have morale bonus to hit/damage up, it'll still help a little. (we actually did this once. our level 4 table dominated our fight in a battle interactive, but another table, level 12ish was having trouble. The L14 table started rotating in individuals from their fight to help out, while we tried to figure out what, if anything, we could do to help without getting vaporized. A plan that involved my monk running in carrying a bard on my shoulders was nixed when a check of consumables realized we had a fly and an invisibility spell between us....so we buffed our bard and sent him off, and he was cheered by the table when his bardsong helped out......

Any class that relies on sticking saving throws also has trouble playing up and is noticably more powerful playing down. Most other classes can cope with playing up at less than their usual performance, but that's just it. Damage dealers need to still do relevant damage even when not at their best, so we tended to tune them fairly high, and those that did not had some miserable adventures or just learned to not play above their character level.

But "High" just meant numbers like I posted above. That's a pretty good archer build and if you had a bunch of NPC fighters built that way shooting at you they can punch above their weight, even with crappy NPC gear, especially if they get a bit of spell support. If you can't get the built in greater-weapon-spec tree bonuses of a fighter, you won't perform quite as well all the time, although your rangers will do better on some foes and I saw some archers focus on a few enemies (I remember one guy with an undead bane bow and an evil outsider bane bow by about level 7. He wasn't a great archery build but he was pretty solid vs those foes and he tended to pick adventures where they were likely). Some archers made up the difference with things like wildrunner or even having strength bow tied to their raging strength. Some just invested very, very heavily in their bow.

And also again, that is a benchmark for a primary damage dealer in a 5 person party, which means usually there are 1-2 others also contributing at a similar level and 2-1 contributing at meaningful but lower levels. If you have a party with very little direct damage, and you are the only martial damage dealer you will tend to be buffed to the eyeballs and get incredibly good protection with things like battlefield control, healing and status removal. (if you are a non-martial damage dealer and the only one in the party, unfortunately the offensive buffs rarely help as much and you burn spell slots like water, so you offshore any buffing or utility you might normally do to others, sometimes even your own personal buffs if you can get them from somebody else. If you have no damage dealers you buff the best chasse into a martial and try to drag out the fight till that individual slowly kills stuff)

Hm...tanks also had a hard time playing up. You get hit, you are killed more easily AND your damage sometimes slips from "meaningful" to "ignorable" all at once. Many had a switch hitting mode for that situation where they would sling the shields, break out a 2h or reach weapon, sometimes slip into their "chain shirt pajamas" and be a light infantry, because if you can't survive a full attack in fullplate+shield, you might as well just try to shift over to doing "meaningful damage" and wear basically nothing to increase mobility and remind you that you are fragile in this adventure. Such a modal shift was also sometimes useful in a normal adventure where you just hit an opponent that is way out of the normal melee threat level typical for a creature of that CR or you hit DR you can't penetrate and need to shift to 2h mode just do do anything useful. Gish type characters might switch to arcane support, high dex tanks might switch to archery. Approaches varied, but having a plan B for being out of your depth was a good plan for nearly any character.

One more note - that iconic archer (core single class ranger) build I posted above underperforms the benchmark for archery but not by a lot, which is why he did that role fine in is 4, 5, 6 person parties. He contributes more to the out of combat encounters to make up for it, being an out-of-combat healer (in combat in low levels), can scout if there is no rogue, can do survival if no druid, is reasonably likely to not be surprised, can provide a durable mount for himself or a character with mounted feats whose ride got killed etc. He's still in shouting distance enough to contribute when he's playing up in a 6 person party. On the weaker end of offense for a primary damage dealer but with 5 others in the party he's probably got a few extra buffs, or just more other weak folks chipping in barely adequate damage to help finish things off.

My own arcane archer provided similar things to that iconic ranger - 2 ranger levels and a wizard level gave him quite a lot of utility, but the wood elf race + four fighter levels ("weapon spec is favored enemy everybody") was how I kicked my offense up to nearly as high as that fighter build example. I paid a 20% xp penalty to do so, but in organized play that mostly meant "I get to play my character in more adventures before retirement" so that was a penalty I could live with, especially on a character who didn't spend XP crafting or tossing off Limited Wishes. The only way to avoid the xp penalty with a similar build was to do a basic elf, have a +3 str bow instead of a +4 str bow and to give up all the utility the ranger levels gave me, or to stay wood elf and go 6 levels of ranger and lose the offense. I actually had backstory reasons to need those ranger levels, so in the end it was offense vs xp penalty, and you don't pay the xp penalty until you take the wizard level at L7, by which time your build is fully functional, you aren't waiting for anything major to come on line.

arkangel111

2022-05-26, 07:51 AM

And now you're splitting hairs like those people who said technically not all of complete psionic's balance was based on the ACW.

Technically, doing nothing is lower damage than manifesting an astral construct. What does this have anything to do with the discussion here? Do I really have to spell out minimum damage while still doing their shtick without being intentionally stupid/built to fail?

I'm sorry but this is our last exchange.

My point wasn't that you should figure it as them using no action. I was using an extreme to make a point. If WOTC expected them to take no action they would have put the same restriction as the fiendbinder class which you are using as an example. The designers clearly thought letting the ACW still use their action was not game breaking, while fiendbinder they felt different. You state that both classes (abilities) have a ton of support and WOTC's support qualifies both classes as good examples yet you artificially make them the same to get matching numbers and 'prove' your point.

Seward

2022-05-26, 09:24 AM

Hm. I think one reason OP is getting so much pushback is not so much his numbers are out of line, it's that he chose a lot of class options (and assertions) in his calculations that let people talk about that, where my archer example was a single-class fighter whose only noncore assumptions were ranged weapon mastery feat and maybe some of the higher level gear choices to get the desired pre-epic damage.

It is hard to argue a martial can't do XXX damage when it could have done most of that damage back in 2001 and could still do it at most tables. (I actually played a core-restricted Pathfinder archer that could bust out even more damage - it made up for loss of ranged weapon mastery with the vanilla fighter class features Pathfinder added vs 3.5 although only played it up to about level 4 before real life distracted me from Pathfinder Society play...and their core-only optional playstyle hadn't picked up the interest in my area to get a lot of play opportunities)

This sort of thing is why I say that most tier 4 martial classes can routinely outdamage spellcasters who try to fill the damage dealing role. I won't argue that you can't get it done (either by becoming a martial via spells or with an artillery build) but I've done the math and you generally can't really do it with core-only assumptions without either in-combat buffing or "kick down the door" situations with short range buffs precast, or, in case of artillery, without assuming you get metamagic rods of maximize and quicken on schedule, which means a big WBL+high tier spell slot investment (which limits your sustained firepower).

Same goes for tanks, but tanking with armor class is mostly useful only as resource-action-free capability or as a way to trick enemies into wasting action against a foe that looks vulnerable. Air barrier (distance), battlefield control, one-way concealment and similar are often superior and spellcasters have an easier time accomplishing this (martials can if they think to do it in many circumstances....most fullbab characters can buy a horse, equip a strength bow and win a lot of outdoor encounters at little risk staying out of range of enemies, and can also set up cover/concealment/range with difficult approach even in more constricted areas...they just usually don't bother because most encounters just aren't that dangerous to them. There is a reason I've played a lot more light infantry and archers than tanks. It's hard to make an effective tank and harder to make that investment in AC worth it vs spending the resources elsewhere)

What you can do is "good enough", especially if everybody else is a caster so party wide buffs are plentiful and everybody burns out of spell slots at a similar time and is willing to disengage, rest etc. Martial parties with wands of clw can generally grind all day, and sometimes that can be pretty helpful, sometimes it's unimportant. Most parties do better with a mix - one solid physical martial (which can be a spellcaster if buffs are up all the time), somebody who can do some buffing, somebody with some battlefield control, sombeody with some utility and 1-2 other party members who can contribute to damage meaningfully without needing a long buff cycle, be it by blasting or just being pretty good at physical combat even without their super-buffs. My best tank was still a pretty good martial even if she didn't do her kick down the door stuff with full on consumable+last-one-minute type buffs. You don't need to be AC40 at level 5 for most things.....

RandomPeasant

2022-05-26, 09:40 AM

OP is getting pushback because it's not about the numbers. Anyone in this thread could present something that hits his targets, but his targets are based on inferences that don't make sense and standards that apply to virtually everything in the game. The actual builds don't matter at all until he has demonstrated that his framework for arriving at those builds is meaningful, which he has not done and likely cannot do.

AvatarVecna

2022-05-26, 10:06 AM

For me it's that three things are being equated with each other, and two of them very much don't fit to each other, and the third only fits with the other two individually depending on how it's defined.

"These characters are standard optimization"

I can agree with this statement. This is about the level of effort I expect to see in characters. That's largely because 3.5 is basically only played by people who are online, and are a bit more invested in the mechanics than casual players would be, but that means that the standard amount of optimization is stuff you tend to find on forums like this one. Metamagic reduction, minionmancy, shapechanging shenanigans...it's all bread-and-butter stuff around here.

"Standard optimization is WotC optimization"

I can agree with this statement...sort of. I think if we are declaring an Optimization Standard against which builds are measured, it helps to have something objective we can point to. "This real thing, that's in the books, is the normal, this is what we measure against". If you play (or at least build) for a lot of high-power games here ITP, you're probably aware of the Balor standard (which is something along the lines of "how many Balors can you kill per round" and "how many balors does it take to kill you in a round"). It's not a perfect standard, but it's something concrete. We can't say "well the Balor might have really ****ty feats and an unflattering attribute lineup" and design a worse balor - if we did that, it would ruin the point of using the Balor as the standard for everybody. And I think that, if we are using WotC as our standard, that's something we can agree on. Monsters and NPCs straight out of the books, only using combos that WotC actually built into characters, using the Encounter Design rules as guidelines for seeing if we're too strong or too weak. It's pretty general stuff, but if you build a lvl 10 character who's getting his ass kicked easily by CR 5 monsters, you maybe need to beef up, since you're not even at WotC level optimization. It's a solid standard we can point to, and that consistency is valuable in a standard. The alternative is that we're saying "standard optimization is whatever I personally interpret as standard optimization", which...isn't what "a standard" is.

Both of these statements can be true individually, because "standard optimization" is defined differently in both. But "these characters are WotC optimization"? Nope. My issue isn't that OP is insisting these things are normal, it's insisting they're normal for WotC. For every canon build that possesses an abusable spell, or a nice feat combo, there are dozens upon dozens that have foregone casting entirely, and couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. And yet the latter are ignored for our standard, while the former are held up as the One True Sign of designer intentions.

Seward

2022-05-26, 10:13 AM

Fair enough. I've always taken the kind of engineering approach that the best scale for a model is 1-1.

If you want build benchmarks, do some actual builds with assumptions realistic for the kind of play for which they're intended. Then try it out using adventure encounters that you know a lot of people found both fun and challenging.

If you don't have time for that (as in real world, 1-1 scale models aren't a common thing in engineering) then napkin calculating simple rules of thumb and sanity-checking with your experience is the next best thing. In the Iron Chef competitions, the "power" rating tends to be worked out by this sort of methodology, although it's only internally consistent for each individual judge, as they'll all have different assumptions based on their experience of what is powerful (and it is relative anyway, as some secret ingredients lend themself to power, others provide benefits more in the utility realms)

In practice we tried to never allow anybody to GM a game he hadn't played at least once, wherever that was possible (and to limit the GM running it cold to the author, or at least limiting a cold run to other GMs who could give feedback and discuss how it went afterwards to improve it for our players, and ideally by a GM who had read the adventure thoroughly and thought about it, even if they never played it). So while our GMS didn't have a 1-1 sample run on every level tier of the adventure, they at least knew how it was supposed to fit together and flow, regardless of how the actual encounters scaled.

Of course my goal was to ensure people had fun playing the adventures I playtested, or much more rarely wrote. Or my goal was to make sure I didn't advertise a role my character couldn't fill when signing up for a game. I don't think trying to find a universal rule of 3.5 game expectations makes much sense, not then and not now in 2022. The only reason I think about this at all anymore is that if I get a build idea, I like to see where it falls on some of the basic benchmarks for offense, defense and utility as it grows from L1-16 so I would know how to explain it to other players/gm should I ever get a chance to play something similar (which isn't likely given the age of this game and Pathfinder moving on to 2nd edition, but isn't impossible)

arkangel111

2022-05-26, 10:15 AM

Hm. I think one reason OP is getting so much pushback is not so much his numbers are out of line, it's that he chose a lot of class options (and assertions) in his calculations that let people talk about that, where my archer example was a single-class fighter whose only noncore assumptions were ranged weapon mastery feat and maybe some of the higher level gear choices to get the desired pre-epic damage.

I agree. I don't think he is entirely wrong, just that many assumptions are made in order to get to the conclusion OP has drawn. Numbers are fine for a comparison, but it has nothing to do with optimization. It literally means "the action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource." It is an action word and has nothing to do with a final result. The result is just a by-product of the actions you are taking. if we're wanting to define a damage range for a typical damage dealer then we need to look at all characters that deal damage as their primary class ability built at roughly the same optimization level (regular obvious choices), not 4 classes that are clearly cherry picked, and making wild assumptions that no one would normally use. Using FAQ rulings and deep diving books in order to say this is a regular build, doesn't make it a regular build.

It is assumed that because something was in the FAQ, Errata, or in a description somewhere that that should be the baseline for optimization. Before I joined this forum I didn't know about the FAQ or Errata, and rarely read more than the feat or class table. Most people outside the regulars on this forum are in the dark about a lot of these things. I truly believe the vast majority of forumite's game knowledge naturally puts us at a higher optimization level than the typical player. Which has been one of my key points the whole time. The average player grabbing a book for the first time will see that a fighter should grab power attack, but definitely won't see the myriad of trap feats for what they are. This person would be on the low end of optimization, while someone who can recognize most of the traps likely sits at the standard optimization. Just seeing the trap options doesn't mean that they know about chain gates, or the entire power attack feat chain (leap attack, shocktrooper...) or infinite wish loops. While that might be standard for this board I guarantee someone coming to these boards for the first time is more likely to be amazed by the actual possibilities out there, than to come here with something fresh.

When we're asked to give advice for a standard op group We're usually giving the advice to the first timer or the one with a few games under his belt, not a regular like the OP who admits to delving multiple books and FAQ's to find all of these combo's he's claiming as standard OP.

Edit:

I can agree with this statement. This is about the level of effort I expect to see in characters. That's largely because 3.5 is basically only played by people who are online, and are a bit more invested in the mechanics than casual players would be, but that means that the standard amount of optimization is stuff you tend to find on forums like this one. Metamagic reduction, minionmancy, shapechanging shenanigans...it's all bread-and-butter stuff around here.

I could see an argument made to move standard optimization to a level closer to the average forumite as you are correct that since 5e is out we are probably more likely to see people with a little more system knowledge than a brand new player. I still don't think we should push it quite up to the level of a regular here but maybe closer to the "long time reader first time poster" assumed level of play. I mean standard is by no means a Tippyverse player (I wish I could get in one of those games!!) and I doubt I am alone in that sentiment.

pabelfly

2022-05-26, 10:27 AM

AvatarVecna

2022-05-26, 10:32 AM

I think that's way to broad a generalization of 3.5 players. If I were to consider the people I've played 3.5 and PF with, I'd say that sort of description fit only myself and one or two other person would reach that level of optimization, out of about ten or so other people. The rest have been much more casual in how they play or the builds they make, and I myself prefer minmaxing stupid character concepts like Truenamer or the like so I don't overshadow the other people I'm playing with.

I don't disagree, exactly. I can just see how somebody who spends a lot of time on these boards can come to that kind of conclusion. "Most of the people I play with make characters like this" but that's survivorship bias because they mostly seek out higher-power games that are more friendly to optimizers. Something that's in a handbook is knowledge available to the community, and is therefore something a member of the community should know, and therefore it's "standard", even if it's something like handbook on Artificer or Illithid Savant or Shapechange.

Seward

2022-05-26, 10:33 AM

Numbers are fine for a comparison, but it has nothing to do with optimization.

That's a bit strong. Numbers matter in these areas.

hit chance, and damage per hit (you will note I just assume a fullbab character with reasonable attacking stat and normal feats/gear will hit pretty reliably. A character who had significantly lower hit probability than those assumptions would get a discount on his theoretical damage to me, one with significantly higher hit probability (as in magic missile optimization) can get by with less absolute damage).

Armor Class, Hit Points and Saving Throws These are your durability metrics, whether you will be deprived of an action because somebody chose to attack you. You can actually tank a lot of these in a lot of character types, even all of them in certain builds that just for whatever reason don't draw fire. Some of them offset (Hitpoints can offset low AC if you get yourself out of trouble after surviving a mauling. AC and good reflex save+evasion can let you get away with a lower hitpoint pool, as long as you don't let it get too low to survive a crit caused by double-20s or rolling a 1 on a reflex save). Some don't (Fort and Will save failures often take you out of the fight).

Weaknesses in the second category require different play decisions. If you are a rare character strong in all of them you can charge into the middle of the enemy in most battles and be just fine, even if you get some friendly fire. Knowing what "Good", "Average", "Bad" are in these categories will inform build and gear choices, and knowing you can't even get to "Average" will preclude you from some tactics. Most of the time being worse than "bad" doesn't really cost you (except with hitpoints) but if you can somehow get from "good" to "amazing" new tactics open up. One thing my (very low will save, minimally armored, moderate-hitpoint) arcane archer did was just stay 20' or more behind the back of his party. It kept him out of short range, where the vast majority of dangerous ranged touch attack and will-save spells live, and also tended to ensure any charge lane to him was blocked, even if the critter had mobility to get to him. He'd lose out on some area buffs, but he got boots of haste early precisely so he would not have to stay close to the casters to get that early buff, and things like bless, prayer and bardsongs all worked ok with him back there.

So your "optimal actions" will depend heavily on

1. Is any action other than "Just kill something with direct damage" really better? Well yes if your damage is bad or worse, most of the time. Sometimes if your damage is average (what I often call "meaningful"). Rarely if your damage is good (typical of a tier 4 martial who focuses on damage, what I called "decent" above). Almost never if your damage is well above that (as in my Pathfinder wizard who could keep up with an archer on her best Scorching Rays. She could shift to any of the 4 elements at will, so any creature with an energy vulnerability she could do 1.5x the expected damage of a full attacking decently optimized archer on....those fights were short).

2. Can I survive the consequences of my action? (charging a melee brute is often a fatal action for a light infantry unless the brute will be dead at the end of that charge. The same action with a tank will usually go ok, although the tank might get dinged up a bit, since melee brutes will punish you a bit for that -2 AC on charge etc). Drawing the attention of a high hit die half-fiend with a long range attack might not be so bright if you can't survive his likely horrid wilting spell. (which is a fort save+hitpoint test).

And those depend on your numbers, plus luck. Sometimes the answer to number 2 is "probably" but you have a significant chance of failure. Sometimes the outcome of #1 is "oops, he isn't dead" and bad things happen, but direct damage often has the virtue that "it stacks with itself", so if you did a lot of damage some weaker attacker in your party might get the killing blow without wasting your entire next turn following up.

pabelfly

2022-05-26, 10:42 AM

I don't disagree, exactly. I can just see how somebody who spends a lot of time on these boards can come to that kind of conclusion. "Most of the people I play with make characters like this" but that's survivorship bias because they mostly seek out higher-power games that are more friendly to optimizers. Something that's in a handbook is knowledge available to the community, and is therefore something a member of the community should know, and therefore it's "standard", even if it's something like handbook on Artificer or Illithid Savant or Shapechange.

That's fair. In fact, I think that our topic creator has made a similar assumption that high-power games were what was typically played back during the active period of DnD 3.5, whereas actual play was, and still is, often more casual and much less optimized.

wefoij123

2022-05-26, 11:06 AM

Hm. I think one reason OP is getting so much pushback is not so much his numbers are out of line, it's that he chose a lot of class options (and assertions) in his calculations that let people talk about that, where my archer example was a single-class fighter whose only noncore assumptions were ranged weapon mastery feat and maybe some of the higher level gear choices to get the desired pre-epic damage.

I disagree.

The pushback I'm receiving is "sample NPCs can't hit those numbers.
Then it turns into "monk can't hit those numbers".
Then it turns into "tippy monk hits those numbers".
Then after immense repetition by me that player progressions that received significant wotc attention has way more clout, the "discussion" turns into hair splitting. "Technically there's lots of other non-astral construct things in complete psionic." "Technically you do less damage by doing nothing."

At this point I wonder, what's the point of responding? Not a single person here has argued there is something better than using flat player progressions that have received significant wotc attention to figure out what damage numbers wotc had in mind.

You mentioned archer numbers right? What's stopping people from saying that your archer is actually high op? They could say 16str composite bow creates a significant gap in performance when compared to archers who don't go composite bow therefore composite bows are "cheese". What's stopping people from saying monks can't hit those archer numbers? What's stopping people from saying sample NPCs can't hit those archer numbers?

Do you see how their "pushback" when used on your archer, does absolutely nothing to further the discussion?

Here I was expecting a spirited discussion with people presenting their own numbers. Numbers they think wotc had in mind based on such and such. And then we discuss which basis has more credibility.

Instead I get the same exact people saying sample NPCs no matter how many times I repeat they're nonsequiturs and if you really want to go down that route WotC has sample NPCs of arcane thesis blasters and astral construct wilders.
Instead I get the exact same people saying monks can't hit the numbers in the 1st post without tippy level optimizaiton.

Instead I get people splitting hairs. Technically arcane thesis wizard's damage output can increase with metamagic rods. They're not saying the 1st post numbers are too low because standard optimization blaster wizards would invest in a lot of metamagic rods. They're just saying "Oh, you got this point wrong so HAH! You're wrong" with absolutely no relevance to the discussion. Have you seen the guy who said that I said that there are no sample NPCs using my build? When in the post I directly addressed to him I tell him there are?

The "pushbackers" as you call it are just trying force me to say I'm arbitrary and when that doesn't work because I'm using multiple flat player progressions that has received significant wotc attention therefore not arbitrary, they then split hairs to say I'm wrong about even the tiniest thing. How else can you explain someone who says technically you do less damage by doing nothing?

Do you disagree by the way? I respect your opinion.
Is using multiple flat player progressions that have received significant wotc attention to determine expected damage per round per level wrong when their numbers roughly line up?
Is pointing out that metamagic rods increase the damage output of the arcane thesis blaster wizard is a good reason to say the arcane thesis blaster wizard's damage must be thrown out in this discussion?

No one is suggesting we use different numbers. Posters either sort of agree with me on the numbers being roughly standard op (you and quertus), or they say sample npcs, monk, and split hairs. No one is giving their impression of what damage numbers wotc had in mind.

Damage numbers that are minimally acceptable for CR=ECL and here's my opinion on what those damage numbers are? Nope. Just sample NPCs and hair splitting.

I say flat progressions wotc gave a lot of attention to is a simpler model to use than CR=ECL without being any less accurate, and pushbacker's response? Why arcane thesis blaster wizards is not suitable for determining CR=ECL? Nope. It's "technically metamagic rods increase wizard damage so it's not flat" forcing me to spell out lowest damage possible. Then it's "technically doing nothing is less damage" forcing me to spell out lowest damage possible without being intentionally stupid.

Seward

2022-05-26, 11:12 AM

Do you disagree by the way? I respect your opinion.
Is using multiple flat player progressions that have received significant wotc attention to determine expected damage per round per level wrong when their numbers roughly line up?
Is pointing out that metamagic rods increase the damage output of the arcane thesis blaster wizard is a good reason to say the arcane thesis blaster wizard's damage must be thrown out in this discussion?

Um, your original post reminds me of something that would happen back when my study group was working a particularly hard engineering homework problem. We could figure out the answer, but not always how to get there. You'd work from the problem definition, work back from the answer, and sometimes just give up with a "then a miracle occurs" mystery step. We'd usually get about 70% credit on those with the TA marking the gap and going "how did you get from here to there?"

I think you have a good sense for the damage benchmarks at given levels for a primary damage dealer in a fairly normal op game. Such a character will chew through mooks in normal adventures, be always able to significantly injure bosses and will generally be seen as the kind of character it is worth other party members spending time helping function (dim door a melee into full attack, set up flank+sneak attack for a rogue, blow away fog for an archer or whatever). It doesn't matter how they're built, if they perform about that well enough that it will often be worth another party member assisting them if they're taken out of their game, rather than just trying to make up the damage themselves.

============= Ok now the hard part ====

But I think the approach of focusing on "significant wotc attention" to arrive at the benchmark is flawed. (I was a data science consultant until I retired recently, and have about 35+ years of doing and facilitating data-based decision making in a lot of realms, science, manufacturing, gaming and others, so bear with me here...)

What "significant wotc attention" means is fraught with selection bias. Interpreting the parts you select is also subject to inerpretation bias. You are arriving at plausible answers probably more because you have an instinct (just as us mech-e students did back in the day) for what the answer is, but your method can't be easily repeated and is probably subject to counterexamples using similar methodology that result in wildly different answers.

So to the three questions in the quote, short answer is "disagree, yes it is wrong even if it yielded plausible results, no it isn't a good reason to throw arcane thesis out"

On that last one, Arcane Thesis is a very late game artifact, coming in less than a year before Hasbro tossed 3.5 into the bin and tried to push 4.0. Like Magic Item compendium, Tome of Battle and a few other things, builds based on this feat will outperform earlier builds with less resource investment. Using "final year" 3.5 stuff routinely leads to results a lot more like Core 1e Pathfinder in terms of build strength. If you're using adventures published before 2008, you need to assume it was intended that the charop wasn't expected to be up to those levels. It's in shouting range but the expected resources to do the same damage as anything other than a physical martial character wasn't as easy for an arcane before 2008 (the +2 per attack damage boost weapon mastery gave the weapon-spec tree does also boost the late-game output for martials too, built in normal lines. I don't really know what the benchmarks are for Tome of Battle martials)

I actually find Arcane Thesis interesting because its main effect on damage op is to make it easier to make an artillery-arcanist that can keep up with an archer. It doesn't so much raise the bar as let more character types participate at that level. Because of things like Scorching ray that cap damage at L11 but are metamagic-friendly and practiced spellcaster, Arcane thesis lets you build a Gish that uses arcane as primary offense without needing to be a full arcanist and still keep up with archer level damage. Indeed my best attempt to port my Pathfinder dex-tank into 3.5 ended up with an arcane build that used scorching ray and arcane thesis+metamagic to simulate her "dex to damage" offense Pathfinder allowed while keeping most of the defensive approach to the build to similar lines as emerged in Pathfinder. It wasn't quite as good (saves, AC a bit lower, offense less reliable) than my Pathfinder tank, but she was at least a close sibling, if not an identical twin, in terms of how she performed.

lylsyly

2022-05-26, 11:52 AM

snip ...

Let me start out by saying once again that I do not think you are wrong. I do think your assumptions have a narrow focus. You have chosen some examples and say these examples MUST be what WotC intended has a standard. WotC had some many different hands in the cookie jar of every single book that was released that one hand had no clue what the other hand was doing. That fact is fairly self evident. Come on, there are even contradicyions within the same book in some instances.

You say that you only focused on damage dealers and don't really know how to figure say a BFC focused wizard. I get that. A BFC focused wizard is NOT a damage dealer, he is a damage multiplier! By controlling the battlefield he is maximizing the damage of the rest of his party. But does he not deserve to be looked at if you want to define 'standard optimization?"

Once again I am going to tell you that you cannot use just 4 examples and say that that is WotC's idea of standard optimization. Take the book Enemies and Allies has an example Those 11 examples of the Iconic Bases classes were supposedly play tested (although I beleive it was only the level 5 versions). If you told me I HAD to play one of those level 5 statblocks I would say NO!! Unless you let redo the feats and in some instances the skill points. And i do mean sticking to core.

If you really want to set a "standard of optimization" you must AT LEAST consider the WotC standard of a 4 person party.
Typically Cleric, Figher, Rogue, Wizard! When you can come up with a single standard that applies to those 4 ICONIC roles let me know.

Seward

2022-05-26, 12:01 PM

A BFC focused wizard is NOT a damage dealer, he is a damage multiplier! By controlling the battlefield he is maximizing the damage of the rest of his party.

Hm. That's about the opposite of how I see this role. A BFC wizard is adding to the defensive power of a party, not its offense. It means the most of the enemy threat is unable to come to grips with the party, which lets whatever offense the party might have destroy one opponent at a time, often before they can act (which means said party members either need no tank, or the tank won't need any support or healing).

It slows the fight down, breaking it into a series of smaller EL encounters instead of one big encounter.

When you have a party of damage dealers (of any kind) the result is rocket tag. If your side goes first, you obliterate the enemy before they can act. If they go first, they might vaporize one of your glass cannons, if you have one, or divide you up with battlefield control or whatever. High damage parties can be very high op if they have some secondary abilities to recover from when they don't go first. They end encounters in fewer rounds and thus often burn less resources.

But everything comes with tradeoffs and one of those that make a BFC wizard so popular is things like wall of force or solid fog just work, no save, no SR, size doesn't help you much, no grapple/strength checks, nothing. You either have an instant counter (like teleporting, which blows a standard action most of the time, still useful) or you struggle for many rounds to escape, possibly not getting back into the fight till said wizard releases you to the mercies of his entire party ready to carve you up in turn. A well timed spell can turn a disaster into a relatively easy fight, or reduce a tough encounter into a mild warmup for your martials if you get it off early.

If you really want to set a "standard of optimization" you must AT LEAST consider the WotC standard of a 4 person party.
Typically Cleric, Figher, Rogue, Wizard! When you can come up with a single standard that applies to those 4 ICONIC roles let me know.

I'm no fan of 4e, but this is really a concept they thought through better. The concept of "Striker, Defender, Leader" etc work better than trying to untangle what the iconic party is doing with roles, especially as two in the iconics are prepared casters who nearly by definition can shift roles easily. As described, Jozan's what in LG we'd call a "Divine Caster" doing all of "primary buff, healing, secondary artillery, tanking, divinations, melee, battlefield control", Mialee's what we'd call an "Arcane Caster" doing all of "battlefield control, primary artillery, arcane utility (fly, invisibility, teleport, divinations, etc). Tordek's what we'd describe as a "heavy infantry" (durable in terms of ac/saves/hitpoints, does enough melee damage to be impossible to ignore, not mobile) and Lydda is "Rogue" (trapfinding, scouting, either high damage or useless in melee depending on situation/target).

Nobody in the iconic party is a primary damage dealer in the sense of this discussion. But nobody in the party fails to contribute to damage in some way either, at least if they choose some spells. As written they're a party intended to bumble into things at close range, be resilient enough to survive it and eventually grind through a victory. Jozan's the diplomat, Lyddia probably is the one who lies, Lydda and Mialee's familiar do the scouting where divinations won't do, Lydda deals with traps and locks, Mialee deals with ranged threats (probably by tossing up something that forces the enemy to close range, rather than just blasting it out of existence, although if Jozan tossed up an obscuring mist Mialee might get in a fireball or something as they close).

I do in fact base my own iconic fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric on these four characters. I think my tank and my rogue do a bit more damage than the WOTC builds, but build hardly matters on wizard and cleric compared to spell selection so whether my playtest characters exceeded or fell behind the iconics would depend on who played them.

I'll mention that in Pathfinder Society the Sorcerer and Cleric were both popular iconic picks (you could play an iconic if you didn't have a character suitable for an adventure, then add an adventure to a later character under certain restrictions). Wizard less so because the Sorcerer actually had thoughtful spell picks, had UMD and could also be a secondary face.

Basically you'd pick the cleric if the party lacked healing or you were "playing up" with the iconic - she was durable and could spam area healing significant enough to help the in-level party members. You'd pick the sorcerer if the party was anemic on offense or lacked any kind of arcanist. Either could help with "face" duties if the party was weak there. The wizard wasn't nearly as generally useful. For martials, the barbarian and the paladin were most popular, barbarian was a decent damage-focused light infantry, the paladin a decent heavy infantry tank/damage hybrid.

lylsyly

2022-05-26, 12:15 PM

Part of it for me is my time in the army. two different versions of battlefied control. #1 own the terrain, make your enemy meet you on ground of your choosing. serious force multiplier. #2 artillery, a damage dealer itself, also could force the enemy into the terrain you had chosen. the idea is that you chose where to fight and force your enemy to go where you want them. have you ever built a BFC that did not have some offensive punch of there own?

Seward

2022-05-26, 12:30 PM

Where I come from, the first type of battlefield control is called "Battlefield Control" and is considered more or less a default tactic for arcane casters, summoners and caster-oriented druids, and a secondary tactic for divine casters.

The second type of battlefield control where you destroy your enemy with spells, well, we call that type of arcanist "Artillery". For kind of obvious reasons. If focused on single target destruction, like a ray specialist we'd sometimes consider it to be an Archer, if that was how it spent most of its incombat actions.

Have you ever built a BFC that did not have some offensive punch of there own?

Yes, I have actually. Well not SIGNIFICANT offensive punch. Like having a 9mm sidearm when your party is all equipped with assault rifles and grenade launchers.

My primary sorcerer in Living Greyhawk was telekenetic themed, and for her first 2 levels had no direct offense, until level 9 had nothing stronger than magic missile. Her spells either broke up the battlefield or improved party action economy (imagine a dwarf on a tenser disk, moved next to each enemy for full attack, able to keep contributing even when the dwarf gets blinded. The entire battlefield is on a sculpted grease while I swift-fly over it pulling melees behind me on tenser disks while party ranged attackers go wild....). Key spells for her were grease(sculpted), evard's tentacles, solid fog, wall of force, disintegrate (making new paths is a form of battlefield control), gust of wind (for sculpting my own fog, or removing enemy fog) etc. Also made massive use of servant horde, turning move actions into a bunch of unseen servant actions ranging from re-arming disarmed martials, standing up tripped ones setting off smokesticks on scattered party members etc.

Of course at L10 and higher I had telekenesis, which changed everything. I had an offense and if I went all out, it was a seriously effective one. Picked up whirling blade with a spell swap at L12 too for a variety of reasons that included ability to make better use of it than I could have earlier.

=========
I played two support-oriented oracles in Pathfinder Society too. They did a variety of things including battlefield control, but I do agree with your basic premise that everybody should have SOME way to finish off a badly wounded enemy (dead is the best battlefield control or debuff). I try to have a couple attacks/day that can accomplish direct damage even if it isn't my main thing (which is why my sorcereress had magic missile. It was in theme and could finish off enemies with a sliver of health)

lylsyly

2022-05-26, 12:39 PM

my favorite batlefield control build has alway been sorcerer/ Io7V back into sorcerer making sure that the summon monster line and the orb spell were among my spells known. but we are actually off topic here.

wefoij123

2022-05-26, 12:40 PM

But I think the approach of focusing on "significant wotc attention" to arrive at the benchmark is flawed. (I was a data science consultant until I retired recently, and have about 35+ years of doing and facilitating data-based decision making in a lot of realms, science, manufacturing, gaming and others, so bear with me here...)

What "significant wotc attention" means is fraught with selection bias. Interpreting the parts you select is also subject to inerpretation bias. You are arriving at plausible answers probably more because you have an instinct (just as us mech-e students did back in the day) for what the answer is, but your method can't be easily repeated and is probably subject to counterexamples using similar methodology that result in wildly different answers.

So to the three questions in the quote, short answer is "disagree, yes it is wrong even if it yielded plausible results, no it isn't a good reason to throw arcane thesis out"

On that last one, Arcane Thesis is a very late game artifact, coming in less than a year before Hasbro tossed 3.5 into the bin and tried to push 4.0. Like Magic Item compendium, Tome of Battle and a few other things, builds based on this feat will outperform earlier builds with less resource investment. Using "final year" 3.5 stuff routinely leads to results a lot more like Core 1e Pathfinder in terms of build strength. If you're using adventures published before 2008, you need to assume it was intended that the charop wasn't expected to be up to those levels. It's in shouting range but the expected resources to do the same damage as anything other than a physical martial character wasn't as easy for an arcane before 2008 (the +2 per attack damage boost weapon mastery gave the weapon-spec tree does also boost the late-game output for martials too, built in normal lines. I don't really know what the benchmarks are for Tome of Battle martials)

See, this is good. This advances the discussion.
So from here
1a. I can switch to core-only blaster wizard damage output since you claim arcane thesis is a lategame artifact and go from there.
1b. or I can say I'm defining standard op based on very late game 3.5 (which I have been saying. I've been saying MiC gave a power creep) and we should focus solely on late game artifacts and not before. Also because I think Tome of Battle is a direct buff for martial players to address the quadratic wizard issue.

2. I can argue that using proper random sampling is not a viable approach in this edition because not everything is created equal in this edition. Truenamer and Warlock for example.

3. I can argue that using proper random sampling is not a viable approach in this edition because there are way too many variables to achieve consensus, especially for martials whose performance is entirely dependent on and exponentially increased/decreased with magical gear. For example, some people might consider using composite bows "cheese" while other's don't. If there are people who think a maximized orb spell with no metamagic reducers is overpowered (I met someone like that in this forum), then you are not gonna find a consensus on anything without explicitly direct and flat things.

4. I can argue that the correct method of approach here is instead of random sampling, we must use only material that has received significant wotc attention in order to cut things like Truenamer. And I'd define "significant wotc attention" as present in multiple splatbooks and has received significant buffs/nerfs/revisions. Wizard and Clerics fit because not only do these classes receive significant amount of support in virtually all the books, but their spells has also been buffed/nerfed/revised constantly such as in Spell Compendium. Artificers too because of the sheer amount of support it received in Eberron. And Wilders because of both Eberron and Complete Psionic.

5. I can argue that the correct method of approach here is it that in addition to 4., we must use archetypes with the least amount of variables. A fighter for example is one of the most commonly used player archetype, but because of point 2., a consensus cannot be reached. Core-only blaster wizard however, because of its flat damage output, a consensus can be reached. Because it's damage numbers cannot be increased/decreased with magic items.

6. I can argue that my method can be easily repeated. I am using mode (statistic term for most used, well sort of, i'm not using numbers here so "mode" by be wrong.) to cut all the outliers out. Then I am using simplicity/flatness to cut the extremely variable out.

Thanks to your response, we can really get into the basis of my claims. Compare what you've accomplished with one post with all the posts that say "sample NPCs" "monk" and hair splitting.

I look forward to seeing your reason as to why you think my 6 points are wrong. We might agree to disagree at some of these points, I'm fully aware of that.

If you really want to set a "standard of optimization" you must AT LEAST consider the WotC standard of a 4 person party.
Typically Cleric, Figher, Rogue, Wizard!

I changed the title of the thread to emphasize I am focusing on one party role. In addition I think cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard is not the 4 party roles. I think it's Damage Dealer, BFC, and that's it. At least in high op which is where I primarily play. The front line can deal almost as much damage as the damage dealer, just has less opportunities to do full-round actions so they end up doing less damage on the account of having to move around. The frontline also body blocks and uses attacks of opportunity so they fall in the BFC category as well. Healbot is never necessary. So other than damage or BFC there really isn't anything else. The BFC wizard does all the utility too. And Face is only required for campaigns that require faces. The typical dungeon diving campaigns do not require a face.

When you can come up with a single standard that applies to those 4 ICONIC roles let me know.

I have not which is why I haven't been referencing your posts.

arkangel111

2022-05-26, 12:47 PM

Snip

Actually I think you are getting exactly what you asked for you're just not liking the result. No one can give you numbers until we come to a conclusion on what constitutes standard optimization. For you standard optimization is delving through multiple books and FAQ's, then hamstringing yourself with some weird and arbitrary restrictions. Many have suggested instead to use what WOTC intended as normal CR encounter examples of player classes, ie. NPC rogue, NPC Fighter... I originally argued for that and then thought about what might be normal selections for class options based on what you might typically see at a table outside of these forums, other's like AvatarVecna argued for the forum regular being the standard, and still other's have suggested builds based on CR appropriate monster encounters. You're ultimately getting upset with us because we disagree instead of trying to further the conversation. We've asked you to justify your stance on a few things and clarify some of your decisions and that's where a lot of the tension seems to lie. Your numbers could be dead on but many don't want to waste their time on finding this out until we figure out a standard.

We essentially broke your original post into 2 parts. What should be the standard optimization level? And, what are the damage numbers? Many are trying to answer question #1 first because it ultimately determines the range of answers for #2. There are some sub questions being thrown around such as, why your choices? or why the restrictions? but ultimately those questions could lead to an answer to #1.

zlefin

2022-05-26, 01:00 PM

iirc the benchmarks from the various benchmarking analyses people have done are pretty decent. I've still got one of them in my sig. Using the benchmarks is a far more useful way for defining standard optimization.

Seward

2022-05-26, 01:19 PM

Hm, a comment on sampling.

I think this is a fundamental flaw in the OP's approach - the idea that samples are meaningful in this context.

WOTC produced a zillion classes and PRCs and whatnot but none of that is a character.

Somebody asked me to reconstruct my Pathfinder Dex Tank and I dug out the old character sheet. Here's her level 12 "class" structure, in order of classes taken (all archetype, feat etc detail that made her work left out)

Bard1
Barbarian1,2
Cleric1
Monk1
Ranger1,2
Barbarian3
Barbarian4
Monk2
Barbarian5
Sorcerer1

Looking at that would you be expecting a tank with better-than-good AC+saves and reliable moderate damage dealing? You can't measure her by class, you have to measure her by the numbers her build generates. This is my only character ever audited for legality because she could post numbers that seemed just impossible on defense, while not having a weak offense (just not an amazing offense).

One reason I go with mostly or entirely core classes as a starting point to find damage benchmarks (and in case of martials, the weapon spec tree rather than the more situational stuff other classes bring) is to just see what was going on when the game was designed.

You can see, for example, that your default Fighter at level 12 intended to be in full plate (12 dex) and with a 14 constitution/10 wisdom and assuming no more than about 4k spent on each defensive item after mundane cost (full plate armor+2, hvy shield+2, ring prot+1, amulet of health +2, cloak resist+2) gets you to this kind of expectation for a heavy infantry on defense, assuming max hitpoints at L1 and average hitpoints (5.5/level, round up if you end in a .5), you get this

AC 26 fort 13 Reflex 7 Will 6 Hitpoints 96

I look at this and my game experience tells me "average ac, fort save, hitpoints, weak reflex/will". If you glance through the monster manual you'll see a lot of attacks in the low 20s as primary attacks in this level range, but still this is enough AC to be helpful, if not at the level of mid-30s where primary attacks have a decent chance of missing (good AC) and mid 40s where nobody hits except on a 20 (incredibly optimized ac).

A lot of characters in this level range who don't invest in AC much will still be hovering around AC20, those are "bad" ac, as it will only help against the weakest of mooks and is starting to be a power attack vulnerability. "weak" AC is so low that enemies will still hit you with everything at full power attack, so don't be standing near melee brutes. These tend to be shock-troopers, reckless-raging barbarians with low dex in that chain shirt they bought at first level, or people like my sorcereres, who wandered around at AC12 until about level 14 when she finally picked up greater mage armor + dex item and made an effort not to be an automatic pincushion if she didn't get some battlefield control up.

This AC26 guy is going to get hit a lot with primary attacks, but his ac is good enough to tank secondary attacks and prevent the opposition from using power attack a lot. He'll succeed at 2/3 fort saves, 1/3 reflex/will.

This is the level of physical defense I'd expect on somebody who is near the front lines but doesn't seek out toe-to-toe tanking with melee brutes. Like a cleric, maybe, when magic vestment is up.

Now...if you want to go from average to good on AC and really perform as a tank against el-appropriate brutes, this guy needs some other kind of edge. Most likely that edge in core is Combat Expertise possibly stacked with fighting defensively, plus boots of haste, as he's also a martial and that helps ac, reflex and attack damage. If you are Tordek fighting giants, you can shift back to a bit more offense because you get a nice +4 racial bonus. Tordek also has another 12hp buffer due to racial con bonus. He might up his game with consumables, a +3 barkskin potion is 600gp, affordable at this level for when he's expecting a series of hard fights, and he might get circle of prot evil in that situation too from a party caster, to keep his will save from turning him on the party and giving him +1 ac vs evil enemies. (lacking such a caster, a good aligned tank might invest 6.5k in a horn of Good/Evil to protect his brain and give him a bit of a deflection edge over his cheap +1 ring)

Still, my expectation in core is that you really have to work at it to be much better than "average" AC - monster melee attacks scale so fast that there seems to be an expectation in the second half of the game that something (flight, wall spells, whatever) will keep most melee brutes out of reach of PCs, if not their summons or similar.

lylsyly

2022-05-26, 01:44 PM

I changed the title of the thread to emphasize I am focusing on one party role. In addition I think cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard is not the 4 party roles. I think it's Damage Dealer, BFC, and that's it. At least in high op which is where I primarily play. The front line can deal almost as much damage as the damage dealer, just has less opportunities to do full-round actions so they end up doing less damage on the account of having to move around. The frontline also body blocks and uses attacks of opportunity so they fall in the BFC category as well. Healbot is never necessary. So other than damage or BFC there really isn't anything else. The BFC wizard does all the utility too. And Face is only required for campaigns that require faces. The typical dungeon diving campaigns do not require a face.

You changed the title of the thread because you were geting too much push back, period. And I said those classes were the ICONIC 4 roles. So at they level you claim to play at there are only two party roles? Damage dealers and BFCs, yet you claim that you don't know how to adjudicate BFC's? That sounds kinda wrong to me since it's one of the only two roles you seem to acknowledge.

You sound just like someone else on these boards that can never be convinced that what they claim is raw is actually not.

At any rate. I'm done. And unlike you who have claimed to be done but keep coming back. I mean it. Last post in this thread.

Good luck and good gaming.

wefoij123

2022-05-26, 02:26 PM

You changed the title of the thread because you were geting too much push back, period. And I said those classes were the ICONIC 4 roles. So at they level you claim to play at there are only two party roles? Damage dealers and BFCs, yet you claim that you don't know how to adjudicate BFC's? That sounds kinda wrong to me since it's one of the only two roles you seem to acknowledge.

You sound just like someone else on these boards that can never be convinced that what they claim is raw is actually not.

At any rate. I'm done. And unlike you who have claimed to be done but keep coming back. I mean it. Last post in this thread.

Good luck and good gaming.

I think it's for the best. I hope you are a better example than I am and stick to your words about this being your last post. For potential newcomers however, I will respond to your post.

Fighter. Wizard. Rogue. Cleric.

Fighter deals damage.

A cleric can be a heal bot.
A cleric can be an incredibly good frontline and physical damage dealer.
A cleric can be a decent blaster.
Which cleric are you referring to?

How do you compare a heal bot and a fighter? How much healing is equivalent to a fighter's damage output?
Blaster cleric can be compared because that's pure damage.
Frontline cleric can be compared because he has saves, AC, and physical damage dealer like the fighter.
In your definition of a standard op cleric, is a cleric supposed to be as good as a fighter in everything despite having spellcasting on top of their melee chasis?

A wizard can BFC.
A wizard can be a buffbot.
A wizard can be a debuffer.
A wizard can be a great blaster.
A wizard can be a great frontliner with various minion stuff.
Which wizard are you referring to?

How do you compare a BFC wizard with a fighter?
A purely no-save BFC wizard with walls, solid fog, antimagic field, etc. What is your metric for a standard optimization wizard? Is it spell selection? Is it number of spells per day? Is it early high level acquisition via PrCs? Is it divine spell acquisition via PrCs to do some wicked combos?
A purely buffing wizard. What is your metric for standard optimizaiton wizard? Is it spell selection? Is it number of spells per day? Is it early high level spell acquisition via PrCs? Is it divine spell acquisition via PrCs to do some wicked combos?
A purely debuffing wizard. What is your metric for standard optimizaiton wizard? Is it spell selection? focusing on enervation? Is it focusing on spells that work on everything and not just living creatures? How many metamagic stacked on enervation is standard op? What is the negative level per level expected of a standard op debuffing wizard?
How do you compare the damage output of a fighter and no-save BFC spells?
How do you compare the damage output of a fighter and buff spells?
How do you compare the damage output of a fighter and debuff spells?

How about a save or die/suck wizard? Is it their spell save DCs that determine optimization?
How are you going to compare spell save DCs with a fighter's damage output? What's the damage comparison formula?

Blaster wizards are pure damage. I can totally compare them with fighter damage.

Without explaining what exactly a cleric is supposed to do in your party role
Without explaining what exactly a wizard is supposed to do in your party role
Without explaining how we could compare a fighter's performance to that of a heal bot
Without explaining how we could compare a fighter's performance to that of a buff bot
Without explaining how we could compare a fighter's performance to that of a no-save BFC wizard
Without explaining how we could compare a fighter's performance to that of a wizard's save DC

And then you accuse me of arguing in bad faith when I say I don't know how to compare a BFC wizard to a fighter's damage output so I'm focusing on blasters and astral constructs.

You accused me of being someone who will never change my opinion? Which opinion exactly are you trying to change here?
BFC wizards somehow prove that flat spell/prc progressions that WotC paid special attention to a bad idea to use as the standard for damage numbers for pure damage dealers? And me refusing to use BFC wizards in this thread is somehow me dodging the issue to stubbornly cling to my claim?

It's really sad that I have to spell this out just like It's really sad that I have to spell out when i said "minimum damage possible" I meant "minimal damage possible without intentionally being stupid/built to fail."

I really do hope you are a man of your word.

Jesus christ. I somehow expected something better when redditors referred me here because this is an "optimization forum".

And for the record, I said I was done and was going to respond only to newcomers or people who aren't saying sample NPCs, monk, or hair splitting. Which I have. And I will not be responding to your posts either. I'm gonna add people who insist I'm acting in bad faith for focusing solely on damage and not BFC.