Co-opting the specialist table in DMGII for gear expectations

[ciopo]

Hello fellow forumites,

I was perusing the DMGII in relation to hiring classed NPC for nonhazardous tasks (prompted by this discussion (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647507-Feat-or-Item-to-increase-CL-of-Racial-SLAs-(to-higher-than-hit-dice))), and on page 155 there is an handy dandy table (5–2: Skill Modifiers for Human Specialists for find in document) that explictly tell us what kind of gear an NPC wanting to maximize a specific skill check would have.
Namely, with elite starting array, all ASI to the primary ability, it put's enhancement bonuses to +2 at 7th level, +4 at 13th level and +6 at 15th, while inherent bonuses of +1 at 16th level and +2 at 19th level.

This is interesting to me in relation to Iron chef and sister competitions, because it's ink on paper about *actual expectations*. It even roughly maps to what has been my table experience about getting enhancement bonuses.

I wonder, could we adopt it as something somewhat codified? I can only talk for myself, but whenever I make a stub for one of the comp, misrepresenting generic numbers makes me twitch. On one hand, I know the "generally assumed" but not esplictly said "generic gear" would indeed be this, since you can't get more generic than "+ X enhancement bonus to Y". Otoh, there's this trend that makes me want to write "these are the numbers naked" to avoid Schrödinger "gear dependancy" penalties, and I hate it because I feel like I'm being lazy with the entry and leaving it to the judge to plug in the actual, "real numbers"!

But, now I find out at least one handy dandy Wotc-approved table that says that by 7th level you're expected to have +2 on your primary ability score, etcetera

Even if that's just by expert-classed / NPC wealth , this is appealing to me, can we use this puppy? *makes puppy eyes*

[Crake]

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Are you asking to be able to spend your wbl in character building competitions on hiring NPCs for various tasks? Why would that NOT be allowed by default?

[ciopo]

No, my apologies, I am a confounding individual :)I

I'm asking if it sounds sensible to adopt a (rule of thumb?) of "+2 at 7th, +4 at 13th, +6 at 15th" for the primary ability score, in the competitions.

To not have it left a thte discretion of chefs and judges, but more like something along the lines of "this is what is expected of you"

I'm simply happy about having a table that can be referenced, and got eager about making use of it, if not for it's intended purpose :D

[Crake]

No, my apologies, I am a confounding individual :)I

I'm asking if it sounds sensible to adopt a (rule of thumb?) of "+2 at 7th, +4 at 13th, +6 at 15th" for the primary ability score, in the competitions.

To not have it left a thte discretion of chefs and judges, but more like something along the lines of "this is what is expected of you"

I'm simply happy about having a table that can be referenced, and got eager about making use of it, if not for it's intended purpose :D

I'm still confused, don't you normally just use the WBL table for competitions? Maybe I'm just out of the loop because I don't participate in those competitions, but are you normally limited on how you can spend your character's wealth?

[ciopo]

*wiggles hand* not prohibited, but like, frowned upon? that's the impression I got from them.

General vibe I got has been "you should pretend your character is naked, if you want to avoid possibly being penalized for gear reliance"

[Crake]

*wiggles hand* not prohibited, but like, frowned upon? that's the impression I got from them.

General vibe I got has been "you should pretend your character is naked, if you want to avoid possibly being penalized for gear reliance"

Weird.....

[Troacctid]

*wiggles hand* not prohibited, but like, frowned upon? that's the impression I got from them.

General vibe I got has been "you should pretend your character is naked, if you want to avoid possibly being penalized for gear reliance"
No, it's more like "You should assume every character has generic good items that you as a player don't necessarily have control over." Optimizing wealth isn't really what the contest is about, so it's heavily deemphasized in the judging. Since magic item availability is generally under the DM's purview rather than the player's, you can also get penalized if you structure your build around a specific item (whether you're pioneering a niche strategy based on abusing Dawnstar explosions or just cheating a little on the ability score that you need to cast your spells), because what if your DM doesn't drop that item, or drops it three levels later than you needed it? Etc. Any time you have to rely on the DM's good graces or else your whole strategy falls apart, that's inelegant. If you can craft the item yourself, though, you're probably okay.

[AsuraKyoko]

No, it's more like "You should assume every character has generic good items that you as a player don't necessarily have control over." Optimizing wealth isn't really what the contest is about, so it's heavily deemphasized in the judging. Since magic item availability is generally under the DM's purview rather than the player's, you can also get penalized if you structure your build around a specific item (whether you're pioneering a niche strategy based on abusing Dawnstar explosions or just cheating a little on the ability score that you need to cast your spells), because what if your DM doesn't drop that item, or drops it three levels later than you needed it? Etc. Any time you have to rely on the DM's good graces or else your whole strategy falls apart, that's inelegant. If you can craft the item yourself, though, you're probably okay.

I also like that I don't have to worry about items when making a build. These things can already be rather complicated, and items can be a lot of work. In general, it can be worthwhile to include a small section calling out a handful of items/types of items that are of particular use for a build, but you should be able to function just fine without requiring specific loot.

[Rleonardh]

Seems to me they forcing you to go caster here.
Druid cleric sorcerer wizard none are really hurt by this.

[AsuraKyoko]

To clarify, there is an assumption of getting generically useful gear; not that characters will have no magic items at all. The point of the contests are to make a build around a specific thing (for example, in the case of Iron Chef, a specific terrible prestige class selected each round). Nobody is "hurt" by not including items in the build, because the specific items you get are largely not relevant to what the build does. If a build has max ranks in Use Magic Device, it's generally assumed that you will have wands and scrolls, but you don't need to call out having specifically "A Wand of Protection From Winged Flyers" or whatever.

Making a build that requires having a specific item in order to function properly is inelegant, and therefore loses points in the elegance category. For example, if you have a build that requires you to be in the air, you should get your flight from something other than a magic item, since you can't necessarily rely on getting a magic carpet or whatever.

[pabelfly]

Seems to me they forcing you to go caster here.
Druid cleric sorcerer wizard none are really hurt by this.

There might be a little confusion here.

If a comp entry has an item list, it's either not really necessary to tell anyone what items you need, in which case it's it's waste of time, or your build requires those items to function, which is inelegant. And as we've seen in a recent thread, how wealth and magic item purchase works can vary greatly in each game. There's no guarantee that you'll get the wealth to purchase what you want when you want, and an NPC that will have that specific item for sale for you.

You can still win a competion even if you require specific items - I've won a Junkyard comp before with a build requiring items. You just want to make sure your build makes up for that lack of elegance in other areas.

[ciopo]

If a comp entry has an item list, it's either not really necessary to tell anyone what items you need, in which case it's it's waste of time, or your build requires those items to function, which is inelegant.

That's where I feel the disconnect is, I think.

I lowkey consider not listing the generic items, which is just "paperwork", somewhat as bad as not listing skill ranks. Or as another take, as bad as leaving feat/level blanks, because then it's "some" work for the judge to plug it in

I say lowkey, because it's a lot of extra paperwork for little actual gain, since we've been told, if judging, to assume "generic useful items", yeah?

But if I "have" to omit including enhancement bonus to (primary stat) because to list it is, according to you, either superflous or inelegant, then anything that's derived from (primary stat) will be 3 lower than it actual is. When you ready an hypothetical entry, and you see their attack bonus is listed as, I don't know, "25" , do you hunt break it down to see if the chef did or didn't include "generic items", and if he didn't than you should increase it to 33 or so? Or will you go with the gut feeling of "25? that's low for 20th level".

I'm just saying I like to be precise with my math, and I'm cognizant that it's difficult to know exactly what item we may or may not have. Table 5-2 made me happyish in this regard because it's a "here, at this level, you're expected to have at least this enhancement bonus to your primary stat"

[pabelfly]

That's where I feel the disconnect is, I think.

I lowkey consider not listing the generic items, which is just "paperwork", somewhat as bad as not listing skill ranks. Or as another take, as bad as leaving feat/level blanks, because then it's "some" work for the judge to plug it in

I say lowkey, because it's a lot of extra paperwork for little actual gain, since we've been told, if judging, to assume "generic useful items", yeah?

But if I "have" to omit including enhancement bonus to (primary stat) because to list it is, according to you, either superflous or inelegant, then anything that's derived from (primary stat) will be 3 lower than it actual is. When you ready an hypothetical entry, and you see their attack bonus is listed as, I don't know, "25" , do you hunt break it down to see if the chef did or didn't include "generic items", and if he didn't than you should increase it to 33 or so? Or will you go with the gut feeling of "25? that's low for 20th level".

I'm just saying I like to be precise with my math, and I'm cognizant that it's difficult to know exactly what item we may or may not have. Table 5-2 made me happyish in this regard because it's a "here, at this level, you're expected to have at least this enhancement bonus to your primary stat"

Feats are different to items. They're expected character progression, and are decided by the player. They tend not to change in effectiveness regardless of how a DM runs a game or what items are available and play a great role in how a build is scored under multiple categories. Skill ranks are similar. In contrast, items and their availability can vary depending on how a DM wants to run their game. In a competition, item choices are going to tend to be pretty standard (unless you're relying on an item for your build).

As for damage (this is how I've done it as a judge and other judges can do it differently) I'll work out your attack routine with only your basic weapon at level 20. Presuming the answer isn't obvious, like you have spells or manoeuvres of a particular level. If you're a fighter that wields a longsword, I'll assume you're wielding a longsword, for example. Then I'll work out your attack routine myself - what will your attack rolls look like, what's your chance of hitting, what's your damage going to be for your attacks. I'll work everything myself, regardless of whether the player has done it or not. Not only does this help ensure I understand your build as best I can, it also helps to check your maths for any possible errors and makes sure I'm judging mundane martials all together with the same criteria. After that, I'll work out what your expected damage is going to be, and I want to see what I consider to be reasonable damage for someone without magic items. My ballpark is around 75 damage. This is a rough calculation on my part, and is only one small part of the whole I'll consider when calculating a build's power.

Hope this explains a bit of how someone might judge a comp for you. Perhaps you would find it helpful to judge a competition yourself to help understand the logic of how judging works.

[ciopo]

I did judge the once, in the E6 comp, and it was much stress, I don't know if I can do that again.

Basic weapon confuses me, I don't want to be disingenious, but I assume you assume at least a +1 weapon to penetrate DR/magic, no? It is an assumption, a fair assumption? I don't know

Enhancement bonuses to ability scores are just as nebolous, you (the judge) are told to assume generic useful items are bought. Whoever wrote that section of the DMGII "ufficialized" that an NPC hireling with the expert class and (my supposition) NPC wealth will have +2,+4,+6 at 7th,13th,15th level. I'm pointing at it and saying "look, at least this much is what is expected of us" (and then caveated with "for your primary ability score" etcetera).

In the general strokes, I understand the .. distancing we take from wealth, because as a resource it's build agnostic, it generally has very little to do with showcasing whatever the competition theme is. I don't understand why there is distancing even from the most generic use of it : "numbers going up" items, i.e. the boring generic items we are told to assume we bought.

I don't much buy the table variation argument is much of a justification for it: we are on a forum having fun making silly ( or not so silly! :) ) builds, staying within the bounds of WBL is no more and no less an artifice than saying a source is or isn't allowed

[pabelfly]

I did judge the once, in the E6 comp, and it was much stress, I don't know if I can do that again.

Basic weapon confuses me, I don't want to be disingenious, but I assume you assume at least a +1 weapon to penetrate DR/magic, no? It is an assumption, a fair assumption? I don't know

Enhancement bonuses to ability scores are just as nebolous, you (the judge) are told to assume generic useful items are bought. Whoever wrote that section of the DMGII "ufficialized" that an NPC hireling with the expert class and (my supposition) NPC wealth will have +2,+4,+6 at 7th,13th,15th level. I'm pointing at it and saying "look, at least this much is what is expected of us" (and then caveated with "for your primary ability score" etcetera).

In the general strokes, I understand the .. distancing we take from wealth, because as a resource it's build agnostic, it generally has very little to do with showcasing whatever the competition theme is. I don't understand why there is distancing even from the most generic use of it : "numbers going up" items, i.e. the boring generic items we are told to assume we bought.

I don't much buy the table variation argument is much of a justification for it: we are on a forum having fun making silly ( or not so silly! :) ) builds, staying within the bounds of WBL is no more and no less an artifice than saying a source is or isn't allowed

There's no point presuming you have a +1 weapon since I'd assume everyone else would have the same. When I'm judging I'm minimising external variables to see what your specific build concept is bringing to the table over other builds in that competition. I'd say that for other common build items too. You would have a +6 Belt of Strength, sure, but so would your build comp opponents. There's no point adding it to the mix when working out build effectiveness. Its easier to just disregard those items all round and make calculations and judging easier. Perhaps that's a better way of explaining why we don't care about wealth when judging the effectiveness a build, because everyone would have the same wealth and be buying all the Big Six and the like items to boost their various stats.

[Crake]

I mean, if magic items cause such annoyance in build comps, why not just adopt the pathfinder automatic bonus progression system? It bakes in weapon, ability score, and AC bonuses all into a separate system, and even covers inherent bonuses. That way, all the "expected bonuses" are quantified level by level, and you can just straight up omit magic items entirely from the builds.

[AsuraKyoko]

I mean, if magic items cause such annoyance in build comps, why not just adopt the pathfinder automatic bonus progression system? It bakes in weapon, ability score, and AC bonuses all into a separate system, and even covers inherent bonuses. That way, all the "expected bonuses" are quantified level by level, and you can just straight up omit magic items entirely from the builds.

A couple of reasons, really. The first reason is that Pathfinder content is disallowed from the contests, so it would be weird to include a single alternate rules system from it. The biggest reason, however, is that the specifics of the bonuses don't really factor in to most builds. To clarify, builds are not presented only as they would be at level 20, but instead as a level progression from 1-20. Things like attack bonus and AC are not calculated out anywhere, so there isn't really a place where the specific bonuses from magic items would go. Additionally, if every build had essentially the same progression of bonuses, there isn't really a reason to include it at all, since it wouldn't differentiate builds at all.