PDA

View Full Version : Monk balance test... for you, Giacomo



Pages : [1] 2 3

Talic
2008-01-09, 02:37 AM
EDIT * EDIT * EDIT: The masses have spoken. Three man parties seem to be the popular way to go, so the contest will be amended.

Here is the updated contest.

We need 4 characters.

Solo has provided a full caster already (sorceror).
Rachel Lorelai and Solo have volunteered to run the level 20 support cast for the monk.
We need a volunteer to run the same cast for the NPC, and for the Full BAB.

We have 1 level 20 monk.
We need 1 level 20 full BAB class.
We have 1 level 20 cleric type.
We need 1 level 20 NPC class.

Further tests will still require additional volunteers for levels 15, 10 , and 5 versions, I'll keep you posted.

All basic rules of the contest will be observed, except that players will run in party format on three seperate groups. 1st group will use the monk, sorceror, and full BAB.
2nd group will run rogue or bard, full BAB, and sorceror.
3rd group will sorceror, full BAB class, and NPC class only.

Other rules will remain unchanged, and the test will be decided by which group can best accomplish the objectives set forth. Resources used will not be the measure of success. Time will be.

This will test each party's self-sufficiency, and perhaps provide insight as to which classes can contribute at each level.A fifth person for running the encounter challenges.

Allowable sources are core only. I will set up a series of challenges, without foreknowledge of any of the characters. Each character will choose all class abilities where applicable choices are to be made, including spells, bonus feat selection, and the like. WBL will be in effect, and allowed from any items in the DMG or PHB. If you choose to imbue an item with a spell that you are unable to cast, assume the cost is that of an NPC casting. Any spell with an experience point cost is prohibited, unless you've cast it yourself. If you are a wizard and want additional spells on your list, buy the scrolls.

The rules are thus.

1) Encounters will be varied, and challenges will be diverse. Come prepared for a wide assortment of challenges.

2) You may have a full spell preparation. You will not have foreknowledge of the challenges prior to doing this.

3) There will be a creature challenge, run by a volunteer.

4) There will be at least 1 AMF or dead magic zone. It will be of a scope that requires the PC accomplish a goal inside of it.

5) Leadership is not allowed, nor are the services of NPC's, beyond pre-game casting into items. No hiring an army.

6) WBL is allowed, no more than 25% of character wealth may be spent on any one item.

Bear in mind, this is not a PvP scenario. This is a scenario to see which groups can overcome a series of typical challenges that one would possibly face. This is a test to see how well the groups can function against a typical set of encounters that one might face in D&D. This is to test the overall viability and self-sufficiency of different classes at high levels.

EDIT: There will be followup tests at lower levels. Trust me when I say that NPC classes will not be as viable as you think. Followups will be at level 15, 10, and 5.

EDIT: The contest is beginning.Here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3830069#post3830069)...

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-09, 02:45 AM
Please--not level 20. The wealth availible makes even NPC classes viable. I'd recommend 15 for "high-level".

Solo
2008-01-09, 02:53 AM
I have a level 20 sorcerer ready to go.

Shazam! (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511)

I can also create a lower level sorcerer if necessary.


Please--not level 20. The wealth availible makes even NPC classes viable. I'd recommend 15 for "high-level".

Well, if items are a problem, there's always Disjunction :smalltongue:

Nebo_
2008-01-09, 02:53 AM
We already know monks are underpowered. You're beating a dead horse.

warmachine
2008-01-09, 02:54 AM
Make it a level most people play, such as 6 to 10.

Solo
2008-01-09, 02:55 AM
We already know monks are underpowered.

And we also know the earth is round, and Oswald shot Kennedy.

Doesn't mean everyone else does.

Talic
2008-01-09, 03:07 AM
Amen to previous poster.

I've edited the above post to show that yes, I do intend to create multiple scenarios at different levels if this catches on at high levels.

Marius
2008-01-09, 03:43 AM
Better make the same charactert at 5th, 10th and 15th level. There're builds that oinly work at high levels.

Talic
2008-01-09, 03:48 AM
Better make the same charactert at 5th, 10th and 15th level. There're builds that oinly work at high levels.

Please read above statement. Those are in the works if this is successful.

horseboy
2008-01-09, 03:56 AM
A fourth person will do any other melee class, provided it's a full BAB class (fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian), also on a 32 point build.

Man, as much as I'd love to see a paladin on a hippogriff on there, I'd have to vote someone do ranger for full BAB. Though it might be interesting to see if someone could pull of a fighter that did more than "smack it with a pointy stick."

Talic
2008-01-09, 04:49 AM
Well, if items are a problem, there's always Disjunction :smalltongue:

I have a wide variety of methods for dealing with items... Heh. But with an active person running the critters and such, I anticipate more... non-standard critters. The critter runner will get a race, a class, and an ECL for each critter. After that, it's all him.

lord_khaine
2008-01-09, 06:02 AM
this contest is hardly fair, running the monk against the 2 of the 3 classes widely reconised as the most powerfull doesnt prove anything, especaly not at level 20.

if you want anything resembling a fair test i honestly belive all full casters should be kept out, and we instead should get both a rogue and a bard in as well.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-09, 06:11 AM
If "we" wanted to prove something, we'd be running the characters as a party, not solo.

Talic
2008-01-09, 06:12 AM
this contest is hardly fair, running the monk against the 2 of the 3 classes widely reconised as the most powerfull doesnt prove anything, especaly not at level 20.

if you want anything resembling a fair test i honestly belive all full casters should be kept out, and we instead should get both a rogue and a bard in as well.

This isn't just a test of the class, but of the player. I'm using the casters as a good baseline for how things should go, and using the full melee build for the actual test.

This is designed to test to see how SELF-sufficient each class is. The caster will have no shield, the other classes will have no glass cannon backing them up. Before you think that it's a cake walk for casters, keep in mind, I'm throwing multiple hazards into the mix, including dead magic.

Rogues, in my opinion, are the most self-sufficient of all non-caster classes. They need no test. Alone, they can bypass 90% of what a party deals with. They can skill, bluff, or diplomacy almost all of the rest. Bards are designed as team players. That's the whole ethos of their class, is that of the booster. This test for them would be pointless. It doesn't show what a bard needs for success.

Keep in mind, this isn't meant to say, "In yo face, monk!" It's designed to give a play by play, so that people here can have a better idea of what exactly each class has for strengths and weaknesses, and where the imbalances lie.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 06:23 AM
If you are a wizard and want additional spells on your list, buy the scrolls.

The RAW allows copying from other caster's spellbooks at a much lower cost (50 gp x spell level).


EDIT: There will be followup tests at lower levels. Trust me when I say that NPC classes will not be as viable as you think. Followups will be at level 15, 10, and 5.


It is a little backwards. Buying items for a 20th level character without restriction is much easier than if you have to make decisions throughout your carrier that will be viable at later stages and at level 20 ultimately.

Allowing items with a value of more than a quarter of your WBL is a bad idea for this reason.

Furthermore, the power of magic items is easy to underestimate. In the Battle of the Core Classes the fighter was wiping the floor with all his opponents without even trying very hard.
Of course everyone can make optimal purchase decisions, but it easily becomes a shopping contest and not a comparison of the contribution of class abilities.

Generally, since is a one shot string of challenges, so one-use items and charged items are much more useful in this scenario than if you had to depend of these items for several sessions.

The price should be 5 times higher for such items (charged items should have their charges reduced to 1/5).

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 06:32 AM
If "we" wanted to prove something, we'd be running the characters as a party, not solo.

Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

Talic
2008-01-09, 06:37 AM
The RAW allows copying from other caster's spellbooks at a much lower cost (50 gp x spell level).



It is a little backwards. Buying items for a 20th level character without restriction is much easier than if you have to make decisions throughout your carrier that will be viable at later stages and at level 20 ultimately.

Allowing items with a value of more than a quarter of your WBL is a bad idea for this reason.

Furthermore, the power of magic items is easy to underestimate. In the Battle of the Core Classes the fighter was wiping the floor with all his opponents without even trying very hard.
Of course everyone can make optimal purchase decisions, but it easily becomes a shopping contest and not a comparison of the contribution of class abilities.

Generally, since is a one shot string of challenges, so one-use items and charged items are much more useful in this scenario than if you had to depend of these items for several sessions.

The price should be 5 times higher for such items (charged items should have their charges reduced to 1/5).

Thank you for the well-considered input. Believe me when I say that I can handle the wealth issues. As previously stated, the nature of the challenges will not be discussed until I have all character volunteers and submissions. However, I don't wish to impose anything other than RAW for this, as much as possible. Altering item values doesn't sit well with me for that. That said, it's a very good point to consider in the post game discussion.


Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

I reject this arguement. Bard has a strong arguement for exclusion because its main function is to improve others. Fine. But when a class can't be said to be balanced unless it is supported by others is fallacy. That doesn't show a balanced character, it shows a dependent one. Monk may benefit from others, it may not. Doesn't matter. If the class can't be competent without 5 buffs from the cleric and 2 from the wizard, then it's not a competent class.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-09, 06:58 AM
Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 07:19 AM
Thank you for the well-considered input. Believe me when I say that I can handle the wealth issues. As previously stated, the nature of the challenges will not be discussed until I have all character volunteers and submissions.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you could not. :smallsmile:


However, I don't wish to impose anything other than RAW for this, as much as possible. Altering item values doesn't sit well with me for that. That said, it's a very good point to consider in the post game discussion.


It is actually RAW (probably a very much overlooked part).
DMG page 199 talk about creating PC above 1st level and how to handle one-shots.


I reject this arguement. Bard has a strong arguement for exclusion because its main function is to improve others. Fine. But when a class can't be said to be balanced unless it is supported by others is fallacy. That doesn't show a balanced character, it shows a dependent one. Monk may benefit from others, it may not. Doesn't matter. If the class can't be competent without 5 buffs from the cleric and 2 from the wizard, then it's not a competent class.


Well, you may reject it, but others have rejected that the Monk was über and see how that went. :smallamused:

The game is supposed to be team work and if the monk can be buffed into the stratosphere and wreck havoc to the opponents that may very well be the optimal party strategy.
After all it is about the party overcoming challenges, not individuals trying to contribute the most.

Your test does nothing to counter such an argument unless you go with the Rhine maiden on this one. (That would also have the benefit of reducing the number of people involved and speed things up greatly :smallwink: )

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-09, 07:19 AM
Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

Talic
2008-01-09, 07:19 AM
I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

We'd actually need a third group. One that was shorthanded a PC entirely, to see if removing the monk lessens the burden on the other characters. Basically, measure if the time that other classes waste helping the monk would be better used in other ways.

lord_khaine
2008-01-09, 07:22 AM
I for one am willing to make a party of 3 and run it the same way beside someone running a fighter and someone running a monk (barring spell selection &etc, since that depends on the teammate).

that sounds like fun idea, im ready to run a monk there.

Tormsskull
2008-01-09, 07:45 AM
I'm all for concrete "evidence" towards an answer, but this will not prove it one way or the other. There are far too many variables in the test to prove anything. For example:


The DM. Base on the way you make up encounters will affect which classes shine and which do not.
The Players. Each player's skill at playing the different classes is different.
Game knowledge. Both the DM and the player's knowledge of the game will likely be different.
Randomness of dice rolls.


In the end, all you can hope to prove with something like this is that when Party A with volunteer player Bob playing a monk was compared against Party B with volunteer Joe playing a monk, versus Party C with no monk on x date, Party x "performed better" (lost the fewest hitpoints, used the fewest spell slots, used the fewest amount of consumable magic items??).

Seems kind of pointless to me.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-09, 08:05 AM
I think just seeing the monk in combat, as part of a reasonable group (i.e. isn't going to refill his Ring of Spell Storing 4x a day, isn't going to take kindly to being choked and blinded by a smoke bottle) should be fairly telling.

Ne0
2008-01-09, 08:07 AM
This isn't just a test of the class, but of the player. I'm using the casters as a good baseline for how things should go, and using the full melee build for the actual test.

Wait, you think full casters are a base line for how things should go in D&D?
...No wonder everyone dislikes the monk. :smallwink:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 08:13 AM
I'm all for concrete "evidence" towards an answer, but this will not prove it one way or the other. There are far too many variables in the test to prove anything. For example:


The DM. Base on the way you make up encounters will affect which classes shine and which do not.
The Players. Each player's skill at playing the different classes is different.
Game knowledge. Both the DM and the player's knowledge of the game will likely be different.
Randomness of dice rolls.



Then the test is simply repeated until the results become statistically significant. :smallwink:


In the end, all you can hope to prove with something like this is that when Party A with volunteer player Bob playing a monk was compared against Party B with volunteer Joe playing a monk, versus Party C with no monk on x date, Party x "performed better" (lost the fewest hitpoints, used the fewest spell slots, used the fewest amount of consumable magic items??).


And that might be sufficient to convince the other side in the argument, depending on how extreme the outcome is.

This example is not a proof in the mathematical sense, but it might show the flaws of certain arguments and if the results are convincing enough might sway opinions.

Considering the state of the current discussion this is just a new take on presenting those argument in a slightly more realistic example.


Seems kind of pointless to me.

But even if the outcome is less than satisfying with respect to removing doubt, the process might still be fun.

The Mormegil
2008-01-09, 08:48 AM
I'm posting this here, because I can't find another more appropriate non-dead monk thread.
I'm not against the monk for the simple fact that I consider it more of a PrC to dip in than a full class. 2 to 4 (Better with UA fractioned Bab) levels are good for a melee typo that dodges a lot. He gains AC bonuses, flurry (ECS has feats for using flurry with *good* weapons), unarmed damage, mobility, bonus feats (UA again to make them useful), evasion and good saves to the cost of losing one point Bab.
Monk is underpowered at higher levels beause it has got nothing really good to take, but dipping in for a few levels is good and doesn't loose flavor.

kamikasei
2008-01-09, 09:04 AM
I'm not against the monk for the simple fact that I consider it more of a PrC to dip in than a full class...
Monk is underpowered at higher levels beause it has got nothing really good to take, but dipping in for a few levels is good and doesn't loose flavor.

A (core) base class which is only good for a handful of levels (and not before you PrC out, like Wizard, but only a handful in some other unrelated build) fails at being a base class.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-09, 10:49 AM
this contest is hardly fair, running the monk against the 2 of the 3 classes widely reconised as the most powerfull doesnt prove anything, especaly not at level 20.

Well, this is to prove wrong the vocal minority-of-one who claims that those widely recognized classes are no match for the monk.

Anyway, level 20 is not a good benchmark. I'd suggest anything between 5 and 15. Furthermore, we need the usual caveats (no diplomancers, no polymorph, no multiclassing with other base classes, no shivering touch or celerity, no intentionally crippling your own party) and rules on whether or not prestige classes and LA races are allowed.

See, every time we try one of these, the strongest monk turns out to be the one that tries hardest at not being a monk; there's no argument that monk 1 / druid 19 is very strong.

horseboy
2008-01-09, 11:54 AM
Exactly.

Self-sufficiency would be tested, sure, but it would not resolve the argument that claims that monks are great because the synergies with other classes and gain disproportionate large benefits from buffs etc.

If you wanted to resolve that you would have to compare two parties of 4. One with a monk and another with one of the (other) melee types.

There's also his claims that monks are the most self-sufficient class (some how despite all the 4th level buffs he uses in every example)

Frosty
2008-01-09, 12:42 PM
I'm actually ok with one caster refilling a ring of spell-storing 4 times a day. That does not seem excessive.

Polymorph should definitely go, however. It is stupid and against the spirit of the game.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 01:16 PM
There's also his claims that monks are the most self-sufficient class (some how despite all the 4th level buffs he uses in every example)

Use Magic Device can be used to obtain those buffs and would not require fellow party members to spend resources on the Monk.

It might be cheaper in absolute terms to have the caster do the buffing, but every time a spell is cast you have to consider the opportunity cost; what else could the spell slot have been used for / who else could have benefited from the spell.

The optimal party strategy would have to take such things into consideration and cooperate to reach the optimal solution to the encounter.

The solution could include a self-buffing monk as opposed to the other melee fighters who would have to rely on casters, because they cannot afford to put skill points in UMD if they have more MAD than the Monk. :smallamused:

The question is if you want to test which party is more efficient, one with a monk or one without, or if you want to test the self-sufficiency in a group of antagonists forced to act together.

I think the first test is far more interesting.

Starsinger
2008-01-09, 07:37 PM
Use Magic Device can be used to obtain those buffs and would not require fellow party members to spend resources on the Monk.

But that doesn't make the monk more or less self sufficient than anyone else.

Talic
2008-01-10, 12:34 AM
The masses have spoken. Three man parties seem to be the popular way to go, so the contest will be amended.

Here is the updated contest.

We need 4 characters.

Solo has provided a full caster already (sorceror).

We need 1 level 20 monk.
We need 1 level 20 full BAB class.
We need 1 level 20 rogue or bard.
We need 1 level 20 NPC class.

All basic rules of the contest will be observed, except that players will run in party format on three seperate groups. 1st group will use the monk, sorceror, and full BAB.
2nd group will run rogue or bard, full BAB, and sorceror.
3rd group will sorceror, full BAB class, and NPC class only.

Other rules will remain unchanged, and the test will be decided by which group can best accomplish the objectives set forth. Resources used will not be the measure of success. Time will be.

This will test each party's self-sufficiency, and perhaps provide insight as to which classes can contribute at each level.

Chronicled
2008-01-10, 12:41 AM
Resources used will not be the measure of success. Time will be.

My level 20 commoner (or warrior if it MUST have full BAB) will be ready with all the wealth-by-level in single-use items. :smallwink:

Talic
2008-01-10, 12:44 AM
If you would like to add a level 20 commoner, we can add it to group 3. I advise that the nature of the challenges will put more emphasis on class abilities than WBL, however.

Solo
2008-01-10, 01:47 AM
If "we" wanted to prove something, we'd be running the characters as a party, not solo.

And why should I not be running characters??



Talc, just PM me with everything I need to know.

Talic
2008-01-10, 01:54 AM
And why would you be running the characters, and not me?



Talc, just PM me with everything I need to know.

Emphasis was on the party organization, rather than individual. She was stating that since D&D is a group dynamic game, that a group dynamic test must be used to evaluate balance.

All encounters are designed at this point. Sorceror can be posted, with any WBL gear that's listed in core.

I still need the other classes, as well as a volunteer to run the encounters. They'll have the most to play with, and will have private instructions for creating the critters. By seperating the exact nature of the encounters into encounter design and critter design, I hope to keep the DM class favorites to a minimum.

Solo
2008-01-10, 02:06 AM
Ah, I see.

It appears I should restrain my ego a tad.


I don't know WBL, so I'm going ot throw on some minor equipment and call it a day.

I've listed the costs next to the items if that's ok with you.

Talic
2008-01-10, 02:56 AM
Ah, I see.

It appears I should restrain my ego a tad.


I don't know WBL, so I'm going ot throw on some minor equipment and call it a day.

I've listed the costs next to the items if that's ok with you.

DMG has a table for character wealth by level. I don't have it on me at the moment, but it'll let you know what you're allotted.

Oh, and the link for Shazam doesn't work where I do. Just sayin.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 03:23 AM
But that doesn't make the monk more or less self sufficient than anyone else.

You are have only quoted a very small portion of my post. You would have to consider the marginal utility for each class with respect to UMD.

I am not a proponent of any of those arguments mind you, I was merely trying to outline the differences in test design.

Talic
2008-01-10, 03:42 AM
You are have only quoted a very small portion of my post. You would have to consider the marginal utility for each class with respect to UMD.

I am not a proponent of any of those arguments mind you, I was merely trying to outline the differences in test design.

I've got a way to handle the overall effectiveness of all classes, with respect to the UMD skill.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-10, 04:44 AM
The masses have spoken. Three man parties seem to be the popular way to go, so the contest will be amended.

The masses have also spoken that level 20 really isn't such a good idea.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-10, 04:47 AM
Also, why three-man parties? Four-man parties. Since that's the normal party. Fighter-type, rogue, divine, arcane. Replace fighter-type with monk (since he definitely can't replace any other role--no trapfinding) for the monk's group.

Talic
2008-01-10, 05:02 AM
The masses have also spoken that level 20 really isn't such a good idea.
And if there's actually any actual, you know, volunteers, to get this whole ball rolling (got one of 5 so far), then we'll have the ability to run some at various levels. All arguements for high level is the WBL disparity, which, for the high level run, I have covered. The main arguement that monk is not a good base class is that it does not effectively advance to level 20. Thus, one test needs to go that far. Other tests are going to be done, provided we get the ball rolling.

Also, why three-man parties? Four-man parties. Since that's the normal party. Fighter-type, rogue, divine, arcane. Replace fighter-type with monk (since he definitely can't replace any other role--no trapfinding) for the monk's group.

At high levels, the four man party isn't absolutely necessary. CR's can be adjusted to account for fewer party members. Currently, a lack of volunteers dictates that I not exactly get my hopes up for a large turnout here.

I'll mull over the replacement of fighter with monk, rather than the utility/skill slot. That idea does have merit.

lord_khaine
2008-01-10, 05:13 AM
well lv 20 isnt that good a level for a monk, but ill start building a level 20 core monk when i get home.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 05:44 AM
At high levels, the four man party isn't absolutely necessary. CR's can be adjusted to account for fewer party members. Currently, a lack of volunteers dictates that I not exactly get my hopes up for a large turnout here.

But Rachel Lorelei already offered to run the whole support cast (Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue).


I'll mull over the replacement of fighter with monk, rather than the utility/skill slot. That idea does have merit.

Of course I don't know what kind of challenges you have in mind, but I imagine that at least one will be related to combat.

If I were to run such a test to compare the combat usefulness I would use a standard party of 4, say Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue and use the 4th slot to compare the Monk with a full BAB class and perhaps a NPC class.
And if you could have one person control the whole support cast it would make things a lot easier.

Talic
2008-01-10, 06:41 AM
But Rachel Lorelei already offered to run the whole support cast (Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue).

She did? I thought that was idle speculation. If that's the case, then we're a lot closer to ready than I thought. We can run 4 man groups, then. That was my only qualm with the 4 man group.

Finally, I need someone who loves to be the bad guy to act as the minion runner/encounter guy. I want to keep out of actually running the encounters to keep the running of the creatures and the design as seperate as possible, to try to get everything as impartial as possible.



Of course I don't know what kind of challenges you have in mind, but I imagine that at least one will be related to combat.

At least 4, actually, are related to combat. At such high levels, parties have a lot of resources. I'd rather not see everything fall down in the first round to the casters, which could very well happen in a one combat scenario. I also plan on introducing several other obstacles, including at least one dead magic or antimagic area.

The overall goal will be time oriented. The fastest solution is the one that wins, not the one that conserves resources. There will be penalties for dead party members, and as this is primarily a test of the monk, I'd like to hopefully have said monk alive at the end, when he's involved.


If I were to run such a test to compare the combat usefulness I would use a standard party of 4, say Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Rogue and use the 4th slot to compare the Monk with a full BAB class and perhaps a NPC class.
Sure. Sounds good. Though the support cast can also include bard, at the creator's option.


And if you could have one person control the whole support cast it would make things a lot easier.
This is true. As far as support cast goes, I want to keep it simple. The focus is on the contrast between the monk, a fighter, and an NPC class, so we don't need single class builds that are unduly unbalancing, and yes, that's mostly for the casters.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-10, 06:45 AM
The main arguement that monk is not a good base class is that it does not effectively advance to level 20.

To my knowledge, the main argument that monk is not a good base class is that it doesn't meaningfully contribute from moderate levels and up. As Mormegil and Kamikasei stated, it is suitable as a dipping class, but otherwise in any and every party role that has been suggested for a monk, it is upstaged by several other core classes.

Talic
2008-01-10, 06:49 AM
To my knowledge, the main argument that monk is not a good base class is that it doesn't meaningfully contribute from moderate levels and up. As Mormegil and Kamikasei stated, it is suitable as a dipping class, but otherwise in any and every party role that has been suggested for a monk, it is upstaged by several other core classes.

It has been said that for a class to be a competent base class, it must be able to advance to 20 and be a playable class. This is the first test criteria.

Second, we'll tackle moderately high level at level 15, then mid level at level 10. If everyone's still game for this at the end, then we'll try the "play to PrC out" level, which is 5.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 07:02 AM
Finally, I need someone who loves to be the bad guy to act as the minion runner/encounter guy. I want to keep out of actually running the encounters to keep the running of the creatures and the design as seperate as possible, to try to get everything as impartial as possible.


I don't think it would be unreasonable for you to do that part too, most DMs do, but if no one else is eager I can run the "monster" side of the equation.

Talic
2008-01-10, 07:18 AM
I don't think it would be unreasonable for you to do that part too, most DMs do, but if no one else is eager I can run the "monster" side of the equation.

I understand, but as I have somewhat limited access to my books while doing this, it's also helpful to have someone who can reference exact information and resolve issues. I'm not trying to DM this so much as design and organize. If you'd like to, I'll start sending info to you for the basics of the combat and non-combat encounters.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-10, 07:22 AM
Speaking of which, cleric's pretty much done (http://www.coyotecode.net/profiler/view.php?id=2608), unless I'm missing something big. Casting-heavy archer, no cheese.

new1965
2008-01-10, 08:38 AM
The rules are thus.

1) Encounters will be varied, and challenges will be diverse. Come prepared for a wide assortment of challenges.

2) You may have a full spell preparation. You will not have foreknowledge of the challenges prior to doing this.

3) There will be a creature challenge, run by a volunteer.

4) There will be at least 1 AMF or dead magic zone. It will be of a scope that requires the PC accomplish a goal inside of it.

5) Leadership is not allowed, nor are the services of NPC's, beyond pre-game casting into items. No hiring an army.

Bear in mind, this is not a PvP scenario. This is a scenario to see which groups can overcome a series of typical challenges that one would possibly face. This is a test to see how well the groups can function against a typical set of encounters that one might face in D&D. This is to test the overall viability and self-sufficiency of different classes at high levels.

EDIT: There will be followup tests at lower levels. Trust me when I say that NPC classes will not be as viable as you think. Followups will be at level 15, 10, and 5.

For balance, you have to remove the variability of dice rolls as Tormskull stated (averaged die rolls?), run separate scenarios that were voted on to be equivalent with players that have no vested interest either way.

Otherwise the argument just goes on because someone rolled a 1 in one group and his counterpart rolled a 20, Player X is just a more clever player than Player Z or saw what happened to the other Player when they tried maneuver 1 so they went for maneuver 2, Player Y didn't help out when they could have just to make their point, etc...

In addition, at least one of the combat/trap scenarios would have to be tailored to the varying class' strengths based on the class description of what those strengths are. Hopefully thats what you have planned already

Otherwise in a balanced party, the NPC , Rogue and Monk could all be squeezed into doing things that aren't they forte and some point and may not have an opportunity show what they are best at.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 09:21 AM
Speaking of which, cleric's pretty much done (http://www.coyotecode.net/profiler/view.php?id=2608), unless I'm missing something big. Casting-heavy archer, no cheese.

Looks great, although you might want to add a component pouch and a holy symbol. :smallamused:

HP would be 93 + 60, yes? (Average, max 1st)
25 point buy (16,15,12,10,10,8)?

lord_khaine
2008-01-10, 10:10 AM
ok my monk is more or less done, im open for suggestions about the last feat, as well as the last bit of cash and the space in the ring of spell storing.

Torc human monk 20
Str 16 +4 stat gain +6 ench +4manual :30
Dex 15 +2 ench 1manual :18
Con 14 +2ench +2 manual :18
Wis 15 +1 stat gain +4 ench :20
Int 10
Cha 8

Saves Hp : 20*(4.5+4) = 173
fort : 12+5+4=21 Ac :10+8armor+4def+4dex+5wis+4monk= 35
ref : 12+5+3=21 grapple:15+10+4 = 29 (34 when large)
wil : 12+5+5=22

Feats(8) 7 Bonus feats(3)
exotic weapon proficiency, spiked chain stunning fist
improved initiative combat reflexes
simple weapon proficiency, gauntlet improved trip
improved natural attack
ability focus, stunning fist
blind fighting
improved critical unarmed

Skills (100)
climb 5
diplomacy 10
hide 20
move silent 20
spot 15
sense motive 15
tumble 15

Gear 760k 745 spend
+3 Ki focus Spiked Chain 32k
+3 cld iron Holy Gauntlet 52k, intelligent with 3 lesser and 1 greater power, 10 ranks in spellcraft, farie fire 3/d, detect magic at will, haste 3/d = +35k
Belt +6 str 36k
Ring of spellstoring major 200k
antimagic field 0.7k
4*ray of enfeblement cl 20, 0.8k
+4 ring of protection 32k
Boots of flying 12k
+5 Cloak of resistance 25k
+4 Periapt of wisdom 16k
+8 bracers of armor 64k
20 potions of enlarge 1 k
clothes
Robe of eyes, 120k
Manual +2 con 55k
Manula +4 str 110k
Ion stone, +2 dex 8k
Ion stone, +2 con 8k
5 silvershine 1.25k
+1 dex manual 27.5

Theli
2008-01-10, 10:13 AM
Looks great, although you might want to add a component pouch and a holy symbol. :smallamused:

Meh, you'd be surprised how far a cleric can go without a component pouch. The vast majority of their spells don't require components that cost under 1 gold. (It's mostly stuff like divination counters and incense I believe...)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 10:26 AM
Str 16 +4 stat gain +6 ench +4manual :30
Dex 14 +2 ench :16
Con 14 +2ench +2 manual :18
Wis 15 +1 stat gain +4 ench :20
Int 10
Cha 8

32 point buy


Hp : 20*(4.5+4) = 168


173 with max HP fir the first die.

lord_khaine
2008-01-10, 10:50 AM
oh yeah forgot the last 2 statpoints, and lost 2 hp somewhere.

Worira
2008-01-10, 10:54 AM
I'm willing to make and run a Barbarian for the full BAB class.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 11:04 AM
oh yeah forgot the last 2 statpoints

It was just because Rachel Lorelei is using 25 point buy.

Solo
2008-01-10, 01:39 PM
Here's the link for my character again

http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511

Now, I have a question: Will Limited Wish be of any use? I don't think I'll have the XP needed to use it.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-10, 02:22 PM
Looks great, although you might want to add a component pouch and a holy symbol. :smallamused:

HP would be 93 + 60, yes? (Average, max 1st)
25 point buy (16,15,12,10,10,8)?

Average HP. 28-point-buy--16, 16, 12, 10, 10, 8. 28-PB is, IIRC, the "standard" and translates to 4d6-drop-lowest, so I'll ask others to use it.

Forgot about mundane equipment like holy symbols. Now accounted for.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 02:32 PM
Average HP. 28-point-buy--16, 16, 12, 10, 10, 8.

You have +11 to WIS, so your stat were 1 short. (26 instead of 27)

You can save on the tome in that case.

And th HPs weren't 153 either.



Unless I am completely blind. :smallamused:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-10, 02:50 PM
You have +11 to WIS, so your stat were 1 short. (26 instead of 27)

You can save on the tome in that case.

And th HPs weren't 153 either.



Unless I am completely blind. :smallamused:

Er, 16 WIS, +5 levels, +5 tome, +6 item = 32. Works out for me.

My HP are correct; it's 72(.5) from Max 1st + Average, then +60 from CON.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 02:54 PM
Er, 16 WIS, +5 levels, +5 tome, +6 item = 32. Works out for me.

My bad.


My HP are correct; it's 72(.5) from Max 1st + Average, then +60 from CON.


But the cleric has a d8 as a HD, right. :smallamused:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-10, 02:59 PM
My bad.



But the cleric has a d8 as a HD, right. :smallamused:

....riiiiiight. Totally my bad. I *thought* the HP looked kinda low.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-10, 05:50 PM
Here's the link for my character again

http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511

Now, I have a question: Will Limited Wish be of any use? I don't think I'll have the XP needed to use it.

I don't know about lim wish, but you do realise you've only spend about 10% of your WBL, you could buy a ring of 3 wishes if you really wanted to.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-10, 07:25 PM
So...(feeling honoured about the thread name....:smallredface: )

I'd love to participate, but I am still not quite sure about the rules.

1. What is quite clear to me: 28pt buy, normal wbl, core rules (including wbl x5 for items that are one-use, as per DMG).
As far as I can discern, polymorph/diplomacy/npc casting goes, but not leadership and cohorts of all sorts (note that it would be then fair to extend this to no paladin mount, no familiars, no animal companions or any other creature accompanying the pcs all the time. Figurines of wondrous power would be OK, I guess. But you choose).

2, Lvl 20 build? You realise, Talic, that you were among those who criticised me for a monk build where in your view the wbl outshone the class?
Additionally, hardly anyone ever plays that level, lvls 3-11 likely are most common (possibly up to 15).
But lvl 20 is fine with me.

3. What exactly is going to happen? The monk will go in a group of three, with a sorcerer and a fighter as his comrades? In this will be compared in various challenges to what? And who runs these other characters?
While this group approach does have a merit, it creates a lot of problems imo for practical testing.

- Giacomo

PS: @my most loyal fans: I never maintained a monk will always beat the caster classes, only that he is rougly balanced (which would mean 50:50 chances, a big difference in my book).

Solo
2008-01-10, 08:22 PM
I don't know about lim wish, but you do realise you've only spend about 10% of your WBL, you could buy a ring of 3 wishes if you really wanted to.

Pimpin'


SG, Leadership is banned too, iirc.

And it does look like we'll be conducting several tests at lower levels.



And who runs these other characters?

I'll give you a hint. His name starts with an "S" and ends in an "olo"

Thinker
2008-01-10, 08:42 PM
Pimpin'


SG, Leadership is banned too, iirc.

And it does look like we'll be conducting several tests at lower levels.




I'll give you a hint. His name starts with an "S" and ends in an "olo"

Salvatore Firolo? That'd be my guess, but I've never heard of him.

Worira
2008-01-10, 10:50 PM
So, here (http://www.dndonlinegames.com/view.php?id=64419) is the start of my barbarian. I haven't used all my WBL yet, but I think it's alright so far.

Solo
2008-01-11, 01:34 AM
Salvatore Firolo? That'd be my guess, but I've never heard of him.

You sow the seeds of your stabbity doom.

Talic
2008-01-11, 01:50 AM
Thanks for the responses.

Here's what I have so far:

Monk's coming along nicely, and we actually have a surplus of volunteers. I'll start up a level 10 encounter list for additional volunteers.

For you Giacomo, WBL will have a role, but it won't be a defining one. I have my ways of seperating the class features from the cash features, and evaluating each. For example, I believe we're replacing the monk with a L20 commoner at one point, to see if there's a significant difference in time.

For the roll/randomness issue, D&D is inherently a game of randomness. Multiple challenges and more than one run of the test will mitigate randomness. But there's simply no way to remove randomness without creating more opportunities to abuse the system. The core rules aren't on trial here. Class balance/features are.

I'm not 100%, but I believe that guidelines for creating characters above level 1 show Levels 1 and 2 with mex HP, and levels 3+ at 75% max. If someone would like to verify this with a 3.5 DMG, I'd appreciate it.

Solo
2008-01-11, 01:58 AM
Well, for the randomness.... we could computer the average dice roll and take the standard deviation of it, so we'll know that, for example, an attack from Bob the fighter has a 75% chance of hitting an enemy of AC25 and will deal an average of 40 damage with each attack he makes, so on average he will do... 30 damage.

Or something like that.



Ok, now bear with me here.

As seen in my link about the forum roller, the mean of a d20 should be 10.5 and the standard deviation is roughly 6.5

We can find the mean and standard deviation of other die too when the time comes.

Anyways, we can use this information in the manner described above,

Ie. a fighter with +10 to hit would have an average attack of 20.5, with a standard deviation of 6.5

As this is a normal distribution, we know that 65% of all rolls will be within the range of +/- one standard deviation, (ie, in the area of 14 to 27). More detailed calculations can be effected through use of statistical analysis software, in the form of my graphing calculator. I shall endeavor to have my AP Statistics textbook with me while I carry out statistical analysis to make sure my methods are correct, though I prefer if someone well versed in statistics would do this job, as I am a bit rusty.

How's that?

Talic
2008-01-11, 02:51 AM
Well, for the randomness.... we could computer the average dice roll and take the standard deviation of it, so we'll know that, for example, an attack from Bob the fighter has a 75% chance of hitting an enemy of AC25 and will deal an average of 40 damage with each attack he makes, so on average he will do... 30 damage.

Or something like that.

Ok, now bear with me here.

As seen in my link about the forum roller, the mean of a d20 should be 10.5 and the standard deviation is roughly 6.5

We can find the mean and standard deviation of other die too when the time comes.

Anyways, we can use this information in the manner described above,

Ie. a fighter with +10 to hit would have an average attack of 20.5, with a standard deviation of 6.5

As this is a normal distribution, we know that 65% of all rolls will be within the range of +/- one standard deviation, (ie, in the area of 14 to 27). More detailed calculations can be effected through use of statistical analysis software, in the form of my graphing calculator. I shall endeavor to have my AP Statistics textbook with me while I carry out statistical analysis to make sure my methods are correct, though I prefer if someone well versed in statistics would do this job, as I am a bit rusty.

How's that?

Well, that's getting a bit technical for my tastes. It also fails to account for the damage provided by critical hits. Using this level of statistics will make heavy picks and light maces the same, functionally. As my expertise in statistics is more or less limited to odds calculations (hooray, casinos), I'm not comfortable adapting standard deviation to all such rolls, when damage is partially contigent upon to-hit rolls.

This does get me thinking, though. In my future power attack builds, I may use percentage weighted damage to optimize my average damage output (what's better? 75% to hit at 40 damage, 70% at 44 damage, or 65% at 48 damage? - hint: 65% and 60% have the same rate, on a "1 for 4" power attack, which is 31.2, for this damage level)

lord_khaine
2008-01-11, 04:26 AM
the monk is allready as good as gone Giacomo, just need a last feat and to spend the remaining 16k, if i cant find anything better they might get used ale and whores (immunity to poison and disease ftw! )

new1965
2008-01-11, 07:59 AM
For the roll/randomness issue, D&D is inherently a game of randomness. Multiple challenges and more than one run of the test will mitigate randomness. But there's simply no way to remove randomness without creating more opportunities to abuse the system. The core rules aren't on trial here. Class balance/features are.
.

How could averaged "die rolls" possibly be abused? I think when most people roll a d6 they expect a 3-4, are pleased with a 5-6 and aggravated with a 1-2.

Yes , It will eliminate the exceptional performances but it will also eliminate the freakishly bad luck. (everyone has had "cold streaks" where they couldn't roll much better than a 5 on a d20 all night).

You want to test the effectiveness of a class. Not the effectiveness of the class when they are lucky or unlucky

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 08:18 AM
How could averaged "die rolls" possibly be abused? I think when most people roll a d6 they expect a 3-4, are pleased with a 5-6 and aggravated with a 1-2.

Average die rolls is not much of a problem with respect to damage, but for many d20 rolls it presents a problem.

It removes the risk of PA, raises the question of critical hits and removes the chance to hit or miss some opponents.

Solo
2008-01-11, 02:08 PM
Well, that's getting a bit technical for my tastes. It also fails to account for the damage provided by critical hits. Using this level of statistics will make heavy picks and light maces the same, functionally. As my expertise in statistics is more or less limited to odds calculations (hooray, casinos), I'm not comfortable adapting standard deviation to all such rolls, when damage is partially contigent upon to-hit rolls.

Well, to account for critical, all we have to do is adjust the statistical model to account for critical hits.

ie, factor in the probability of critting against an enemy of certain AC, then calculating the average damage.




It removes the risk of PA, raises the question of critical hits and removes the chance to hit or miss some opponents.

Remember what I said about the normal distribution? We can use statistics to calculate the probability of what the dice roll will come out to be, then say how likely the character is to succeed or fail at a certain task.

I don't see how PA, critical hits, and etc cannot be accounted fore with the proper statistical model.

ie, to account for PA, we take Bob, with a +10 atack and give him a -5 to account for PA.

Therefore, he will roll a 15.5 on average with the D20, though he can roll anything from a +6 to a 25. Then we calculate the probability of him rolling each number (well integer) from 6 to 25, and we can determine exactly how likely he is to crit, hit the enemy, or whatever.

Then we say, Bob's probability to hit goes down by X, but his damage increases by Y.

We can take his probability to hit, and multiply it by his damage, and then take into account the amount of times he hits an opponent, to find the average damage he would to to an opponent.

Ie, if Bob deals, on average, 50 damage with PA, but only has a 50/50 percent chance to hit, and he hits an enemy three times, he will hit on average 1.5 of those times for 50 damage, dealing, on average, 75 damage to the enemy.



Has anyone here taken AP or college level statistics, by the way? I would appreciate help from someone else who knows statistics, as I am a little rusty.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 02:21 PM
My response was to averaged dice rolls, not to average damage / outcome.


I don't see how PA, critical hits, and etc cannot be accounted fore with the proper statistical model.

But of course, and it is not even that technical or really complicated it just requires more work if you want to include those factors.

That amount of work is often not worth the effort, but if someone wants to do the grunt work I certainly have no objections.

Solo
2008-01-11, 02:37 PM
That amount of work is often not worth the effort, but if someone wants to do the grunt work I certainly has no objections.

Pity college is starting soon, but if I had time, I would suggest... hmm....


Tree charts. Tree charts are a good way of visualizing outcomes.

Tree charts would, I imagine, model the outcome of dice rolls very well.

Ok, I think it should look like this:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2637/probabilitieszj3.th.png (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=probabilitieszj3.png)

Suggestions/objections?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 02:49 PM
Tree charts. Tree charts are a good way of visualizing outcomes.

Yes, I thing even Bob would get the general idea.


Suggestions/objections?

Making a little program to calculate average damage is probably easier if you have the programming skills.
But there are many factors to consider if you want to make it a complete program that can handle most situations.

Solo
2008-01-11, 03:23 PM
Making a little program to calculate average damage is probably easier if you have the programming skills.

?

You don't need a program to calculate the average damage.

1d6 average damage of 3.5
1d8 average damage of 4.5


average damage of a 1d8 weapon with +3 from strength at a 50% hit chance for one hit would be 3.75 damage.
etc, etc

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 03:36 PM
?

You don't need a program to calculate the average damage.

1d6 average damage of 3.5
1d8 average damage of 4.5

etc, etc

ROFL.

I meant so you could easily plug in to hit modifiers, opponent AC, with modifiers depending on condition and take other spells and effects into account etc. with just a few key strokes.

But thank you, it is always nice to know the average result of my d6 and d8. :smallamused:


P.s.
*Insert cheap pun directed at Rachel Lorelei*

Ghal Marak
2008-01-11, 04:26 PM
I hereby volunteer my services as a player. :smallsmile:

I'll play anything.

Solo
2008-01-11, 06:38 PM
I meant so you could easily plug in to hit modifiers, opponent AC, with modifiers depending on condition and take other spells and effects into account etc. with just a few key strokes.

I'm Asian. I don't need one.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 06:50 PM
I'm Asian. I don't need one.

Ehh ok, but you are aware that your d8 weapon example from before did not account for critical hits. :smalltongue:

Solo
2008-01-11, 09:22 PM
Ehh ok, but you are aware that your d8 weapon example from before did not account for critical hits. :smalltongue:

I am future psychic and I predict your stabbity death.

Thinker
2008-01-11, 10:00 PM
I am future psychic and I predict your stabbity death.

Remarkable. Salvatore Firolo predicted the same thing. Are you related?

Theli
2008-01-11, 11:25 PM
I hereby volunteer my services as a player. :smallsmile:

I'll play anything.

Alright, level 20 Commoner... Go!

NecroRebel
2008-01-11, 11:53 PM
I have a (perhaps) clever idea to deal with the luck issue. Have players decide the die roll they get whenever they would get one, and then record the probability of getting that roll or better. For instance, if a character attacks a monster, the player can actually decide what the roll of the d20 was rather than actually rolling it. Let's say they think they need a 15 or better. So, they "roll" a 15, and a 3/10 probability is recorded. If they are taking damage, they can actually choose how much damage they take, and again the probability of that result or better (in this case lower) would be recorded.

At the end of a group's run through the challenge, the score-keeper will multiply all of the recorded probabilities for that run together to get the absolute probability of that run occuring. This number will be a fraction. Then, we include this number in the team's score, which will be equal to the number of rounds taken to complete the challenge divided by the probability of success (remember, probability = fraction = less than 1 = lower probability means larger score) divided by the number of surviving characters. Lowest score wins.

This approach should control for luck, since there's none involved. It does heavily encourage metagaming, which is why I also suggest that the challenges be publicly posted after the characters are all submitted but prior to the runs themselves so everyone has an equal opportunity to determine the optimal path and number rolls. However, it does allow people to absolutely control everything, so it really is the characters and not luck involved at all, so no one should be able to complain that they got screwed by rolls.

Still, the most unlikely group to get through will lose with this approach. If your character needs a confirmed critical hit with max damage on every single attack in a full attack, you're gonna be killing your score even if you will technically be getting that :smalltongue:

Solo
2008-01-12, 03:00 AM
Bad idea,

Let's say you succeed on a roll of 18, 19, or 20, and you choose 20. That's a 1/20 probability for success.


However, you would also succeed on a roll of 18, or 19, so the total probability for success is actually 3/20.

Your way of doing it produces too narrow results.


Unless, of course, I am mistaking what you've said?

Ghal Marak
2008-01-12, 03:43 AM
Alright, level 20 Commoner... Go!

Sure. I'm up for it. I'll probably end up being gutted on my own sword, but I'll do it. :smallbiggrin:

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 06:35 AM
the monk is allready as good as gone Giacomo, just need a last feat and to spend the remaining 16k, if i cant find anything better they might get used ale and whores (immunity to poison and disease ftw! )

Love the immunity to poison and disease part!:smallcool:

Hmmm, looks like a very solid build, lord_khaine. The grapple and "AMF from spell storing" tactics maybe somewhat vulnerable, though.
1) There are many around here who believe the caster with your monk has better things to do with his 6th level slots than filling this ring regularly. Both solo and Rachel Lorelei do not have it on their list (of course, since it is hardly ever useful to a caster, except when fighting a higher level caster).
2) The greater ring of spell storing is too expensive for the typical wbl at lvl 20 with the DMG limit that only 1/4 of the wealth should go to an individual item when creating a higher level character.
The only way around that is to either be a caster who produces the item himself (for less gp) OR to have a cohort who does it for you (banned in this competition) OR to diplomacy an npc caster/creator to a helpful status, possibly resulting also in a lower gp price for the item.
But Talic and the others may rule it in this contest that an individual item may cost up to 1/3 of the wealth, then it's OK.

Some more comments
What will you be doing about large creatures (for instance, dragons?).
How about putting the remaining 16k and some into a +6 periapt of WIS?

And, are intelligent items allowed at all? That is somewhat...cheesy :smallsmile:

Will work on another monk 20 build (the one I once used vs the white dragon is not so good in that respect and had different rules to follow).

- Giacomo

PS@Rachel Lorelei: Have I read correctly that your cleric lvl 20 archer has an intelligence of 8 (!)? How exactly is that going to show that he can get by at lvl 20 challenges without the help of his comrades?:smallfrown: And if he is an archer, how will he spot/listen his opponents when they hide? Greenknight did an incredible archer cleric 20 once, you may wish to check that build (note that a major problem with the build was that it used PAO to turn into an outsider, which is not possible. But a centaur or some good archery form is also OK).
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2155416&postcount=182

lord_khaine
2008-01-12, 11:05 AM
Hmmm, looks like a very solid build, lord_khaine. The grapple and "AMF from spell storing" tactics maybe somewhat vulnerable, though

grapple/AMF is proberly the best way to deal with full casters, but it was also reserved for an emergency, so its not something thats suposed to be used in every encounter (only those hard ones against a full caster )

as for filling the ring up, since this is also a test of teamwork, then i assume it can be done at the end of the day, when there are unused spellslots that had been left empty.


2) The greater ring of spell storing is too expensive for the typical wbl at lvl 20 with the DMG limit that only 1/4 of the wealth should go to an individual item when creating a higher level character.

thats more a rule for creating npc chars, and more a guideline than a rule.


Some more comments
What will you be doing about large creatures (for instance, dragons?).
How about putting the remaining 16k and some into a +6 periapt of WIS?
depending on the creature in question i will either hit it until it stops moving, grapple it until it stops moving, or trip it until it stops moving, if that doesnt work im going to run like a little girl.
no seriously, as long as the opponent is just large it wont be a problem, thats why i have a large supple of enlarge potions.
as for the +6 wis periapt, i cant find anything to remove that would be compensated by +2 wis.


And, are intelligent items allowed at all? That is somewhat...cheesy

i have newer seen anything cheesy in intelligent items, and its not like they doesnt carry a very high price.
the main reason i use one here is that i couldnt find another way of getting both haste, flying and a +5 resistance bonus to my saves.

edit.
oh btw, and the cleric doesnt have to be able to handle lv 20 encounters alone, he is part of a team, that btw also has spotting covered by my monk, who is build to be a pretty good scout imo :smallsmile:

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 01:40 PM
oh btw, and the cleric doesnt have to be able to handle lv 20 encounters alone, he is part of a team, that btw also has spotting covered by my monk, who is build to be a pretty good scout imo :smallsmile:

Ah, I see- so the solo sorcerer and the lorelei cleric archers are those who will accompany the monk on his missions?

Hmmm. So monk is being compared in doing both the melee and fighting job compared to a rogue, barbarian and fighter? Why should there be any doubt about that? Your monk will do that nicely.

- Giacomo

NecroRebel
2008-01-12, 01:59 PM
Bad idea,

Let's say you succeed on a roll of 18, 19, or 20, and you choose 20. That's a 1/20 probability for success.


However, you would also succeed on a roll of 18, or 19, so the total probability for success is actually 3/20.

Your way of doing it produces too narrow results.


Unless, of course, I am mistaking what you've said?

I think you may be misunderstanding a bit. While, yes, a player could choose to roll a 20 in that situation, it would hurt their score overall. If they could succeed on an 18 or better, they would have a 3/20 chance of getting through. If that was their only roll that round, that round would be worth 20/3 points, or about 7 (1 round divided by 3/20). If they instead chose to roll a 20, their score would ultimately increase by 20/1, or 20. Since higher scores are bad in this case, choosing the 18 would be obviously superior.

Um. Maybe I'm not being entirely clear, since now I'm kinda confusing myself.
First, all players will submit their builds, which would then be final.
Second, the DM will decide what challenges will be in the run.
Third, the DM will post all numbers (DCs for traps, full monster stat blocks, what treasure will be available) somewhere everyone could see them.
Fourth, people will do the run.

Now, at this point, the players will have the foreknowledge of what numbers need to be rolled to defeat every challenge. Since choosing the exact number they need to win and no higher gives the best probability of success (18 in your scenario giving 3/20 chance), it also translates to the best score, which means that people who want to win will probably choose that number instead of the lower-scoring natural 20.

In the end, the DM or other referees will determine the group's score in the way described in my previous post.

While yes, this method does give theoretically narrow results, it also has the power to tell us not only who gets through fastest, but who has the best chance of getting through, and includes both of those matters into the final scoring system. The main idea is to take luck out of the test and make it entirely a matter of the players' skills and the strength of their builds, which is why we replace the rolls of dice with the skillful player's choice.



Now, I might still not be being clear. I know what I'm talking about, but I don't always get my ideas across very well, so if anyone needs more description I'll try again.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 04:11 PM
double post. Darn!

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 04:20 PM
grapple/AMF is proberly the best way to deal with full casters, but it was also reserved for an emergency, so its not something thats suposed to be used in every encounter (only those hard ones against a full caster )

as for filling the ring up, since this is also a test of teamwork, then i assume it can be done at the end of the day, when there are unused spellslots that had been left empty.

Good luck for that!:smallsmile:


thats more a rule for creating npc chars, and more a guideline than a rule.

Hmmm yes, DMG p. 199 only give suggestions, true. So it's up for Talic and the others to decide.

[QUOTE=lord_khaine;3780949]depending on the creature in question i will either hit it until it stops moving, grapple it until it stops moving, or trip it until it stops moving, if that doesnt work im going to run like a little girl.
no seriously, as long as the opponent is just large it wont be a problem, thats why i have a large supple of enlarge potions.

Aside AMF, you may wish to consider a divine power instead of the four rays. You won't need the +6 STR enhancement anymore, but it gives you +5 BAB (great for grapple), so 1 more attack, and temporary hit points.


as for the +6 wis periapt, i cant find anything to remove that would be compensated by +2 wis.

Hmmm. What about dropping the expensive bracers of armour and getting a ring of blinking instead? It also gives you +2 to hit, ability to hit etheral creatures (although you also have 20% miss chance, but not really that important I daresay). Plus, it can get you through walls of force (ducking under them) and all kinds of other impediments (say, a big creature outgrapples you). The kicker: you can go etheral as a monk and with the ring still attack material creatures, just in the same way as the other way round on the material plane.
The rest of the saved cash you invest in a +6 periapt and some more potions, plus possibly another ring of spell storing for cheaper buffs like mage armour and shield (yielding you the same AC for a short time like the bracers +8 AC). Plus, you could also squeeze in a rod of metamagic-extend for your ring of spell storing buffs.


i have newer seen anything cheesy in intelligent items, and its not like they doesnt carry a very high price.
the main reason i use one here is that i couldnt find another way of getting both haste, flying and a +5 resistance bonus to my saves.

Hmmm. Good point. Just flicked through the DMG pages and noticed something absolutely golden. Just get a special purpose item (say with the purpose: slay arcane casters!) with the dimension door ability. The item dim doors the monk close to the caster within his prismatic sphere/force cube what have you, and then the monk can still full attack or use AMF for a lock. Yummy.

- Giacomo

EDIT: as for remaing feat, try flyby attack - spring attack without the other feat requirements, and good to go without AoO thanks to the monk's tumble ability

lord_khaine
2008-01-12, 05:48 PM
Aside AMF, you may wish to consider a divine power instead of the four rays. You won't need the +6 STR enhancement anymore, but it gives you +5 BAB (great for grapple), so 1 more attack, and temporary hit points
i did considder the divine power, but one of the points i try to make is that full bab isnt nececary, and in that case i felt it would be out of place.


Hmmm. What about dropping the expensive bracers of armour and getting a ring of blinking instead? It also gives you +2 to hit, ability to hit etheral creatures (although you also have 20% miss chance, but not really that important I daresay). Plus, it can get you through walls of force (ducking under them) and all kinds of other impediments (say, a big creature outgrapples you). The kicker: you can go etheral as a monk and with the ring still attack material creatures, just in the same way as the other way round on the material plane.
The rest of the saved cash you invest in a +6 periapt and some more potions, plus possibly another ring of spell storing for cheaper buffs like mage armour and shield (yielding you the same AC for a short time like the bracers +8 AC). Plus, you could also squeeze in a rod of metamagic-extend for your ring of spell storing buffs.


hmm that could be a option, but i really like those bracers, among other things because i allready have quite a few things that need activation, like both flying and enlarge, having to spend 1-2 actions to get those +8 ac would take to long i fear.


Hmmm. Good point. Just flicked through the DMG pages and noticed something absolutely golden. Just get a special purpose item (say with the purpose: slay arcane casters!) with the dimension door ability. The item dim doors the monk close to the caster within his prismatic sphere/force cube what have you, and then the monk can still full attack or use AMF for a lock. Yummy.
oh yeah this does open up a interesting possibility, with dimension door, followed by the activation of antimagic field, and a spiked chain to keep people close, still its expensive and my monk is allready working together with one arcane caster.


EDIT: as for remaing feat, try flyby attack - spring attack without the other feat requirements, and good to go without AoO thanks to the monk's tumble ability
now this is a interesting idea, it would be a great help against those few things i wouldnt like the monk to get to close to, if nothing else comes up then Flyby attack it is.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 06:02 PM
triple post even.:smallfrown:

Solo
2008-01-14, 03:50 PM
Soooo.......?

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-14, 05:56 PM
Well, Solo, lord_khaine appears to be ready to run. Wouldn't want to spoil his fun :smallbiggrin:

@lord_khaine - praise for your non-UMD monk! Very courageous indeed.
However, I noticed that the ray of enfeeblements you have in the ring should be 1st (or 2nd if sorcerer) caster level only, since the ring of spell storing only will cast spells with the minimum required level. So, good vs huge enemies without spell resistance, bad vs biggies with SR (like dragons).
Try the fairly cheap +1 spell storing enchantment on your gauntlet, though, if you can squeeze it in, because the spell caster level in there is not capped (you can then get at least one ray of enfeeblement through - maybe even metamagicked by an npc caster with empower for 1d6*1.5+5 STR loss without save).
Ah, and the enlarge potions should be x5 price, while you will not need to pay extra for the spells inside the spell storing ring (that is part of the headline cost). Only pay for refilling...(which may have been ruled to be the case in case your low INT-caster friends do not have the spells available :smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-14, 06:02 PM
Try the fairly cheap +1 spell storing enchantment on your gauntlet, though, if you can squeeze it in, because the spell caster level in there is not capped (you can then get at least one ray of enfeeblement through - maybe even metamagicked by an npc caster with empower for 1d6*1.5+5 STR loss without save).

A RoE cannot be delivered through Spell Storing.

Solo
2008-01-14, 06:09 PM
Well, Solo, lord_khaine appears to be ready to run. Wouldn't want to spoil his fun :smallbiggrin:


Ryming is a sign that you are not wise,
For it seals the fate of your stabbity demise.

Frosty
2008-01-14, 06:39 PM
It's spelled "rhyming" by the way :smallwink:

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-14, 06:39 PM
A RoE cannot be delivered through Spell Storing.

Really? Ah, so "targeted" spell means non-touch spell in that respect. OK, was not sure about that (...although wait...it must be something else since the rules give cause XX wounds as an example, which is a touch spell - so is it the ray thing?).

@Solo: full of fear I am to think that a monk of mine could end up with a sorcerer of yours in one team...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-14, 06:43 PM
Really? Ah, so "targeted" spell means non-touch spell in that respect. OK, was not sure about that (...although wait...it must be something else since the rules give cause XX wounds as an example, which is a touch spell - so is it the ray thing?).


Yes, it is the Ray thing. Rays are not targeted.


Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

lord_khaine
2008-01-14, 06:58 PM
ahh bugger, if the ray's from the ring cant penetrate spell resistance they wont be of much use, well in that case i think 2 shields and a silence will be a better use of the space.

Roderick_BR
2008-01-14, 08:26 PM
Sure. I'm up for it. I'll probably end up being gutted on my own sword, but I'll do it. :smallbiggrin:
Or killing the party's monk by accident :smalltongue: (barring DR 10/magic, of course).

Talic
2008-01-15, 01:00 AM
I see much has been going on in my short time away from the PC. To reiterate, I have several distinct challenge situations for the characters.

This is meant to be challenging. Each of the four combat encounters is either of a CR equal to 20 or 21, or is set up in such a way so that a lower CR is made signifigantly more dangerous. The non-combat encounters are designed to test party flexibility, skill selection, and the like.

I still need a volunteer for running the critters. Do I have one yet? I would think that there's more support for the antagonist. Just to let you know, there is character design for the critter runner, though it is Monster Manual races. I'd much rather have someone else running the fun stuff, if possible.

EDIT: In response to previous posts, WBL is as recommended by DMG, at 25% max per item.

Solo
2008-01-15, 01:28 AM
Yay, we're almost started!

Talic
2008-01-15, 01:37 AM
As for the "choose your roll" by Killing Blow, bear in mind, NPC rolls matter too. Further, with the amount of rolls needed for a standard series of combats (assume 5 rounds of actions each), the overall number you get would be exceedingly low even if you chose a 6 every time.

To show this, the odds of rolling a 6 or higher are 75%.
The odds of getting this over 20 rolls is:

0.75^20, or 0.003171, or 0.32%, which is roughly 1 in 315.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-15, 03:09 AM
I still need a volunteer for running the critters. Do I have one yet? I would think that there's more support for the antagonist. Just to let you know, there is character design for the critter runner, though it is Monster Manual races. I'd much rather have someone else running the fun stuff, if possible.


We have three different parties here. Does this mean we have to run the encounters simultaneously?

Talic
2008-01-15, 03:18 AM
We have three different parties here. Does this mean we have to run the encounters simultaneously?

Ideally, yes. However, if needed, I can create 2 other similar encounter sets. I would prefer to have all 3 run through independently, at the same time. The same guy can run all three sets of critters though.

I want that volunteer, cause I'm looking forward to sharing the specifics of the challenge.

Solo
2008-01-15, 03:24 AM
I though we'd do them consecutively.

Talic
2008-01-15, 03:35 AM
I though we'd do them consecutively.

Well, I will say that there are surprises hidden in the encounters which may affect how future groups run them, most especially from the rogue standpoint. They're not mandatory, but it is likely that at least one group, maybe more, will encounter these surprises.

A skilled, impartial support group that agrees to play backup only, will work, provided the monk/BAB character/L20 Commoner are played by different people.

lord_khaine
2008-01-15, 05:28 AM
EDIT: In response to previous posts, WBL is as recommended by DMG, at 25% max per item.


thats really troublesome, as it makes it impossibel to get a ring of major spellstoring, or any of the other items that costs 200k, it also means i will have to work allmost all the wealth over again :smallfurious:

Talic
2008-01-15, 06:00 AM
thats really troublesome, as it makes it impossibel to get a ring of major spellstoring, or any of the other items that costs 200k, it also means i will have to work allmost all the wealth over again :smallfurious:

Would 33% work?

Kompera
2008-01-15, 06:21 AM
I have an alternative suggestion to the "luck issue". The GM (or Talic, perhaps) generates a list of die rolls via whatever method seems reasonable. Actually rolling the dice and recording the results or having a program generate random rolls would be the two best methods.

Each action by a group member which requires a roll draws the top roll(s) from the appropriate list. The DM keeps the list hidden from the characters to prevent foreknowledge of the numbers from possibly influencing actions. The same list will be used for all of the groups in this challenge.

This still can't make things exactly even, as different rolls might carry more weight, but it comes very close. This will hopefully prevent any arguments after the challenge that Team A was more lucky than Team B, or whatever.

Talic
2008-01-15, 06:53 AM
I have an alternative suggestion to the "luck issue". The GM (or Talic, perhaps) generates a list of die rolls via whatever method seems reasonable. Actually rolling the dice and recording the results or having a program generate random rolls would be the two best methods.

Each action by a group member which requires a roll draws the top roll(s) from the appropriate list. The DM keeps the list hidden from the characters to prevent foreknowledge of the numbers from possibly influencing actions. The same list will be used for all of the groups in this challenge.

This still can't make things exactly even, as different rolls might carry more weight, but it comes very close. This will hopefully prevent any arguments after the challenge that Team A was more lucky than Team B, or whatever.

Perhaps, but the 2nd and 3rd group would be able to use knowledge of the first group's rolls, if they were particularly attentive.

I'm leaning towards random D20 rolls, and average damage for any damage roll (2D6 = 7, 2D8=9, etc). Any odd dice would be rounded up. (for example, a barbarian crits with a greataxe. He rolls 3D12 + his (strength x 1.5) x 3. Assuming a Strength of 26, or +8, that's a 3D12 + 36, and the 3D12 would be 13 + 1D12 +36. 1D12 averages at 6.5, that's rounded to 7, for a total damage of 56.

Bear in mind, that example assumed a non-magical weapon and No Power attack.

Talic
2008-01-17, 02:54 AM
Bumpity bump bump bump bumpity bump bump.

Solo
2008-01-17, 06:05 PM
I'm ready.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-17, 11:07 PM
Since all I've managed to put together is the cleric, I'll run that.

Talic
2008-01-18, 12:46 AM
Still waiting on a volunteer for the hostiles.

I'd think this would be the part that people would actually want most. Odd.

Solo
2008-01-18, 08:04 AM
You could do it if no one else would.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-21, 03:50 PM
I'm willing to run the hostiles if I can get something interesting to play with.

Solo
2008-01-21, 03:53 PM
Hallelujah!

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Hallelujah!

Hallelujah!

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-21, 03:53 PM
I'm willing to run the hostiles if I can get something interesting to play with.

All I have to say to this is: Yeeee

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 04:00 PM
oopsie- maybe a bit late. Solo just notified me I overlooked what you still needed. I can also volunteer to run opponent creatures, if need be.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-21, 04:03 PM
oopsie- maybe a bit late. Solo just notified me I overlooked what you still needed. I can also volunteer to run opponent creatures, if need be.

- Giacomo

If you had just paid more attention to my signature, this would not have happened.

I think the lesson to be learned here is clear.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 04:31 PM
ah yes, the lesson IS learned - never let your sig showing get switched off (somehow it did. Sorry about that).

- Giacomo

Worira
2008-01-21, 06:44 PM
My barbarian is ready, other than adamantine/silver/cold iron weapons.

EDIT: I also still have quite a bit of money I don't know what to do with, but oh well.

lord_khaine
2008-01-21, 06:57 PM
the monk will need to replace the 200k ring of major spellstoring if we are actualy going to use that annoying guideline about max 25% WBL on 1 item.
that would result in a major ring being replaced by a minor, and about 150k being free to spend again.

besides that i would like to express my annoyance at wizards, who recently changet the part of the faq that allowed a monk to flurry while using a gauntlet:smallfurious:

Solo
2008-01-22, 12:56 AM
Gentlemen, when do we start?


Also, my character is noticeably under WBL, but I don't think that should be too much of a problem.... hopefully.

Talic
2008-01-22, 01:57 AM
Information is sent to the first volunteer above. Awaiting a reponse on the yea or nay.

33% Max WBL per item is authorized for the Monk, and any class that he's being compared to.



Also, my character is noticeably under WBL, but I don't think that should be too much of a problem.... hopefully.

Sure ya don't wanna load up on scrolls, potions, and ioun stones? :smallbiggrin:

Solo
2008-01-22, 02:02 AM
Information is sent to the first volunteer above. Awaiting a reponse on the yea or nay.

33% Max WBL per item is authorized for the Monk, and any class that he's being compared to.



Sure ya don't wanna load up on scrolls, potions, and ioun stones? :smallbiggrin:

I will enjoy delivering magical and stabbity death whilst only being moderately pimped out.

Talic
2008-01-22, 02:28 AM
I will enjoy delivering magical and stabbity death whilst only being moderately pimped out.

Just bear in mind, some CR's are below the party, some CR's are above the party (slightly). I've tried to design them all to be somewhat devious if they're lower, and interesting if they're above. I like your approach, though. Reliance primarily on class features.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-22, 04:49 AM
I like your approach, though. Reliance primarily on class features.

I disagree, for the purpose of this challenge it would be better imho to just but full WBL and not to use it then to not have it at all.
Why? because if you simply never use your items, you can still say that you didn't really need them anyway, however if you do need them but you don't have them and lose, nobody will be convinced and simply shout: "it was unfair, he didn't even use half of his WBL! This proves nothing".

Talic
2008-01-22, 05:06 AM
I disagree, for the purpose of this challenge it would be better imho to just but full WBL and not to use it then to not have it at all.
Why? because if you simply never use your items, you can still say that you didn't really need them anyway, however if you do need them but you don't have them and lose, nobody will be convinced and simply shout: "it was unfair, he didn't even use half of his WBL! This proves nothing".

Not at all. That would be true if the monk were shorted. However, if the support cast is shorted, the support cast which will be identical for all three groups, then it should impact all three runs equally, and we'll still have an objective set of data from which to begin a discussion.

The actual question is whether or not the monk constructively contributes to the attempt... Whether or not it succeeds isn't as important as how well each of the three test classes fares.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-22, 05:38 AM
Not at all. That would be true if the monk were shorted. However, if the support cast is shorted, the support cast which will be identical for all three groups, then it should impact all three runs equally, and we'll still have an objective set of data from which to begin a discussion.

The actual question is whether or not the monk constructively contributes to the attempt... Whether or not it succeeds isn't as important as how well each of the three test classes fares.

Well in that case, I agree, I thought the sorcerer he made was made to compare to the monk.

Solo
2008-01-22, 09:54 AM
I disagree, for the purpose of this challenge it would be better imho to just but full WBL and not to use it then to not have it at all.
Why? because if you simply never use your items, you can still say that you didn't really need them anyway, however if you do need them but you don't have them and lose, nobody will be convinced and simply shout: "it was unfair, he didn't even use half of his WBL! This proves nothing".

The answer is clear in it's simplicity.

I shall have to not lose.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-22, 10:57 AM
The answer is clear in it's simplicity.

I shall have to not lose.

I figured you'd say something like that:smallbiggrin:. Well good luck to you then.

Ganurath
2008-01-22, 12:18 PM
Is the Full BAB slot open? I've been looking for an opportunity to refine the Masked Avenger build I developed. I know it isn't FULL BAB because of the Avenging Executioner, but +18 is close enough, right? (Hexblade 5/Avenging Executioner 5/Ghost-Faced Killer 10, for those who're curious.)

lord_khaine
2008-01-22, 12:23 PM
i think you missed the core-only, no multiclassing part...

Ganurath
2008-01-22, 12:27 PM
It seems I did. Sorry to bother, then.

Solo
2008-01-22, 12:35 PM
We could have you in a special guest star version of the Balance Test, if you prefer. :smalltongue:

Ganurath
2008-01-22, 12:38 PM
We could have you in a special guest star version of the Balance Test, if you prefer. :smalltongue:Also featuring a spellstitched necromancer lich and an Elan Monk loaded with psionic unarmed combat feats?

Solo
2008-01-22, 12:39 PM
Awesome, but I fear it would not fly. Fox would cancel it faster than you can say "Firefly".

Ganurath
2008-01-22, 12:43 PM
Awesome, but I fear it would not fly. Fox would cancle it faster than you can say "Firefly".So, those involved would go off and do their own thing, denying Fox the benefits while satisfying the high demand?

Solo
2008-01-22, 05:32 PM
Shall we start soon?

Talic
2008-01-23, 12:22 AM
Shall we start soon?

Good news, ZeroNumerous has reviewed the list of challenges, and has received answers to all questions. As soon as he advances a couple of the critters to his taste (core only, of course), we'll be ready to begin.

Solo
2008-01-23, 02:22 PM
*drumroll*

Talic
2008-01-24, 12:38 AM
Creating a Thread in the Play-by-Post section. ZeroNumerous is down for the critters, and looks like we'll be starting soon. I'll post the intro for the first post in the thread, and the group can start their initial actions. Zero will handle any creature-related actions. DM rulings should be minimal, as we all have the reference books handy. We'll run it by the book, and see what we can see.

Solo
2008-01-24, 01:14 AM
Tell me when it's up :smallamused:

Talic
2008-01-24, 01:17 AM
Here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3830069#post3830069)...

Let's get started, ladies and gentlemen.

Solo
2008-01-24, 01:22 AM
I will hit it like Bill Clinton at an intern convention.

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-24, 05:42 AM
Here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3830069#post3830069)...

Let's get started, ladies and gentlemen.

Nice. Just wanted to say I'm an interested spectator and will follow this thing.

Talic
2008-01-24, 06:53 AM
Nice. Just wanted to say I'm an interested spectator and will follow this thing.

Glad to see, feel free to post here with any commentary on the action, as well as opinions as to the challenges.

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-24, 07:05 AM
Glad to see, feel free to post here with any commentary on the action, as well as opinions as to the challenges.

Alright, I will.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-24, 07:25 AM
I'm waitin' on the PCs to get within range of a monster before I post anything.

Talic
2008-01-24, 07:53 AM
I'm waitin' on the PCs to get within range of a monster before I post anything.

Awesome. Looking forward to the first bits of smashy goodness. I'll do all the area descriptions, with introductions. In the event that players do not have an immediately visible critter, you can do the honors of the introduction via squish.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-24, 09:42 AM
I have a question concerning "thetangledweb" actually, how come I can see solo's character, but i don't have auterazation to see Lord_Khaines character?

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-24, 09:44 AM
Lord Khaine's character isn't public for some reason.

Solo
2008-01-24, 09:46 AM
Out of curiosity, who is the fighter?

Worira
2008-01-24, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure if there is a fighter, but I'm a Barbarian.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-24, 10:22 AM
Party:

Solo - Sorcerer
Lord Khaine - Monk
Worira - Barbarian
Rachel - Cleric

Solo
2008-01-24, 10:35 AM
Ok.

It's basically me and lord_khaine that have posted so far, though.

lord_khaine
2008-01-24, 12:44 PM
ok Torc is made puplic now, but as i understod, wasnt there supposed to be 2 seperate partys, one with the monk, and one with the full bab class?

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-24, 12:52 PM
ok Torc is made puplic now, but as i understod, wasnt there supposed to be 2 seperate partys, one with the monk, and one with the full bab class?

Thank you for making it public, I was really curious how it would turn out.

I think the separate party idea has been dropped for now, we're just going to look who contributes the most in the long run.

Edit:
I'd also like to know if your willing to share how you got your ability scores.
Do you know that you have no equipment?
Edit2:and then I mean no equipment noted on your character sheet.

Solo
2008-01-24, 01:30 PM
I, for one, did not know we were going to be stripped of equipment and divinations.


Glad I didn't spend too much time shopping for gear.:smallamused:

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-24, 02:02 PM
I, for one, did not know we were going to be stripped of equipment and divinations.


Glad I didn't spend too much time shopping for gear.:smallamused:

and to bad you didn't pick up a Tome of Leadership and Influence +X inherent bonus, because that would have stuck around.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-24, 02:05 PM
Anyone wishing for the Vow of Poverty right about now?:smallwink:

Solo
2008-01-24, 03:29 PM
and to bad you didn't pick up a Tome of Leadership and Influence +X inherent bonus, because that would have stuck around.

The +5 to Charisma would have been great.

Of course, I could probably do just fine without it, being Batman and all.:smalltongue:

As you might have noticed, I am extremely confident in my build.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-24, 03:50 PM
The +5 to Charisma would have been great.

Of course, I could probably do just fine without it, being Batman and all.:smalltongue:

As you might have noticed, I am extremely confident in my build.

I pretty much assumed you'd be before you even started building it:smallsmile:.

And I guess an extra level 9 spell is less important to a sorcerer then to, let say, a wizard. I have full confidence in you delivering stabbity death:smallamused:.

lord_khaine
2008-01-24, 05:36 PM
I'd also like to know if your willing to share how you got your ability scores.
Do you know that you have no equipment?

the original sheet is postet on page 2 or 3, it has a breakdown of my ability scores.


Edit2:and then I mean no equipment noted on your character sheet.
yes, as you might have noticed in the challenge a dirty bastard have robbet us of our gear.


Glad I didn't spend too much time shopping for gear.

i on the other hand spend about a hour or 2 trying to get the optimal gear setup...

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-24, 07:02 PM
Wait, wait.

Why are we stripped of our gear, again? Isn't this supposed to be an example of high level play?

(Also, where's the rogue? I, too, thought there would be two teams--one with a melee character and one with a monk.)

Solo
2008-01-24, 10:29 PM
We'll gradually reclaim the gear.

Talic
2008-01-25, 12:13 AM
Wait, wait.

Why are we stripped of our gear, again? Isn't this supposed to be an example of high level play?

(Also, where's the rogue? I, too, thought there would be two teams--one with a melee character and one with a monk.)

Specifically, the fluff for why you lost your gear is a keyed portal. It's a concept that's been toyed with in various sourcebooks (including, I think, in the DMG), and sends things to different locations based on certain criteria. Some only function if you have an item in your possession, some send some things one place and other things another.

This portal, in specific, sends living matter to one location, and non-living to another.

The challenge has been designed thus to show us how the characters fare both without equipment and with. Basically, the idea is to contrast within the challenge, how heavy the gear reliance is, with a clear before and after.

Don't worry, the highest CR you'll run into before seeing the first chest is well under 20.

Also, I was under the impression that the first run would replace a full BAB with a rogue.

However, I love the thoughts, discussions, and actions thus far. Pure awesome.

Worira
2008-01-25, 12:25 AM
So, my barbarian appears to be capable of tunneling through solid rock at about 1500 feet per hour, without magical gear or raging. This amuses me.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-25, 12:26 AM
The challenge has been designed thus to show us how the characters fare both without equipment and with. Basically, the idea is to contrast within the challenge, how heavy the gear reliance is, with a clear before and after.
I don't really think "gear reliant" is a problem at 20th, considering that characters will, more or less, *always* have their gear... but okay.


Also, I was under the impression that the first run would replace a full BAB with a rogue.
Given that the monk gets compared to melee classes (closer to that than to anything else), I think Arcane/Divine/Rogue/Melee vs. Arcane/Divine/Rogue/Monk is a better comparison... ah, well. Someone could make a rogue for after this challenge.

Solo
2008-01-25, 12:28 AM
Say, is Cleric McCleric a male or female?

Or is the answer "I'm an elf!"

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-25, 12:48 AM
Say, is Cleric McCleric a male or female?

Or is the answer "I'm an elf!"

Generic McCleric's gender is uncertain, because the player never bothered to fill that part of the sheet in.

Worira
2008-01-25, 12:52 AM
So, who wants to tunnel around everywhere?

EDIT: so, since Lorelei's given me some excellent suggestions for item selection, does anyone mind if I modify my inventory? I don't think it'll be especially unbalancing, since I'm not gaining the benefits immediately, and we haven't encountered anything yet.

Talic
2008-01-25, 12:59 AM
So, who wants to tunnel around everywhere?

*GROAN*
I honestly don't see a very significant mechanical advantage to burrowing for the majority of this...

Incidentally, what kind of tools do you have to withstand that amount of sheer force? I'm hoping the answer begins with "adam" and ends with "antine".

And no, Solo, it's not Adam's Quarantine.

Worira
2008-01-25, 01:06 AM
An adamantine greataxe, yes.

Voyager_I
2008-01-25, 02:28 AM
Handles break. That's why you keep stupid people away from sledgehammers...

Talic
2008-01-25, 02:30 AM
Rachel, one of the main arguements is that the monk derives much of his power from his WBL. By offering both options in this, we have the ability to compare that as well.

I really did try to design this to be a comprehensive test. You'll start getting goodies back quite soon, actually.

Talic
2008-01-25, 03:25 AM
Generic McCleric's gender is uncertain, because the player never bothered to fill that part of the sheet in.

Generic McCleric is officially ruled to be a male, by the following text, taken from the most primary source I can locate.



Gen, the wood elf, retrieves the mundane versions of his equipment, scowling at the shoddy version of his finely crafted holy symbols.

Bolded for emphasis, and taken directly from challenge thread. :smallwink:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-25, 03:43 AM
I'll just go edit that out, then, shall I!

Talic
2008-01-25, 04:39 AM
I'll just go edit that out, then, shall I!

LOL, ah, if ye prefer to be gender neutral, just add in the next reference using the feminine pronouns. That way, you can claim "gender confused".

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-25, 05:09 AM
Since the Rogue's missing, there's nobody in the party who can deal with traps and locks?

Talic
2008-01-25, 05:17 AM
Since the Rogue's missing, there's nobody in the party who can deal with traps and locks?

While the rogue did have an opportunity to use trapfinding and open lock, all traps and locks have been outlined in the initial letter to the PC's, as well as the bypass method. To avoid the traps, the players must find the keys now. No disabling for them.

lord_khaine
2008-01-25, 08:05 AM
Since the Rogue's missing, there's nobody in the party who can deal with traps and locks?

if everything else fails, there are allways the option of disarming the traps, monk-style (trigger it and hope to dodge)

Solo
2008-01-25, 08:30 AM
Cleric McCleric: I cast Detect Traps and detect a trap.

Ozymandias: Disintegrate.


Khaine, have you made your climb check yet?

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-26, 01:23 PM
Hi guys,

I must say - I am deeply impressed. Kudos to Talic for thinking up the challenges (the first one sounds really nice).

Will be following it avidly!

- Giacomo

PS: Lord Khaine should be up the cliff quite fast (the +60ft are to ANY movement way, and even moving silently up in the final stage would be quite fast) and in case he falls, it's no problem - he takes no damage from that fall. In any case, Solo, it would be WAY more prudent than dim door because IF a monster lairs there, it will go before Solo....
EDIT/PPS: Rachel Lorelei, I may be mistaken here - but did your cleric actually BUFF the non-casters? With so many spells already? Where did your objections go that you would not consider buffing your party members so much? But do not forget the monk...:smallsmile:
EDIT/PPPS: once Lord Khaine has the AMF ring back, it may do the trick to defeat the lich. It will not end its existence directly on contact (undead are not affected in their undeath), but if the lich is slain while inside the AMF, then the phylactery thing might not work. Hmmm - the process takes 1d10 days, longer than the AMF. But what if the AMF touches the phylactery?.:smallcool:
EDIT 3 (truly now, the last one!) PPPPS: Talic, let me know, if I can do anything to help (play one of the monsters, whatever)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-26, 02:12 PM
EDIT/PPS: Rachel Lorelei, I may be mistaken here - but did your cleric actually BUFF the non-casters? With so many spells already? Where did your objections go that you would not consider buffing your party members so much? But do not forget the monk...:smallsmile:

I don't think anyone has objected to buffing party members, even if they were monks.
The objection has been that buffing the monk should not be the sole purpose of casters and especially not during combat.


EDIT/PPPS: once Lord Khaine has the AMF ring back, it may do the trick to defeat the lich. It will not end its existence directly on contact (undead are not affected in their undeath), but if the lich is slain while inside the AMF, then the phylactery thing might not work. Hmmm - the process takes 1d10 days, longer than the AMF. But what if the AMF touches the phylactery?.:smallcool:

Slaying the Lich inside an AMF will make no difference.
If the Phylactery is kept in an AMF it will prevent the Lich from coming back until the Phylactery has been removed.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-26, 02:25 PM
EDIT/PPS: Rachel Lorelei, I may be mistaken here - but did your cleric actually BUFF the non-casters? With so many spells already? Where did your objections go that you would not consider buffing your party members so much? But do not forget the monk...:smallsmile:
Actually, this is exactly the sort of thing I said I would do. These are all long-term spells I will be casting once. It is *not* the same as giving someone a Divine Power and a Righteous Might before every encounter, or spending my combat actions buffing them, which is what you were talking about.
This is also at level 20, when I have a lot of spell slots. At lower levels I couldn't afford to use so many of'em.
When we meet up with the Monk he can get a Magic Vestment, but I am out of Greater Magic Weapons.


But what if the AMF touches the phylactery?.:smallcool:
Absolutely nothing. The regeneration of the lich is suppressed for the 10 min/level the AMF is up. OH NOES.

Worira
2008-01-26, 02:28 PM
Hmm, Lorelei, would Heavy Fortification really be that useful for me? Keep in mind that I have Uncanny Dodge, so I'm quite hard to sneak attack anyway.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-26, 02:39 PM
Hmm, Lorelei, would Heavy Fortification really be that useful for me? Keep in mind that I have Uncanny Dodge, so I'm quite hard to sneak attack anyway.

It's more for the crits, and it's pretty standard practice. I don't know whether it'll ever save your life. *shrug*

Solo
2008-01-26, 02:55 PM
PS: Lord Khaine should be up the cliff quite fast (the +60ft are to ANY movement way, and even moving silently up in the final stage would be quite fast) and in case he falls, it's no problem - he takes no damage from that fall. In any case, Solo, it would be WAY more prudent than dim door because IF a monster lairs there, it will go before Solo....

Problem is the Monk player is not only absent, but has also not made his climb check (I've posted a few posts up reminding him to do this), nor has the DM done so for him.

Ok, i'll keep from Dimension dorring up there for the rest of the day, waiting another 24 hours, but if nothing happens by tonight, I am going to advance the test by myself.



I must say - I am deeply impressed.

Why thank you.:smallamused:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-26, 04:22 PM
Ok, i'll keep from Dimension dorring up there for the rest of the day, waiting another 24 hours, but if nothing happens by tonight, I am going to advance the test by myself.

Getting a little impatient now are we. :smalltongue:

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-26, 05:42 PM
Actually, this is exactly the sort of thing I said I would do. These are all long-term spells I will be casting once. It is *not* the same as giving someone a Divine Power and a Righteous Might before every encounter, or spending my combat actions buffing them, which is what you were talking about.
This is also at level 20, when I have a lot of spell slots. At lower levels I couldn't afford to use so many of'em.
When we meet up with the Monk he can get a Magic Vestment, but I am out of Greater Magic Weapons.

OK, my apologies. Guess I got a bit unnerved by some posters who would flat out refuse to ever buff a monk since they hate the monk class so much :smallsmile: .



Absolutely nothing. The regeneration of the lich is suppressed for the 10 min/level the AMF is up. OH NOES.

Ah, OK- should have known (the AMF only suppresses effets and does not destroy them).

- Giacomo

lord_khaine
2008-01-26, 06:02 PM
well since this is a sort of official test, then i has allways assumed it would be talic who made the relevant roll, not that i have any experience with online dicerollers anyway.


Originally Posted by Solo
Ok, i'll keep from Dimension dorring up there for the rest of the day, waiting another 24 hours, but if nothing happens by tonight, I am going to advance the test by myself.

Getting a little impatient now are we.

yeah with a attitude like that, it must have been very hard to keep Ozymandias alive all the way to 4th level :smallamused:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-26, 07:20 PM
OK, my apologies. Guess I got a bit unnerved by some posters who would flat out refuse to ever buff a monk since they hate the monk class so much :smallsmile: .
This is obnoxious and irritating and needs to stop. Giacomo, you are not a martyr. You are not a glorious spreader of a truth that nobody understands because they don't want to accept it. You're more akin to, oh, those Scientologist guys that offer you free stress tests.

The point is: nobody has ever seriously said that they would flat-out refuse to ever buff a monk, and being "unnerved" is manifestly ridiculous. Stop misrepresenting what other people say or think and this whole discussion will be much more constructive.



Ah, OK- should have known (the AMF only suppresses effets and does not destroy them).

- Giacomo
You seriously overestimate the utility of the antimagic field in actual play. How often do you use it, in your games? (And how? Via UMD? Really?) Because from the things you say, it looks like the answer is "none".

Solo
2008-01-27, 01:39 AM
yeah with a attitude like that, it must have been very hard to keep Ozymandias alive all the way to 4th level :smallamused:

Do you prefer the "waiting around to spontaneously gain XP through osmosis" method of leveling up?:smalltongue:

lord_khaine
2008-01-27, 06:03 AM
Do you prefer the "waiting around to spontaneously gain XP through osmosis" method of leveling up?

the problem with Osmosis is that it requires a higher concentration of xp around you, and such a enviroment would usualy prove highly hostile to a group of lowlevel adventures :smallamused:

Solo
2008-01-27, 02:29 PM
That's what semi-permeable XP filtering membranes are for.

You simply set up a suction device with a storage container for XP in one end, and the membrane covering the suction tube, thus filtering out and draining ambient XP. Thus, you can set the device somewhere and come back to it later, avoiding monsters as you do so while being able to drink the delicious XP you have collected. :smallcool:


Sneaking about will probably net you some XP on the side as well. :smallamused:

Worira
2008-01-27, 10:21 PM
So, umm. What's up here?

Solo
2008-01-27, 10:28 PM
The DM is AFK.

I have PMed Zeronumerous with an offer.

Basically, the sorcerer will teleport the party up to the top of the cliff with Dimension Door and we will kung-fu fight the monster at the top - for great justice.

I am currently awaiting a response.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-27, 10:30 PM
The DM is AFK.

I have PMed Zeronumerous with an offer.

Basically, the sorcerer will teleport the party up to the top of the cliff with Dimension Door and we will kung-fu fight the monster at the top - for great justice.

I am currently awaiting a response.

Wait, wait! I've gotta get my air walk on, first.
There should be a variant of Air Walk called Air Boogie...

Solo
2008-01-27, 10:50 PM
I told you homeboy, can't touch this
Yeah, that's how we livin' and ya know,
Can't touch this
Look in my eyes man, can't touch this
Yo let me bust the Ariel Boogie, you can’t touch this.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 11:03 PM
I've got only this to contribute:
http://www.boinaslava.net/mort/wife/hammerzeit.jpg

Solo
2008-01-27, 11:19 PM
Update from Zeronumerous:


There isn't an encounter at top of the cliff. I don't know what happened to Talic.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-28, 08:26 AM
This is obnoxious and irritating and needs to stop. Giacomo, you are not a martyr. You are not a glorious spreader of a truth that nobody understands because they don't want to accept it. You're more akin to, oh, those Scientologist guys that offer you free stress tests.

The point is: nobody has ever seriously said that they would flat-out refuse to ever buff a monk, and being "unnerved" is manifestly ridiculous. Stop misrepresenting what other people say or think and this whole discussion will be much more constructive.


OK, accepted that my apology is not accepted. You could have formulated without the usual bunch of half-truths of what I post, and without a Scientology reference, though, would have been appreciated, thx.

@the group of heroes:
Will be largely off the boards for the week - wish you good luck for the adventure!

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-28, 08:37 AM
You could have formulated without the usual bunch of half-truths of what I post, and without a Scientology reference, though, would have been appreciated, thx.

I reiterate for Rachel that no one said they would refuse to buff a monk, and indeed, even if they did, being "unnerved" is an overreaction to the situation.

Don't be a drama queen.

Nebo_
2008-01-28, 08:39 AM
Don't be a drama queen.

I think the word you're looking for is 'Troll'.

Starbuck_II
2008-01-28, 09:12 AM
I think the word you're looking for is 'Troll'.

Nah, troll is flame bait also trolling.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-28, 09:20 AM
I think the word you're looking for is 'Troll'.

Hey.. I'm a Troll( in the Playground)!

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-28, 09:42 AM
I reiterate for Rachel that no one said they would refuse to buff a monk, and indeed, even if they did, being "unnerved" is an overreaction to the situation.

Don't be a drama queen.

Ach Solo, pls. You think that when I write "unnerved" it is worse then what Rachel wrote? Pls, for once, try to detach yourselves from whatever opinion you have when we are discussing and merely look at the terms used.

But now, I'd suggest, back to the thread's topic.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-28, 01:08 PM
Ach Solo, please. You think that when I write "unnerved" it is worse than what Rachel wrote? Please, for once, try to detach yourselves from whatever opinion you have when we are discussing and merely look at the terms used.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Irony alert!


On a more serious note, I never said that she's right. I'm just saying you're wrong. :smalltongue:


But please, if you can, enlighten me.

Who said that they would never buff a monk, and why would you feel "unnerved" upon hearing it?


For the record:

Main Entry:
un·nerve Listen to the pronunciation of unnerve
Pronunciation:
\-ˈnərv\
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1601

1 : to deprive of courage, strength, or steadiness 2 : to cause to become nervous : upset
— un·nerv·ing·ly Listen to the pronunciation of unnervingly \-ˈnər-viŋ-lē\ adverb


So, whenever this person said he would not buff a monk, you became either deprived of courage, strength, or steadiness (?) or were nervous and/or upset? (again, why get bothered to such a degree at someone else's playstyle?)

I am confused. Please de-confuzzle me. The way things stand now, there are only three conclusions to be made:

1) You are being melodramatic.
2) You have rather delicate sensibilities
3) You used the wrong word.




ps. Your grammar has been corrected free of charge. I found it odd how you wrote a paragraph length post for me, yet couldn't' be bothered to spell out the word "please".


Edit: Never mind. Enough about you, SG, Talic is back. All hail Talic!

Please refrain from posting your response until I am sufficiently bored to bother with it.

Talic
2008-01-28, 02:34 PM
Sorry, I was AFK due to some pressing family business. Back now. I've posted the relevant advancement for the cliff encounter, and everything should be back on track.

As for you Giacomo, let's let the test speak for itself. Prebuffs are being given to the entire party, let's see how the group handles with the first encounter... Perhaps right through portal number 1??

As for helping, Giacomo, I may offer you the DC's of advance rooms, as well as relevant details, so that you may provide relevant information in the event that I have to be AFK for a day here or there in the future (it's an ongoing issue, and it is more or less under control, but I do have to periodically monitor things).

Solo
2008-01-28, 03:37 PM
Welcome back, Talic.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-28, 04:29 PM
OK Solo,

since there is not much to discuss at the moment, anyhow, here it goes...:smallsmile:


On a more serious note, I never said that she's right. I'm just saying you're wrong. :smalltongue:

You do realise that by reprimanding one side and leaving out the other completely you DO convey the impression that you are siding with the side you left out, don't you?:smalltongue:


But please, if you can, enlighten me.

Who said that they would never buff a monk, and why would you feel "unnerved" upon hearing it?

You know who did it, since you followed the respective discussions. No need to bring up names and start a flame war here. There now seems to be a consensus that yes, buffing the others in the group is OK, but no, it is not OK to devote all 4th level spells to them/day. Let's leave it at that.



For the record:
[insert textbook explanation of "unnerved" meant to be funny]

So, whenever this person said he would not buff a monk, you became either deprived of courage, strength, or steadiness (?) or were nervous and/or upset? (again, why get bothered to such a degree at someone else's playstyle?)

Read again what I wrote. I said a "bit unnerved", which is already a big difference here. So at best I would be a bit deprived of courage, strength or steadiness. And I did not get bothered to such a degree at someone else's playstyle, as you well know, but at someone else's way to discuss things.


I am confused. Please de-confuzzle me. The way things stand now, there are only three conclusions to be made:

1) You are being melodramatic.
2) You have rather delicate sensibilities
3) You used the wrong word.

No, it is 4). I said it to illustrate that I may have been unjustified in my remarks to Rachel Lorelei because, on a related theme, I got "a bit unnerved" by being attacked out of proportion. That the most recent discussion thread has been closed should tell you something.
Plus, I even worded it in such a way as to defuse any kind of "melodramatic" atmosphere, with a smiley to boost.:smallsmile:


ps. Your grammar has been corrected free of charge. I found it odd how you wrote a paragraph length post for me, yet couldn't' be bothered to spell out the word "please".

Thx! :smallsmile: Henceforth for you, because I like you more and more, I shall use "please", and never again the widely used abbreviation "pls".:smallbiggrin:


Edit: Never mind. Enough about you, SG, Talic is back. All hail Talic!

All hail! Looking forward to further developments. And yes, @Talic. PM me for whatever you need. I may be a bit busy myself this week, but I'll check the PMs.


Please refrain from posting your response until I am sufficiently bored to bother with it.

Done.

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-28, 04:55 PM
You know who did it, since you followed the respective discussions. No need to bring up names and start a flame war here.

Ok, so Solo apparently knows who said that, but* I do not know and it would seem that Rachel Lorelei did not know either, so perhaps you could enlighten us and anyone else who might also have missed it?

Providing quotes that show posters saying they will not buff monks are not flaming by any stretch of imagination.

You are the one who has seen such statements and it would be nice if you would share that knowledge with the rest of us.


There now seems to be a consensus that yes, buffing the others in the group is OK, but no, it is not OK to devote all 4th level spells to them/day. Let's leave it at that.

The use of "now" could imply that the state of things have changed and that the current consensus has not existed all the time, meaning that someone at some point made those claims about not wanting to buff the monk.

It is hard to simply "...leave it at that" if people are making such monk-hating claims as to never want to buff them under any circumstance.

I for one will not stand for that. Let's flush out these monk-haters, so we can see who they are and view their posts in light of their bias.

Again, quoting people in context is not flaming by any stretch of the forum rules.


*:It turns out that Solo does not know either.


I followed and I say no one claiming that they would refuse to buff a monk at all.

He never say anything. :smalltongue:

Solo
2008-01-28, 05:03 PM
OK Solo,

since there is not much to discuss at the moment,

We have praised neither Talic or myself enough.



You do realise that by reprimanding one side and leaving out the other completely you DO convey the impression that you are siding with the side you left out, don't you?

I never said I wasn't going to give off the impression that I was siding with someone.

Behold the folly of your ways!


You know who did it, since you followed the respective discussions. No need to bring up names and start a flame war here. There now seems to be a consensus that yes, buffing the others in the group is OK, but no, it is not OK to devote all 4th level spells to them/day. Let's leave it at that.

I followed and I say no one claiming that they would refuse to buff a monk at all.

Now, I am sure you aren't lying about this, so I shall suggest that you PM me the evidence if you wish.




Read again what I wrote. I said a "bit unnerved", which is already a big difference here. So at best I would be a bit deprived of courage, strength or steadiness. And I did not get bothered to such a degree at someone else's playstyle, as you well know, but at someone else's way to discuss things.

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...


Thx! Henceforth for you, because I like you more and more, I shall use "please", and never again the widely used abbreviation "pls".

Kthx, lolzors.


ps. I have not included your smilies in my post. They were insolent and deserved death.

Talic
2008-01-29, 12:23 AM
Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...


It's truly too rare that I see a good monty python quote in action. If we're doing requests, might I hear the "Medical Love Song" next?

Solo
2008-01-29, 12:27 AM
I'd have to dedicate it to someone.

Perhaps to SG?

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-29, 05:09 AM
We have praised neither Talic or myself enough.

True. Let's save some of the praise for the future of this thread, OK?


I never said I wasn't going to give off the impression that I was siding with someone.

Behold the folly of your ways!

But that's what I said...(without the folly part). We apparently have different interpretations, though.



I followed and I say no one claiming that they would refuse to buff a monk at all.

Now, I am sure you aren't lying about this, so I shall suggest that you PM me the evidence if you wish.

Ah, you and Lord_Silvanos have done excellently with this, leaving me two evils to choose from.
1) Name the offenders who never dreamed about buffing a monk, in particular not a "Giamonk" (I also like "Gonk"). This would involve dozens of counterposts by at least said offenders, and a lot of time to page through a dozens of threads to even find the quotes. Gain: none. PMing to Solo erases the flame risk part, but not the effort part. Gain again: none.
2) Not name them and lose in this duel of wits.

Hmmm.

I choose 2). I'll elaborate:
- Never in these forums, to my knowledge, have posters ever doubted or written in such a way as to cast doubt (like saying they would do that, but hate it or for charity only) that they would provide buffs to a monk in their games, even if played by me (with UMD and/or partially charged wands)
- That I maintained this to be true before was just to cover up my seeming inability to apologise correctly to Rachel Lorelei, and a wrong use of the term "bit unnerved".

Is that sufficient?


Kthx, lolzors.

LOL!


ps. I have not included your smilies in my post. They were insolent and deserved death.

You did...what? Without a trial? How...mean. Meet their angry last relative: :smallfurious:

- Giacomo

PS: does anyone know about this deadly joke in Monty Python translated into German? If so, where would be a link to it?

Solo
2008-01-29, 09:35 AM
True. Let's save some of the praise for the future of this thread, OK?

Never put off for tomorrow what can be done today.




PS: does anyone know about this deadly joke in Monty Python translated into German? If so, where would be a link to it?

Here you go (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/powerWordKill.htm)



Ok, ok, really, this time, here you go. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wailOfTheBanshee.htm)


Alright, last time I do this. The Funniest Joke in the World. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yff5Sp6bN6k)


Edit:

You know, the closest anyone has come to saying that he wouldn't buff a monk - that I know of - is stoopitallkid



My spellslots go to whatever will be the most use. If my allies need buffs, I'll give it to them, but no more than a couple, because I put most of my focus on DEFEATING the enemy, not making the poor monk effective.

(I googled " site:www.giantitp.com monk buff" and many variations there of, including the words "refuse", "won't" and so on.

lord_khaine
2008-01-29, 10:36 AM
well seems we will soon get some action, the call has been made for initiative, and will be answered as soon as we find out how quick Ozymandias is with a buff, and how the dice rolls are suposed to be made.

Solo
2008-01-29, 10:58 AM
If you need something, ask now!

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-29, 11:14 AM
By the way did you guys get a heroes' feast or not? Doesn't that require a roll?

Edit
@Solo, I think it would be a good idea if you gave the code to roll dice on the forum.

Solo
2008-01-29, 11:21 AM
(roll)1d20+2(roll)

with the () replaced by []

lord_khaine
2008-01-29, 11:23 AM
yeah im still waiting for someone to actualy explain how those rolls are suposed to be made, those last posts didnt tell me anything but that its possibel to make rolls on the board.

Solo
2008-01-29, 11:26 AM
You roll for initiative.

You punch in the roll code and roll a d20+your dex modifier.


I'm sorry, I just expected you knew how to do this before you started, or else asked someone beforehand. Sorry for rushing you earlier.


Also, 1d8+10 for temp. HP from Hero's Feast

Edit: forum roller didn't work, so can I ask someone else to roll for me?

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-29, 11:36 AM
Also, 1d8+10 for temp. HP from Hero's Feast

Edit: forum roller didn't work, so can I ask someone else to roll for me?

You can roll for yourself, you just have to roll in the actual pbp thread, it is only disabled in this section of the forum. At least, that's what I heard.

Worira
2008-01-29, 11:57 AM
I don't think we ever actually cast Heroes Feast.

fendrin
2008-01-29, 11:57 AM
Very interesting, though some people need to chill and take a deep breath.

I would like to volunteer for one of the lower level tests, when it comes to that (I rarely play up to even 10th level, so 5th would be ideal for me :smallwink:)

lord_khaine
2008-01-29, 04:11 PM
anyway, when we evaluate the result of the comming battle, then we should keep in mind Gragthor has quite a advantage from having greater magic weapon on his chain.

Solo
2008-01-30, 12:39 AM
You could have it too if you had any monk weapons, like Sai or a quarterstaff and had Gen cast it.

Or invest in UMD and Cast it off a scro - oh right.

Talic
2008-01-30, 01:14 AM
You could have it too if you had any monk weapons, like Sai or a quarterstaff and had Gen cast it.

Or invest in UMD and Cast it off a scro - oh right.

Funny. Still, I foresee the barbarian having quite the impact, but not for the reason you described.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-30, 01:17 AM
Creatures with DR in a dead magic zone? Seriously?
And this is supposed to be representative of a game? Come on, why even bother with that crap? No, cleric-archers and sorcerers aren't effective in "dead magic zones". Yes, Barbarians are (relatively speaking; clay golems are CR 10, after all). That was never in question. What's the point?

Talic
2008-01-30, 01:31 AM
Creatures with DR in a dead magic zone? Seriously?
And this is supposed to be representative of a game? Come on, why even bother with that crap? No, cleric-archers and sorcerers aren't effective in "dead magic zones". Yes, Barbarians are (relatively speaking; clay golems are CR 10, after all). That was never in question. What's the point?

Creatures with DR, yes, but low enough to blow through, if needed. Also, adamantine is/was available to players, by the fact that the barbarian has it, and the DR for clay golems isn't bypassed by magic, but by material. The overall CR for the encounter is 8 below you. The original intent of this encounter was to provide a direct comparison to the damage dealing ability of the monk, as opposed to the full BAB class.

That is because, when this encounter was finalized, the group was supposed to be a monk, sorceror, cleric, and rogue type. the second group was supposed to be the same, but a fighter type. Hence, a direct comparison to overall effectiveness.

It wasn't an accident that the monk bypasses the golem's DR by class feature.

Further, if you've read the area for people who have gone through the portal, you should have read the last line, wherein I listed that this is the only area of dead/antimagic for the challenge. Future tests may have their own differing environmental challenges, but this is the last one that specifically mitigates high level power.

Future tests will test other things, from magic versatility, buff enhancement, and the like. Fully 50% of the combat encounters will involve enemies not immune to critical hits. Roughly 80% of the encounters are combat related, so as to allow for the testing of the mechanical benefits of the classes.

Bear in mind, when I designed this, the support class's activity was a secondary concern. The activity of the primary class was being tested, and, while I hope that everyone does enjoy, for the most part this test, the primary purpose of it IS to collect information. As such, differing battlegrounds, and differing enemies, will allow for more thorough completion of that.

Oh, and for the record, the effectiveness of clerics and sorcerors vs monks will never be in question. Fullcasters enjoy a power boost. We all know that. This test is designed to answer the question of how monk fares versus melee classes. As such, giving an encounter that showcases those classes isn't too far out of line.

Bear in mind, instantaneous effects are still allowed, as the golems are too small to fit through the portal you entered through, and thus, is a safe retreat zone for healing and the like. In fact, I'd wager that Solo's plan, below, is at least, in part, designed to take advantage of that fact.

Solo
2008-01-30, 01:36 AM
Creatures with DR in a dead magic zone? Seriously?
And this is supposed to be representative of a game? Come on, why even bother with that crap? No, cleric-archers and sorcerers aren't effective in "dead magic zones"

I have a plan.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-30, 01:44 AM
It wasn't an accident that the monk bypasses the golem's DR by class feature.

Actually, the monk's Ki Strike(adamantine) ability is (Su) and therefore does not work in an AMF. The monk can't beat the DR because his weapons aren't adamantine; the barbarian can't because his weapon isn't bludgeoning. (It's DR adamatine *and* buldgeoning, after all.)

But then, if you want to compare damage, why have one character be able to bypass DR and another not?

The monk is going to be doing 2d10-3; the raging barbarian, power attacking enough to bring his AB down to match the monk's, 2d4+29.

Solo
2008-01-30, 01:51 AM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm:

Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Talic
2008-01-30, 01:52 AM
As they say on the internet "lolz". The monk's Ki Strike(adamantine) ability is (Su) and therefore does not work in an AMF. The monk can't beat the DR because his weapons aren't adamantine; the barbarian can't because his weapon isn't bludgeoning. (It's DR adamatine *and* buldgeoning, after all.)

But then, if you want to compare damage, why have one character be able to bypass DR and another not?

Ah, there's my head desk moment. Still, the shrunken hut that solo has does have a variety of equipment. It's possible to equip up to bypass it.

Further, the barbarian, even if unable to bypass the DR, is more likely to get higher damage. Thus, do the special abilities of the monk class compare to the abilities of the barbarian?

However, you bring up a point. Thus, I'll offer the players a choice. I'll happily add more golems to raise the CR of the encounter up some, and retcon the dead magic zone, in light that it suppresses the monk's Ki Strike. Yea or Nay?

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-30, 01:53 AM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm:

That's the Antimagic Field, specifically, not a "dead magic zone".

Furthermore, that doesn't mean you can create them in the area of an AMF, just that an AMF pressed against them won't dispel them.




However, you bring up a point. Thus, I'll offer the players a choice. I'll happily add more golems to raise the CR of the encounter up some, and retcon the dead magic zone, in light that it suppresses the monk's Ki Strike. Yea or Nay?

Meh. I've seen claims that monks do well in AMFs before. Let's see how this one does.