[spoiler]fil kearney
05-15-07, 09:27 PM
First off.. I love the potential in this thread. I have been involved in two or three of these discussions so far, and T_G has done a great job of generalizing the roles in the party.
second... while writing this, serrin put in some good words. I support this as well.
third.. cannot removing and dealing damage also be a form of mitigating damage?
I think what it really comes down to is in combat, how do you spend most of your rounds... killing people, limiting people, or healing people? utility could be considered buffing in combat, but otherwise is all out of combat activity essential for sustaining story momentum.
I'd like to stay somewhat on topic, but approach this thread from another direction for a moment...
Of the people engaging in this thread, how many are actively playing currently?
of those folks, how many are in a team with ABSOLUTELY NO MELEE- FOCUSED CHARACTERS?
Here is my suspicion:
We all agree that pound for pound casters out perform meleers.
but we all use meleers consistently either because we:
1. love the mele combat imagery
2. want insurance of a tank (whether effective or not)
3. we've been brainwashed into thinking they are necesary.
I'd like some honest feedback on that.
Next subject: The need for "utility" outside of combat is strictly rule 0.
trapfinding is technically damage mitigation by disabling the damage source before someone falls prey to it... and is technically not a utility function.
If that definition is accepted, then utility is strictly rule 0.
If no one WANTS to be a diplomacy/bluffer in the party, we're still gonna talk to NPC's.. this just gets glossed over.
If we decide to play all rogues and fighters, the DM is forced to develop games that the team can interact in and eventually overcome. You don't have to have divination, or fly or tports or any of that stuff. it's just fun technology to use. Plenty "low magic" games exist and are fun as hell. I happen to like high magic campaigns, which is why I favor gestalt, so multitaskin is easy.
Inside combat, the 3 roles stand. Outside of combat, it is strictly DM caveat and gentlemen's agreements on how the game will proceed. I do not contest the 4th role, since many DM's will utilize it if present... I simply say it really doesn't need to be broken into lots of subcategories.
deal damage
heal damage
avoid damage
out of combat shenanigans
That is about as basic as it gets.
Are we sticking with just four characters per party? My team is 6 gestalts...
aurok = mitigation, delivery, removal (utilty na)
celestine = delivery, mitigation, removal, utility
night = utility, delivery, mitigation, (removal na)
sul = mitigation, delivery, utility, (removal na)
tanner = delivery, mitigation, removal, utility
vintereth = utility, delivery, removal, mitigation
tanner and celestine are full casters, and can cover all roles equally well given proper preparation
the game is still new, so we are still defining our roles, but that is the order of natural aptitude for each character.
I'm not bothering posting the builds... they are multidipped on both sides. follow the link below to the wiki if you really want to know.
interestingly, the two characters that are primarily utility are secondarily roled as damage delivery.
as are the two characters that are primarily mitigation
the two charactes that are primarily delivery, are secondarily mitigation.
Only two characters have virtually no damage removal, but both have stong UMD.. so could become damage removers with the right equipment.
This is a BIG team with LOTS of resources available to them. but still, their primary focus is on mitigating and delivering damage. removing the damage is next, with utility ability basically filling in the rest of the characters.
Why is that?
It's probably obvious, but every character is scared to death of having their character killed. Virtually everyone here is looking to maximize survivability.
and that means combat survival.. because everything outside of initiative is flavor text leading to the next fight.
This team is incredibly good at what they do individually. its the sheer size of the gestalt team that allows then to be overly redundant. Aurok is the only dedicated tank (he could be delivery first, then mitigation)... and the party specifically requested it, because they were concerned about not having a good meat shield on the team.
They are more comfortable with a massive fighter/warblade type on hand to deal out incredible physical damage and have huge AoO areas to help mitigate damage better.
but the board says that a full caster would have been better.
I'm wondering if meat shields and ighter types aren't really insurance.. a security blanket the party can hide behind when things look scary.
"mikey will eat anything.. let him try it."
That is the meat shield... when in doubt, have the barbarian hit it. I think that is a "hidden" utility... guinnea pig. and only the meat shield plays that role well. He knows ultimately he is expendable. trained to die.
again, not worth subdivinding the utility category, but my origional question stands... who here games in a combat- active game without a dedicated melee meat shield?
what do you have on the team, and what do you do to cover that base?
Dielzen
05-15-07, 09:43 PM
http://www.andargor.com/hmms....gimme a few minutes....maybe 20-30.
Tytalus
05-15-07, 09:52 PM
The theory as presented above is not so much a blueprint for creating an optimized party so much as it is a rubric for evaluating them. It is up to the creator of the party, and not of the theory, to know his strengths and weaknesses within categories.
My point is that this is not very useful. Note that the thread's title is not just about theory, but also about practice.
If you have a rogue type with 20d6 sneak attack damage, you should realize you have no effective DPR against constructs. If you need a guide to tell you this, then by all means, stick to the more specific guides to party planning.
A checklist might actually be useful.
As for overlap, you give a single example and declare the whole thing to be flawed.
Want more? Utility and damage mitigation: disarming traps prevents damage to the party, diplomacy & scouting can prevent confrontations entirely. Utility and damage output: scouting can set you up for surprise attacks & might let you choose favorable combat conditions. Damage removal (removing crippling effects from party members) and damage output: removing such effects from the party's fighters increases damage output; heck, keeping the high-AC tank alive through heals increases damage mitigation.
I think the idea that you can capture the complexities of party roles in a set of mutually exclusive categories is flawed and such a theory ill-suited as a basis to provide practical recommendations. If you really want such categories, you might as well simplify it even further to "Combat" and "Non-Combat" as categories. The broader the categories, the less useful they are for deriving practical suggestions.
Simply define damage mitigation as "the ability to mitigate damage of opponents who are in the combat". Bam, there's no more overlap, because opponents killed or KOed are removed from the combat.
That seems to limit the usefulness of the category. Now where do you put energy resistance buffs, for example?
And still: save-or-be-screwed spells, stunning, etc. don't remove an opponent from combat, but rather temporarily disable them. These could well be both damage mitigation and output and mitigation. Offensive capabilities that cripple opponents without removing them from combat also fall in this category.
Third, yes, most characters can contribute in some way in each of the categories. That's why they should be viewed as a scale, and not as binary. You should not be checking for their simple presence, but their quality as rated against your standard opposition.
I guess my point is that a detailed checklist such as suggested by Yekov is actually more useful than rigid categories that don't really give much practical indications (aside from a very high level view) as to useful party roles to fill.
The links you posted are fairly good for practical work, but are too specific for theory. They don't solve the general case. Yekoj's thread in particular lists 22 good ideas, of which precisely 0 cannot be somehow substituted for equal effect.
I guess that's like saying it's better to have categories that are too broad to be of much use (this work) than to have a practical list of useful roles to cover that, individually, are not essential and can't be covered by a unifying theory (Yekoj's).
Seriously, I don't see either approach cover both theory and practice entirely. TG seems to focus on the theory (despite the thread title), and Yekoj on the practice. I personally prefer the latter; it seems questionable how useful a CO theory is that doesn't generate concrete practical suggestions.
Yet even if TG decides this approach to be suitable for a guide on "Party Optimization: Theory and Practice" it would be a mistake to overlook the practical advice already collected by others.
Dielzen
05-15-07, 09:56 PM
Hope this comes out formatted well enough...
CR HP init AC touch FF AC bab fort ref will
1/10 1.00 1.50 15.50 15.50 14.00 0.00 2.00 3.50 2.00
1/8 1.00 2.00 14.00 14.00 12.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.50
1/6 4.50 1.75 13.75 13.25 12.00 0.25 2.50 4.00 1.00
1/4 3.88 1.75 14.50 13.25 12.75 0.25 2.50 2.88 0.38
1/3 4.43 2.57 15.71 13.14 13.71 0.14 2.29 3.14 1.14
1/2 6.59 1.41 14.69 11.86 13.38 0.76 2.62 2.00 0.03
1 12.24 1.54 15.28 11.78 13.80 1.28 3.00 2.85 0.98
2 20.55 2.39 15.76 11.84 13.94 2.33 4.35 4.35 2.69
3 27.26 2.68 16.14 11.51 14.64 3.30 4.58 4.18 3.31
4 48.23 2.23 16.00 10.45 15.05 5.20 6.45 5.10 4.60
5 56.33 3.16 17.16 10.55 15.73 6.08 7.47 5.82 4.82
6 69.12 3.27 18.88 11.00 17.27 7.60 8.08 6.85 6.08
7 86.98 2.91 18.07 10.38 16.44 8.38 8.67 6.98 6.56
8 96.48 3.19 20.00 10.58 18.32 9.43 9.19 7.65 7.45
9 130.65 3.61 21.74 10.45 19.68 11.97 12.13 9.81 8.58
10 136.53 2.79 22.58 9.26 21.42 13.21 11.63 8.58 9.11
11 163.83 3.96 23.71 10.92 21.38 14.25 13.75 10.63 10.3
12 196.33 1.58 21.75 7.17 21.42 17.00 15.42 9.33 9.08
13 167.00 2.92 27.33 10.25 26.00 14.42 14.17 9.83 12.4
14 180.33 4.50 27.00 11.00 25.17 16.17 15.92 11.83 14.0
15 224.63 3.50 29.75 8.13 29.50 18.88 15.75 10.63 15.8
16 239.09 4.27 31.91 10.00 30.73 21.18 17.09 13.27 16.6
17 244.86 3.29 28.00 9.57 26.86 20.14 19.57 11.29 16.2
18 302.25 6.00 32.75 8.50 31.25 24.25 19.50 15.63 19.0
19 355.80 4.80 36.00 9.20 35.20 27.60 22.10 16.30 19.7
20 409.33 6.00 36.44 9.11 34.44 29.56 24.22 18.67 21.2
21 393.00 4.31 38.69 8.77 37.31 27.69 23.31 16.15 20.5
22 452.33 7.44 40.22 11.56 36.33 29.56 23.00 19.67 23.7
23 480.09 8.27 39.91 12.45 35.27 31.00 26.00 21.82 24.6
24 622.25 9.25 42.38 12.88 37.75 37.50 29.50 24.25 27.3
25 600.27 8.55 44.18 18.36 39.82 34.09 27.55 24.00 28.7
26 420.29 10.43 44.29 27.14 39.57 27.00 21.14 20.14 26.2
27 625.25 10.00 46.75 19.25 40.25 43.50 31.75 27.75 32.7
28 894.25 16.25 53.50 26.50 43.25 42.50 37.00 37.00 31.5
29 472.00 12.00 50.50 30.00 42.50 21.50 25.00 25.50 24.5
30 1064.25 2.00 40.75 13.50 40.25 48.25 36.00 26.25 38.7
31 788.50 3.50 58.00 16.00 56.50 42.50 34.00 24.50 33.5
32 433.00 18.00 40.00 20.00 30.00 42.00 19.00 29.00 29.0
33 605.50 -2.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 72.00 32.00 30.00 33.0
34 1100.00 9.50 54.00 16.00 50.50 52.50 42.00 32.50 39.5
35 1011.80 12.60 62.00 13.80 53.20 48.40 41.60 34.20 31.0
36 1676.00 11.00 58.00 3.00 57.00 72.00 55.00 47.00 39.0
37 1292.00 4.00 74.00 20.00 74.00 55.00 46.00 29.00 47.0
39 1430.00 7.00 66.67 18.00 62.33 68.00 55.67 37.67 45.0
41 1856.00 14.00 58.00 16.00 44.00 96.00 76.00 56.00 42.0
42 1984.00 12.00 60.00 14.00 48.00 96.00 77.00 54.00 42.0
43 1516.00 4.00 79.50 21.50 79.50 59.00 50.00 31.00 50.5
48 1479.00 4.00 78.00 21.00 78.00 58.00 50.00 31.00 50.0
50 2472.50 7.00 83.50 19.00 78.50 83.00 72.00 44.50 51.5
52 1732.00 4.00 85.00 23.00 85.00 63.00 54.00 33.00 54.0
57 1517.00 7.00 81.00 26.50 81.00 60.00 49.00 33.00 43.0
59 2362.00 4.00 102.00 28.00 102.00 75.00 64.00 39.00 65.0
61 2299.00 4.00 99.00 27.00 99.00 73.00 63.00 38.00 63.0
66 2613.00 4.00 106.00 29.00 106.00 78.00 68.00 41.00 68.0
That's the best I could do as far as getting useful #s from it, without putting a bunch of work into parsing text strings (DR, resists/etc)
Note that the #s above around 25 or so start to generally lose their meaning, since the SRD only covers a few epic critters, with some of the listed CRs having 1, maybe 2 critters.
Edit -- oops, had my fractions out of order.
Tleilaxu_Ghola
05-15-07, 10:31 PM
I question the usefulness of this.
For one, it doesn't make clear what's really important for good party composition (such as having a means of controlling the battlefield, the possibility to remove a particularly nasty opponent quickly from combat, or to escape quickly if necessary, etc.).
The utility of recognizing these fundamental roles is that one can design "non-traditional" but wholly functional parties without having to bend to the stricture of "current wisdom". As others are noting, viewing the party dynamics in this fashion is revealing that melee characters are not strictly essential, if one employs alternative methods to achieve the four fundamental roles.
Second, even the 'fundamental' roles are already overlapping. Damage Delivery is, in the end, just one form of Damage Mitigation - by killing an opponent quickly, he's less able to dish out damage to the party.
Yes and no. Look at it this way: the enemy is capable of dealing damage = d(t), where the damage he can deal is a function of the time overwhich he can deal it. Say he deals 10 damage per round guaranteed... then d(t) = 10t. Mitigation is a transformation of d(t) such that g(t) < d(t), if we say that g(t) is the damage function of the enemy after mitigation is applied. DPR is a bit different; instead of modifying the function d(t) it simply alters the parameter t. That is to say, DPR shortens the amount of time the enemy has available to deal its damage. How does this show that the two are fundamentally different? Well, if only mitigation is performed, the foe still outputs g(t) damage and will never die, because pure mitigation has nothing to do with damage. Examples of pure mitigation are things like the stoneskin. Since stoneskin does not deal damage, it cannot be under the DPR category. That is to say that DPR and pure mitigation are disjoint sets. This should be sufficient to prove that the two are fundamental sets. There do exist, however, larger (and less fundamental) sets which contain both pure damage mitigation and pure DPS. I've never disputed this fact.
Third, every single character can contribute somehow in all categories you mentioned (more or less effectively, though). The only slightly exclusive field seems to be damage removal.
Who cares if a character fills multiple roles? You need only look at the opportunity cost that given build takes to fill a given role to determine whether or not that build should be performing that role.
So, with all due respect, the thread - while a laudable effort - doesn't quote deliver: from the theoretical point of view, the 'fundamental roles' are overlapping and thus not exactly fundamental, and from the practical perspective it doesn't list what really essential bases need to be covered in detail, so it's of limited use.
You are entitled to your opinion. This is not an attempt to tell you how exactly to go about making a party. This is an attempt to get people to think about party dynamics in a more abstract fashion, and in so doing provoke innovation.
Also, I believe that any thread that addresses a fundamental topic should, at the very least, have references to prior work on the topic. After all, there's already been excellent work done on this topic that doesn't need to be duplicated. There's at least the following ones:
To tell you the truth, I did not do my homework on this topic, so I was unaware of these threads you list. After reviewing them, I'd say that I prefer my role definitions. I'm biased, of course.
Tleilaxu_Ghola
05-15-07, 10:38 PM
Hope this comes out formatted well enough...
CR HP init AC touch FF AC bab fort ref will
1/10 1.00 1.50 15.50 15.50 14.00 0.00 2.00 3.50 2.00
1/8 1.00 2.00 14.00 14.00 12.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.50
1/6 4.50 1.75 13.75 13.25 12.00 0.25 2.50 4.00 1.00
1/4 3.88 1.75 14.50 13.25 12.75 0.25 2.50 2.88 0.38
1/3 4.43 2.57 15.71 13.14 13.71 0.14 2.29 3.14 1.14
1/2 6.59 1.41 14.69 11.86 13.38 0.76 2.62 2.00 0.03
1 12.24 1.54 15.28 11.78 13.80 1.28 3.00 2.85 0.98
2 20.55 2.39 15.76 11.84 13.94 2.33 4.35 4.35 2.69
3 27.26 2.68 16.14 11.51 14.64 3.30 4.58 4.18 3.31
4 48.23 2.23 16.00 10.45 15.05 5.20 6.45 5.10 4.60
5 56.33 3.16 17.16 10.55 15.73 6.08 7.47 5.82 4.82
6 69.12 3.27 18.88 11.00 17.27 7.60 8.08 6.85 6.08
7 86.98 2.91 18.07 10.38 16.44 8.38 8.67 6.98 6.56
8 96.48 3.19 20.00 10.58 18.32 9.43 9.19 7.65 7.45
9 130.65 3.61 21.74 10.45 19.68 11.97 12.13 9.81 8.58
10 136.53 2.79 22.58 9.26 21.42 13.21 11.63 8.58 9.11
11 163.83 3.96 23.71 10.92 21.38 14.25 13.75 10.63 10.3
12 196.33 1.58 21.75 7.17 21.42 17.00 15.42 9.33 9.08
13 167.00 2.92 27.33 10.25 26.00 14.42 14.17 9.83 12.4
14 180.33 4.50 27.00 11.00 25.17 16.17 15.92 11.83 14.0
15 224.63 3.50 29.75 8.13 29.50 18.88 15.75 10.63 15.8
16 239.09 4.27 31.91 10.00 30.73 21.18 17.09 13.27 16.6
17 244.86 3.29 28.00 9.57 26.86 20.14 19.57 11.29 16.2
18 302.25 6.00 32.75 8.50 31.25 24.25 19.50 15.63 19.0
19 355.80 4.80 36.00 9.20 35.20 27.60 22.10 16.30 19.7
20 409.33 6.00 36.44 9.11 34.44 29.56 24.22 18.67 21.2
21 393.00 4.31 38.69 8.77 37.31 27.69 23.31 16.15 20.5
22 452.33 7.44 40.22 11.56 36.33 29.56 23.00 19.67 23.7
23 480.09 8.27 39.91 12.45 35.27 31.00 26.00 21.82 24.6
24 622.25 9.25 42.38 12.88 37.75 37.50 29.50 24.25 27.3
25 600.27 8.55 44.18 18.36 39.82 34.09 27.55 24.00 28.7
26 420.29 10.43 44.29 27.14 39.57 27.00 21.14 20.14 26.2
27 625.25 10.00 46.75 19.25 40.25 43.50 31.75 27.75 32.7
28 894.25 16.25 53.50 26.50 43.25 42.50 37.00 37.00 31.5
29 472.00 12.00 50.50 30.00 42.50 21.50 25.00 25.50 24.5
30 1064.25 2.00 40.75 13.50 40.25 48.25 36.00 26.25 38.7
31 788.50 3.50 58.00 16.00 56.50 42.50 34.00 24.50 33.5
32 433.00 18.00 40.00 20.00 30.00 42.00 19.00 29.00 29.0
33 605.50 -2.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 72.00 32.00 30.00 33.0
34 1100.00 9.50 54.00 16.00 50.50 52.50 42.00 32.50 39.5
35 1011.80 12.60 62.00 13.80 53.20 48.40 41.60 34.20 31.0
36 1676.00 11.00 58.00 3.00 57.00 72.00 55.00 47.00 39.0
37 1292.00 4.00 74.00 20.00 74.00 55.00 46.00 29.00 47.0
39 1430.00 7.00 66.67 18.00 62.33 68.00 55.67 37.67 45.0
41 1856.00 14.00 58.00 16.00 44.00 96.00 76.00 56.00 42.0
42 1984.00 12.00 60.00 14.00 48.00 96.00 77.00 54.00 42.0
43 1516.00 4.00 79.50 21.50 79.50 59.00 50.00 31.00 50.5
48 1479.00 4.00 78.00 21.00 78.00 58.00 50.00 31.00 50.0
50 2472.50 7.00 83.50 19.00 78.50 83.00 72.00 44.50 51.5
52 1732.00 4.00 85.00 23.00 85.00 63.00 54.00 33.00 54.0
57 1517.00 7.00 81.00 26.50 81.00 60.00 49.00 33.00 43.0
59 2362.00 4.00 102.00 28.00 102.00 75.00 64.00 39.00 65.0
61 2299.00 4.00 99.00 27.00 99.00 73.00 63.00 38.00 63.0
66 2613.00 4.00 106.00 29.00 106.00 78.00 68.00 41.00 68.0
That's the best I could do as far as getting useful #s from it, without putting a bunch of work into parsing text strings (DR, resists/etc)
Note that the #s above around 25 or so start to generally lose their meaning, since the SRD only covers a few epic critters, with some of the listed CRs having 1, maybe 2 critters.
Edit -- oops, had my fractions out of order.
It's a fantastic list. However, I'd be most interested (at least from a CO standpoint) in the maximum values in each category. Well... the average and maximum values. I'm assuming those are all averaged values, no?
I have no idea how much time you spent on that... but you have my gratitude.
Dielzen
05-15-07, 11:02 PM
Yes they're averages...give me a few to export a new report to Word and clean up the formatting for pasting to the forums
hp init AC touch ff_ac bab fort ref will
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1/10 (2 detail records)
Avg 1.00 1.50 15.50 15.50 14.00 0.00 2.00 3.50 2.00
Max 1 2 16 16 14 0 2 4 2
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1/8 (2 detail records)
Avg 1.00 2.00 14.00 14.00 12.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.50
Max 1 2 14 14 12 0 2 4 1
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1/6 (4 detail records)
Avg 4.50 1.75 13.75 13.25 12.00 0.25 2.50 4.00 1.00
Max 11 2 14 14 12 1 4 4 2
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1/4 (8 detail records)
Avg 3.88 1.75 14.50 13.25 12.75 0.25 2.50 2.88 0.38
Max 11 3 17 15 14 1 4 5 2
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1/3 (7 detail records)
Avg 4.43 2.57 15.71 13.14 13.71 0.14 2.29 3.14 1.14
Max 6 5 17 15 16 1 4 5 3
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1/2 (29 detail records)
Avg 6.59 1.41 14.69 11.86 13.38 0.76 2.62 2.00 0.03
Max 16 4 18 16 18 2 5 6 3
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 1 (46 detail records)
Avg 12.24 1.54 15.28 11.78 13.80 1.28 3.00 2.85 0.98
Max 31 7 23 20 18 3 6 6 5
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 2 (51 detail records)
Avg 20.55 2.39 15.76 11.84 13.94 2.33 4.35 4.35 2.69
Max 42 8 23 15 22 5 8 10 6
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 3 (72 detail records)
Avg 27.26 2.68 16.14 11.51 14.64 3.30 4.58 4.18 3.31
Max 55 9 23 18 23 6 9 9 7
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 4 (40 detail records)
Avg 48.23 2.23 16.00 10.45 15.05 5.20 6.45 5.10 4.60
Max 94 6 20 18 20 9 11 9 9
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 5 (51 detail records)
Avg 56.33 3.16 17.16 10.55 15.73 6.08 7.47 5.82 4.82
Max 95 11 25 16 25 11 12 13 10
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 6 (26 detail records)
Avg 69.12 3.27 18.88 11.00 17.27 7.60 8.08 6.85 6.08
Max 133 13 29 29 24 12 14 12 12
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 7 (45 detail records)
Avg 86.98 2.91 18.07 10.38 16.44 8.38 8.67 6.98 6.56
Max 152 13 25 17 24 13 15 19 12
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 8 (31 detail records)
Avg 96.48 3.19 20.00 10.58 18.32 9.43 9.19 7.65 7.45
Max 180 10 27 20 26 15 16 14 11
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 9 (31 detail records)
Avg 130.65 3.61 21.74 10.45 19.68 11.97 12.13 9.81 8.58
Max 230 14 29 18 28 18 19 22 13
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 10 (19 detail records)
Avg 136.53 2.79 22.58 9.26 21.42 13.21 11.63 8.58 9.11
Max 305 8 33 13 33 24 22 19 14
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 11 (24 detail records)
Avg 163.83 3.96 23.71 10.92 21.38 14.25 13.75 10.63 10.3
Max 228 15 29 25 27 24 20 25 14
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 12 (12 detail records)
Avg 196.33 1.58 21.75 7.17 21.42 17.00 15.42 9.33 9.08
Max 300 5 28 13 28 30 25 12 15
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 13 (12 detail records)
Avg 167.00 2.92 27.33 10.25 26.00 14.42 14.17 9.83 12.4
Max 230 5 32 14 31 20 18 14 16
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 14 (12 detail records)
Avg 180.33 4.50 27.00 11.00 25.17 16.17 15.92 11.83 14.0
Max 287 8 35 14 35 23 19 13 18
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 15 (8 detail records)
Avg 224.63 3.50 29.75 8.13 29.50 18.88 15.75 10.63 15.8
Max 312 5 34 11 33 24 19 14 20
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 16 (11 detail records)
Avg 239.09 4.27 31.91 10.00 30.73 21.18 17.09 13.27 16.6
Max 378 8 42 16 42 31 23 16 23
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 17 (7 detail records)
Avg 244.86 3.29 28.00 9.57 26.86 20.14 19.57 11.29 16.2
Max 337 7 34 13 34 27 25 15 19
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 18 (8 detail records)
Avg 302.25 6.00 32.75 8.50 31.25 24.25 19.50 15.63 19.0
Max 375 20 37 14 37 30 23 24 23
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 19 (10 detail records)
Avg 355.80 4.80 36.00 9.20 35.20 27.60 22.10 16.30 19.7
Max 445 12 38 16 38 33 25 20 21
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 20 (9 detail records)
Avg 409.33 6.00 36.44 9.11 34.44 29.56 24.22 18.67 21.2
Max 858 12 40 17 39 48 38 29 23
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 21 (13 detail records)
Avg 393.00 4.31 38.69 8.77 37.31 27.69 23.31 16.15 20.5
Max 522 7 51 17 44 36 28 22 25
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 22 (9 detail records)
Avg 452.33 7.44 40.22 11.56 36.33 29.56 23.00 19.67 23.7
Max 536 22 47 24 47 37 28 25 27
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 23 (11 detail records)
Avg 480.09 8.27 39.91 12.45 35.27 31.00 26.00 21.82 24.6
Max 893 18 46 28 42 38 41 35 28
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 24 (8 detail records)
Avg 622.25 9.25 42.38 12.88 37.75 37.50 29.50 24.25 27.3
Max 900 27 44 40 44 48 39 38 38
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 25 (11 detail records)
Avg 600.27 8.55 44.18 18.36 39.82 34.09 27.55 24.00 28.7
Max 1105 26 52 50 50 40 45 36 41
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 26 (7 detail records)
Avg 420.29 10.43 44.29 27.14 39.57 27.00 21.14 20.14 26.2
Max 680 17 50 48 43 40 32 29 32
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 27 (4 detail records)
Avg 625.25 10.00 46.75 19.25 40.25 43.50 31.75 27.75 32.7
Max 817 20 52 32 45 75 40 37 41
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 28 (4 detail records)
Avg 894.25 16.25 53.50 26.50 43.25 42.50 37.00 37.00 31.5
Max 1102 25 57 47 57 60 45 44 35
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 29 (2 detail records)
Avg 472.00 12.00 50.50 30.00 42.50 21.50 25.00 25.50 24.5
Max 814 17 51 38 48 33 40 39 32
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 30 (4 detail records)
Avg 1064.25 2.00 40.75 13.50 40.25 48.25 36.00 26.25 38.7
Max 1785 6 58 26 58 70 47 37 50
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 31 (2 detail records)
Avg 788.50 3.50 58.00 16.00 56.50 42.50 34.00 24.50 33.5
Max 877 4 64 20 64 45 37 25 38
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 32 (1 detail record)
Avg 433.00 18.00 40.00 20.00 30.00 42.00 19.00 29.00 29.0
Max 433 18 40 20 30 42 19 29 29
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 33 (2 detail records)
Avg 605.50 -2.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 72.00 32.00 30.00 33.0
Max 608 -2 60 0 60 72 32 30 33
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 34 (2 detail records)
Avg 1100.00 9.50 54.00 16.00 50.50 52.50 42.00 32.50 39.5
Max 1362 15 61 19 61 62 48 42 43
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 35 (5 detail records)
Avg 1011.80 12.60 62.00 13.80 53.20 48.40 41.60 34.20 31.0
Max 1075 24 67 18 67 50 46 52 43
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 36 (1 detail record)
Avg 1676.00 11.00 58.00 3.00 57.00 72.00 55.00 47.00 39.0
Max 1676 11 58 3 57 72 55 47 39
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 37 (1 detail record)
Avg 1292.00 4.00 74.00 20.00 74.00 55.00 46.00 29.00 47.0
Max 1292 4 74 20 74 55 46 29 47
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 39 (3 detail records)
Avg 1430.00 7.00 66.67 18.00 62.33 68.00 55.67 37.67 45.0
Max 1728 13 81 22 81 96 75 55 52
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 41 (1 detail record)
Avg 1856.00 14.00 58.00 16.00 44.00 96.00 76.00 56.00 42.0
Max 1856 14 58 16 44 96 76 56 42
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 42 (1 detail record)
Avg 1984.00 12.00 60.00 14.00 48.00 96.00 77.00 54.00 42.0
Max 1984 12 60 14 48 96 77 54 42
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 43 (2 detail records)
Avg 1516.00 4.00 79.50 21.50 79.50 59.00 50.00 31.00 50.5
Max 1787 4 88 24 88 65 55 34 56
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 48 (1 detail record)
Avg 1479.00 4.00 78.00 21.00 78.00 58.00 50.00 31.00 50.0
Max 1479 4 78 21 78 58 50 31 50
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 50 (2 detail records)
Avg 2472.50 7.00 83.50 19.00 78.50 83.00 72.00 44.50 51.5
Max 2880 10 95 26 95 96 84 52 61
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 52 (1 detail record)
Avg 1732.00 4.00 85.00 23.00 85.00 63.00 54.00 33.00 54.0
Max 1732 4 85 23 85 63 54 33 54
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 57 (2 detail records)
Avg 1517.00 7.00 81.00 26.50 81.00 60.00 49.00 33.00 43.0
Max 2006 10 92 28 92 68 59 36 59
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 59 (1 detail record)
Avg 2362.00 4.00 102.00 28.00 102.00 75.00 64.00 39.00 65.0
Max 2362 4 102 28 102 75 64 39 65
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 61 (1 detail record)
Avg 2299.00 4.00 99.00 27.00 99.00 73.00 63.00 38.00 63.0
Max 2299 4 99 27 99 73 63 38 63
Summary for 'challenge_rating' = 66 (1 detail record)
Avg 2613.00 4.00 106.00 29.00 106.00 78.00 68.00 41.00 68.0
Max 2613 4 106 29 106 78 68 41 68
ReaderOfPosts
05-16-07, 12:23 AM
There are a few subcategories that I think are worth mentioning
One that popped out at me because its an obvious role for multiple members of the party to fill is recon. Not only do multiple good spot/listen modifiers decrease/increase the odds of someone rolling bad/good, mixing a character with blindsense/sight (Say blindfold of truedarkness) with characters with good spot can cover a party very well. Recon helps damage mitigation (avoids ambushes) and DPR (set them up).
Another important party necessity is lore. Although different campaigns have differing standards for IC/OOC knowledge (which can marginalize the skill), having ranks in all the major knowledges to learn about creatures can make an encounter much easier.
Another important idea in party optimization is the idea of party denial. One flying party member means nothing to a tarrasque (he'll just kill the rest): an entire flying party can make mincemeat of him. This concept can apply to immunities, AC, stealth, mobility and lots of other things. A lot of party strengths are based on the weakest link: if there isn't one, then the party is often very well prepared for challenges well above their expected CR.
Tleilaxu_Ghola
05-16-07, 01:27 AM
Hmm, those are some good points. I don't think they fall so much under roles as they do axioms or rules of thumbs. The idea of the weakest link is an excellent point.
Feeb
05-16-07, 01:44 AM
A lot of party strengths are based on the weakest link: if there isn't one, then the party is often very well prepared for challenges well above their expected CR.
Wouldn't this be partly the cause for including a class or caster with some "buff" related ability, i.e. Marshal, Dragon Shaman, Cleric, etc? Does this fall into the Utility role? (My apologies if this has already been answered.)
Serrin
05-16-07, 02:47 AM
Feeb: While I'm still not T_G, I'm willing to bet he'd say that buffs used outside of combat are utility, while buffs that increase other things are lumped in with what they increase. Haste is DPR, stoneskin is damage mitigation, and circle of vigor is damage removal.
Reader: Good listens and spots aren't unique. More damage is beter, more healing is better, more mitigation is better, so it's no surprise that more utility is more good. Your much more interesting idea is that of some things being next to useless unless possessed by the entire party. I'm not sure the best way to tie that into the theory, but it's an idea that definitely needs to be considered. Perhaps considering certain things individual vs. group traits.
Tytalus: In that case, energy resistance buffs are clearly damage mitigation, unless you're using them to counter an especially hot, cold, electric, or acidy environment, in which case they're utility. If you're using them for neither, then they're waste.
Nobody is saying that the categories are or should be mutually exclusive. However, neither are they wholley superfluous. These categories are about as specific as you can get without being plain wrong. The thread so far is more theory than practice, but you need to have a theory before you can put it into practice, and judging from the recent replies, the theory is still being hammered out. However, to come up with a checklist like "person with trapfinding and sneak attack" "long duration means of party flight" and "at least four potions of cure X wounds" is to do away with the theory entirely and rely on a list of good ideas that may or may not always be appropriate. I don't know about T_G's intention, but I'm interested in solving the general case, not merely making guidelines for common situations.
Fil: If your argument for the utility of diplomacy holds true, then all CO is an exercise in futility. No diplomancer in the party? Just make the NPCs friendly by default. No trapfinder? Make the traps easy. No warrior? Make the goblins all asleep. No smart players at the table? Okay, the bottomless chasm has a button next to it that make a magic bridge across.
The value of CO depends on a static environment which does not scale based on PC abilities. Even though some DMs will let you fake your way through RP but not combat does not mean we should stop viewing RP through the lens of mechanics, because those mechanics exist to be used, not to trick players into wasting skill points. It is just unfortunate so many DMs overlook this fact.
Tleilaxu_Ghola
05-16-07, 03:29 AM
Okay, looks like there's at least two camps here:
A guide about party optimization (theory AND practice) should contain checklists, points of comparison, and very explicit tactics.
To this camp I'm going to say, start your own thread with all that. I'm not particularly interested in compiling specific case after specific case with tactics in huge lists.
I like the idea of abstracting party optimization theory. Lets take it a step further and spend a good deal of time hammering out a unified theory before generating applications.
The reality is that this will get boring fast. I'm a big fan of the theory stuff, but I'd really like to see a push towards people posting their optimized party setups. In exploring the applied theory, perhaps new theoretical ideas will arise.
Now, that all said, I think it would be neat to see what general tactics do exist and then from those generalized tactics one can design parties around them. Here's an example of what I mean:
Tactic: Tight Party Formation The party forms up in a very tight formation, all members adjacent to eachother, as close as possible.
Advantages:
1. Due to proximity the party members gain an offensive defense in AoOs. Combined with feats and abilities like bulwark of defense, standstill, and thicket of blades, this enables melee units to better protect their squishy comrades.
2. Beneficial area effect spells are almost certain to affect all party members. Certain examples include damp power and intellect fortress.
3. Allows the healer to touch any party member with relative ease.
Disadvantages:
1. Not condusive for a charging melee character, who would constantly be desiring to escape the formation. Melee characters relying on flanking (such as rogues) will find this annoying at best.
2. Mobility is limited by the slowest member, if the party is to stay in formation at all times.
>> LOGICAL EXTREME: All party members have the swarmfighting feat. I've actually done this as a DM. I made 4 halfling NPC level 10 wilders ride around on a 5'x5' magical carpet. They flew around pummeling the party with energy missiles. Suffice it to say, combining their wildsurging ability and paradoxically good mobility, they were able to deal incredibly lethal damage to the entire party. (on the order of 48d6+48 damage per round to every character as an ECL 16 encounter! It was basically TPK in can... thankfully the party had 2 psions with intellect fortress. One energy ball was all it took to take 'em down. 'Course I had to kind of hold back... if all the wilders had used schism they could have put out 72d6+72 dmg to the whole party [324 avg dmg]. The party was around 20th level, and this was enough to kill every single one of them in single round... yeesh.)
Tactic: Mobility Emphasis Every single party member focuses on being highly mobile and ranged capable.
[indent]Advantages:
1. Excepting pounce-capable monsters, a party that is constantly in motion is difficult to full attack. This makes for an excellent method of damage mitigation.
2. The party is nigh immune to being TPKed by AoE spamming monsters.
Disadvantages:
1. Smart enemies will focus fire on one individual at a time. Since the party is spread out, this will make whomever is being singled out in grave danger, unless the party is capable of some sort of ranged damage mitigation that still enables mobility.
2. Next to impossible to provide on the spot healing, since most healing spells have a range of touch. This can be fixed with metamagic, but metamagic usually comes with an increased price tag (in terms of resources expended).
3. Melee characters are pushed into a purely DPR role. Not that this is innately bad, but being pigeonholed is never fun.
ancalimohtar
05-16-07, 04:35 AM
I think everybody here is too nice to say it, so I'll just go right ahead and save you all the uncomfortableness: This thread is worthless. I mean, really, really worthless. All the threads Tytalus mentioned are way more useful. And don't say the purpose of this thread isn't to help us optimize parties, but rather to jumpstart our brain-mobiles on the topic. People have come before, and talked about this before. We can talk about this topic without having terrible pigeon-holed iconic party roles thrust upon use senselessly.
I have to say, I agree with Tytalus the most so far. I would quote his two replies here, but I'm afraid I would add nothing but "I heartily agree" over and over.
A common mistake in D&D literature is to associate class names with roles, and then defining other, non-iconic classes, in terms of the iconic ones. For example, it is often said that an ideal party consists of a cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue. These iconic class names do little to elucidate the actual purpose of the roles they fill. In fact, the classes listed actually have some overlap in their capabilities. I posit that there are four fundamental roles in a party, based on function:By escaping this common mistake, you have made another, less common but no less dangerous, mistake: Simplifying party roles into numbers. You can't do this without going through a LOT of analysis. You have done none.
Your party roles:
Damage mitigation
Damage delivery
Damage removal
Utility
First of all, drop the silly names. Call them what they are, instead of using silly terms ("damage removal"? "damage migration"? come on, ain't no seasonal birds here). You have listed, roughly:
1. Prevention
2. Damage
3. Healing
4. The rest
[/spoiler]