The math behind LG [Archive] - Wizards Community

The math behind LG [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Psykick
07-03-07, 05:19 PM I've seen various posts and had discussions with many friends and gamers with whom I play LG mentioning the math behind LG and DnD in general. People have cited things like the xp/gp curve, a competitive AC=20+character level, average damage from spell x = y hp, a normal combat should last 3-5 rounds depending on apl v. number of characters v. CL, etc. Where do people learn about all of this math behnd the curtain? Is it discussed in a book I don't have? Dragon and/or Dungeon magazines? I'd like to read up on it and learn more about the game to get better at it.
bitznarf
07-03-07, 05:33 PM Alot of it comes from the DMG, some comes from experiance, and some comes from simple math skills. For example, the xp/gp curve comes from the DMG. A competative AC comes from experiance, and some numbers crunching of the critters in the MM. And things like spell x doing y damage on average is simple math skills: 12d6 is on average 42 damage.
Mattastrophic
07-03-07, 05:42 PM And very little of it is fact; with the exception of the statistics gathered through mathematics (e.g. average of 2d6 = 7), it consists of opinion.

-Matt
Britt
07-03-07, 05:42 PM Don't forget gnomes...
solbergb
07-03-07, 06:08 PM xp/gp curve is straight from DMG and is the basis of adventure rewards. Most LG chars are a bit behind it if they play a mix of up, down, normal and spend cash on consumables, metaorgs and anything else nonpermanent.

average damage is just taken from this:
d4 average is 2.5
d6 average is 3.5
d8 average is 4.5
d10 average is 5.5
d12 average is 6.5
the rest is simple arithmetic. What isn't simple is your odds of doing that damage (attack mods, miss chance, saves, spell resistance, spell interruption, whether or not to power attack, whether your main weapon is available, etc). The above averages are accurate.

"enough" AC is three tiers. #1 is "I don't care at all" you don't put anything into AC that costs more than a few hundred gp, and sometimes not even that. You defend yourself other ways. #2 is "I don't want the weaklings to hit me and iteratives miss" This is fairly typical for frontliners of any description - but you usually don't spend more than a couple-three thousand on AC until after level 10. Your investment in AC is similar to that of your primary attribute item. #3 is "Ac is important to me". You spend 1/3 to 1/2 of your total wealth on AC and likely have a feat or two to back it. These guys are only hit by the stronger melee monsters and can often "cork up" to be nearly invulnerable to them. The 20+APL thing works fairly well for the first half of the LG campaign for tier 3...in the 10+ level range you need a bit more.

Enough AC also depends on things like your hitpoint total and party role.

Of the three things you cited, AC is the most subjective. I think of overall defenses for a character, not AC, and the true measure of whether you have enough defense is this question

"Do I spend time in combat unable to contribute because I'm incapacitated in some way?"

If the answer is "hardly ever" than your defenses are good enough. If it is more frequent than that, you probably need to spend somewhere- but a vest of resistance or amulet of health or even winged boots might be more important than an AC boost.

Combat duration is tied more to the party mix and the precise encounter than anything specific. I find three basic tiers.

Done in 0-2 rounds (0 = surprise round). The party has the right offense for the job and has usually gotten "the drop" on the enemy, either via scouting or superior senses or just really good initiative rolls on somebody who was able to lock down the enemy. In this kind of battle, defenses are usually irrelevant. The opposition doesn't get enough actions to do serious damage. An example of this kind of fight would be the ranger spotting the rogue ambush and the party opening up with potent ranged attacks+battlefield control out of sneak attack range.

Done in 3-5 rounds. The party either has the right offense for the job or got an early advantage, but usually not both. In this kind of fight healing, battlefield control magic and
frontliner toughness are often a factor in how easy it is to win. An example of this kind of fight would be a slugfest with demons where neither the party nor the demons was successful in removing anyone from the fight in the first round.

Done in > 5 rounds. The party either started out at a disadvantage or has the wrong kind of offense or both. In this kind of fight, the party's passive defenses, healing and resilience are very important because the enemy has many opportunities to hurt the party with their actions. An example of this kind of fight might be a party that got caught in an evards and spends most of the first few rounds extricating themselves and keeping anyone from getting killed, rather than taking out the opposition. A different kind might be a party "cork" holding off an iron golem while the rest of the party plinks away with various weak effects like lesser orbs, acid flasks, or arrows that are doing 1d8-2 damage per shot.

The first kind of fight is only dangerous on a fluke (some enemy gets one action, and manages to kill somebody with a save/die or massive crit). The second is dangerous only through a mix of bad play and bad luck - failing to notice someone is in trouble and protecting them, usually. The party will win, but if not careful they might lose somebody. The third is flat out dangerous unless the enemy actions aren't very dangerous (eg, if the iron golem only hits the "cork" on a 20, it doesn't matter much that it will take 15 rounds to kill it, because even if it gets a crit, it won't kill the blocker, and the party can heal the blocker between swings)

Fight duration is interesting on a lot of levels. A party that blows through a battle has more time to roleplay, one that struggles has far less. More GM actions = more chances to hurt the party, but if the entire party is geared for offense it can be a "glass cannon" - if the fight DOES go to 3-5 rounds, the party can rather suddenly have deaths.

A few short fights are terrifying for both sides. Imagine if both the party and the enemy has a bunch of archers and blaster-casters with only moderate hitpoints/defenses. Such a battle will end quickly, but won't be easy or safe for the winner unless they won before anyone on the opposition side got to go.
clannagh
07-03-07, 07:48 PM Don't forget gnomes...

Never forget gnomes .. that can be a fatal mistake.
control freak
07-03-07, 10:19 PM DnD is a game of numbers its that simple
gomeztoo
07-04-07, 03:02 AM Never forget gnomes .. that can be a fatal mistake.

Repeat after me:
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
These are not the gnomes you are looking for.
pedr
07-04-07, 06:42 AM Repeat after me:
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
These are not the gnomes you are looking for.At least we don't have 'The Trust', Eberron's secret order/network of gnomish spies and information hoarders to deal with!
Frumpkis
07-04-07, 09:42 AM Repeat after me:
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
These are not the gnomes you are looking for.

*Frumpkis (gnome bard/sublime chord/fatespinner) rubs his hands together with a satisfied smile, then lets out a nerdy nasally laugh* Ah, the joys of Modify Memory!
AOSOL
07-04-07, 10:49 AM DnD is a game of numbers its that simple

D&D is not just a game of numbers; although it could be most certainly be broken into numbers. Hit points of trees, rounds of air in a certain area, how many gnome sacrifices is required to summon Orcus and the like.

Anyway Most of these numbers and equations come from experience and most of the experience is stubled upon during boxed text.:D Last night I was listening to the box text and generating a shock-a-graph for my fighter when I just decided to write a basic equation to calculate the base damage. These numbers and figures your looking and asking about are just thought about when you play D&D. It helps to be entertained by numbers to realize some of the patterns in the game.
Lupo
07-04-07, 11:05 AM Repeat after me:
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
There are no gnomes.
These are not the gnomes you are looking for.

so who constructed the aqueduct of innspa??????? fairies??????:confused:

and haven't you ever met the master crafter sisters in the adrie forest???:P

at least our region fancies gnomes ;) yea, and paladins :fight!: so best be a gnomish paladin :bounce:

ciao

martin m.

still fine tuning a gnomish bard build. bard 6/lyric thaumaturge 4/sublime chord 5 :D
Britt
07-04-07, 01:34 PM still fine tuning a gnomish bard build. bard 6/lyric thaumaturge 4/sublime chord 5 :D
Mine was Cleric of Ralishaz 3/Bard 4/Mystic Theurge.
ThaiGQ
07-04-07, 01:39 PM so who constructed the aqueduct of innspa??????? fairies??????:confused:

and haven't you ever met the master crafter sisters in the adrie forest???:P

at least our region fancies gnomes ;) yea, and paladins :fight!: so best be a gnomish paladin :bounce:

ciao

martin m.

still fine tuning a gnomish bard build. bard 6/lyric thaumaturge 4/sublime chord 5 :D

Dwarves, good sir, Dwarves! Everyone knows that Dwarves are the master artisans and architects! Those people you THINK are gnomes are merely short Dwarves...and the ones without beards? Well, they're the children helping out their parents of course! :P
LGMoses
07-05-07, 02:27 AM I've only played with one person who played gnomes regularly and I didn't play with him much. His reason for playing them was qoute, "they get the best and longest list of racial adjustments." Never been much of a fan of the short races myself. I usually play humans. They're just easier to relate to.
gomeztoo
07-05-07, 03:17 AM so who constructed the aqueduct of innspa??????? fairies??????:confused:

And evil ones at that!
I mean, I can believe in faeries, devils, ghosts, and even halflings.
But gnomes? Small guys with little white beards and pointy red hats pushing wheelbarrows and carrying fishing rods?* Nah.
Humbug!

*) though I admit that depiction of the gnomes (non-existing figments of our imagination, of course) in Stone Man's Puzzle made that scenario a hoot.
Timlagor
07-05-07, 06:58 PM Of the three things you cited, AC is the most subjective. I think of overall defenses for a character, not AC, and the true measure of whether you have enough defense is this question

"Do I spend time in combat unable to contribute because I'm incapacitated in some way?"

I hate to disagree but I think this question is too simple (though still good) as it fails to take into account all the ways people can react to being scared. Very often you will still contribute but not as effectively as you might otherwise have done.

"Are my actions in combat dictated by my defences?" would be better (don't want to weaken it too much).

You also omitted to mention "the PCs deliberately slowed the combat to a crawl with battlefiedl control". If I lay a Solid Fog and some tentacles down as soon as my Anticipate Telportation spells tingles, I don't expect the combat to be over in 3 rounds however completely we turn out to dominate the opposition.
solbergb
07-05-07, 07:30 PM Well..your actions are restricted by not having the right defenses of a given type. As an example, my 12 AC sorceress isn't normally going to ever stand next to the melee monster for a full attack to "draw fire" (AOO's, yeah, sometimes), and she's going to cast defensively rather than "cast anyway, they're chance of hitting me is lower than my failure chance on cast defensive" like my favored soul.

But so what? She doesn't need to stand next to the big melee monster. She has 6 different ways of neutering the melee monster's attack, some of which require no tank, some of which just give the tank sufficient edge to disengage or stand and swing.

In some people, they can have objectively plenty of defenses but still "play scared". A "buff baby" who as his first action runs behind the party casters, goes full defensive and demands a short duration defensive buff is letting fear rule him, even though he's got already the highest AC and hitpoint total in the party. Meanwhile the guy with the reach weapon who used his action to enlarge himself and spends the enemy actions piling up enemy warriors via AOO's/trips wasn't hindered by his medeocre hitpoints and sub-20 armor class. The enemy was dead via his damage plus area damage dropped on them by casters (instead of buffing the "tank") before they got to move again.

(yes, this is an anecdote from a real adventure I played once).

To me, being ruled by fear is "not contributing" just as the barb who charges and gets eviscerated/bleeding out is "not contributing". The barb at least probably got one good whack in, but now needs actions spent on rescue so it is a wash.

The only real grey is the situation where you contribute, but less so. Ie, take the archer who moves, takes AOO and shoots once, vs the guy who stays in melee range and does a full attack (trusting AC or things like close combat shot/arrow mind). The first archer *might* need more in the way of defenses - but maybe not. The second archer might find his bow disarmed, him tripped, him sundered if he proves too hard to just hit. If the second archer is at full hp but can't shoot, in the 2nd round he's the one not contributing.

Most spellcasters are at near full power even if they move every single round. People who rely on full attacks need sufficient defenses or other advantages (unusual reach, invisibility, something) to GET full attacks reasonably often.

In the situation where the PC's dictated the pace of the fight, they need little in the way of defenses. The anticipate teleport/solid fog/evards combo may take a few in-game rounds to adjudicate but the fight will go quickly. A minute or two of prebuffing and arranging minis, then a short, brutal thing where the party does all the offense and the bad guy is mostly trying to teleport the heck out of the horrible situation he got into. Everyone could be AC 8 with saves of +0 and it would be unlikely to change the outcome.
Timlagor
07-06-07, 06:25 PM I would not consider your Sorceress's actions to be dictated by her (lack of) defences ..she wouldn't be doing those things anyway.
Many characters do have options between 'most offensive' and 'not contributing'.
- casting Obscuring Mist certainly contributes something... but a character (/party) with better defences might contribute something more offensive.
- A Melee character may use a consummable that will increase their offence in later rounds or something like a tanglefoot bag that is offensive but not as strong as their melee attack.

You do seem to have a higher threshold for "contributing" than me though.

That was rather my point about the solid fog -you can have a one-sided fight that still takes a lot of rounds. Sometimes the one-sidedness isn't even obvious as people manoeuvre about a lot and the PCs may not realise how harmless the enemies have become.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Psykick 07-03-07, 05:19 PM	I've seen various posts and had discussions with many friends and gamers with whom I play LG mentioning the math behind LG and DnD in general. People have cited things like the xp/gp curve, a competitive AC=20+character level, average damage from spell x = y hp, a normal combat should last 3-5 rounds depending on apl v. number of characters v. CL, etc. Where do people learn about all of this math behnd the curtain? Is it discussed in a book I don't have? Dragon and/or Dungeon magazines? I'd like to read up on it and learn more about the game to get better at it.
bitznarf 07-03-07, 05:33 PM	Alot of it comes from the DMG, some comes from experiance, and some comes from simple math skills. For example, the xp/gp curve comes from the DMG. A competative AC comes from experiance, and some numbers crunching of the critters in the MM. And things like spell x doing y damage on average is simple math skills: 12d6 is on average 42 damage.
Mattastrophic 07-03-07, 05:42 PM	And very little of it is fact; with the exception of the statistics gathered through mathematics (e.g. average of 2d6 = 7), it consists of opinion. -Matt
Britt 07-03-07, 05:42 PM	Don't forget gnomes...
solbergb 07-03-07, 06:08 PM	xp/gp curve is straight from DMG and is the basis of adventure rewards. Most LG chars are a bit behind it if they play a mix of up, down, normal and spend cash on consumables, metaorgs and anything else nonpermanent. average damage is just taken from this: d4 average is 2.5 d6 average is 3.5 d8 average is 4.5 d10 average is 5.5 d12 average is 6.5 the rest is simple arithmetic. What isn't simple is your odds of doing that damage (attack mods, miss chance, saves, spell resistance, spell interruption, whether or not to power attack, whether your main weapon is available, etc). The above averages are accurate. "enough" AC is three tiers. #1 is "I don't care at all" you don't put anything into AC that costs more than a few hundred gp, and sometimes not even that. You defend yourself other ways. #2 is "I don't want the weaklings to hit me and iteratives miss" This is fairly typical for frontliners of any description - but you usually don't spend more than a couple-three thousand on AC until after level 10. Your investment in AC is similar to that of your primary attribute item. #3 is "Ac is important to me". You spend 1/3 to 1/2 of your total wealth on AC and likely have a feat or two to back it. These guys are only hit by the stronger melee monsters and can often "cork up" to be nearly invulnerable to them. The 20+APL thing works fairly well for the first half of the LG campaign for tier 3...in the 10+ level range you need a bit more. Enough AC also depends on things like your hitpoint total and party role. Of the three things you cited, AC is the most subjective. I think of overall defenses for a character, not AC, and the true measure of whether you have enough defense is this question "Do I spend time in combat unable to contribute because I'm incapacitated in some way?" If the answer is "hardly ever" than your defenses are good enough. If it is more frequent than that, you probably need to spend somewhere- but a vest of resistance or amulet of health or even winged boots might be more important than an AC boost. Combat duration is tied more to the party mix and the precise encounter than anything specific. I find three basic tiers. Done in 0-2 rounds (0 = surprise round). The party has the right offense for the job and has usually gotten "the drop" on the enemy, either via scouting or superior senses or just really good initiative rolls on somebody who was able to lock down the enemy. In this kind of battle, defenses are usually irrelevant. The opposition doesn't get enough actions to do serious damage. An example of this kind of fight would be the ranger spotting the rogue ambush and the party opening up with potent ranged attacks+battlefield control out of sneak attack range. Done in 3-5 rounds. The party either has the right offense for the job or got an early advantage, but usually not both. In this kind of fight healing, battlefield control magic and frontliner toughness are often a factor in how easy it is to win. An example of this kind of fight would be a slugfest with demons where neither the party nor the demons was successful in removing anyone from the fight in the first round. Done in > 5 rounds. The party either started out at a disadvantage or has the wrong kind of offense or both. In this kind of fight, the party's passive defenses, healing and resilience are very important because the enemy has many opportunities to hurt the party with their actions. An example of this kind of fight might be a party that got caught in an evards and spends most of the first few rounds extricating themselves and keeping anyone from getting killed, rather than taking out the opposition. A different kind might be a party "cork" holding off an iron golem while the rest of the party plinks away with various weak effects like lesser orbs, acid flasks, or arrows that are doing 1d8-2 damage per shot. The first kind of fight is only dangerous on a fluke (some enemy gets one action, and manages to kill somebody with a save/die or massive crit). The second is dangerous only through a mix of bad play and bad luck - failing to notice someone is in trouble and protecting them, usually. The party will win, but if not careful they might lose somebody. The third is flat out dangerous unless the enemy actions aren't very dangerous (eg, if the iron golem only hits the "cork" on a 20, it doesn't matter much that it will take 15 rounds to kill it, because even if it gets a crit, it won't kill the blocker, and the party can heal the blocker between swings) Fight duration is interesting on a lot of levels. A party that blows through a battle has more time to roleplay, one that struggles has far less. More GM actions = more chances to hurt the party, but if the entire party is geared for offense it can be a "glass cannon" - if the fight DOES go to 3-5 rounds, the party can rather suddenly have deaths. A few short fights are terrifying for both sides. Imagine if both the party and the enemy has a bunch of archers and blaster-casters with only moderate hitpoints/defenses. Such a battle will end quickly, but won't be easy or safe for the winner unless they won before anyone on the opposition side got to go.
clannagh 07-03-07, 07:48 PM	Don't forget gnomes... Never forget gnomes .. that can be a fatal mistake.
control freak 07-03-07, 10:19 PM	DnD is a game of numbers its that simple
gomeztoo 07-04-07, 03:02 AM	Never forget gnomes .. that can be a fatal mistake. Repeat after me: There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. These are not the gnomes you are looking for.
pedr 07-04-07, 06:42 AM	Repeat after me: There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. These are not the gnomes you are looking for.At least we don't have 'The Trust', Eberron's secret order/network of gnomish spies and information hoarders to deal with!
Frumpkis 07-04-07, 09:42 AM	Repeat after me: There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. These are not the gnomes you are looking for. Frumpkis (gnome bard/sublime chord/fatespinner) rubs his hands together with a satisfied smile, then lets out a nerdy nasally laugh Ah, the joys of Modify Memory!
AOSOL 07-04-07, 10:49 AM	DnD is a game of numbers its that simple D&D is not just a game of numbers; although it could be most certainly be broken into numbers. Hit points of trees, rounds of air in a certain area, how many gnome sacrifices is required to summon Orcus and the like. Anyway Most of these numbers and equations come from experience and most of the experience is stubled upon during boxed text.:D Last night I was listening to the box text and generating a shock-a-graph for my fighter when I just decided to write a basic equation to calculate the base damage. These numbers and figures your looking and asking about are just thought about when you play D&D. It helps to be entertained by numbers to realize some of the patterns in the game.
Lupo 07-04-07, 11:05 AM	Repeat after me: There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. There are no gnomes. These are not the gnomes you are looking for. so who constructed the aqueduct of innspa??????? fairies??????:confused: and haven't you ever met the master crafter sisters in the adrie forest???:P at least our region fancies gnomes ;) yea, and paladins :fight!: so best be a gnomish paladin :bounce: ciao martin m. still fine tuning a gnomish bard build. bard 6/lyric thaumaturge 4/sublime chord 5 :D
Britt 07-04-07, 01:34 PM	still fine tuning a gnomish bard build. bard 6/lyric thaumaturge 4/sublime chord 5 :D Mine was Cleric of Ralishaz 3/Bard 4/Mystic Theurge.
ThaiGQ 07-04-07, 01:39 PM	so who constructed the aqueduct of innspa??????? fairies??????:confused: and haven't you ever met the master crafter sisters in the adrie forest???:P at least our region fancies gnomes ;) yea, and paladins :fight!: so best be a gnomish paladin :bounce: ciao martin m. still fine tuning a gnomish bard build. bard 6/lyric thaumaturge 4/sublime chord 5 :D Dwarves, good sir, Dwarves! Everyone knows that Dwarves are the master artisans and architects! Those people you THINK are gnomes are merely short Dwarves...and the ones without beards? Well, they're the children helping out their parents of course! :P
LGMoses 07-05-07, 02:27 AM	I've only played with one person who played gnomes regularly and I didn't play with him much. His reason for playing them was qoute, "they get the best and longest list of racial adjustments." Never been much of a fan of the short races myself. I usually play humans. They're just easier to relate to.
gomeztoo 07-05-07, 03:17 AM	so who constructed the aqueduct of innspa??????? fairies??????:confused: And evil ones at that! I mean, I can believe in faeries, devils, ghosts, and even halflings. But gnomes? Small guys with little white beards and pointy red hats pushing wheelbarrows and carrying fishing rods?* Nah. Humbug! *) though I admit that depiction of the gnomes (non-existing figments of our imagination, of course) in Stone Man's Puzzle made that scenario a hoot.
Timlagor 07-05-07, 06:58 PM	Of the three things you cited, AC is the most subjective. I think of overall defenses for a character, not AC, and the true measure of whether you have enough defense is this question "Do I spend time in combat unable to contribute because I'm incapacitated in some way?" I hate to disagree but I think this question is too simple (though still good) as it fails to take into account all the ways people can react to being scared. Very often you will still contribute but not as effectively as you might otherwise have done. "Are my actions in combat dictated by my defences?" would be better (don't want to weaken it too much). You also omitted to mention "the PCs deliberately slowed the combat to a crawl with battlefiedl control". If I lay a Solid Fog and some tentacles down as soon as my Anticipate Telportation spells tingles, I don't expect the combat to be over in 3 rounds however completely we turn out to dominate the opposition.
solbergb 07-05-07, 07:30 PM	Well..your actions are restricted by not having the right defenses of a given type. As an example, my 12 AC sorceress isn't normally going to ever stand next to the melee monster for a full attack to "draw fire" (AOO's, yeah, sometimes), and she's going to cast defensively rather than "cast anyway, they're chance of hitting me is lower than my failure chance on cast defensive" like my favored soul. But so what? She doesn't need to stand next to the big melee monster. She has 6 different ways of neutering the melee monster's attack, some of which require no tank, some of which just give the tank sufficient edge to disengage or stand and swing. In some people, they can have objectively plenty of defenses but still "play scared". A "buff baby" who as his first action runs behind the party casters, goes full defensive and demands a short duration defensive buff is letting fear rule him, even though he's got already the highest AC and hitpoint total in the party. Meanwhile the guy with the reach weapon who used his action to enlarge himself and spends the enemy actions piling up enemy warriors via AOO's/trips wasn't hindered by his medeocre hitpoints and sub-20 armor class. The enemy was dead via his damage plus area damage dropped on them by casters (instead of buffing the "tank") before they got to move again. (yes, this is an anecdote from a real adventure I played once). To me, being ruled by fear is "not contributing" just as the barb who charges and gets eviscerated/bleeding out is "not contributing". The barb at least probably got one good whack in, but now needs actions spent on rescue so it is a wash. The only real grey is the situation where you contribute, but less so. Ie, take the archer who moves, takes AOO and shoots once, vs the guy who stays in melee range and does a full attack (trusting AC or things like close combat shot/arrow mind). The first archer might need more in the way of defenses - but maybe not. The second archer might find his bow disarmed, him tripped, him sundered if he proves too hard to just hit. If the second archer is at full hp but can't shoot, in the 2nd round he's the one not contributing. Most spellcasters are at near full power even if they move every single round. People who rely on full attacks need sufficient defenses or other advantages (unusual reach, invisibility, something) to GET full attacks reasonably often. In the situation where the PC's dictated the pace of the fight, they need little in the way of defenses. The anticipate teleport/solid fog/evards combo may take a few in-game rounds to adjudicate but the fight will go quickly. A minute or two of prebuffing and arranging minis, then a short, brutal thing where the party does all the offense and the bad guy is mostly trying to teleport the heck out of the horrible situation he got into. Everyone could be AC 8 with saves of +0 and it would be unlikely to change the outcome.
Timlagor 07-06-07, 06:25 PM	I would not consider your Sorceress's actions to be dictated by her (lack of) defences ..she wouldn't be doing those things anyway. Many characters do have options between 'most offensive' and 'not contributing'. - casting Obscuring Mist certainly contributes something... but a character (/party) with better defences might contribute something more offensive. - A Melee character may use a consummable that will increase their offence in later rounds or something like a tanglefoot bag that is offensive but not as strong as their melee attack. You do seem to have a higher threshold for "contributing" than me though. That was rather my point about the solid fog -you can have a one-sided fight that still takes a lot of rounds. Sometimes the one-sidedness isn't even obvious as people manoeuvre about a lot and the PCs may not realise how harmless the enemies have become.