TERMS:
Standard Build = 25 point buy or standard array ability scores
High Build = 34+ point buy or aggressive ability generation method (4d6 drop 1 reroll 1s, 5d6 drop 2, etc) which yields a character approximating high build. Some people call this a "High Power Build."
Assumption #1:
Most players, when given an option of improving offensive or defensive ability scores, choose to improve offensive ability scores. IE. A typical STR based fighter will put more points into strength than he will in to Dex, Con, or Wis. A typical Dex based fighter will put more points into Dex than he will in to Con or Wis. A wizard will put more points into INT than into CON or DEX. A Sorcerer will put more points into CHA than CON or DEX. a Cleric will put more points in to WIS than CON or DEX. Of course, there are some exceptions to the rule, but for the purposes of this article I'd like to focus on the most likely course of events rather than on the exceptions.
Wizards offensive ability is measured in INT, a higher INT provides a greater variety of spells, a greater volume of spells, and higher spell DC for spells that are used offensively.
Say a fighter has a 16 STR and 16 CON... and he is given the chance to boost a stat by 2 points... does he increase STR or CON? If your players are like mine, they will always boost STR.
Exceptions: A few characters, such as Monks, Dwarven Defenders, some paladins and some clerics, may be built with a focus on defense, saves, and AC rather than on damage output. These characters appear with some frequency, but they are nowhere near as common as the offensively focused characters like the barbarian with the greataxe, the evoker, or the two-weapon ranger/rogue.
Assumption #2:
Most DMs, when running games with characters that were created with High Build characters, will attempt to balance combat by either increasing opponent's stats to a degree similar to the players build, or else they will use standard build opponents but they will choose to use a slightly higher CR in order to make the fights a little more fair. A DM with a 5th level standard build party might use a pair of minotaurs (CR4) for a tough brawling battle. That same DM, faced with a 5th level high build party, might use a pair of trolls (CR5) in the same scenario in order to achieve the same level of challenge.
Exceptions: Some DMs do not boost the foes, which leads to most battles being very easy for the players, and Some other DMs will use the same lower CR creatures, but they just increase the quantity... for example a DM might use 3 minotaurs instead of 2 in the battle above. The strategy of increasing the number of foes works for many battles, but when it comes to the "big boss battle", most DMs are likely to increase the CR of the single opponent or boost a single opponents ability scores rather than increase the number of opponents.
Assumption #3:
The duration of a battle has an impact on the variety of tactics available. Some tactical maneuvers, like flaking, may take a round or two to set up-combatants have to maneuver into position. In a longer battle, there are more opportunities to grapple, bull rush, aid-another, cast buffing or DR-penetrating spells, etcetera.
If you compare a battle that lasts 3 rounds with a battle that lasts 5 rounds, there are more opportunities for tactical options during the longer battle.
Assumption #4:
The duration of a battle has an impact on the survival of the combatants. In a long battle, combatants have more opportunity to assess whether they are winning or losing, and whether they need to retreat or keep fighting. They have more time to arrange for retreat, whether this is coordinating the casting of a "dimension door", or administering healing potions or flying spells, or having a high mobility character fight defensively while the slow characters make their exit. It sometimes takes a few exchanges of blows for a player to tell whether they are outmatched or not. One hit in 3 rounds could be luck; one hit in 5 rounds is more likely a mismatch in abilities. In a short battle, the players may not realize they should retreat until it is too late and one or more of the party are already down.[/SIZE]
Assumption #5:
The duration of a battle between evenly matched opponents has an impact on the feeling of suspense. A battle that ends just a few rounds may seem insignificant or anti-climactic. A battle that lasts for many rounds tends to be more memorable and increases the sense of peril or danger. I am not saying anything about battles with a multitude of weak opponents, but rather the one-one-one types of battles or battles in which the PCs face a small number of opponents on a par with the PCs.
Hypothesis:
It should be the case that when a DMs runs a game with High Stats, that improving the monsters to an equal degree as the characters (or simply using a higher CR opponent) should "balance"... you would expect the battles to run much the same, and have the same results.
How can we test this theory? lets take a look at what happens in some scenarios. In order to be as fair as possible, I'll investigate what happens in a sample battle with a standard build character and a high build character. I will not pit the standard build character against the high build character, which would prove nothing. What I'll do is run a battle with a standard build character against his mirror, and I'll run a high build character against his mirror. This is the fairest approximation I can make for having a character fight against a monster who's ability scores have been appropriately boosted to compensate for a high build character.
TEST #1:
This test will be a slugfest, with a FTR3 just trying to deal as many HP damage to his foe as possible. I'll calculate the average damage done per round, divide that into the number of hit points, to determine how long the average battle should last.
3rd level human fighter, full plate armor, ring of deflection+1, masterwork greatsword.
Standard build: STR 15, CON 14, DEX 13, HP 27, AC 20; ATK +7 melee (2d6+3)
High build: STR 18, CON 14, DEX 13, HP 27, AC 20; ATK +9 melee (2d6+6)
Analysis of Standard build fighter battle:
A standard build character has a 40% chance to hit his opponent for an average 10 points of damage; he also has a 4% chance to confirm a critical hit. The average damage per round is 4.4. At this rate, the mathematical average slugfest between a standard build fighter and his mirror ends during the 7th round. (6.136 rounds on average)
Analysis of High build fighter battle:
A standard build character averages 13 points of damage per hit.
A standard build character has a 50% chance to hit his opponent for an average 13 points of damage; he also has a 5% chance to confirm a critical hit. The average damage per round is 7.15. At this rate, the mathematical average slugfest between a standard build fighter and his mirror is over during the 4th round of combat. (3.776 rounds on average)
TEST #2:
This is more of an observation than an actual test: What is the likelihood that a combat can end on the first round: Lets take the fighters from Test #1, and swap the +1 ring of deflection for a +1 greatsword:
Standard Build: 4.5% chance of scoring a critical hit on 1st attack; Average critical hit: 22, Max damage on critical hit 32.
High Build: 5.5% chance of scoring a critical hit on 1st attack; Average critical hit: 28, Max damage on critical hit 38.
The standard build fighter has a lower chance of scoring a critical hit. Even if he does score a critical hit, his opponent is still conscious with an average damage roll, and is knocked unconscious (but still lives) on a max damage critical hit.
The high build fighter has a higher chance of scoring a critical hit. When the hit happens, an average damage roll is enough to knock the fighter unconscious, and a max damage critical hit will kill the fighter outright.
I'd call this the "Blowout" factor, that with a high build character, there is a greater chance for a one-hit kill, In which the opponent may not even have a chance to react. "Opponent" doesn't necessarily mean the monsters. When fighting a balanced opponent, the high build PC is more likely to be knocked out or killed outright than the standard build PC.
TEST #3:
Lets compare wizards. Often times, if a spell succeeds, it is an all-or-nothing affair. If you hit an opponent with Hideous laughter, sleep, blindness, etc... that opponent is usually out of the battle. To simulate this, I'll take an example of 9th level wizards casting "confusion" at each other. As soon as one succeeds, the battle is over. To do this analysis, I'll see how long it takes to be 95% sure the battle is over.
9th level human wizard, circlet of intellect+2, cloak of resistance+3, Increase INT at levels 4&8
Standard Build: INT 19, WIS 13, Confusion DC 18, Will Save +10. (35% chance of failing a save)
High Build: INT 22, WIS 13, Confusion DC 20, Will Save +10. (45% chance of failing a save)
Analysis of Standard build mage battle:
Round 1: 58% chance that battle is over during this round
Round 2: 82% chance that the battle is over during this round
Round 3: 88% chance that the battle is over during this round
Round 4: 92% chance that the battle is over during this round
Round 5: 95% chance that the battle is over during this round
Analysis of High build mage battle:
Round 1: 70% chance that the battle is over during this round
Round 2: 91% chance that the battle is over during this round
Round 3: 95% chance that the battle is over during this round
CONCLUSION:
Battles between high build opponents last fewer rounds than similar battles with standard build characters.
- It follows that combats with high build characters have fewer opportunities for tactical maneuvers.
- If a battle is going to result in the defeat of the PCs, the shorter battle duration decreases the opportunity for high build characters to recognize the need to retreat and they have less time to retreat once they recognize the danger.
- With high build characters, battles are more likely to be blowouts, either in favor of the PCs or opposed to them.
- The shorter battles experienced by high build characters have a greater chance of being anticlimactic, while the standard build characters have a greater chance of a longer suspenseful battle.
AFTERWARD:
I sometimes hear DMs complain that they have a tough time finding an appropriate challenge for the PCs. It seems that PCs either dominate the battle quickly, or that the party is getting destroyed and the DM needs to fudge or adjust because they overestimated how deadly the opponents were. Whenever I've asked these DMs what method of character generation they use, it is always a method that results in high build characters.
After doing this analysis, I immediately switched from a generous die-rolling method that resulted in about 48 point build characters down to a more modest 32 point buy. Shortly afterward, when I realized that cutting down on the ability score didn't leave the Players feeling like their characters were hopeless, I cut down to 25-28 point buy.
I have given some consideration to how a DM in the middle of a campaign might try to better balance the game. I have considered granting max HP, which helps in the situations covered by Test1 and Test2, but it does little to help with the wizards save-or-else type spells such as Hideous Laughter, Glitterdust, Dominate, etc. The max HP per die fix also discourages straight damage-dealing spells like fireball and magic missile in favor of the all-or nothing spells, which only exacerbates the problem.
One way to counter this would be for the DM to intentionally slant magic items and challenges toward a defensive stance. That is, when STR bonuses are routinely +3 or more, you need to increase armor, damage resistance, and defensive bonuses to counter that, rather than counter it with monsters whose attack bonuses are equally buffed.
Similarly, if characters have high-powered save-or-die spells, counter this with foes that have better saves, spell resistance, and the like, rather than giving the foes the same kind of counter-attack.
Thus, for DMs who already have a High Build game, you might consider making highly enchanted armor, and magic items that grant resistance bonuses, more common than highly enchanted weapons and offensive wands.
This kind of game will still change the nature of tactics somewhat, since there is still going to be a lot of extra power behind the spells and attacks, when they do get through. But at least the combats will last longer and give combatants more chance to use tactics, retreat, etc.
Seen it, lived it, and yeah your probably right about the power builds being the cause. No statistics necessary, just an XPerinced intuitive reaction.
In a related note:
As cruel as this sounds - I have seed some fairly enjoyable battles when the party members were drastically out of balance. Had a arena battle team - started 8th-12th ended 12th - 17th. Players all had two or three characters, swapped em around per storyline considerations, and I noticed something that I didnt really expect. I wasnt suprised, it figures really - but the battles are more realistic when the group is unbalanced.
The powerful characters have to use actual tactics - they cant rely on their allies to be independant - so they have to sacrifice their overwhellming offense to maintain a defense. The lower levels "play off" of the most powerful character in the group, always. Btw - the 17th lvl started 8th and lived through the whole way.
When properly considered any character within 3 levels of a creature's CR can do something to it. Had a sorcerer getting chased around by chaos beasts, while the barbarian with the flaming rage scythes pickin em off two at a time. She of the scythe wasnt concerned with the chaos beasts, but she was concerned about the sorcerer, who was concerned about the chaos beasts.
Assumptions,
1 - Yeah, pretty good assumption. Perverse roleplaying decisions aside of course.
2 - Most power game dms will do both, often at the same time, and still get a blowout - too many items goes hand in hand with high build stats.
3, 4, 5 - seem to roll together into "longer battles are better" because you get to take more actions and your more likely to live. I guess its: more actions, survival rate, drama - but I dont know the first two seem clear, these run together.
Now, I like the solid thrust of the piece - "use this point build its better" very clear. The tests could be formatted for clarity. The disertation formatting you are using is judged by how well it presents the data in addition to how valid the data is. Just to pick on #1: I reformat just what you said in to something I would consider more "better." :D
TEST #1: A Slugfest
Our 3rd level human fighters just trying to deal as many HP to a foe as possible w/full plate armor, a ring of deflection+1, and a masterwork greatsword.
Standard build: STR 15, CON 14, DEX 13, HP 27, AC 20; ATK +7 melee (2d6+3)
High build: STR 18, CON 14, DEX 13, HP 27, AC 20; ATK +9 melee (2d6+6)
To determine how long the average battle should last. I'll calculate the average damage done per round, and divide that into the number of hit points.
Analysis of Standard build fighter battle:
Standard build: STR 15, CON 14, DEX 13, HP 27, AC 20; ATK +7 melee (2d6+3)
A 40% chance to hit his opponent for an average 10 HP.
A 4% chance to confirm a critical hit.
--maybe add something on this line for those who havent read a statistics book--
The average damage per round is 4.4.
The Mathematically average slugfest between a standard build fighter and his mirror ends the 7th round. (6.136 rounds on average)
Analysis of High build fighter battle:
High build: STR 18, CON 14, DEX 13, HP 27, AC 20; ATK +9 melee (2d6+6)
A 50% chance to hit his opponent for an average 13 HP
A 5% chance to confirm a critical hit.
-- again, you got a name for that normalizing method, how bout an equation--
The average damage per round is 7.15.
The mathematically average slugfest between a high build fighter and his mirror is over during the 4th round of combat. (3.776 rounds on average)
(btw - I fixed your standar/high typo there)
Result: Higher states alone change reduce the time of the fight by 3 rounds.
One point of contention though - from whence the difference in crit possibilities? That your compensation for the increased chance of threat confirmation? If so I would hazard to say you could bump that up to 6 or 7. That could also pull that 3.776 down below 3.5, 8% and you could claim high build as a 3 round fight.
Down at the bottom - the conclusion is well supported, umm usually you put the whole argument diagram there. I recommend that you give each assumption a proper tile, same with the tests. And, then put the all together in a stack at the bottom so it sounds like statment. The conclusion statement goes at the bottom and at the top of a logical diagram.
I like the afterword bit, makes you feel like you already agreed and now its time to talk of other things. I think a test 4 could be in order: checking standard/high build performance againts those proverbial "mid-game methods" it would be an odd test, but it really wouldnt go in the assumptions section. It would be neat to see a collection of "fudge decriptions." Maybe thats appendix material
I stopped the high powered stuff. It may let the PCs feel good to kill things in crazy, easy ways (and it was fun for me for a while) but then I needed to let them leave the nest (we had discovered D&D together, and we were all bumbling around in those beginning days).
I was rather upset when my new DM limited me to lower stats when I rolled exceptionally high stats (using 4d6 drop one and assign). However, this made me appreciate my tactics much more, seeing as how they made a much larger impact on the outcome of encounters. As it happened, I played a Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior, and the tactics I now have time to engage in form an integral part of my character and allow my much enjoyment.
I can clearly see now the relationship between my somewhat lower stats, and my renewed enjoyment in combat that is no longer simply mowing down opponents or getting overwhelmed quickly.
Your conclusion is flawed, primarily due to faulty methodology.
What you are describing is in fact a well known and self-evident aspect of two very similar character types, specifically the Paper Tiger and the Glass Cannon. These character types are known for their high offensive power and their high fragility. By setting up a fight between two Paper Tigers, all you are doing is showing what everyone already knows from the definition: Paper Tigers kill things quickly and die quickly if hit. The same can be said of Glass Cannon. If you remove character generation method as a variable, then the results are the same, which shows that character generation method is not the primary reason for the short battle - the character type is.
So what if players tend to focus on offense? The DM's job is to find encounters that challenge the players, and so he should choose encounters based around the capabilities of the characters. The way to challenge a Paper Tiger is, as you suggest, to oppose him with his mirror image, but you misunderstand what the mirror image of a Paper Tiger is. Remembering that a mirror reverses things, a Paper Tiger's mirror image is a creature with higher defensive capabilities than offensive. Such a fight will be significantly longer than the other, despite high ability scores.
So in the end what have you shown? You've highlighted the fact that fights between two creatures whose capabilities are offensively focused are short and sweet. You have shown that higher ability scores for both sides makes those fights even shorter. What you have not shown is that higher ability scores shortens fights in the general case, which the title of your post suggests was your aim. For that to be shown you will need to run mock combats among all the different character archetypes, not just the two you did.
Full plate: 1,500gp
Masterwork weapon: +300gp
Minimum price for ring: 2,000gp.
Total: >3,800gp.
which is a lot more then the 2,700gp recommended in my (3.0) DMG. (I don't believe the recommended wealth levels changed in 3.5)
But that's likely because the core rulebooks expect moderate ability scores, or a mix of high and low scores, as one would suppose that this is what they were playtested against. In high-power games, the barbarian will be raging with 22+ STR and can fell a tough monster in one hit, and the wizard is not as fragile with a high CON making even the d4 hit dice inconsequential in the long run. In a standard game, the barbarian may still be able to rage with 22+ STR, but he will likely also be suffering from a lower CON, DEX, or WIS, making that PC feel the -2 to AC from Rage much more, and/or appreciate the +2 to WILL saves much more. The wizard will actually have to choose between spell potency at 18 INT or survivability with decent CON and DEX scores, meaning he will either be powerful, yet party-reliant, or more well-rounded and able to survive on his own.
And as for the Paper Tiger argument, consider that while high offense versus high offense makes for a short fight, a high defense will generally have a lesser ability to kill the opposition. You can make a monk that prioritizes CON and keeps DEX and WIS high, and that monk will be very difficult to kill. But a lack of STR means lower damage and less effectiveness in grappling, climbing, and jumping. Will said monk be a challenge to the party? Not necessarily. While the high STR warrior will not hit as often, he will eventually hit him, and if he gets the monk grappled, the fight is suddenly in the stronger warrior's favor. A high INT rogue would also foil this monk by getting the jump on him with Hide/Surprise/SneakAttack, MoveSilently/Surprise/SneakAttack, or Bluff/Feint/SneakAttack. Since the monk doesn't put INT at a priority here, his skill ranks will be lower, and keeping Listen, Spot, and Sense Motive high will be harder to maintain, even with his WIS boosting all of them.
A good analysis of power gaming... now if only I could convince my gaming group to let go of the high-power "I can do it all" type of play.
What you are describing is in fact a well known and self-evident aspect of two very similar character types, specifically the Paper Tiger and the Glass Cannon. These character types are known for their high offensive power and their high fragility.
I believe that a raging barbarian is closer to a "paper tiger" than a fighter in full plate with a ring of deflection. I also believe that having wizards casting "confusion," which targets the best save, was also less of a "glass cannon" than had the wizards been using fireballs or disintegrates, both of which target the wizards worst saves. It sounds like your problem is with my "assumption #1" that players tend to produce offensively focused characters.
Your post did get me thinking a bit. For finesse fighting characters, be they rogues, fighters, or rangers, the higher stats (dex) contribute equally to both offense and defense. This means for the finesse fighting archetype characters, higher DEX would not result in a noticeably shorter or longer battle If two finesse based fighters/rogues/rangers were fighting, the battles would last the same regardless of high or low stats. (assuming the high stats were ONLY in dexterity and not strength)
I wonder what happens if I take everyone's points about using only heavy-offensive characters and used defensive characters or finesse based characters.
TEST #4: A Slugfest between a defensive strength fighter (paladin) and a finesse fighter (ranger):
I'll use a 5th level paladin as the strength fighter and a 5th level TWF ranger as the finesse fighter. For simplicity, I'll ignore "lay on hands". We don't really care who wins the battle, so it doesn't have to be totally fair, I just want to see if the battle is longer or shorter with high stats. I am also making characters that are not quite as offensively focused as the prior examples. The high stat paladin increases STR, DEX and CON. The high stat Ranger increases STR and DEX.
Both characters get a 1-point boost to either STR or DEX stat at 4th level, and a +2 stat-boost item to either STR or DEX at 5th level. Paladin uses +1 greatsword, ranger uses a +1 shortsword and a MW shortsword (with weapon focus/Finesse). Paladin has +1 full plate and ring of deflection +1, ranger has mithral breastplate, amulet of nat. armor +1, ring of deflection +1.
Standard Paladin Stats: STR 13, CON 12, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 14, CHA, 15
Standard Pal5: Str 16, HP 37, AC 20; ATK +9 melee (2d6+5)
High Paladin Stats: Str 15, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 8, WIS 14, CHA, 16
High Pal5: STR 18, CON 14, HP 42, AC 21; ATK +10 melee (2d6+7)
Standard Rgr Stats: STR 13, CON 14, DEX 15, INT 10, WIS 12, CHA, 8
Standard Rgr5: Str 13, Dex 18; HP 31; AC 21; ATK +9/+9 melee (1d6+2/1d6)
High Rgr Stats: Str 14, Con 14, Dex 17, Int 12, WIS 14, CHA, 8
High Rgr5: Str 14, Con 14, Dex 20; HP 31; AC 22; ATK +10/+10 melee (1d6+3/1d6+1)
To determine how long the average battle should last. I'll calculate the average damage done per round, and divide that into the number of hit points to determine mathematically when the battle should end.
Analysis of Standard builds battle:
Std Pal5 does 5.94 pts/round = kills Rgr in 5.218855 rounds
Std Rgr5 does 4.95 pts/round = kills Pal5 in 7.474747 rounds
Analysis of High builds battle:
High Pal5 does 6.93 pts/round = kills Rgr in 4.473304 rounds
High Rgr5 does 6.05 pts/round = kills Pal5 in 6.942149 rounds
The mathematically average slugfest between mostly defensive build characters ends about 1/2 a round earlier with a high build than with a standard build. This is not nearly as extreme as the "3-rounds shorter" duration of the heavily offensive-focused characters used in my initial post, but it is still a shorter combat.
You've highlighted the fact that fights between two creatures whose capabilities are offensively focused are short and sweet. You have shown that higher ability scores for both sides makes those fights even shorter.
That is exactly my point.
I'd like to thank everyone for responding to the post, even those that disagree. The one thing which I overlooked, and everyone was good to point out, is that for DMs that are already running a high-power game, they can mitigate the problem by providing more defensive based magic items, and certainly by upgrading opponents defensively instead of offensively. IE: When the a high-build party is fighting minotaurs, instead of increasing the minotaurs STR, give them higher CON and better armor... perhaps instead of using a greataxe, the minotaurs should be in heavy armor and carrying heavy shields.
So in the end what have you shown? You've highlighted the fact that fights between two creatures whose capabilities are offensively focused are short and sweet. You have shown that higher ability scores for both sides makes those fights even shorter. What you have not shown is that higher ability scores shortens fights in the general case, which the title of your post suggests was your aim. For that to be shown you will need to run mock combats among all the different character archetypes, not just the two you did.
Wait, so you say his findings are flawed because didn’t place his people against their opposite? Well if he did, I bet the outcome would be similar for one simple hypothesis; if you pit a character in a challenge where its weaknesses and strengths are annulled, then a similar experiment done with characters of a higher ability composition will yield results in a less number of rounds.
So if I have a gun, and you have a gun, and we have the same abilities, one will be dead one will live. Now if we are trained soldiers, same outcome, but much faster.
Now I have a gun and you have a knife and Kevlar body armor. Same abilities, one will die (hopefully you, because I REALLY don’t want to have to bleed out from a knife wound). If we are soldiers, probably a faster outcome.
Now when you start changing things you may unbalance it. Like if I give you Kevlar armor and a sword and I take a .50 cal browning and a cigar, I think Rambo (me) is going to win. Professional soldiers though, would be different because a soldier with a knife doesn't attack a guy with a huge-ass gun.
I would have serious problems with test one and two as the proposed characters are both over equipped for level 3 characters (and they have non-SRD items).
Full plate: 1,500gp
Masterwork weapon: +300gp
Minimum price for ring: 2,000gp.
Total: >3,800gp.
which is a lot more then the 2,700gp recommended in my DMG.
I don't know what non-SRD items you refer to, but to put your mind at ease, discard the ring of deflection (=ring of protection), and upgrade the full plate to +1 full plate. This puts the value at 3000gp, which seems perfectly fine for any mid-3rd level character, and leaves the AC and to-hit bonus identical. The analysis doesn't change.
Though you probably put too much emphasis on increasing offense, especially in the examples.
This is a valid complaint. Let me do one more, this time being a little less focused on pure offense. I'll take 12th level fighters: I'll also limit the stats and equipment to only things that relate to the characters:
Standard Build: STR 15, CON 14, DEX 13
High Build: STR 17, CON 16, DEX 13. (Con +2, STR +2).
They both get +3 STR at for level increases and should have roughly 88,000GP
Amulet of health+4 (16,000)
gauntlets of strength +2 (8,000)
+4 Full Plate (17,750)
+2 Greatsword (8,350)
+2 ring of protection (8,000)
+2 Animated heavy shield (18000)
(other equipment like cloak of resistance, etc, unrelated to battle)
FEATS (related to Greatsword where appropriate): Power Attack, Wpn Focus (Greatsword), Greater Wpn Focus, Wpn Specialization, Greater Wpn Specialization, Improved Critical. (plus 6 other feats related to improved saves or combat techniques)
Standard Build: STR 20, CON 18, DEX 13. HP 100; AC 29; ATK +21/+16/+11 (2d6+13 17-20x2)
High Build: STR 22, CON 20, DEX 13. HP 110; AC 29; ATK +22/+17/+12 (2d6+15 17-20x2)
When they power attack for +2, they do an additional +4 damage.
The average damage per round for standard build: 30
Average battle lasts 3.3333 rounds
The average damage per round for the high build: 37.245
Average Battle lasts 2.9534 rounds
This shows two things, I believe... that at higher levels, the point buy becomes less a factor, as so many magic items can increase stats... there is less relative difference in the stats at higher levels. (+2 vs +4) at low levels, compared with (+8 vs +10). It also shows that higher stats still lead to shorter battles, even when both CON and STR are increased.
I couldn't figure out what was going on with my players. They would blow through most encounters but still end up running around constantly begging for healing. Hell, even a short party conflict would weaken the whole group in a very short amount of time.
Nineinchnail has shown the solution, through enemies being mirrors (emphasis on reversal). I think he is wrong in assessing your argument faulty, for all the monsters and game-mechanics were created for the standard-build characters. Modifying all the beasts for more prolonged tactical combat would be work that is simply avoided by the standard-build.
What for us DMs that are already in a high-build min/max campaign? Any ideas for general modifications? I hope I'm not stepping out of bounds here with thread-napping, but it appears relevant to me.
And as for the Paper Tiger argument, consider that while high offense versus high offense makes for a short fight, a high defense will generally have a lesser ability to kill the opposition. You can make a monk that prioritizes CON and keeps DEX and WIS high, and that monk will be very difficult to kill. But a lack of STR means lower damage and less effectiveness in grappling, climbing, and jumping. Will said monk be a challenge to the party? Not necessarily. While the high STR warrior will not hit as often, he will eventually hit him, and if he gets the monk grappled, the fight is suddenly in the stronger warrior's favor. A high INT rogue would also foil this monk by getting the jump on him with Hide/Surprise/SneakAttack, MoveSilently/Surprise/SneakAttack, or Bluff/Feint/SneakAttack. Since the monk doesn't put INT at a priority here, his skill ranks will be lower, and keeping Listen, Spot, and Sense Motive high will be harder to maintain, even with his WIS boosting all of them.
The point, as you seem to tacitly accept, is that the fight between the defensive character and the Paper Tiger will last longer, and that a fight between two defensively oriented characters will last even longer. Combat duration was the main thrust of the original post and as such was the point to which I was responding, not that ephemeral concept of challenge. There are always ways to make any given enemy go down quickly (see "How to kill the Tarrasque with a Commoner" or "Why Incanatrixes should never ever EVER be allowed to take Improved Heighten Spell) but we are looking at the general case.
I believe that a raging barbarian is closer to a "paper tiger" than a fighter in full plate with a ring of deflection. I also believe that having wizards casting "confusion," which targets the best save, was also less of a "glass cannon" than had the wizards been using fireballs or disintegrates, both of which target the wizards worst saves. It sounds like your problem is with my "assumption #1" that players tend to produce offensively focused characters.
I am not disagreeing with your assumption. What I was saying is that the assumption is irrelevant to the discussion for the reason that we should not really be interested in player vs. player fights, but rather in player vs. NPC fights. What players tend to do is a separate issue from what the DM does.
The mathematically average slugfest between mostly defensive build characters ends about 1/2 a round earlier with a high build than with a standard build. This is not nearly as extreme as the "3-rounds shorter" duration of the heavily offensive-focused characters used in my initial post, but it is still a shorter combat.
And it gets even smaller when you increase the defensive specialization of the ranger, or heaven forbid use a fighter with the same stats wielding sword and shield, given that then he'd actually have a comparable HD. The difference between high and low is made even smaller between two defensively oriented characters.
That is exactly my point.
I was actually referring to the high scores' effect on paper tiger fights, but whatever.
The one thing which I overlooked, and everyone was good to point out, is that for DMs that are already running a high-power game, they can mitigate the problem by providing more defensive based magic items, and certainly by upgrading opponents defensively instead of offensively. IE: When the a high-build party is fighting minotaurs, instead of increasing the minotaurs STR, give them higher CON and better armor... perhaps instead of using a greataxe, the minotaurs should be in heavy armor and carrying heavy shields.
Precisely.
Wait, so you say his findings are flawed because didn’t place his people against their opposite? Well if he did, I bet the outcome would be similar for one simple hypothesis; if you pit a character in a challenge where its weaknesses and strengths are annulled, then a similar experiment done with characters of a higher ability composition will yield results in a less number of rounds.
Not if the increased abilities are arranged such that they once again cancel each other.
The character is definitely better, but as level increases, these numbers become less and less of an issue. As BAB increases, the +1 or +2 difference in attack rolls becomes a non-issue. Sure, it's nice, but it pales in comparison to a BAB +10. Likewise, by the time you're wearing heavily enchanted armor, a +2 difference in dexterity is not going to significantly change the outcome of a battle (though again, it's nice). Constitution has perhaps the greatest impact on a character throughout the career, because it scales with level -- each hit die is affected by the increased constitution.
With regard to saves, the difference is more pronounced. On a good save, a difference of +2 is probably not a major issue; by tenth level, the save bonus is large enough to overshadow that difference. However, a bad save tends to show the stat more -- by tenth level, the difference between +8 and +10 is pretty visible.
The caster is a slightly different issue. A point-buy caster will generally have at least a 16 in his casting stat, if not a 17. Aggressive score generation systems only increase the chances of having at least one 18, which is what a caster worries most about (with Con and Dex running second and third). That works out to a difference in save DC that is, at best, only a single point.
As a side point, your mage-duel is an inaccurate way to measure battle length -- Because you include two mages, you double the impact of the power-build. The difference is much smaller in the more common situation of a single wizard trying to affect a group of foes (or an individual enemy); as expected, the enemy fails his save 10% more often against a power-build, which on average doesn't decrease the average battle length much.
All in all, ability scores are most valuable at low levels. When BABs and save bonuses are still low, a difference of two or three points is a big deal. Later on, class features, feats, items, and tactics become much more important in determining which character is going to survive longer. This observation is not exactly a denial of your analysis, but rather a caveat. While high-powered characters may be able to take on creatures several CR above their level at first, that ability is going to drift down over time. By tenth level, the high-power characters will be nearly the same as their low-powered counterparts, in terms of what they are able to fight. They may be marginally more successful or more hardy, but they won't be able to take on enemies two or three CR higher than you would otherwise expect, as they could at 3rd level.
As stated, the character generation method is not directly responsible for what you’re examining, it is however a portion of the reason. How big a portion is *directly* related to how much loot the players fine. To use a simple example, for there are many: a player with an 18 str who finds a +6 str belt and a +5 str book winds up at a 39str. The same player starting with a 14 str winds up at 35str. Both are fairly obscene numbers for game mechanic purposes, but the bulk of the boost is items. Same characters with no items and the difference is much greater. In short, the character generation method changes the numbers by a finite increment, the larger the numbers become the less that increment is a part of the whole. Low loot campaigns, situations (ie, low level) etc will notice a far bigger variance from this source than high loot comparisons. As such, I would not discard this as a cause, but make it part of a larger group of things leading towards the situations you describe.
Secondly, the comparisons aren’t quite accurate in total. When dealing with random numbers, such as dice rolls, the difference shows up over time. Everyone remembers the few times a critical roll came through, as it’s quite exciting, but really the extra +2s here and there show up over time. For example, if a combat lasts say 4 rounds on average, and there’s say 13 encounters for a level (balance comes out of quest or role play bonus xp or something) and a character makes 2 attacks a round (perhaps he moves and single attacks, or gets haste at times, etc), that’s 104 attack rolls for a level up; or around 100 rolls per level. That means you should, maybe over a whole character, distribute out to about rolling 5 1s, 5 2s, 5 3s, etc every level you go through. Obviously this will change a lot situation pending but you get the idea. Suppose you need a 13+ to hit, an extra +1 to attack from somewhere would be another 5 hits over that dice roll distribution. Using a greatsword, doing maybe 10 dmg a hit, that’s an extra 50 dmg over the level. That means instead of doing 400dmg over the level (8 of 20 numbers hits, roll each number 5 times, 10 dmg per hit, 8x5x10) you would do 450, or 12.5% more dmg. Now, if your brain is still ok after all that math, take that example and think about it. Increasing str both raises the hit chance, and the hit dmg. The two multiply out into a fairly big advantage. Suppose its an additional +2 to hit, and on a 2hd that’s +3 to dmg; that would change this example from 400 dmg/lvl to 650 dmg/lvl (10 hits, 5 times each, 13 dmg per) which is 62.5% more. All from just 4 points added to strength, go bulls strength. The *real* point is, while blowout will account for individual hits being lost in some areas, the *real* gain shows over time, and will not be lost. There is *no* point at which the advantage will be lost vs a less powerful setup. Especially in the case of melee, because if you’re attack ever caps out (i.e. stops creating more hits per round) you can use Power Attack and convert that to damage at an insane rate on the other hits (if you only miss on a 1, every 1 point power attacked over is 19 damage, or 38 with a 2hd, crazy).
Thirdly, combat duration and tactics is highly subjective to the party and situation. Simply being able to use say pyrotechnics to blind a group of ogres before attacking, which any low level group can likely do at least part of the time if they try, will vastly change the combat and takes no time to setup mid fight. While using some combat maneuvers, or setting up flanking, or using grapple, can all take multiple turns no matter what you do; you simply cant speed it up. The factor you’re *really* getting at here is, damage dealt by the party, and damage sustained by the party. Anything that increases damage dealt by the party shortens combat time, and hence reduces the number of actions taken against the party. Ideally, the best defense in DnD really is a good offense. But you cannot win everything in the first round, so some actions will be taken against you, and thus players will be subject to some damage. The problem is thus: 1) parties with overly high damage output, may have gms simply choose harder monsters to 'balance' it. 2) harder monsters do appropriately more damage as monsters are mostly averagely designed 3) players are subject to more normal combat lengths as party offense and monster defense now match, but players are also subject to disproportionate damage coming in 4) players either win fast or die fast 5) luck starts becoming more important than gameplay. The solution to that snowballing situation isn’t necessarily to tone down party damage by using lower stats. In a mathematical sense that kind of works. But using different monsters, or situations, is probably a better route. For example, a high stat party with high str can be attacked by goblins using a shield wall. The shields offset the str attack bonus, combat length stays the same; however goblins don’t do more dmg so the party wont die, allowing for tactics to be used rather than luck. The key *as a DM* is to balance the monster scenarios in total, rather than any raw stat, to account for the difference of the player party from the norm.
Conclusions:
Character generation method alone is not the sole reason for any difference in style of gameplay except perhaps at very low levels like 1 or 2, but it can contribute in varying amounts to the issue based on other resources available to characters to increase their strength.
The advantage of high stats to low never washes out during a combat as you reach an average, high is always better. A percentage of the increase may erode due to blowout but on the whole it is always a marked increase. Even in casting where save chance percentages eventually even out, keep in mind those extra rounds of casting to make it happen equate more used spells and thus, again, higher always wins. Do not discount the actual change in mechanics from having higher bonuses; its not good or bad, it simply is what it is.
Encounter length can vary based on differences in character stats, but a well experienced DM can and should be able to simply adjust or tailor encounters to account for whatever stat is varied in his players group from the norm such that the differences disappear. Obviously there will be times when it’s not possible, but on the whole it shouldn’t be a gamebreaking style issue. Newer DMs will have much more problem here than veteran ones however, it really takes a feel for the system and the people in that particular game.
Also, encounter length is not solely the determining factor in how tactics are employed on the whole, as the specific tactics favored by the group determine their own timetables. The key for the party is to find tactics that match its encounter length, so that they can be successfully employed during the game.
Very informative! I'm currently playing in a standard game and DM a high powered game. Many reasons why I let my players go high powered, but they are having a great time. I too got "blown" out with early battles, but since then, I've increased the foes CR or numbers and the battles last longer and are more fun.
In hindsight: Probably gave them too much power...next time, they go with a 28 point buy, which they have already agreed to.
I like the way you presented your information, not that I 100% agree with it, but I do believe you are correct: High powered, in many cases = quick battles.
I have also noticed they don't use all their tactics, feats, the way I thought they would/should and due to your reasoning, it is my fault. The battles are over too quickly for them to "think" about what they need to do...they go in blasting and swinging, most of the time, and forget tactics, skills, ambushes, etc. They fight total offensive. In my group I play, we fight defensive, since we do not get +2 items to boost any stats...shoot, we don't get +1's! I'm 13th level and have never had any magical boosting items.
Good or bad that we haven't? Well...our battles last many rounds! Seeing olshanski_home's thoughts and reasons, I now know why they do.
Again, well done!
Cam
There is a fundamental imbalance between the character stats that becomes more pronounced at higher builds To show this, two characters are compared to their mirrors with all stats the same. The weapons and armor of the characters are mostly immaterial, but for purposes of this example, assume a 3rd level fighter wearing full plate and wielding a masterwork greatsword (Weap Focus). Base HP 21.
Control: all 12s AC 19 HP 24 AB +6 D/R= .44* 6.5 = 8+ rounds
High: all 18s AC 19 HP 33 AB +9 D/R= .605*11.5= 4+ rounds
Low: all 6s AC 16 HP 16 AB +3 D/R= .44* 3.5 = 10+ rounds
The all high group is twice as deadly to itself as the control. This holds true in normal fighter score arrangements used by the original author as well as "flat" ability scores. Thus, the phenomenon is not based on a "character type." It is an artifact of the stats themselves. But why? 2 reasons:
1. Strength is overpowering in melee. It outstrips CON and DEX and quickly becomes an unbalancing factor. In the example posted above, combats lasted 4-10 rounds, depending on various builds. Even if you set up the test to allow for the full AC bonus of the 18 AC, the all high group still has an 6+ round battle vs 8+ for the control. STR extra hits are countered by extra AC only if the equipment allows. STR extra damage applies EVERY HIT. CON extra HP only happen once.
2. Static equipment limits. As noted above, you generally DON'T get to apply all of your high dex to AC. +9 is the most you can get from armor and dex combined. That can be accomplished with a 12 DEX. There are no limits imposed on high STR by the equipment, however. In fact, it is the opposite. Two handed weapons favor high strength. At very high levels the loss to AC becomes trivial compared to the damage bonus.
Conclusion: High point builds are always more lethal than their lower-point builds when scaled. Not only is the combat system and CR system balanced for standard builds, it appears that the equipment is as well.
The most effective is to incorporate combinations of enemies that compliment each other. Enemy spellcasters with mostly buffs instead of direct-damage spells is an option, as well as flying/melee/ranged groups.
Also consider adding unusual combat situations that force players and their foes to work at getting to each other, or that make tactical options more compelling.
Finally, keep in mind that there are LOTS of foes that are designed specifically to deal with high-damage parties (average build or otherwise). Oozes, constructs, and dragons all fare excellently against even high-powered parties, just to name a few.
So if you're having trouble with blowouts, I would suggest that the fast fights are as much a symptom of stale combat scenarios or poor NPC tactics, as they are of PCs with overloaded stats. After all, even a low level fighter with 30 str won't have much chance at killing a diminutive flyer, and a low level wizard with 30 int still has a very limited selection of spells with limited effects.
As pointed out elsewhere, the actual stats also become less important as levels increase. By 15th level or so, you can pretty safely throw ANYTHING at a party, and they should either kill it, or have the means to escape and lick their wounds.