Darkness+Devil's Sight is killing my campaign
Thanee
First Post
atom crash said:
Ok, a little comparison should make that clear, I hope.
We use the standard re-rolling method. You can re-roll once, but have to keep the new roll.
It's obvious, that your method, where you take the highest from the two rolls is better than that, because either the second roll is equal or higher, then the result will be the same, or the first roll was higher, then your method yields the better result. It's always equal or better, there is no way you can come out worse.
But we'll stick to the weaker version, since it's easier to compare.
When you roll the HD you can expect to gain the average of the die roll. It can be lower or higher, but on average it is exactly the average. On a d8, this is 4.5, for example.
So, if we can re-roll once, we'll always choose to re-roll, if we rolled lower than 4.5, because then we can expect to gain more hp (of course, you could get higher even on a 6 or 7, but usually you won't).
So, if we roll a 1, 2, 3, or 4 we'll re-roll, otherwise the result stands.
With the re-roll we replace our result (1, 2, 3, or 4) with 4.5, basically, which is the average of the second roll, so on average, every roll below 5 becomes 4.5.
With my method, every such roll becomes 4, which is .5 lower.
Therefore the re-roll once method is always equal or better than the half HD minimum method.
The take highest from two rolls is always equal or better than the re-roll once method, so obviously also as the half HD minimum method.
Bye
Thanee
atom crash
First Post
Ok, I see your point. Thanks for the illustration.
But .... if the average roll is a 4.5, the game rules require that it be rounded down. I understand that if I roll 4.5 twice, then I get a 9. Except that each 4.5 is rounded down to 4 before it is added, and I end up with 8. So in that regard, the two methods are very similar.
Your example shows the re-roll method is, in theory, plainly more advantageous. But I still think, in practice, that using a minimum roll of half the die is better for the players. Why? There is no chance whatsoever for getting a roll of less than half the die.
But your argument was that the average is always lower. And I'm focused on the difference between the methods in the low end of the range. I get it now. That's enough math for one day.
However, when all is said and done, I think that either method is going to yield similar results. There will be differences, of course, but minor ones.
But .... if the average roll is a 4.5, the game rules require that it be rounded down. I understand that if I roll 4.5 twice, then I get a 9. Except that each 4.5 is rounded down to 4 before it is added, and I end up with 8. So in that regard, the two methods are very similar.
Your example shows the re-roll method is, in theory, plainly more advantageous. But I still think, in practice, that using a minimum roll of half the die is better for the players. Why? There is no chance whatsoever for getting a roll of less than half the die.
But your argument was that the average is always lower. And I'm focused on the difference between the methods in the low end of the range. I get it now. That's enough math for one day.
However, when all is said and done, I think that either method is going to yield similar results. There will be differences, of course, but minor ones.
Thanee
First Post
atom crash said:
No, that is not relevant. You cannot *roll* a 4.5, you will never have that result, but on average the result is always 4.5, it's a purely theoretical value, but extremely important in adjudicating this kind of stuff.
On average.
Exactly, which is precisely why I think it's so much better. It does the same, roughly, but more effective. Both methods are meant to lessen the chances of a really low roll.
With the fixed number, the chance for a low roll is non-existant, which is superior to the higher spread of the various re-roll methods.
In addition, it also results in a lower average, therefore the result is closer to the original method, where you just roll once and keep the result.
These are two advantages over the re-rolling methods IMHO.
Bye
Thanee
Li Shenron
Legend
Thanee said:You mean like the Blindsight spell (which in 3.0 still lasted 1h/lvl even
I see, must be noncore at least, since it never came up in any of our characters.
-=Xar=- said:
We have a similar, but slightly different problem.
Virtually every encounter, our enemies get to "ambush us", even when we attempt to ambush them.
No matter how we approach an encounter, it ends up that NPCs archers are shooting from the dark or from concealment at us and we then become flatfooted in the middle of the battle. Arrrggghhhh.
The other aspect of this is that WotC has a BAD rule about initiative versus surprise. So, even though we KNOW the enemy is ahead of us, if we do not spot all of the enemy before battle starts, then some of them can get an attack during the surprise round and again if their initiatives beat ours (us being flatfooted the entire time).
This is all according to the rules, but it really sucks, especially at lower level, to get hit by two arrows in the surprise round and another one in round one before your initiative even comes up. Or, if a couple of opponents fire from concealment and we become flatfooted against them in round five. We are basically toast against underground races in a "dungeon setting" (our last dungeon setting was a silver mine where we had an extremely difficult time defeating small groups of kobolds since we needed light and they didn't).
The new motto of our group has become the sarcastic "Fine time to take a nap" (alla Three Stooges).
As a DM, you can use the "fire from the dark / concealment" flatfooted tactic against the PCs to at least wound them before they get the Darkness / Devil's Sight tactic working. Plus, the NPCs shouldn't have too much of a problem against 3.5 Darkness since they should rarely attack their own allies and also, it is only a 20% miss chance in there.
Joker said:Xar is being melodramatic. I only used the darkness/blindsight combo once in a quarter of said dungeon. After I saw him have a lot of trouble with this tactic I decided not to ever use it again (despite being an effective tactic), because it is quite lame.
This topic came up again because I wanted to hire a group of warlock/fighters known to use this tactic. But seeing the large vein on Xar's forehead throbbing I decided not to
It is unfortunate that you got caught up in WotC's experiment with the unbalanced Warlock class. You have to power down your PC in order to not irritate your DM. That sucks. :\
In our campaign, I play a psion. I rarely use my powers (relying on a crossbow and a greatsword most of the time), but if an encounter is going against us, I pull out my psionic guns and lay waste to the field. I have single handedly turned the tide of battle from losing to winning (or at least drawing in one case) every single time we have gotten into a losing situation (and none of the other 5 PCs have done this even once, course, we do not have an arcane spell caster). The problem is that I am pretty much low on power or out of power once I do that.
I could not imagine the fits I would cause my DM if I had a Warlock doing that.
On the subject of dice, comparison of averages of normal method, average minimum method, and re-roll method:
D4 2.5 2.75 3.25
D6 3.5 4.00 4.47
D8 4.5 5.25 5.81
D10 5.5 6.50 7.15
D12 6.5 7.75 8.49
On the further subject of Warlocks, I'd just as soon get rid of them. WotC introduced a power curve of power vs. versatility vs. reusability vs. abilities per day that started ballooning like:
P10: V10: R5: A10 Wizard
P11: V9: R5: A11 Specialized Wizard
P13: V7: R15: A13 Sorcerer
P15: V5: R20: A10 Psion
P18: V2: R20: A100 Warlock
Sure, a Psion can do a D6 per level and a Warlock can only do just over 1/2 D6 per level, but the Psion can only do that maybe 5 times per day at max power and a Warlock can do it all day at max power.
Combine that with the Warlocks other pretty cool abilities and you have a very good NPC villain class, but a very broken PC class.
Thanee
First Post
If we start our next campaign eventually, we'll have a Warlock for sure, since one guy would like to try it.
So far, I don't think it will be unbalancing, I believe that the unlimited lower power abilities is less powerful than limited high power ones in general. Pretty much the same as if you look at the fighter compared to a sorcerer or wizard.
At low levels, I fully expect the Warlock to be immensely powerful, but at higher levels, that power will probably fade compared to the spellcasters.
But the enemies have to spot you, too, or not?
And if you already know they are there, you have the better means to avoid that, methinks.
Bye
Thanee
P.S. @Li Shenron: Yeah, it's from FR. New version is one spell level lower but only 1 min./level now, which is far better balanced.
So far, I don't think it will be unbalancing, I believe that the unlimited lower power abilities is less powerful than limited high power ones in general. Pretty much the same as if you look at the fighter compared to a sorcerer or wizard.
At low levels, I fully expect the Warlock to be immensely powerful, but at higher levels, that power will probably fade compared to the spellcasters.
But the enemies have to spot you, too, or not?
And if you already know they are there, you have the better means to avoid that, methinks.
Bye
Thanee
P.S. @Li Shenron: Yeah, it's from FR. New version is one spell level lower but only 1 min./level now, which is far better balanced.
Thanee said:
Perhaps. But assuming a party of 4 15th level NPCs versus a party of 4 15th level PCs where one of them is a Warlock, not even using any of his other powers, a Warlock could easily take out virtually any single arcane caster NPC on the other side in 2 rounds (in round one if he gets surprise and his initiative roll is higher than his target).
15th level NPC Sorcerer with average 53 hit points (Con 12) gets hit twice for 28 points on average from the 15th level PC Warlock and is unconscious (assuming the Warlock did not critical the first attack and take him out with 16D6 in a single blow). Ranged touch attacks are pretty darn easy at high level.
Average damage-wise, one Warlock is like having two Archer type fighters on your side. Sure, he might not be able to throw Fireballs and seriously injure multiple opponents in a single attack like the arcane casters, but one on one he is awesome.
If the opposing group has spell casters, I'd prefer to have a Warlock on my team. If the opposing group does not have spell casters, I'd prefer to have an arcane spell caster on my team.
Thanee said:
You would think, but you'd be surprised what can happen "according to the initiative rules".
Laman Stahros
First Post
KarinsDad said:
FYI, what you are talking about here is not "all according to the rules". You cannot become flatfooted in the middle of combat. Flatfooted only exists at the beginning of combat (as per the DMG).
SRD said:
Yes, surprise rounds suck, but, they don't happen in the middle of combat.
atom crash
First Post
At 15th level (the party level in your example), the warlock is getting off 1 eldritch blast or invocation while each fighter is getting off three arrows, assuming they aren't using rapid shot. The warlock could arguably quicken one eldritch blast and thus get off two per round (what's the minimum level he can take quicken SLA?), but how does that damage output compare to 2 archers launching 6-8 arrows per round? Or 6-8 flaming/shocking/whatever arrows per round?
Granted, in your example the warlock beats the sorceror into unconciousness before the sorc acts in round 1, but how often is that going to happen?
I'm not so sure the warlock is as unbalanced as you might think.
My initial reaction was, "Wow, that class is really overpowered." Then I read some discussion on their powers and have rethought that initial response. But I still haven't decided; I need to do some more looking into the balance issues.
Similar Threads
