Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[ColorBlindNinja]

No one is "purposely interpreting" anything. In fact, you have been making strawmen the entire time you have been debating with me and have continuously put words into my mouth I have never said. I just let them go. No matter how many times you insinuate I'm wrong doesn't make it true. The pit fiend you ran is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't answer anything. Which is my point. You claim it's the fighter player's choice when you were the one who complained about how nobody here would actually test their theories or assertions. My problem is any such tests are utterly pointless. The question was answered. Fighters can beat pit fiends, balor, dragons, and everything else depending how they're run.

This is a completely true statement. No matter how much you twist and squirm this fact isn't going to change.

Yet, you won't prove it.

My contention with this, even if a lot of it is true, is that a real fighter is not going to be fighting alone and will likely be built to deal with the things that are common in his campaign or what the player believes the big bad might actually be (if there is one.). Real characters likely would have an idea of what they're going to be fighting.

How will these characters know what they'll be fighting?

[Beheld]

No one is "purposely interpreting" anything. In fact, you have been making strawmen the entire time you have been debating with me and have continuously put words into my mouth I have never said. I just let them go. No matter how many times you insinuate I'm wrong doesn't make it true. The pit fiend you ran is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't answer anything. Which is my point. You claim it's the fighter player's choice when you were the one who complained about how nobody here would actually test their theories or assertions. My problem is any such tests are utterly pointless. The question was answered. Fighters can beat pit fiends, balor, dragons, and everything else depending how they're run.

This is a completely true statement. No matter how much you twist and squirm this fact isn't going to change.

"The pit fiend you ran is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't answer anything."

"The question I posed is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. The question Jormengand asked is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. That you refuse to address the things we have actually said in exchange for you delusional strawman does not in fact make that reality."

"You claim it's the fighter player's choice when you were the one who complained about how nobody here would actually test their theories or assertions."

I'm genuinely curious why you think those two points are relevant to each other.

"My problem is any such tests are utterly pointless. The question was answered. Fighters can beat pit fiends, balor, dragons, and everything else depending how they're run."

"The question I posed is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. The question Jormengand asked is extremely relevantly answered by a Pit Fiend run by me. That you refuse to address the things we have actually said in exchange for you delusional strawman does not in fact make that reality."

[Anthrowhale]

I think that the biggest point I can make with the core fighter vs pit fiend, is that it is hard to make a fighter that can win, that also couldn't be done the exact same way by a commoner.

To reiterate a previous point: A commoner cannot use the Sniper tactics---damage potential is to low.

And also as a sample, the proposed fighter by anthro would have a hard, if not impossible time fighting a marut. 100% stock.

This is incorrect. A Marut has a relatively poor Spot/Listen so Hide works. It has terrible initiative. It has an OK AC but relatively few hp. Altogether it dies with high probability after one full attack with Anarchic Arrows.

[Menzath]

To reiterate a previous point: A commoner cannot use the Sniper tactics---damage potential is to low.


This is incorrect. A Marut has a relatively poor Spot/Listen so Hide works. It has terrible initiative. It has an OK AC but relatively few hp. Altogether it dies with high probability after one full attack with Anarchic Arrows.

You know it does have at will locate creature and true seeing and fear and dimension door as well as a 1day/wall of force? I'm not sure how you can hide from that or shoot through a wall of force. And again the issue of having to apply oils to arrows as it hunts you down because it does know where you are and has true seeing and will just greater dispel any buff/oils you do use, cause it can do those at will as well?
I'm really not sure what else to say... And it's only a cr15.


And the commoner couldn't be a tiny halfing and have the same damage numbers. It could be a regular human with 14str a few more from a belt and a composite bow.
That's all the damage from feats.
Oh no the hide roll is lower but the damage dice is higher.
Invest in better rings of h/Ms and it ends as a overall net gain. The commoner would have to slightly re-itemize yes, but could do just as well.
And for BaB just carry a scroll of pocket fighter. Comes in arcane and divine flavors.(divine power or tensers transformation with the former being cheaper)

[Anthrowhale]

You know it does have at will locate creature...

Which would be hilarious to use in combat.

You slowly turn and sense when you are facing in the direction of the creature to be located, provided it is within range.

This does nothing to negate hide.

and true seeing

Which does nothing to penetrate hide unless there is no cover and dust of disappearance is not in use.

and fear and dimension door as well as a 1day/wall of force?

The fear has only a 5% chance of success, running away is typically not considered victory, and all of these are dependent on winning initiative which basically never happens. A Marut can run away as long as it does so before combat begins. Otherwise it's plausibly surprised, certainly loses initiative, then severely damaged and has no attack form likely to succeed even if it somehow survives the first attack.

And the commoner couldn't be a tiny halfing and have the same damage numbers. It could be a regular human with 14str a few more from a belt and a composite bow.

Feel free to make a build--I'm skeptical but happy to learn something. A commoner does 40% of the damage of the fighter vs. the Pit Fiend, so becoming size medium is very far from success.

Also, CR 16 is the level at which typical encounters against solo ECL 20 characters are supposed to occur. CR 21 is "overwhelming"---where the ECL 20 character is supposed to lose.

[Beheld]

Which would be hilarious to use in combat.

This does nothing to negate hide.

Which does nothing to penetrate hide unless there is no cover and dust of disappearance is not in use.

The fear has only a 5% chance of success, running away is typically not considered victory, and all of these are dependent on winning initiative which basically never happens. A Marut can run away as long as it does so before combat begins. Otherwise it's plausibly surprised, certainly loses initiative, then severely damaged and has no attack form likely to succeed even if it somehow survives the first attack.

Feel free to make a build--I'm skeptical but happy to learn something. A commoner does 40% of the damage of the fighter vs. the Pit Fiend, so becoming size medium is very far from success.

Also, CR 16 is the level at which typical encounters against solo ECL 20 characters are supposed to occur. CR 21 is "overwhelming"---where the ECL 20 character is supposed to lose.

"I believe there is cover in every location in the universe at all times from all directions so I can continue to rely on skill bonus items on one skill because my character is literally a cross class +ranks hide skill with no other meaningful contributions."

Meanwhile, 8 Death Slaads, 8 Huge animated Objects, and 3 Green Slaads surround you as an EL 19 encounter because it turns out that "I totally have cover from everything all the time" stops working the moment you actually play the game especially when you try to use it on creatures that know where you are, and you don't know where they are, because they have things like illusions or locate creature at all.

[Rhyltran]

"I believe there is cover in every location in the universe at all times from all directions so I can continue to rely on skill bonus items on one skill because my character is literally a cross class +ranks hide skill with no other meaningful contributions."

Meanwhile, 8 Death Slaads, 8 Huge animated Objects, and 3 Green Slaads surround you as an EL 19 encounter because it turns out that "I totally have cover from everything all the time" stops working the moment you actually play the game especially when you try to use it on creatures that know where you are, and you don't know where they are, because they have things like illusions or locate creature at all.

This would be a very difficult encounter especially the 8 slaads. You're taking a single person and throwing him against 8 enemies. They definitely have the advantage of action economy here but here's the problem. The fighter does fine because he isn't alone in the first place and in a party of 4 when it comes to his turn, especially if the other party members routed the slaad, he'll do just fine taking out a slaad per turn. Contributing his fair share in the encounter.

Also, according to this link http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/, the fighter has an ECL of 16 being a party of 1 with an ECL of 20. The 8 Slaad encounter has an ECL of 19 making for a very difficult fight.

This is why in real games optimized fighters do fine.

Here's the other problem with you attacking his skill checks. People choose skills, features, feats, magic items, and equipment based on the adventure at hand. Usually in advance the players will have an idea of what kind of adventure they'll have. In a real game his hide skill would work more often than it won't do you know why? It's because if he invested that heavily in hide it's obviously because hide was a valuable trait that was seeing mileage in the campaign. This is how real games work.

You know it does have at will locate creature and true seeing and fear and dimension door as well as a 1day/wall of force? I'm not sure how you can hide from that or shoot through a wall of force. And again the issue of having to apply oils to arrows as it hunts you down because it does know where you are and has true seeing and will just greater dispel any buff/oils you do use, cause it can do those at will as well?
I'm really not sure what else to say... And it's only a cr15.


And the commoner couldn't be a tiny halfing and have the same damage numbers. It could be a regular human with 14str a few more from a belt and a composite bow.
That's all the damage from feats.
Oh no the hide roll is lower but the damage dice is higher.
Invest in better rings of h/Ms and it ends as a overall net gain. The commoner would have to slightly re-itemize yes, but could do just as well.
And for BaB just carry a scroll of pocket fighter. Comes in arcane and divine flavors.(divine power or tensers transformation with the former being cheaper)

Unless the Marut does what it claims on the tin (not to mention it's questionable why a Marut would be going after Anthrow's halfling. There's no indication that he abused death.) and wastes it's 1/day wall of force to cut off his escape route. In which case it proceeds to die in one full attack.

[Menzath]

This would be a very difficult encounter especially the 8 slaads. You're taking a single person and throwing him against 8 enemies. They definitely have the advantage of action economy here but here's the problem. The fighter does fine because he isn't alone in the first place and in a party of 4 when it comes to his turn, especially if the other party members routed the slaad, he'll do just fine taking out a slaad per turn. Contributing his fair share in the encounter.

So, what does that have to do with the premise of how this thread started and answering the underlying question(s)?

I mean how does a party of 4 with a fighter on it equate to solo fighter vs XX?

We have a question/premise/scenario to discuss and you are trying to change that to beyond.

And to anthro, starting from a seemingly even point for these fights, they see you and then combat starts. Not you are magically sneaking at all points in time. Because that is an unfair advantage, and if you have said advantage, we have to give concessions to the creatures to counter balance this to level the playing field.

[Rhyltran]

So, what does that have to do with the premise of how this thread started and answering the underlying question(s)?

I mean how does a party of 4 with a fighter on it equate to solo fighter vs XX?

We have a question/premise/scenario to discuss and you are trying to change that to beyond.

And to anthro, starting from a seemingly even point for these fights, they see you and then combat starts. Not you are magically sneaking at all points in time. Because that is an unfair advantage, and if you have said advantage, we have to give concessions to the creatures to counter balance this to level the playing field.

The fighter being alone is an unrealistic scenario but even then the fighter does fine depending on the dm, the environment, the situation, etc. Can a fighter beat a pit fiend? Depending on the scenario the answer is yes. You can't change that just because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Sometimes, based on his fighter's stats, maybe he does sneak up on the enemy. Sometimes maybe there's no real way to do it. Maybe he does know about the pit fiend in advance. Maybe a king told him, another devil gloated about it, or what have you.

I argue that story, environment, and setting are important. I'm arguing your scenarios and questions don't take those into consideration. Since they don't your questions are meaningless.

Let's take the marut in question. If the fighter was hired by an immortal king to kill the Marut that is hunting him his ability to sneak up on said Marut becomes a real possibility. It's not looking for Anthrow's fighter nor is it familiar with him. So the locate person doesn't take into effect. If he has an idea of where it might be he could set up an ambush. In this scenario the marut walks in, fails it's spot check, and gets ambushed by the fighter.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The fighter being alone is an unrealistic scenario

Yet, this is the best scenario to prove his viability as a class.

but even then the fighter does fine depending on the dm, the environment, the situation, etc. Can a fighter beat a pit fiend? Depending on the scenario the answer is yes. You can't change that just because it doesn't suit your agenda.

You'll impress no one by proposing encounters that are contrived and give the Fighter an unwarranted advantage.

Sometimes, based on his fighter's stats, maybe he does sneak up on the enemy. Sometimes maybe there's no real way to do it. Maybe he does know about the pit fiend in advance. Maybe a king told him, another devil gloated about it, or what have you.

More likely, neither side has foreknowledge of the other.

I argue that story, environment, and setting are important. I'm arguing your scenarios and questions don't take those into consideration. Since they don't your questions are meaningless.

We're looking at a random encounter, those tend to happen in D&D.

Let's take the marut in question. If the fighter was hired by an immortal king to kill the Marut that is hunting him his ability to sneak up on said Marut becomes a real possibility. It's not looking for Anthrow's fighter nor is it familiar with him. So the locate person doesn't take into effect. If he has an idea of where it might be he could set up an ambush. In this scenario the marut walks in, fails it's spot check, and gets ambushed by the fighter.

The Fighter can easily be ambushed by the Marut, and it's possible that the Marut is hunting the Fighter down.

You can't invent hypothetical scenarios where the Fighter has an advantage and expect anyone to think they're viable examples.

[Rhyltran]

Yet, this is the best scenario to prove his viability as a class.

I disagree. Especially when there's games where there are characters who do poorly solo but are fine in group play. Others who do poorly solo but are the most optimal class to take for group play. Saying "It's not great at arena fighting." doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

You'll impress no one by proposing encounters that are contrived and give the Fighter an unwarranted advantage.

Maybe so. Likewise you convince no one with arena fights between fighter/High CR opponents because these are unrealistic scenarios.

More likely, neither side has foreknowledge of the other.

If that's the case they pass each other by because they don't know each other exist and probably have no beef with each other. When it comes to high level play someone is going to know something is up about something. Ah, but this is the problem with taking monsters in a vacuum. No one knows the context.

We're looking at a random encounter, those tend to happen in D&D.

Random encounters still need to be explained. I have never been in nor have I ever dmed "A wild balor appears!" and cue the pokemon battle music. If a pitfiend magically appeared in front of Anthro's fighter guess who wins initiative? Again, not that it matters because Pit Fiends and Balor don't magically appear as a wild encounter. Also recognize that wild encounters sometimes happen in situations that are neutral, favor the pit fiend, would favor the fighter. It depends.

The Fighter can easily be ambushed by the Marut, and it's possible that the Marut is hunting the Fighter down.

I said that's a possibility. I also said sometimes the fighter gets the drop on the enemy, sometimes the terrain favors the fighter, sometimes the terrain favors the enemy. However, in this case, it's unlikely. A marut has a very simple programming and his halfling fighter is no way immortal. So the odds that a marut would be hunting him is low. Again, the possibility is there but factor this. If the marut opens combat by blocking his escape route with the wall of force there's a good chance the fighter kills it. If it does something different the fight can change. This is the problem with schrodinger monsters/fighters.

You can't invent hypothetical scenarios where the Fighter has an advantage and expect anyone to think they're viable examples.

Oh but I can! Because in real games sometimes situations will happen that favor the players and other situations will happen that favor the villains. Both of these will occur in normal play. So both are equally valid. Neutral situations are also just as valid. What happens in real games is unpredictable.

[Menzath]

The fighter being alone is an unrealistic scenario but even then the fighter does fine depending on the dm, the environment, the situation, etc. Can a fighter beat a pit fiend? Depending on the scenario the answer is yes. You can't change that just because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Sometimes, based on his fighter's stats, maybe he does sneak up on the enemy. Sometimes maybe there's no real way to do it. Maybe he does know about the pit fiend in advance. Maybe a king told him, another devil gloated about it, or what have you.

I argue that story, environment, and setting are important. I'm arguing your scenarios and questions don't take those into consideration. Since they don't your questions are meaningless.

Let's take the marut in question. If the fighter was hired by an immortal king to kill the Marut that is hunting him his ability to sneak up on said Marut becomes a real possibility. It's not looking for Anthrow's fighter nor is it familiar with him. So the locate person doesn't take into effect. If he has an idea of where it might be he could set up an ambush. In this scenario the marut walks in, fails it's spot check, and gets ambushed by the fighter.

Yet, this is the best scenario to prove his viability as a class.

You can't invent hypothetical scenarios where the Fighter has an advantage and expect anyone to think they're viable examples.

Exactly that colorblind. Ty.

The point of these scenarios as contrived as they may be from your view rhyltran, is the entire premise of this thread.
We are trying to put a solo lvl 20 core fighter vs a challenge.

It doesn't matter about if it is an exactly believable setting because of the premise of this thread. Another point of either eliminating foreknowledge on either side, or for both sides to have some foreknowledge or prep time, is for fairness.

That you are arguing that the reason behind why this thread exists is invalid is your prerogative, but leave it at that and don't keep bringing up issues that have no bearing on what the rest of us are talking about.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I disagree. Especially when there's games where there are characters who do poorly solo but are fine in group play. Others who do poorly solo but are the most optimal class to take for group play. Saying "It's not great at arena fighting." doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Who said this was an arena fight? I was told that this little competition was intended to be more organic.

Maybe so. Likewise you convince no one with arena fights between fighter/High CR opponents because these are unrealistic scenarios.

The match was level 20 Fighter VS CR 20 Pit Fiend.

If that's the case they pass each other by because they don't know each other exist and probably have no beef with each other. When it comes to high level play someone is going to know something is up about something. Ah, but this is the problem with taking monsters in a vacuum. No one knows the context.

How will someone know something about a total stranger? We're, of course, assuming that they fight each other, this contest is pointless otherwise.

Random encounters still need to be explained. I have never been in nor have I ever dmed "A wild balor appears!" and cue the pokemon battle music. If a pitfiend magically appeared in front of Anthro's fighter guess who wins initiative? Again, not that it matters because Pit Fiends and Balor don't magically appear as a wild encounter. Also recognize that wild encounters sometimes happen in situations that are neutral, favor the pit fiend, would favor the fighter. It depends.

Why isn't important, we're interested in the end result, thus we make the battlefield as neutral as possible.

I said that's a possibility. I also said sometimes the fighter gets the drop on the enemy, sometimes the terrain favors the fighter, sometimes the terrain favors the enemy. However, in this case, it's unlikely. A marut has a very simple programming and his halfling fighter is no way immortal. So the odds that a marut would be hunting him is low. Again, the possibility is there but factor this. If the marut opens combat by blocking his escape route with the wall of force there's a good chance the fighter kills it. If it does something different the fight can change. This is the problem with schrodinger monsters/fighters.

We're statting up both parties and their tactics to avoid ambiguity.

Oh but I can! Because in real games sometimes situations will happen that favor the players and other situations will happen that favor the villains. Both of these will occur in normal play. So both are equally valid. Neutral situations are also just as valid. What happens in real games is unpredictable.

Don't expect anyone to take you seriously, then.

[Rhyltran]

Exactly that colorblind. Ty.

The point of these scenarios as contrived as they may be from your view rhyltran, is the entire premise of this thread.
We are trying to put a solo lvl 20 core fighter vs a challenge.

It doesn't matter about if it is an exactly believable setting because of the premise of this thread. Another point of either eliminating for knowledge on either side, or for both sides to have some for knowledge or prep time, is for fairness.

That you are arguing that the reason behind why this thread exists is invalid is your prerogative, but leave it at that and don't keep bringing up issues that have no bearing on what the rest of us are talking about.

Except this is an open forum and I am capable of voicing my opinion. In the grand scheme of things I believe a 20 core fighter in an arena fight alone with a pit fiend is a pointless gesture. You seem to be incapable of grasping that no matter how you control the pit fiend, even if you beat anthro every single time, proves nothing because another player with a different fighter might fair differently in the same tests. You don't have enough data on these forums to prove anything unless you literally get every player who plays a fighter, get them to run your test, and achieve at least 50% of the results. Even then it just proves the person testing and controlling that balor can defeat those fighters. It says nothing in the grand scheme of things how those same players would handle different balor/pit fiends by different players.

Who said this was an arena fight? I was told that this little competition was intended to be more organic.

It was never organic because you don't seem to know what an arena fight is. If we take a balor/pit fiend and place him in a forest and have the other person place their character in the same forest it's still an arena regardless if there's literal walls and cages. The arena is the forest. It's still a pvp match between two players and the only thing that's being tested is the guy playing the fighter's skill versus your skill at controlling the monster. See the problem? It's a pvp match. Nothing more.

The match was level 20 Fighter VS CR 20 Pit Fiend.

The match was a duel between Beheld and Anthrowhale. His skill of playing his fighter versus his skill/tactics controlling the pit fiend. A victory in the pit fiend is not a victory vs fighters it's a victory of beheld vs Anthrowhale.

How will someone know something about a total stranger? We're, of course, assuming that they fight each other, this contest is pointless otherwise.

How will anyone know anything about this duel other than the results between two forum posters? You're assuming every Pit Fiend will fight the same way against every fighter and vice versa.

Why isn't important, we're interested in the end result, thus we make the battlefield as neutral as possible.

The end result as in who's a better pvper? Beheld or Anthro? What's the point of this?

We're statting up both parties and their tactics to avoid ambiguity.

Tactics of two players. Anthro Vs Beheld.

Don't expect anyone to take you seriously, then.

Just like I don't take pvp seriously.




PS:

Check the original page. You might want to do it. Jormen wanted a test based on what people do in actual games. This is why my posts are relevant. Real players in real games don't fight Balors/Pit Fiends 1v1 most of the time. This is extremely rare given the mandate of "Not splitting the party." Likewise, real games, and what real players do change from campaign to campaign. I argue that a single and even multi-test can't cover all ranges of possibilities. Jormen wanted to know if a Core fighter can fight a Core pit fiend. My answer is: Yes. Depending on the environment, campaign, and situation the Core Fighter can. It also depends who's dming the Pit Fiend and the tactics that they choose to use.

In a real game Anthro doesn't need to beat Beheld's pit fiend. He needs to beat his current DM's pit fiend. Anthro is not going to be fighting that pit fiend in a vacuum he'll probably be fighting it in a location that makes sense based on his campaign. He'll also not likely be fighting it alone and unsupported.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Except this is an open forum and I am capable of voicing my opinion. In the grand scheme of things I believe a 20 core fighter in an arena fight alone with a pit fiend is a pointless gesture. You seem to be incapable of grasping that no matter how you control the pit fiend, even if you beat anthro every single time, proves nothing because another player with a different fighter might fair differently in the same tests. You don't have enough data on these forums to prove anything unless you literally get every player who plays a fighter, get them to run your test, and achieve at least 50% of the results. Even then it just proves the person testing and controlling that balor can defeat those fighters. It says nothing in the grand scheme of things how those same players would handle different balor/pit fiends by different players.

- If the Pit Fiend beats the Fighter consistently, that's evidence that the Fighter can't triumph.

- Would you still claim this scenario is pointless if multiple posters controlled the Pit Fiend and Fighter throughout a series of matches?

It was never organic because you don't seem to know what an arena fight is. If we take a balor/pit fiend and place him in a forest and have the other person place their character in the same forest it's still an arena regardless if there's literal walls and cages. The arena is the forest. It's still a pvp match between two players and the only thing that's being tested is the guy playing the fighter's skill versus your skill at controlling the monster. See the problem? It's a pvp match. Nothing more.

- This match bears precious little resemblance to an arena fight; there are no rules against fleeing and reengaging your opponent for example.

- The DM must control the Pit Fiend in an actual game, does that make it PVP?

The match was a duel between Beheld and Anthrowhale. His skill of playing his fighter versus his skill/tactics controlling the pit fiend. A victory in the pit fiend is not a victory vs fighters it's a victory of beheld vs Anthrowhale.

- Then let's have multiple posters run matches against each other.

- If Beheld wins every time, that's still evidence that Fighter lose to Pit Fiends.

How will anyone know anything about this duel other than the results between two forum posters? You're assuming every Pit Fiend will fight the same way against every fighter and vice versa.

I never assumed that, don't put words in my mouth.

The end result as in who's a better pvper? Beheld or Anthro? What's the point of this?

It's still evidence, just perhaps not enough to form a definite conclusion.

Just like I don't take pvp seriously.




PS:

Check the original page. You might want to do it. Jormen wanted a test based on what people do in actual games. This is why my posts are relevant. Real players in real games don't fight Balors/Pit Fiends 1v1 most of the time. This is extremely rare given the mandate of "Not splitting the party." Likewise, real games, and what real players do change from campaign to campaign. I argue that a single and even multi-test can't cover all ranges of possibilities. Jormen wanted to know if a Core fighter can fight a Core pit fiend. My answer is: Yes. Depending on the environment, campaign, and situation the Core Fighter can. It also depends who's dming the Pit Fiend and the tactics that they choose to use.

In a real game Anthro doesn't need to beat Beheld's pit fiend. He needs to beat his current DM's pit fiend. Anthro is not going to be fighting that pit fiend in a vacuum he'll probably be fighting it in a location that makes sense based on his campaign. He'll also not likely be fighting it alone and unsupported.

Again, how is the DM controlling the Pit Fiend any different than Beheld controlling one?

Edit: This isn't PVP, this is a monster vs a class.

The Fighter is alone because having party members pick up his slack proves nothing about his viability as a class.

[Beheld]

This would be a very difficult encounter especially the 8 slaads. You're taking a single person and throwing him against 8 enemies. They definitely have the advantage of action economy here but here's the problem. The fighter does fine because he isn't alone in the first place and in a party of 4 when it comes to his turn, especially if the other party members routed the slaad, he'll do just fine taking out a slaad per turn. Contributing his fair share in the encounter.

When you pit low level creatures against an (allegedly) high level character, the low level ones get an action advantage. If you instead pit a party of 4 people, then you have what is known as "a near certain win that is expected to be a stomp where you only used 20% of your resources."

Watching a party use 25% of it's resources, or 30% instead of 20 and trying to measure that difference is not meaningful. The only relevant method of testing if a PC or party are living up to their expectations is to present encounters they have some decent chance of losing to.

A single ECL 20 PC should have a greater than 50% chance of beating an EL 19 encounter.

Also, the fighter couldn't take out one in a round, he would take probably 3 rounds per Slaad since he lacks the ability to apply all his creature specific bonus damages and after two full attacks he would no longer have any arrows that penetrate DR. Even longer against the animated objects.

Also, according to this link http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/, the fighter has an ECL of 16 being a party of 1 with an ECL of 20. The 8 Slaad encounter has an ECL of 19 making for a very difficult fight.

The fighter is by definition ECL 20. He's also EL 20, and CR 20. The 8 Death Slaad, 8 huge animated objects animated by the slaad, 3 Green Slaad summoned by the Death Slaad for the fight are EL 19, they are not ECL anything.

Here's the other problem with you attacking his skill checks. People choose skills, features, feats, magic items, and equipment based on the adventure at hand. Usually in advance the players will have an idea of what kind of adventure they'll have. In a real game his hide skill would work more often than it won't do you know why? It's because if he invested that heavily in hide it's obviously because hide was a valuable trait that was seeing mileage in the campaign. This is how real games work.

Actually, in real games, people choose skills and then stick to them forever because they don't want to waste skill points by spreading them out. But that's not the point, the point is that he's literally just stacking non class bonuses to Hide to try to break the RNG so he can declare victory based on breaking the skill RNG, which is really stupid on a number of levels, but is basically just exactly the same as the guy who buys a +30 item to UMD and casts Holy Word from Staves.

Also, Hide is literally ****ing garbage in real games, because in real games, you have a party, and so you can't say "HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU CAN'T SEE ME BECAUSE I BOUGHT COMPETENCE ITEMS TO MY SKILL AND BROKE THE RNG" because what actually happens is the entire rest of your party are literally sitting there being targets and telling the monsters you are coming.

I argue that story, environment, and setting are important. I'm arguing your scenarios and questions don't take those into consideration. Since they don't your questions are meaningless.

Funny, because my entire point was that Anthrowhale with his focus on arbitrary full attack comparisons and declarations of super stealth wasn't taking into account those things, and then I offered to demonstrate how those things actually play out in their effects on the relevant question.

Saying "It's not great at arena fighting." doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

...

Maybe so. Likewise you convince no one with arena fights between fighter/High CR opponents because these are unrealistic scenarios.

...

I have never been in nor have I ever dmed "A wild balor appears!" and cue the pokemon battle music.

...

In the grand scheme of things I believe a 20 core fighter in an arena fight alone with a pit fiend is a pointless gesture.

No matter how many times you lie about the thing you've already been corrected on and try to attribute your strawman to us, no one actually at any point suggested running an arena fight.

The match was a duel between Beheld and Anthrowhale. His skill of playing his fighter versus his skill/tactics controlling the pit fiend. A victory in the pit fiend is not a victory vs fighters it's a victory of beheld vs Anthrowhale.

...

How will anyone know anything about this duel other than the results between two forum posters?

...

The end result as in who's a better pvper? Beheld or Anthro? What's the point of this?

...

Tactics of two players. Anthro Vs Beheld.

...

Just like I don't take pvp seriously.

Except that no one actually suggested PvP at any point, and I would never be running the Pit Fiend as a versus, since that would completely defeat the purpose. The Pit Fiend doesn't know some information about the fighter, and it would be equally as wrong to run the Pit Fiend with that info as it would for the fighter to run based on knowledge about the Pit Fiend he doesn't have.

I offered to run an actual scenario (or set thereof) to demonstrate specifically how issues of campaign and goals influence encounters in a way Anthrowhale was ignoring.

Check the original page. You might want to do it. Jormen wanted a test based on what people do in actual games. This is why my posts are relevant. Real players in real games don't fight Balors/Pit Fiends 1v1 most of the time. This is extremely rare given the mandate of "Not splitting the party." Likewise, real games, and what real players do change from campaign to campaign. I argue that a single and even multi-test can't cover all ranges of possibilities. Jormen wanted to know if a Core fighter can fight a Core pit fiend. My answer is: Yes. Depending on the environment, campaign, and situation the Core Fighter can. It also depends who's dming the Pit Fiend and the tactics that they choose to use.

In a real game Anthro doesn't need to beat Beheld's pit fiend. He needs to beat his current DM's pit fiend. Anthro is not going to be fighting that pit fiend in a vacuum he'll probably be fighting it in a location that makes sense based on his campaign. He'll also not likely be fighting it alone and unsupported.

The question is one of relative contribution and worth.

If you put a level 1 Commoner, and 3 level 20 Wizards, against a Pit Fiend, the party will often win. That's good, as a general rule, you want the party to win. But that doesn't tell us if the Commoner was contributing to the encounter as much as they are supposed to.

In fact, if you put 3 Wizards against a Pit Fiend, the Wizards will probably win, but that doesn't actually tell us whether the Wizards are even up to snuff, because 3 Wizards against a Pit Fiend is supposed to be a win for the Wizards that uses about 25-30% of their resources, so if they walk away from the fight with every spell expended, and no HP, then they are in fact not playing up to their expected competence in the CR system.

So a test has to find both:

1) A way of evaluating if the part actually lived up to their expectations.
2) A way of particularizing a specific party members contribution in a way that can be evaluated on the previous standard.

EL X Round Robin where EL of the monsters and the CR/ECL/EL of the PC is one way of doing both of those. It's not perfect in every way, but it's better than "Well, the 3 Wizards and the Commoner beat a Pit Fiend, so Commoners are fine" system.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The question is one of relative contribution and worth.

If you put a level 1 Commoner, and 3 level 20 Wizards, against a Pit Fiend, the party will often win. That's good, as a general rule, you want the party to win. But that doesn't tell us if the Commoner was contributing to the encounter as much as they are supposed to.

In fact, if you put 3 Wizards against a Pit Fiend, the Wizards will probably win, but that doesn't actually tell us whether the Wizards are even up to snuff, because 3 Wizards against a Pit Fiend is supposed to be a win for the Wizards that uses about 25-30% of their resources, so if they walk away from the fight with every spell expended, and no HP, then they are in fact not playing up to their expected competence in the CR system.

So a test has to find both:

1) A way of evaluating if the part actually lived up to their expectations.
2) A way of particularizing a specific party members contribution in a way that can be evaluated on the previous standard.

EL X Round Robin where EL of the monsters and the CR/ECL/EL of the PC is one way of doing both of those. It's not perfect in every way, but it's better than "Well, the 3 Wizards and the Commoner beat a Pit Fiend, so Commoners are fine" system.

This is why I've been insisting that it's vital for the Fighter to compete on this own, because otherwise his teammates can pull off a victory that they would have achieved if the Fighter was replaced by a bunny rabbit.

[Rhyltran]

- If the Pit Fiend beats the Fighter consistently, that's evidence that the Fighter can't triumph.

- Would you still claim this scenario is pointless if multiple posters controlled the Pit Fiend and Fighter throughout a series of matches?

It'd be very hard to do because this forum doesn't represent gaming at large. You would need multiple posters playing the fighter and pit fiend. They would need to each use different fighters and play in different scenarios. I think it'd be too much to pull off.

- This match bears precious little resemblance to an arena fight; there are no rules against fleeing and reengaging your opponent for example.

It's still an arena. In a 1v1 on COD or in an mmo battleground you could retreat to a new position and continue to kill your opponent. It's still a 1v1 pvp death match between two players.

- The DM must control the Pit Fiend in an actual game, does that make it PVP?

In a way every fight is a death match between you and the dm. Except the dm doesn't use his powers to go all out and kill you. The DM will win that one each time. That being said it's also the only "match" that matters.

- Then let's have multiple posters run matches against each other.

The problem is there won't be enough data to extrapolate from. Especially since most of the posters here have a system mastery higher than elsewhere. Despite Beheld's claims that I can't prove it (which is true) one would assume that those who discuss D&D on a message board would take it more seriously and be more knowledgeable vs those who don't.

- If Beheld wins every time, that's still evidence that Fighter lose to Pit Fiends.

It wouldn't. It'd be evidence that Beheld playing a Pit Fiend wins against Fighters. It's not a very strong argument if the person playing the fighter wins against everyone else who plays a pit fiend. See the other extreme? Either extreme is unlikely. Just like Anthro beating beheld everytime doesn't prove that Fighters as a whole beat Pit Fiends. If he was literally the only fighter who could do it what does that say about most people? See my point?

It's still evidence, just perhaps not enough to form a definite conclusion.

I guess this is true.

Again, how is the DM controlling the Pit Fiend any different than Beheld controlling one?

Different DM's will use different tactics in different situations. Likewise for fighters. A fighter who can't beat a Pit Fiend controlled by Beheld would fair poorly in a 1v1 fight in a campaign run by beheld with that person playing a fighter. They might do better against Joe's Pit Fiend who doesn't utilize image right off the bat and describes his pit fiend standing in the open waiting for the fighter's first move because he's confident or something. Or Susan's beholder who decides to move in and start full round attacks.

Edit: This isn't PVP, this is a monster vs a class.

Oh no. It's most definitely a pvp. You have one person controlling the monster arguing why the monster would win and you have one person controlling the fighter arguing why his fighter would in. Both sides consist of a player controlling their respective characters in an attempt to beat each other. It's definitely a PVP.

The Fighter is alone because having party members pick up his slack proves nothing about his viability as a class.

Slack is hard to quantify. Some characters perform better as a team than they do apart. I already show cased in a scenario run by wizards of the coast how Anthro's fighter, ported right in the group, outperforms the rest of the team in damage and becomes the most significant contributor in killing the balor in comparison to the other party members.

There's definitely games where the party wizard sucks because the person playing him isn't very intelligent at it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It'd be very hard to do because this forum doesn't represent gaming at large. You would need multiple posters playing the fighter and pit fiend. They would need to each use different fighters and play in different scenarios. I think it'd be too much to pull off.

I'd like to at least try instead of giving up.

It's still an arena. In a 1v1 on COD or in an mmo battleground you could retreat to a new position and continue to kill your opponent. It's still a 1v1 pvp death match between two players.

Then by that definition, any solo battle in D&D is PVP.

In a way every fight is a death match between you and the dm. Except the dm doesn't use his powers to go all out and kill you. The DM will win that one each time. That being said it's also the only "match" that matters.

If the Fighter can only win if the Pit Fiend (or rather, the DM controlling him) holds back, that's not indicative of the Fighter's viability as a class.

The problem is there won't be enough data to extrapolate from. Especially since most of the posters here have a system mastery higher than elsewhere. Despite Beheld's claims that I can't prove it (which is true) one would assume that those who discuss D&D on a message board would take it more seriously and be more knowledgeable vs those who don't.

And? Some posters can build/run poorly built Fighters/Pit Fiends.

It wouldn't. It'd be evidence that Beheld playing a Pit Fiend wins against Fighters. It's not a very strong argument if the person playing the fighter wins against everyone else who plays a pit fiend. See the other extreme? Either extreme is unlikely. Just like Anthro beating beheld everytime doesn't prove that Fighters as a whole beat Pit Fiends. If he was literally the only fighter who could do it what does that say about most people? See my point?

No, this is relevant if we're trying to find out if Fighters can kill Pit Fiends.

I guess this is true.

OK.

Different DM's will use different tactics in different situations. Likewise for fighters. A fighter who can't beat a Pit Fiend controlled by Beheld would fair poorly in a 1v1 fight in a campaign run by beheld with that person playing a fighter. They might do better against Joe's Pit Fiend who doesn't utilize image right off the bat and describes his pit fiend standing in the open waiting for the fighter's first move because he's confident or something. Or Susan's beholder who decides to move in and start full round attacks.

If the Fighter can only win because the Pit Fiend is stupid/poorly played, that's not a point in his favor.

Oh no. It's most definitely a pvp. You have one person controlling the monster arguing why the monster would win and you have one person controlling the fighter arguing why his fighter would in. Both sides consist of a player controlling their respective characters in an attempt to beat each other. It's definitely a PVP.

By this definition, all of D&D is PVP.

Slack is hard to quantify. Some characters perform better as a team than they do apart. I already show cased in a scenario run by wizards of the coast how Anthro's fighter, ported right in the group, outperforms the rest of the team in damage and becomes the most significant contributor in killing the balor in comparison to the other party members.

- If the Fighter could be replaced by a cat, and the party could still win, the Fighter didn't contribute.

- The scenario that I said was contrived?

There's definitely games where the party wizard sucks because the person playing him isn't very intelligent at it.

So what, that same Wizard could easily win if was played with a modicum of intelligence, is the same true for a Fighter?

[Rhyltran]

When you pit low level creatures against an (allegedly) high level character, the low level ones get an action advantage. If you instead pit a party of 4 people, then you have what is known as "a near certain win that is expected to be a stomp where you only used 20% of your resources."

Watching a party use 25% of it's resources, or 30% instead of 20 and trying to measure that difference is not meaningful. The only relevant method of testing if a PC or party are living up to their expectations is to present encounters they have some decent chance of losing to.

A single ECL 20 PC should have a greater than 50% chance of beating an EL 19 encounter.

Also, the fighter couldn't take out one in a round, he would take probably 3 rounds per Slaad since he lacks the ability to apply all his creature specific bonus damages and after two full attacks he would no longer have any arrows that penetrate DR. Even longer against the animated objects.

Here's the problem. The average wizard loses to 8 Slaads too. Just saying. Do you really think mr.truestrike in the article I linked would really stand a chance? According to the SRD this is a very difficult fight.

The fighter is by definition ECL 20. He's also EL 20, and CR 20. The 8 Death Slaad, 8 huge animated objects animated by the slaad, 3 Green Slaad summoned by the Death Slaad for the fight are EL 19, they are not ECL anything.

The D20SRD encounter generator still lists it as a very hard fight. Is the SRD unreliable? Honest question. I've used the D20 SRD encounter generator for years. Put the party at 1 and place the Fighter as 20. Then put in your combination. It's listed as a very difficult encounter and the book even acknowledges it's more dangerous at times than overpowering because it's not always immediately obvious that you should run. The book implies in an encounter like this running is a good choice as the chance of someone dying is high. The party level here is listed as 16 whereas the EL is 19. This is a very difficult fight. It's also why the pit fiend argument is so important. Situation, setup, equipment, who the fighter is, who the pit fiend is. This is very important because no one is denying that the death of a fighter is a real possibility. The argument is depending on circumstance this can very well shift. As a very high difficulty encounter would.

Also, Hide is literally ****ing garbage in real games, because in real games, you have a party, and so you can't say "HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU CAN'T SEE ME BECAUSE I BOUGHT COMPETENCE ITEMS TO MY SKILL AND BROKE THE RNG" because what actually happens is the entire rest of your party are literally sitting there being targets and telling the monsters you are coming.

There's no need to get angry and utilize caps. We're all civil here. I ask that you please calm down. Besides, in games I played with stealth has been fine. So I don't agree here. My experience is different.

No matter how many times you lie about the thing you've already been corrected on and try to attribute your strawman to us, no one actually at any point suggested running an arena fight.

No one is lying. In your anger you misconstrue everything as a lie. However, right here, you're most clearly incorrect. All your scenarios involving a pit fiend vs a fighter was an arena fight. Either that or you fail to understand the definition when it comes to gaming and competitions to what an arena fight is. You can call it a death match if you'd like. The point is still valid.

Except that no one actually suggested PvP at any point, and I would never be running the Pit Fiend as a versus, since that would completely defeat the purpose. The Pit Fiend doesn't know some information about the fighter, and it would be equally as wrong to run the Pit Fiend with that info as it would for the fighter to run based on knowledge about the Pit Fiend he doesn't have.

I always thought pvp is player versus player and I always assumed that you playing a pit fiend in a combat scenario with another player is most definitely player versus player.

I offered to run an actual scenario (or set thereof) to demonstrate specifically how issues of campaign and goals influence encounters in a way Anthrowhale was ignoring.

That's fine but it doesn't go on to prove or disprove your argument. I don't care for the match between you and Anthro. A single scenario or a set of scenario's is irrelevant.

The question is one of relative contribution and worth.

If you put a level 1 Commoner, and 3 level 20 Wizards, against a Pit Fiend, the party will often win. That's good, as a general rule, you want the party to win. But that doesn't tell us if the Commoner was contributing to the encounter as much as they are supposed to.

In fact, if you put 3 Wizards against a Pit Fiend, the Wizards will probably win, but that doesn't actually tell us whether the Wizards are even up to snuff, because 3 Wizards against a Pit Fiend is supposed to be a win for the Wizards that uses about 25-30% of their resources, so if they walk away from the fight with every spell expended, and no HP, then they are in fact not playing up to their expected competence in the CR system.

So a test has to find both:

1) A way of evaluating if the part actually lived up to their expectations.
2) A way of particularizing a specific party members contribution in a way that can be evaluated on the previous standard.

EL X Round Robin where EL of the monsters and the CR/ECL/EL of the PC is one way of doing both of those. It's not perfect in every way, but it's better than "Well, the 3 Wizards and the Commoner beat a Pit Fiend, so Commoners are fine" system.

This is fair but the problem here is that it really depends on the players in question as with the DM. Remember the tips and tactics article I linked awhile back? I show cased that Anthro's fighter would have done more damage than any of the other party. The fighter's worth, relative to the party, depends on the group in question. The characters in that group and the scenario at hand. These are important. If the three wizards and the commoner in question had no protection against blasphemy they would all die in the tips and tactics article. Their class would be irrelevant.

[Rhyltran]

I'd like to at least try instead of giving up.

That's fair but I just don't see the point in it to be honest.

Then by that definition, any solo battle in D&D is PVP.

So are group battles but the problem here is I don't think (in my opinion) that they matter when it comes to proving things except in the confines of the story.

If the Fighter can only win if the Pit Fiend (or rather, the DM controlling him) holds back, that's not indicative of the Fighter's viability as a class.

This is my problem. This is the point where, if I worded something like this, you claim I put words into your mouth. I won't do that because it doesn't take the debate anywhere but I wanted to point it out. Now to answer this truly:

Who said anything about the DM holding back? What if the DM's tactics just simply aren't as good as you or beheld? Maybe the DM really is giving it a good go but he's just not as proficient at controlling a balor/pit fiend? See my point? The reason I keep calling this is a pvp match is relatively simple. That reason is this: Some people are simply better pvpers than others. That's really it. If the fighter player is more skilled than the dm when it comes to challenging the party or fighting the monsters he'd do better than someone who's not as adept.

And? Some posters can build/run poorly built Fighters/Pit Fiends.

Oh absolutely! People can do the same for wizards/clerics/druids too. I'll also concede that a poorly built wizard is going to fair much better than a poorly built fighter. However, the original questio was "Can a fighter beat a pit fiend?" and I believe they can.

No, this is relevant if we're trying to find out if Fighters can kill Pit Fiends.

But there's just simply not enough data.

If the Fighter can only win because the Pit Fiend is stupid/poorly played, that's not a point in his favor.

Stupid is subjective. Is a pit fiend played stupid if the person controlling it isn't as skilled as Beheld? What if Beheld plays a pit fiend exceptionally well, if not brilliantly, compared to others? Where's the stand to measure in order to determine if it's "Stupid."? What if there's a fighter out there just as brilliant or exceptional?

By this definition, all of D&D is PVP.

No debate there.

- If the Fighter could be replaced by a cat, and the party could still win, the Fighter didn't contribute.

- The scenario that I said was contrived?



So what, that same Wizard could easily win if was played with a modicum of intelligence, is the same true for a Fighter?

Probably not to be honest but that doesn't prove fighters can't beat pit fiends does it? I said numerous times over and over that no one here on these forums will debate Wizard >>>>>> Fighter.




Addendum: I'm about to drop out of this conversation. I feel like we just have two different completely incompatible views when it comes to this. We're getting nowhere and neither side is going to convince the other.

[Menzath]

Addendum: I'm about to drop out of this conversation. I feel like we just have two different completely incompatible views when it comes to this. We're getting nowhere and neither side is going to convince the other.

Now I was never trying to down grade your point of view, just point out that it might go opposite of the very reason of this thread.

And while what you argue isn't wrong, I can't exactly say it is right either.
This is DnD.
The terms you use for an arena match are far broader than what I think table top players would use, and closer to a video game.
The classification you use for PvP is similar.
Again, is it wrong? Not really.

But the points and reasons we are arguing seem to be based off of different definitions.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That's fair but I just don't see the point in it to be honest.

OK.

So are group battles but the problem here is I don't think (in my opinion) that they matter when it comes to proving things except in the confines of the story.

If story is so important, let's come up with one that doensn't hand either side a significant advantage.

This is my problem. This is the point where, if I worded something like this, you claim I put words into your mouth. I won't do that because it doesn't take the debate anywhere but I wanted to point it out. Now to answer this truly:

Who said anything about the DM holding back? What if the DM's tactics just simply aren't as good as you or beheld? Maybe the DM really is giving it a good go but he's just not as proficient at controlling a balor/pit fiend? See my point? The reason I keep calling this is a pvp match is relatively simple. That reason is this: Some people are simply better pvpers than others. That's really it. If the fighter player is more skilled than the dm when it comes to challenging the party or fighting the monsters he'd do better than someone who's not as adept.

You implied that the DM wasn't giving it his all. Multiple tests will largely render individual skill moot.

Oh absolutely! People can do the same for wizards/clerics/druids too. I'll also concede that a poorly built wizard is going to fair much better than a poorly built fighter. However, the original questio was "Can a fighter beat a pit fiend?" and I believe they can.

But, you've offered no evidence that this is the case.

-But there's just simply not enough data.

Hence, repeated testing.

Stupid is subjective. Is a pit fiend played stupid if the person controlling it isn't as skilled as Beheld? What if Beheld plays a pit fiend exceptionally well, if not brilliantly, compared to others? Where's the stand to measure in order to determine if it's "Stupid."? What if there's a fighter out there just as brilliant or exceptional?

Anyone who lets their opponent act first is a moron.

No debate there.

OK.

Probably not to be honest but that doesn't prove fighters can't beat pit fiends does it? I said numerous times over and over that no one here on these forums will debate Wizard >>>>>> Fighter.

I meant your example was flawed.

Addendum: I'm about to drop out of this conversation. I feel like we just have two different completely incompatible views when it comes to this. We're getting nowhere and neither side is going to convince the other.

Fine.

[Rhyltran]

Now I was never trying to down grade your point of view, just point out that it might go opposite of the very reason of this thread.

And while what you argue isn't wrong, I can't exactly say it is right either.
This is DnD.
The terms you use for an arena match are far broader than what I think table top players would use, and closer to a video game.
The classification you use for PvP is similar.
Again, is it wrong? Not really.

But the points and reasons we are arguing seem to be based off of different definitions.

This is the major problem I believe I don't think you're belittling my point at all. I think you're right, actually. I think we're just coming up with different ways of saying "I disagree." which is why I'm done with the thread. Thanks for the debate though.

[Anthrowhale]

And to anthro, starting from a seemingly even point for these fights, they see you and then combat starts. Not you are magically sneaking at all points in time. Because that is an unfair advantage, and if you have said advantage, we have to give concessions to the creatures to counter balance this to level the playing field.

I'm not following the logic of unfairness? Do you believe that no benefit should accrue to having a high stealth? What about the high initiative? Should no benefit accrue from that? And the high attack bonus? Are these unfair? This seems like a method of reasoning sure to result in a monster incapable of being defeated by any character.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm not following the logic of unfairness? Do you believe that no benefit should accrue to having a high stealth? What about the high initiative? Should no benefit accrue from that? And the high attack bonus? Are these unfair? This seems like a method of reasoning sure to result in a monster incapable of being defeated by any character.

I think the objection is, are you really going to be sneaking 24/7?

[Anthrowhale]

I think the objection is, are you really going to be sneaking 24/7?

24/7 seems to much, but sneaky for a significant part of adventuring time seems quite plausible.

[ColorBlindNinja]

24/7 seems to much, but sneaky for a significant part of adventuring time seems quite plausible.

That sounds exceedingly tedious. Are you moving at half speed too, so as to avoid the penalty to Move Silently?

[Anthrowhale]

That sounds exceedingly tedious. Are you moving at half speed too, so as to avoid the penalty to Move Silently?

There isn't a simple answer---it would vary with context.

[Menzath]

I'm not following the logic of unfairness? Do you believe that no benefit should accrue to having a high stealth? What about the high initiative? Should no benefit accrue from that? And the high attack bonus? Are these unfair? This seems like a method of reasoning sure to result in a monster incapable of being defeated by any character.

Fair enough.

Then the enemy has had time to prep minions, illusions, and is also sneaking.
Because that's In their stat block.