Why play a Fighter?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Since this comes up in this thread.

A challenging encounter is supposed to use up 20% of the parties resources, not be like a 50% death rate, that just isn't what challenging means. You take on 4 encounters a day of CR = party level, if each one had a 50% death chance, well, you'd be dead as **** at the end of the first day.

pg. 49 "An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PCs’ level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources—hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on."

The 3.5 DMG has rules for reducing party size, they clearly say that a Single PC of level X is a party of Party level X-4.

So a level 8 PC can face either 4 challenging EL 4 enemies that use up 20% of resources each, or you can face one CR 8 "Very Difficult" encounter.

Of course, the basic math of the 50% is evident from how if you take a bunch of NPCs that are just the PCs, but replacing some of their permanent with items consumables they use instead, and run a mirror match up, and just like that you, have a "50%" chance.

Likewise, you can have in fact, a Mirror of Opposition, that creates an exact copy of the party, that is also a 50% chance.

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

[OldTrees1]

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

In general BUT never in specific.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In general BUT never in specific.

Ah, OK, I get it.

[Beheld]

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

Technically. "No."

Let me put it another way.

If you are a Demon of CR X, vs a NPC Fighter, vs and NPC Wizard, vs a Hydra, vs a Golem, ect.

People don't have identical chances to win.

But they should all be about as strong, and the PC fighter should have a "50%" chance against them in the abstract.

But in specific, there should be monsters that are harder or easier for certain types of PCs. So if the Fighter beats the Golem, goes even against the Demon, but loses the Hydra, that's cool. And if the Wizard goes even against the Demon, loses to the Golem, but beats the Hydra every time, that's also cool.

If you are a party of 1, inevitably some encounters will be easier and some harder than their CR, The DMG even states as much using Undead without a Cleric examples (although that's not so much about dying to the fight, although it can be, but about healing the damage caused after).

So the SGT recognizes the abstract 50%, and tests it by testing PCs against a set of encounters to represent all of them.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Technically. "No."

Let me put it another way.

If you are a Demon of CR X, vs a NPC Fighter, vs and NPC Wizard, vs a Hydra, vs a Golem, ect.

People don't have identical chances to win.

But they should all be about as strong, and the PC fighter should have a "50%" chance against them in the abstract.

But in specific, there should be monsters that are harder or easier for certain types of PCs. So if the Fighter beats the Golem, goes even against the Demon, but loses the Hydra, that's cool. And if the Wizard goes even against the Demon, loses to the Golem, but beats the Hydra every time, that's also cool.

If you are a party of 1, inevitably some encounters will be easier and some harder than their CR, The DMG even states as much using Undead without a Cleric examples (although that's not so much about dying to the fight, although it can be, but about healing the damage caused after).

So the SGT recognizes the abstract 50%, and tests it by testing PCs against a set of encounters to represent all of them.

I was thinking only theoretically, I realize that the CR is borked beyond belief.

[ayvango]

I have a home brew fix where I add some fighting styles to the dead levels. Sword and shield types get a set of perks, while pole arms get another, etc... just something to differentiate them.

I get another home brew fix. No extra class features, but fighter could retrain his bonus fighter feats by spending 1 hour practising with his weapons (which gives him fatigue: no pain - no gain). He does not need to rest before retraining unlike wizard.

[Beheld]

I was thinking only theoretically, I realize that the CR is borked beyond belief.

No no, I mean that 100% if CR is actually balanced.

What happens in D&D is that the Fighter loses to the Hydra, the Golem, and Demon, the Wizard wins if he's smart, really smart, and smart against all of them. Or loses if he's not.

But if CR is balanced, PCs shouldn't be better or worse, overall, but they should be better or worse against specific enemies.

If Fighters aren't better than Wizards against Golems, what is the point of Fighters or Golems? (or Both)? One or more of those things is flawed.

Also, CR is very very very well balanced. People saying it is borked are wrong, and always have been.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No no, I mean that 100% if CR is actually balanced.

OK, sorry I misunderstood.

What happens in D&D is that the Fighter loses to the Hydra, the Golem, and Demon, the Wizard wins if he's smart, really smart, and smart against all of them. Or loses if he's not.

Sounds reasonable.

But if CR is balanced, PCs shouldn't be better or worse, overall, but they should be better or worse against specific enemies.

If Fighters aren't better than Wizards against Golems, what is the point of Fighters or Golems? (or Both)? One or more of those things is flawed.

OK.

Also, CR is very very very well balanced. People saying it is borked are wrong, and always have been.

Wait, what? Could you elaborate as to what you mean by that?

[Beheld]

Wait, what? Could you elaborate as to what you mean by that?

Monsters do a very good job of challenging "real characters" at about the rate they are supposed to, where Real characters are most full casters, Rogues, and probably all but at least Warblades of the Tome of Battle classes.

There are some few very poorly CRed monsters, and that sucks, but the very fact that people pull out a random "this monster is soooo crazy" is mostly evidence that the rest of them totally are well CRed, or how did you instantly know this one was wrong?

The other problem is that people either talk about how fighters are so bad that monsters are too good (Problem not with monsters) or that Wizards are so good that monsters are bad (see fighter thread for my general point about how people just generally don't run monsters like they are supposed to be run.) Or that monsters are push overs because I dive 500 splat books for a super build, which doesn't really reflect play much, things like Shocktrooper Uberchargers and Arcane Thesis stacking incantatrixes aren't the game, things like competent Druids and Clerics and Wizards that cast the good spells and take the decent feats are. And to those, casting Save or Lose X and having some clean up makes you about challenged by PCs.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Monsters do a very good job of challenging "real characters" at about the rate they are supposed to, where Real characters are most full casters, Rogues, and probably all but at least Warblades of the Tome of Battle classes.

There are some few very poorly CRed monsters, and that sucks, but the very fact that people pull out a random "this monster is soooo crazy" is mostly evidence that the rest of them totally are well CRed, or how did you instantly know this one was wrong?

The other problem is that people either talk about how fighters are so bad that monsters are too good (Problem not with monsters) or that Wizards are so good that monsters are bad (see fighter thread for my general point about how people just generally don't run monsters like they are supposed to be run.) Or that monsters are push overs because I dive 500 splat books for a super build, which doesn't really reflect play much, things like Shocktrooper Uberchargers and Arcane Thesis stacking incantatrixes aren't the game, things like competent Druids and Clerics and Wizards that cast the good spells and take the decent feats are. And to those, casting Save or Lose X and having some clean up makes you about challenged by PCs.

There are more than a few monsters that are far too weak/strong for their CR, but I'm not going to start that argument, so I'll just say I disagree.

[Beheld]

There are more than a few monsters that are far too weak/strong for their CR, but I'm not going to start that argument, so I'll just say I disagree.

There are certainly "a few" monsters that are too weak or too strong. They are very rare compared to total monsters at that CR.

If 12 CR 6 monsters are mis CRed, that's not great, but there are 186 CR 6 monsters in the game. So that's a pretty good rate. And I'm not sure there are even 12.

[Florian]

So, are the odds of a single character fighting a monster of the same CR that they are, and winning 50%?

Wrong way to look at it. Remember that equal CR means 100% win but expending 20% resources for a party of 4, where resources are an abstraction of hp, spell slots and items (including after-action healing and restoration).
Upping CR or reducing the party size will have an either-or effect, either resource expenditure goes up, or chance of winning goes down.
Tangentially, this is the reason behind the x5 cost increase for consumables for one-shot or single-encounter scenarios.

This in turn should give you a hint that CR isn´t measured in chance of winning but resources spent, leading back to an earlier point of this discussion as well as picking up a current topic:
- If you don´t have to spent the resources, the challenge/encounter was miscalculated and not worth the CR
- If you circumvent the challenge/encounter in any way, you should not be awarded the XP unless specific circumstances are keyed to the encounter.

Also, as Beheld already mentioned, critters are based on a "rock, paper, scissors" principle adjusting expectation on what class or tactic they can be easier or harder for.