[0.10] Constant Damage Scaling

What is a problem about the 1.3 scenario described below?

  • There is no problem. The 1.3 level of constant damage is just fine.

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • +Damage (Slayer, Damage Aura) Magic Items are a problem and should be toned down or removed.

    Votes: 38 80.9%
  • "double damage from" Vulnerabilities are a problem and should be toned down or removed.

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Weapon Proficiency and Backstab are a problem and should be scaled somehow (maybe not 0.10's method)

    Votes: 18 38.3%
  • High Level Characters are a problem and build should be capped so there is an absolute maximum.

    Votes: 19 40.4%
  • Fighter/Rogue skill choice is a problem; if there were more options people wouldn't buy so much dmg

    Votes: 28 59.6%

  • Total voters
    47
I can't understand how we are calling this a shift in the culture when what I described is literally how every single caster already works right now. Every resource of a caster is a daily resource. They literally always have the option to play over or under their average in any given fight. Acknowledging the potential for casters to bulldoze through a particular encounter by burning daily resources has always been part of the scaling equation. Heck, in my literal first year of playing the game I watched a caster destroy a module just by burning up half of his scroll supply (that he had been building up since the beginning of the game).

Even fighting classes in the current rule set (not the proposed rule set) have enough dailies to really explode in a single battle or two if they want to. I've seen plenty of players decide that some random encounter was the one where they were going to unleash every slay and every eviscerate in rapid succession.

These rules don't really change any of that. They offer more daily options for fighting classes and allow for more varied bursts, but nothing beyond what the system was already to handle. A 20th level caster has ~72 daily abilities. A current 20th level fighter has ~10-15, about half of which are defenses. Even doubling that doesn't really change the balance.

The only part where I partially agree with your analysis is that technically most resources aren't weekend resources (some are, like body and high magic). Technically, most resources are daily abilities. But a daily ability parallels a weekend resource in a rather trivial way, in terms of scaling. In scaling terms, it is like thinking of two back to back events that each have separate resource pools. But thinking of it as a single event and just trying to make sure that day one and day two are roughly equal works pretty much just as well.

Monster design in the new edition will change because PCs have different average damage output. That is a given. But that isn't really relevant to the philosophy of designing rules with average weekend effectiveness (or average daily effectiveness, if you prefer) as the top concern instead of single encounter effectiveness. Sure, sometimes things go off the rails and you need to adjust on the fly. That is also an inherent part of scaling. But scaling has both a strategic element and a tactical in-the-moment element, and is honestly really only tangential to this discussion.

Our rules currently are based on weekend / daily play. That is very clear in how they are constructed. They are literally maximized for that type of play. That is why I am dumbfounded that so many are objecting to using that standard as the benchmark for rules analysis. It isn't an unreasonable standard. Literally every chapter in our game runs weekends.

-MS
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I can't understand how we are calling this a shift in the culture when what I described is literally how every single caster already works right now. Every resource of a caster is a daily resource. They literally always have the option to play over or under their average in any given fight. Acknowledging the potential for casters to bulldoze through a particular encounter by burning daily resources has always been part of the scaling equation. Heck, in my literal first year of playing the game I watched a caster destroy a module just by burning up half of his scroll supply (that he had been building up since the beginning of the game).

Even fighting classes in the current rule set (not the proposed rule set) have enough dailies to really explode in a single battle or two if they want to. I've seen plenty of players decide that some random encounter was the one where they were going to unleash every slay and every eviscerate in rapid succession.

These rules don't really change any of that. They offer more daily options for fighting classes and allow for more varied bursts, but nothing beyond what the system was already to handle. A 20th level caster has ~72 daily abilities. A current 20th level fighter has ~10-15, about half of which are defenses. Even doubling that doesn't really change the balance.

The only part where I partially agree with your analysis is that technically most resources aren't weekend resources (some are, like body and high magic). Technically, most resources are daily abilities. But a daily ability parallels a weekend resource in a rather trivial way, in terms of scaling. In scaling terms, it is like thinking of two back to back events that each have separate resource pools. But thinking of it as a single event and just trying to make sure that day one and day two are roughly equal works pretty much just as well.

Monster design in the new edition will change because PCs have different average damage output. That is a given. But that isn't really relevant to the philosophy of designing rules with average weekend effectiveness (or average daily effectiveness, if you prefer) as the top concern instead of single encounter effectiveness. Sure, sometimes things go off the rails and you need to adjust on the fly. That is also an inherent part of scaling. But scaling has both a strategic element and a tactical in-the-moment element, and is honestly really only tangential to this discussion.

Our rules currently are based on weekend / daily play. That is very clear in how they are constructed. They are literally maximized for that type of play. That is why I am dumbfounded that so many are objecting to using that standard as the benchmark for rules analysis. It isn't an unreasonable standard. Literally every chapter in our game runs weekends.

-MS
Your argument appears to be that because casters run that way, everyone should be able to run that way. I can see the logic, but you’re missing the human element. You forgot to ask yourself, “But do people play Fighters because they don’t want to play that way?”

I love playing every class under the sun in Pathfinder. I will wreck a damn army with a wizard. But I like Fighters, too, because they don’t run out of their bread-and-butter. High-octane damage output, with the only versatility being whether or not you have a ranged weapon and what materials your weapons are made out of.

I abhorred 4E, because the classes all played roughly the same in terms of approach. Daily abilities, encounter abilities, at-will abilities. It was a yawn fest.

Sometimes, people want to play a different class because it tracks differently. Because the approach is different. They want to be able to fight hard while not expending much resources. That’s the Fighter. They might use a Parry or a Slay, but man, they can still swing damage all day, and they like that. They don’t need to track their sheet terribly much, and they like that.

Those people deserve fun, too.
 
Your argument appears to be that because casters run that way, everyone should be able to run that way. I can see the logic, but you’re missing the human element. You forgot to ask yourself, “But do people play Fighters because they don’t want to play that way?”

I love playing every class under the sun in Pathfinder. I will wreck a damn army with a wizard. But I like Fighters, too, because they don’t run out of their bread-and-butter. High-octane damage output, with the only versatility being whether or not you have a ranged weapon and what materials your weapons are made out of.

I abhorred 4E, because the classes all played roughly the same in terms of approach. Daily abilities, encounter abilities, at-will abilities. It was a yawn fest.

Sometimes, people want to play a different class because it tracks differently. Because the approach is different. They want to be able to fight hard while not expending much resources. That’s the Fighter. They might use a Parry or a Slay, but man, they can still swing damage all day, and they like that. They don’t need to track their sheet terribly much, and they like that.

Those people deserve fun, too.
No, my argument is that because casters are built that way, the game already conforms to that style of play. A previous poster suggested that I was trying to introduce a new style of play. I firmly disagree.

Also, fighters also conform to that standard, just with less variation. As you correctly pointed out, they can swing damage all day. They only have a handful of abilities that allow for pushing beyond their average effectiveness. And similarly, that means playing under their average effectiveness (basically avoiding using any daily resources even when it might be appropriate) only results in them playing slightly under their average effectiveness. The weekend model still holds true, just with tighter constraints.

At not point in the last few posts did I argue that fighters should be built under a primarily daily system or that it would make the game better. I argued that such a change in rules would not negatively affect scaling, because scaling for that kind of thing is already something that plot teams deal with all the time. I also argued that the rule system, as a whole, could absorb the changes comfortably, because they mirrored mechanics and systems already in play.

-MS
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
No, my argument is that because casters are built that way, the game already conforms to that style of play. A previous poster suggested that I was trying to introduce a new style of play. I firmly disagree.

Also, fighters also conform to that standard, just with less variation. As you correctly pointed out, they can swing damage all day. They only have a handful of abilities that allow for pushing beyond their average effectiveness. And similarly, that means playing under their average effectiveness (basically avoiding using any daily resources even when it might be appropriate) only results in them playing slightly under their average effectiveness. The weekend model still holds true, just with tighter constraints.

At not point in the last few posts did I argue that fighters should be built under a primarily daily system or that it would make the game better. I argued that such a change in rules would not negatively affect scaling, because scaling for that kind of thing is already something that plot teams deal with all the time. I also argued that the rule system, as a whole, could absorb the changes comfortably, because they mirrored mechanics and systems already in play.

-MS
Your regular, and emphatic, support for the playtested rules indicate you

1) are absolutely okay with the new playstyle that they introduce

2) are totally in with the daily-use system that these fighters would thus be under.

I mean, I’m probably not the only one who’s reading your posts this way, man.
 
Your regular, and emphatic, support for the playtested rules indicate you

1) are absolutely okay with the new playstyle that they introduce

2) are totally in with the daily-use system that these fighters would thus be under.

I mean, I’m probably not the only one who’s reading your posts this way, man.
I am mostly okay with these changes and I do think adding more fighter daily use options is a good thing. But the specific post you quoted (and the last few I made) had nothing to do with my opinion on whether the changes were good. Those posts (and definitely the one you quoted) focused specifically on design philosophy and the impact on weekend scaling. I am very good at compartmentalizing my discussions and this was a case where I was very careful to do so.

-MS
 

Simon

Adept
Mike, my analysis is based on back stage calibration and scaling efforts that have occurred since you have stopped attending games. That is the culture I am identifying. Kindly keep in mind your absence and allow for more current players to identify facts on the ground you no longer occupy. While I understand the past perspective you are typing from, it is just not what I see in current use by implication and fact. If that is hard for you to understand, ask..
Don't judge

Joe S.
 
Top