Underpowered Mundanes or Overpowered Magic - Which is worse?

[Unbeliever]

It isn't supposed to be 1 on 1. The balance point is the CR system is meant that a balanced party of four people of the same level is meant to face against the same encounter level four times a day. Derived from that we can say Level X person can face a certain monster of the same level once per day. However just like classes, monsters are wildly varied allowing for one of the other to easily be setup to exploit the weaknesses of the other.

I see no reason why the bolded text follows.  You give one example that debatably proves the point, but your point about 4 times per day ignores several important things, like action economy. 

The CR system is mostly based on just eyeballing things anyway, but it's a handy measuring stick b/c it tells D&D players and DMs what their characters' numbers should look like, e.g., you should make sure your main attack can hit CR-appropriate monsters.

[Senevri]

I find those approx. HP/AC/attack/DPR/saves tables per CR to be quite interesting, really. Certainly useful, as a DM, but also, if an average monster of your CR hits your AC on a roll of 1.... :/

[Kuroimaken]

It isn't supposed to be 1 on 1. The balance point is the CR system is meant that a balanced party of four people of the same level is meant to face against the same encounter level four times a day. Derived from that we can say Level X person can face a certain monster of the same level once per day. However just like classes, monsters are wildly varied allowing for one of the other to easily be setup to exploit the weaknesses of the other.

I see no reason why the bolded text follows.  You give one example that debatably proves the point, but your point about 4 times per day ignores several important things, like action economy. 

The CR system is mostly based on just eyeballing things anyway, but it's a handy measuring stick b/c it tells D&D players and DMs what their characters' numbers should look like, e.g., you should make sure your main attack can hit CR-appropriate monsters.

That assumption is based on resources expended, not the action economy. At low levels the action economy isn't so much of an issue because Full Attacking and Moving+Attacking is pretty much the same thing - most of the combats at this point are round-by-round exchanges of blows, housecats excluded. For spellcasters, those resources are spell slots, for fighter-types it's HP, for ranged types it's ammo, etc.. Either way the assumption is that each encounter is going to consume some of those resources with the addition of driving the character(s) involved closer to death with each subsequent fight.

But then again, the CR system isn't the topic of this thread.

[Unbeliever]

It isn't supposed to be 1 on 1. The balance point is the CR system is meant that a balanced party of four people of the same level is meant to face against the same encounter level four times a day. Derived from that we can say Level X person can face a certain monster of the same level once per day. However just like classes, monsters are wildly varied allowing for one of the other to easily be setup to exploit the weaknesses of the other.

I see no reason why the bolded text follows.  You give one example that debatably proves the point, but your point about 4 times per day ignores several important things, like action economy. 

The CR system is mostly based on just eyeballing things anyway, but it's a handy measuring stick b/c it tells D&D players and DMs what their characters' numbers should look like, e.g., you should make sure your main attack can hit CR-appropriate monsters.

That assumption is based on resources expended, not the action economy. At low levels the action economy isn't so much of an issue because Full Attacking and Moving+Attacking is pretty much the same thing - most of the combats at this point are round-by-round exchanges of blows, housecats excluded. For spellcasters, those resources are spell slots, for fighter-types it's HP, for ranged types it's ammo, etc.. Either way the assumption is that each encounter is going to consume some of those resources with the addition of driving the character(s) involved closer to death with each subsequent fight.

But then again, the CR system isn't the topic of this thread.

You can't compare 4 characters vs. 1 monster and say that's just going to be the same as 1 character using 4x as many resources vs. the same monster.  That ignores the fact that in the first scenario the characters have 4 times as many actions as in the second scenario (roughly, depending on the amount of swift action, etc. expendable resources available). 

For example, assume that 1 of the characters can effectively lock down the monster, say something like Stand Still vs. a melee monster or perhaps Imperious Command.  One-on-one this is just a stalemate, nothing happens.  But, 4 on 1 it's a slaughter; characters 2-4 can tear the locked down target apart while it is helpless to respond. 

There's just on easy math like that, and assuming there is puts even more stress on what is a pretty noisy signal to begin w/.

[woodenbandman]

The problem with DnD 3.5 is that it moved away from the 2.0 thing where you had to ask your DM's approval to get new spells, and you had to go to a library, or find a spellbook. And clerics had very limited spell selection compared to what they have now.

If you ask me, I think that it should move back to that. A balanced game's a happy game.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Older editions had a lot of randomization of your spells known.

[Bozwevial]

Older editions had a lot of randomization of your spells known.

Which could lead to some interesting spellbooks. You'd want to let players customize at least a few of their spells, of course--maybe one or two per level.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Older editions had a lot of randomization of your spells known.

Which could lead to some interesting spellbooks. You'd want to let players customize at least a few of their spells, of course--maybe one or two per level.

You could seek out a scroll - but if you failed at copying it, you couldn't learn it from any scroll (either until your next level, or at all)

[SorO_Lost]

You can't compare 4 characters vs. 1 monster and say that's just going to be the same as 1 character using 4x as many resources vs. the same monster.  That ignores the fact that in the first scenario the characters have 4 times as many actions as in the second scenario (roughly, depending on the amount of swift action, etc. expendable resources available).

But the CR system does say exactly that and so does your post.

You say it takes less actions with a bigger party. No. It don't.
Say combat is over in one round. You say you only used a standard & move action and so less actions overall. I say the rest of the party did something on their turn and thus four full-round actions were used to end the encounter. Not one full-action, four.

So yes, a single wizard may end up having to use four spell slots (maybe 3 a healing charge) whereas in a party he may only use a single spell slot. It doesn't change the cost of the encounter, it doesn't change the average number of actions, it doesn't change resource cost (but definitely the type of resources used).

***

2E also had a maximum spells known of each level cap too. Unlike where in 3E you were limited by how many trees were flattened for you.

[Amadi]

So yes, a single wizard may end up having to use four spell slots (maybe 3 a healing charge) whereas in a party he may only use a single spell slot. It doesn't change the cost of the encounter, it doesn't change the average number of actions, it doesn't change resource cost (but definitely the type of resources used).

It actually does change the amount of resources used. Assume that the combat lasts four actions. Further, assume that the monster wins the initiative.

Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4 - Monster dead.

vs

Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1 - Monster Dead

It is obvious that the longer the monster is alive, the more it can deplete the team's resources. Sure, the players deplete the same amount of their resources, but further, the monster depletes some of their resources, too. Most often this is health, but sometimes it could be stat points.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Countercase: monster with AOE

Party case:
50/50 HP Monster uses one of its 3/day fireballs, dealing 10 damage to every party member, for a total of 40.
4 attacks, each deal 10 hp.
10/50 HP Monster uses a second fireball, for a total of 80 damage.
Party kills monster on their turn

Individual case:
50 hp Monster uses fireball 1, total damage 10
Dude attacks, deals 10 hp
40 hp Monster uses fireball 2, total damage 20
Dude attacks, deals 10 hp
30 hp monster uses fireball 3, total damage 30
Dude attacks, deals 10 hp
20 hp monster uses backup attack, deals 5 hp, total of 35
Dude attacks, deals 10 hp
10 hp monster uses backup attack, deals 5 hp, total of 40
Dude attacks, kills monster

Fireball at will changes the total for the individual case to 50 damage instead.  It's still rather less.

[Amadi]

Fireball at will changes the total for the individual case to 50 damage instead.  It's still rather less.

It can be less. It necessarily won't. Assume a monster with 40 health instead of 50.

It is also worth noting that in most cases, single-target-damage deals more damage than AoE-damage. Also, the monster against a team could very easily be crowd-controlled, making it skip the second turn. Further, often a party is stronger than the sum of its parts, as people buff each other through auras/buffs, or make the monsters provoke AoO's.

In short, your can be true, assuming the perfect possible conditions.

[Kuroimaken]

And as I mentioned at the end of my post, the cr system isn't what's up for debate here. 

[SorO_Lost]

And as I mentioned at the end of my post, the cr system isn't what's up for debate here. 

Or is it? Afterall, mundanes have an almost infinite use of their abilities whereas a spellcaster don't.

Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4 - Monster dead.
vs
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1
Monster - Hits for 10
Player 1 - Monster Dead

Also as noted, if both are equal in level a 4 vs 1 = 25% of the day's battles. 1 vs 1 = 100% of the day's battles. So a still inaccurate version would be like.

Monster - Hits for 10
Wizard - Casts a CC spell (spell slot used)
Fighter - Hits for 12 (no resources used)
Rogue - Hits for 10 (no resources used)
Cleric - Hits for 8 (no resources used)
Monster Dead
After combat - Cleric heals 10hp (spell slot used)
Repeat four times today.
vs
Monster - Hits for 10
Fighter - Hits for 10
Monster - Hits for 10
Fighter - Hits for 10
Monster - Hits for 10
Fighter - Hits for 10
Monster - Hits for 10
After combat - Expend all 3 charges on Belt of Healing
Take a nap.
or
Monster - Hits for 10
Wizard - Save or Sucks *fail* (spell slot used)
Monster - Hits for 10
Wizard - Save or Sucks *win* (spell slot used)
Monster - hurr durpa durr
Wizard - *casts* hits for 20
Monster - *blows spit bubbles*
Wizard - *casts* hits for 20
Monster - *wonders what spell you used, color spray? shivering touch? rape-in-a-can?*
Wizard - *casts* hits for 20
After combat - Cast Rope Trick and hide.
Take a nap.

[wotmaniac]

keep in mind ...
4 level-x characters (supposedly) = 1 level-(x+4) character.

that's 2 more spell levels (plus all of the extra spells that go along)
that's 1-2 extra attacks/round
that's x3 individual treasure
... etc.

[Senevri]

Heh. Here's a question: If you, say, take a CR 9 cleric and a CR 8 cleric, add up all of their HP, feats, skill ranks, wealth and spell slots, and compare it to a CR 10 cleric... which one comes out ahead? CR 9 + CR 8 is a CR 10 encounter, after all....

( I did something like this in PF, and looking at it, I ended up with XP and GP reward somewhere between the target CR and the one right above it. I did retain the extra actions, though)

Oops, topic ninjas.

*edit* Overpowered magic is worse, of course. If it's appropriately-powered magic for whatever game it's in, even if it's measured in "miles of countryside disintegrated per round", it's fine.

Overpowered characters do fine if the DM isn't going for an optimization challenge game. ( a game of 'let's see how well you do against enemies THIS powerful in combat. )

I find silly-powered CO builds work better in a more freeform, story/plot driven game, anyway....

[Sunic_Flames]

I don't think anyone really wins from level one, Kobold paladins excluded.

This. Most people are vulnerable at low levels. Hell, sure, the wizard can die before he gets to do anything. So can the barbarian.

Thats the sad bit, even the designated tank, presumably designed for taking hits, is vulnerable to being one-shotted by a monster. So might as well get a second caster and try to win init before they go eh.

Exactly. And besides. Wizard = tank, Barbarian = glass cannon. I am not joking.

Also, it's normally 8 + 8 = 10. 8 + 9 is 10.something, which would explain it. Of course you were talking about Pathfailure, so it's equally likely that inability to do math properly is the cause of that discrepancy.

[Senevri]

I'm not sure what's going on with my inability to do basic math of late, however your hatred of PF has little to do with it ( unless there are subliminal messages making me dumber embedded there. Very unlikely, but mentioned for the sake of completeness. )

I know 2xcr equals cr+2 and how doubling goes, but I thought CR + (cr -1) = CR +1....? Admittedly, it's from my memory of the DMG, so I may be off by one ( so the correct way would be CR + (CR -2) = CR +1 )...

PF uses static XP rewards, so I mentioned it specifically. GP rewards per encounter shouldn't differ.

[Sunic_Flames]

I'm not sure what's going on with my inability to do basic math of late, however your hatred of PF has little to do with it ( unless there are subliminal messages making me dumber embedded there. Very unlikely, but mentioned for the sake of completeness. )

I know 2xcr equals cr+2 and how doubling goes, but I thought CR + (cr -1) = CR +1....? Admittedly, it's from my memory of the DMG, so I may be off by one ( so the correct way would be CR + (CR -2) = CR +1 )...

PF uses static XP rewards, so I mentioned it specifically. GP rewards per encounter shouldn't differ.

4 level 10s vs 2 CR 8s:

Encounter level 10, 750 XP each.

4 level 10s vs 1 CR 8 and 1 CR 9:

Encounter level 11, 875 XP each.

4 level 10s vs 2 CR 9s:

Encounter level 11, 1,000 XP each.

I guess it rounds 10.5 up to 11. Otherwise...

QED.

[Senevri]

I guess.... ah, logic, actually:
Target CR is 10.

2 CR 8 is CR 10.

2 CR 7 is CR 9.

CR 9 + CR 8 > CR 10, however less than CR 11.

However, CR 9 + CR 7 =... approximately CR 10? It's mostly a question of, how powerful does the weaker creature need to be to raise a CR 9 encounter to CR 10. Perhaps a CR 9 creature + a CR 2 bard equals a CR 10 encounter already...