After taking account of comments here and on the Paizo messageboards, I have adapted my simulation programs to allow for purposive attribute scores, feats and races, and re-analyzed the survival data for a smaller sample of more carefully designed fighters. In this second round of analyses Gruumsh the Bastard doesn’t acquit himself well, but neither do some of the PCs who went against him. This post reports on the updated analyses.
Update (3rd July 2012): In editing my code to incorporate some minor changes, I noticed that I didn’t actually pit 100,000 fighters against 100,000 randomly-generated orcs – I pitted 100,000 fighters against Gruumsh, who only has 6 hit points. Against a full range of Orcs one gets very different results – I will report on this today (3rd July 2012). This post has been edited to remove references to 100,000 randomly-generated orcs.
Introduction
Previous analyses of survival in Pathfinder have relied on randomly generated ability scores assigned in order, and have not incorporated feats, race, fighting styles or weapon types. In this post the analyses are updated to allow for a range of basic feats, four races, purposive rather than completely random assignment of ability scores, and three types of fighter: strong, fast and tough. Survival is compared against Gruumsh again, and results analyzed for insights into possible character creation decisions.
Methods
A sample of 100,000 randomly generated fighters were pitted in battle against Gruumsh, who is still not ferocious. The fighters were generated so as to fall into three types, defined by ability scores, armour and weapon types, and feat choices:
- Strong fighters: strength was determined randomly from a uniform distribution between 13 and 18, and the fighters were equipped with scale mail and a two-handed sword. Human fighters had three feats: power attack, weapon focus and desperate battler. Humans placed their +2 ability score bonus in strength. Non-human fighters dropped power attack
- Fast fighters: dexterity was determined randomly from a uniform distribution between 13 and 18, and the fighters were equipped with studded leather armour, a heavy wooden shield and a rapier. Human fighters had three feats: improved initiative, dodge and weapon finesse. Non-humans dropped weapon finesse, and humans put their +2 bonus into dexterity.
- Tough fighters: constitution was determined randomly from a uniform distribution between 13 and 18, and the fighters were equipped with chain shirt, wooden shield and longsword. Human fighters had three feats: toughness, shield focus and weapon focus. Non-humans dropped toughness (because two of the races already had +2 constitution), and humans put their +2 bonus into constitution.
All other physical stats were generated with 3d6, but scores below 9 were reset to 9. Mental stats were generated using 3d6 in order, but nobody cares if their meat shield has read Shakespeare, so the details aren’t reported here. The hapless 100,000 were then thrown against Gruumsh, with the promise that anyone who survived would get to meet Salma Hayek. Needless to say, I lied: for unknown reasons, Hayek only dates bards. All fighters with power attack were assumed to be using it for every strike, and you would too if you met Gruumsh.
Results
After incorporating racial bonuses and feats, and assigning ability scores purposively rather than randomly, overall survival increased significantly: only 20% of the newly trained fighters died. However, variation in survival was significant and depended heavily on race and fighting style. Table 1 shows the mortality rates by race and fighter types.
Race | Strong | Fast | Tough |
Human | 17.1 | 26.5 | 0 |
Dwarf | 11.1 | 21.8 | 1.1 |
Elven Ponce | 27.3 | 46.9 | 16.4 |
Halfling Loser | 21.2 | 45.3 | 8.3 |
From Table 1 it is clear that elves and halflings are not good fighters, and Dwarves are excellent in this particular role. The small difference in mortality between humans and dwarves is probably due to the reduced number of feats that dwarves have relative to humans. In fact, once feats and purposive ability score selection are included in character development, constitution becomes an extremely important score: 0% of fighters with constitution bonuses above 3 died. This is probably because CON bonuses of 3 or more guarantee a fighter cannot be killed in a single blow by an Orc (maximum damage 12) and the increased damage and hit stats of these fighters mean the orc will not survive to deliver a second blow. This is indisputably a good thing.
It is clear from table 1 that the least successful form of fighter is the fast fighter, and indeed some perverse results obtain. Figure 1 shows the mortality rate by dexterity score: mortality increases with increasing dexterity in this dataset. This is probably because higher dexterity scores are more likely in the “fast fighter” choice, and amongst halflings, both of which deliver less damage than other races and class types.
A similar perverse result is visible with armour class. Figure 2 shows the relationship between mortality and armour class, which is positive.
Again, it is likely that the highest armour class values are only achieved by halflings (who have size bonuses), and higher AC is associated with lower damage and attack values. Note that fast fighters have very high initiative values (up to +9!) but these don’t seem to say the battle: for fighters who start with a minimum of 8 hit points, starting the battle first is less important than being able to hit your opponent and do massive amounts of damage.
Conclusion
Dexterity is useless, and a fighting style based on light armour and fast weapons is a waste of time. As a result, weapon finesse is the ultimate wasted feat: it could have been used to get 3 more hit points, which for a first level fighter guarantees that one strike from an Orc will not be fatal. After incorporating feats, the best option for a first level fighter is to choose toughness, shield focus and weapon focus, and pour as many points as possible into constitution. 17 hit points, chain armour and a shield at first level are vastly more useful than a fancy fighting style and a leather skirt!
June 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Can you link to the discussion on Paizo?
“for unknown reasons, Hayek only dates bards.”
Salma Hayek likes to see what a charisma focused build will get you “under the hood” if you know what I mean. [1]
The next step for this should be to determine strong/fast/tough build for (say) level 10 then pitch each fighter in for a battle to the death against a series of slightly lower power opponents. Testing each fighter to destruction should give us a good sense of relative power (i.e. suviving 6 giants is better than surviving 2).
Its possible that the higher level will should a bias towards something other than Con which would mean that the optimal character creation strategy is heavily dependent on expected campaign length.
Finally, the stat rolling process you used sounds like pure cheese. Whoever endorsed it probably has their characters commit suicide if they’re stats aren’t optimal and continue to do so until a lucky roll comes around. I’d favour an approach more like roll 6 stats and assign to three highest to Str, Dex or Con depending on the type of buid the “player” wants. Or I could unbend enough to accept other options laid out in the rules, but this “anything less than 9 is moved up” approach is crap.
[1] Credit for joke must go to Giant In th Playground.
June 28, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Hayek is biased against circumcised men!? Who knew!
I like the idea of testing PCs to destruction, kind of like benching your maximum weight and then stepping down. I had the idea of running an “adventure” simulation in which the character has to survive three pitched battles without healing -that would test most low level fighters to destruction. Later I could use it for testing party configurations – especially controversial in choosing three person parties, methinks. Do I dump the rogue or the wizard? But I think it’s too hard for my limited skills. Though yesterday I was helping a student develop a vaccination strategy using decision modeling in a software package called TreeAge, and thinking … hmmm, maybe I could use this? And today my students asked me to teach a course on simulations next semester, and I thought – maybe they can do a group project!!!
I think higher levels will bias towards con, because it has an effect at every level. If you don’t give a 10th level fighter any magic items, his 20 strength score adds 50% to his attack bonus (less than that with feats). But his 20 constitution adds 50 hps, when the average hps per level are 5.5 – that’s a 100% increase in hps (slightly less with feats). His 20 dexterity increases his AC by 30% (from 15 to 20, for example) and this effect hasn’t changed since 1st level. Of course strength improves damage, but damage dice haven’t increased – he’s still rolling 1d8+5, but all his opponents have 10 times as many hps.
And that’s without getting started on how crap D&D’s spell DCs are.
My stat rolling process was pure cheese. I would never let players generate PCs with that! But it gives me a wide range of random scores without delivering unrealistically low values, so I can do analysis adjusting for a reasonable range of variables (in this post I didn’t present the regression results, because it was late and I was tired and I thought the charts told the story adequately, but basically dexterity was not associated with survival).
My next step will be to use point buy systems, maybe to compare low fantasy vs. high fantasy and see how much difference point buy makes.
June 28, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Oh, and Paizo discussion is here and here.
November 10, 2012 at 5:02 am
Why would a Dex fighter not take weapon focus? Why would any Dex fighter of any race ever sacrifice Weapon Finesse? Why such static gear selections? Where’s the optimization of actions — on both sides? How is any of this scientific or valid at all? And advocating taking the trap feat TOUGHNESS? This shows an appalling lack of understanding for basic scientific method, data analysis, and the game itself. You should be ashamed.
November 10, 2012 at 10:47 am
Thanks for commenting, Mr. Anonymous. You’re right about the importance of weapon finesse, which was pointed out to me before. I did an update here to handle a programming error, and specifically examined weapon finesse here. It’s very important for fast fighters (especially halflings) but doesn’t make it a better fighter choice overall.
And no, none of this is intended to be serious…
February 27, 2015 at 5:12 am
Im trainee of public health, and I love the concept of “epidimiology in pathfinder”. Thanks