Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nathreet 04-18-08, 01:40 PM	This has been covered before, but I'd like to make a short, clear, easy to link-to thread for anyone to point to. We'll assume a two-handed fighter since that's the most common, but it could be adapted to a single-handed fighter as well. First on the matter of AB. Your chance to hit is between 5% and 95%. Reducing your AB by 1 reduces that by 5%, making you lose between 50% and 5.3% of your hits. Any increase in damage better exceed that percentage by a good margin. Preferably exceed it by well over 5.3% (to match a +1 AB feat, for example). Early-Early Levels: Let's say you're at 1st level, have 18 strength and a greatsword (2d6, 19-20/x2). You average 13 damage. You have an AB of 5-6 (str+BAB+feat), so you hit most baddies on an 8-10 (about 70%). Thus PA adds 15% damage (2/15) for 7.1% (5%/70%) misses. That's on par with weapon focus (5%/70%=+7.1% hits), and you get almost double/triple that at 2nd/3rd level from burning more BAB. PA is wonderful at early levels (starting at 2nd level). Mid-Early Levels: Okay level 6, now you have weapon spec (or 2 rages/day), a 2nd attack, plus your AB climbed faster than the baddies' AC (see MM). So you average 15 damage and hit maybe 80%/55% of the time. On a full attack you average 1.35 (0.8+.55) hits per round. 1.35*15=20.25 DPR. PA +2 for 1.15*19= 21.85. WTH? Okay, PA +1 for 1.25*17=21.25. No... PA +3 for 1.05*21=22.05. All you get is +10%, and you might want to do PA+1 or PA+2 to avoid overkill/missing on the wounded. It's still great for single attacks, as you're doing similar damage to early-early levels, but for full attacks PA just dropped to par. Mid-Levels and Later: Level 11/12. Greater rage/greater weapon spec and at least a +2 equiv magic weapon (if not more). Level 4/8 strength boost, guantlest of strength. 15+3(str)+2(GWS/more-rage)+1+1d6 (weapon) ~=24 damage. 3 attacks, not counting haste. Power attacking on a full attack is out of the question. Don't make me do the math. That's just too stupid to contemplate, and would only show that you have issues. The str/feat/weapon AB bonuses add to ~8-9, plus your BAB for ~20. CR 10ish-12ish baddies are around AC 25, so you hit 80% of the time. 0.8*24=19.2 avg. PA +1 for 0.75*26=19.5 avg (0.5% gained). +2 for 0.7*28=19.6 avg. Yeup, power attack just became useless. And it's all downhill from here. So in short, power attack is awesome from levels 2 to 5, it's decent from level 6 on, and as soon as you hit mid levels it is utterly useless. If you run out of good feats to choose and you'll be playing levels 2 to 9ish, then get it. Otherwise forget it.
kreesteeyan 04-18-08, 01:46 PM	Power attack is very powerful for gish builds. Wraithstrike+power attack = awesome.
Nathreet 04-18-08, 01:50 PM	Okay, then I'll add a side note: If you have a way that makes it ridiculously easy to hit, and/or for some reason your damage is unusually low, power attack may still be useful later in the game.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-18-08, 01:50 PM	:rofl: Yeah, power attack really sucks balls if you ignore all situations where your chance of landing a strike don't decrease (would have to roll in the negative numbers to miss, or can only hit on a nat 20, or take the penalty to attack as a penalty elsewhere), ignore easy output multiplication methods, ignore small percentage gains as if they were no gain at all, and avoid doing the math entirely when you expect it won't come out in your favour.
Rederik 04-18-08, 01:57 PM	Yeah, sorry man... As a player of a level 16 fighter type with Power Attack... It *IS* awesome sauce... Your theoretic math may show that it isn't, but in practice... It is way good... (I play a med character two-handed wielding a large great axe, leap attacker...)
Frozen Yakman 04-18-08, 02:18 PM	This has been covered before, but I'd like to make a short, clear, easy to link-to thread for anyone to point to. We'll assume a two-handed fighter since that's the most common, but it could be adapted to a single-handed fighter as well. First on the matter of AB. Your chance to hit is between 5% and 95%. Reducing your AB by 1 reduces that by 5%, making you lose between 50% and 5.3% of your hits. Any increase in damage better exceed that percentage by a good margin. Preferably exceed it by well over 5.3% (to match a +1 AB feat, for example). This statement right here is the primary failing of your argument. Yes to-hit is capped to a range of 5%-95% but reducing your attack bonus by 1 does not necessarily translate to a 5% reduction. If your chance to hit without the critical miss rule is 105% (which is not terribly uncommon since Attack bonus tends to scale faster than AC bonus despite AC being magically cheaper) then reducing your Attack bonus by 2 doesn't affect your chance to hit.
ciaran 04-18-08, 02:54 PM	I agree with the above statements. Your math supports your theory, but power attack never stops being useful. Trying seriously playing a melee character.
Turin 04-18-08, 03:03 PM	I agree with the above statements. Your math supports your theory, but power attack never stops being useful. Trying seriously playing a melee character. His math doesn't support his theory, because he hasn't done any. Just hand-waved a bunch of numbers to make it look like he did math. It's fairly trivial (if a little time consuming) for a player of a fighter to build a reference table that will tell him the exact break-points where power attacking works in his favor, and by how much. I've rarely seen a player of a high-level fighter without one. Not to mention, Power Attack is the starting prerequisite for tons of other feat chains, so it's useful even beyond the simple numbers.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-18-08, 03:05 PM	Hmmm, you're right. I didn't even bother looking at the numbers as I've already seen plenty of charts of the stuff, but now that I look at it, the numbers he did bother mentioning don't quite add up.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-18-08, 04:24 PM	Many people have already done the math. You've pulled some numbers out of thin air in an attempt to challenge what's already been established, and you've been pointed out to be wrong, and now you're whining about it. You don't have the next big new idea here, you simply have a failure that you expect to stand up because no one's yet felt like searching the boards for one of the power attack charts to copy/paste here.
Metafictional 04-18-08, 04:40 PM	By itself, Power Attack can be a difficult proposition. However, your math compares it to a Full Attack. I'll put my thoughts on Full Attacks below, but since that's not fully relevant, let's look at Power Attack closer. First of all, if you are not using a Full Attack, it remains good, since if you think you can actually hit with your second or third attack in a Full Attack, then there should be no problem taking a -5 to -10 attack penalty for +10-20 damage with a two handed weapon. That's about the extent of Power Attack's utility by itself, other than situational uses like destroying objects or ridiculous coup de grace attempts. It's with other Feats that Power Attack's value rises. Let's start off with the obvious choice, Leap Attack. With this Feat, you can inflict extra damage on a charge attack. Now if you are still in a situation where you are confident that you would strike on your 2nd attack in a Full Attack, you can take -7 to hit (thanks to the Charge bonus) for +21 damage. Not bad at all, really, for a single attack. It's true, your Full Attack would still do more, but wait, there's more. Let's take a look at Shock Trooper, specifically, Heedless Charge. Now I'm told I can apply my to-hit penalty to AC instead of my attack bonus. If I have three attacks normally (+16 BAB), then I could take a -18 to AC (including Charge penalty), still get a mostly unecessary +2 to hit, and, thank to Leap Attack, inflict a bonus 48 points of damage. And this isn't even close to fully optimized yet. So we can see that the Power Attack Feat Chain can grant incredible damage on a single attack. Yes, a Full Attack can be optimized to inflict insane amounts of damage, but as a combat option, FA is limited, since you can only make a 5' adjustment. When I first started playing a Fighter in 3.X, I thought that Full Attacks were the way to go. Then I noticed something. The monsters I fought tended to have more attacks on their full attacks, bonus reach (making it hard to close to them without an AoO, forcing me to wait for them to come to me), and higher strength. I generally took more damage from the monsters than I did in return. At first, I thought the problem was my AC, and I attempted to increase it. Then I finally clued in. Full Attacks, I realized, suck. Against some monsters, I found I would rather take two single attacks (AoO and the single hit it could get if it closed after I attacked and moved) than it's full attack sequence, especially after I got hit by a Troll's Rend attack. A few levels later, I had Power Attack and Mobility, and was making powerful single attacks, while most often, the AoO's I took missed. Then I got into Spring Attack, and for the rest of my career, I was the master of the single powerful hit. Was it optimal? Probably not, but my higher mobility on the battlefield, plus my higher longevity (since I was taking far less hits) made me a much better striker for that campaign. Full Attack relies on you standing there, slugging it out with the enemy, and it relies on your enemy wanting to do the same thing, instead of retreating from you at first opportunity. This is, in my mind, what makes Tome of Battle so good, since strikes are partial actions, you can still move and deliver them. Giving up your mobility is the main reason Full Attacks suck, and in my mind, aren't worth it. Your experience may vary in your individual campaigns, but I'd much rather dash around the battlefield, power attacking with a reach weapon, wearing boots of striding and springing, than subject myself to the full attacks of many monsters (or optimized Full Attack warriors). Another thing to consider with Power Attack is how easy it is to get attack bonuses. If you are confident* that you would hit with your baseline bonuses, what do you do if your enemy is flanked, flat-footed, entangled, or prone (thanks to Improved Trip)? You Power Attack, of course, since the extra damage is more useful to you than the attack bonus. *I stress this, because the OP made a comment about being 80% likely to hit with all the attacks of a Full Attack at higher levels, and I assume that their math is based on that fact, in which case, attack bonuses are probably less useful than bonus damage on all three attacks. In closing, however, I must admit, it all depends on the situation, and the number of opponents. If you have one big monster you must dispatch, Power Attack is great. However, in the case of multiple opponents, Combat Expertise is generally better, in my experience. And of course, if you would have difficulties striking an enemy, you shouldn't use either.
Turin 04-18-08, 04:57 PM	Every idiot who complains about math without doing math should shut up. See sig for lesson on basic logic. Can also be stated as "95% evidence is better than 0% evidence". If you want a 10 page proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, get a brain. You know, if you're going to be snarky, you should probably make sure you're right. You were making a mathematical statement and failed to back it up at all. You throwing a couple of vague and ill-defined numbers at it aren't anywhere near "95% evidence." More like 5% evidence, which doesn't cut it if you're making a statement that can be rigorously verified. A 10 second search results quickly in three different threads that actually do exactly what I said, which is to develop a table of "when to power attack and for how much" values. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=942798 http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-167952 http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-115727.html Maybe if you did a little research and/or provided some actual math of your own, you might get a more receptive audience.
AlterFrom 04-18-08, 05:33 PM	Looking at this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=861084), which is a compiled list of numerical data for optimization by the numbers (as its title suggests), we can find the corresponding AC values of monsters at several test levels of play. Let's use levels 1, 5, 10, and 20. The link to the site with a much larger source of monster data doesn't seem to be working at the moment, so I'll just used the data they pulled from the SRD. Assume a fighter, 18 STR, greatsword, all stat boosts to STR, power attack, weapon focus tree ASAP, with a +2 STR item at 5th, +4 STR item at 9th, and a +6 STR item with a +5 tome at 20th, and a +1 EB to his Gsword every 4 levels. Target AC: Average of 15 Fighter's AB: 1(BAB) + 4(STR) + 1(WF) = 6 Using T_G's convenient formulas: To hit w/out PA: N-1[N-(Z-X)+1] (where N=possible outcomes(20), X=AB and Z=AC) (1/20)(20-(15-6)+1) = 12/20 To hit w/ PA: (1/20)(20-(15-5)+1) = 11/20 Average damage is 13 w/out, 15 w/ PA. (2d6(base)+6(STR*1.5)+2(PA)) Weighting our damage: (13*12)/20 = 7.8 expected dmg/round (14*11)/20 = 8.25 expected dmg/round Therefore, even if there is a variance in the AC of monsters you will face at this level, using or not using PA doesn't make a whole lot of difference, with just an expected gain of about .4 dmg/round. Target AC: Average 17 Fighter's AB: 5(BAB) + 5(STR) + 1(WF) = 11 To hit w/out PA: (1/20)(20-(17-11)+1) = 15/20 To hit w/ max PA: forget what my math teachers told me. I'm gonna stop showing my work. 10/20 Weighting our damage: DMG w/out PA: 2d6+7(STR)+2(spec) = avg 16 DMG w/ PA at max: 2d6+7(STR)+2(spec)+10(PA) = avg 26 Weighted w/out: (16*15)/20 = 12 dmg/round Weighted w/: (26*10)/20 = 13 dmg/round This time, the gain is clearer. For some reaons, I wanted to check the numbers at +/-5 AC. They come out to 15 dmg w/out and 19.5 w/ PA at AC 12, and 8 w/out and 6.5 w/ PA at AC 22. Low AC = good for PA? Who woulda thunk it. Oh, I forgot the +1 EB on his sword at this level. I don't feel like going back and fixing it though. Target AC: 23 Fighter's AB: 10(BAB) + 7(STR) + 2(WF, GWF) + 2(EB) = 21/16 To hit w/out PA: 19/20, 14/20 To hit w/ PA: (max) 9/20, 4/20 Damage: 2d6+10(STR)+2(spec)+2(EB) = avg 21 w/out PA 2d6+10(STR)+2(spec)+2(EB)+20(PA) = avg 41 w/ PA Weighting: ((19*21)+(14*21))/20: avg 34 dmg/round w/out PA ((9*41)+(4*41))/20: avg 25 dmg/round w/ PA Hmmm ((14*31)+(9*31))/20: avg 35 dmg/round w/ PA -5 Aha. Hang on, algebra time. Let X equal our PA penalty, Y equal our avg damage, and Z equal our expected damage per round. We find: Y*(33-2X) = 20Z and Y = 21+2X thus (21+2X)(33-2X) = 20Z 693+25X-4X2 = 20Z using the expression for the line of symmetry of the graph of a parabola, we can find the value for X which maximizes Z. -b/(2a) (-25)/(2*-4) = 25/8 = approx 3 Therefore, at this level, against an opponent of AC 23, blahblahblah conditions, a PA penalty of 3 is optimal. Now that I open a new tab and look at the thread, someone provided a link to threads with more information on why you are wrong. In case you (or anyone else following this thread) don't want to follow a link, I will post what I believe is most likely covered in those threads: let X be a constant, your AB let Y be a constant, your target's AC let Z be your average damage per attack, with PA let W be your AB w/ PA let S be a constant, equal to your average damage per attack w/out PA let P be your PA penalty let D be your expected damage/round for your attack with AB X These givens will allow us to construct an equation which will express your expected damage per round per attack. Let's do us some 10th (maybe 9th) grade algebra, shall we? ([1/20]*[20-(Y-W)+1])*Z = D (equation expressing your weighted dmg/round) Z = S+2P (equation expressing your average damage per attack) W = X-P (equation expressing your AB with PA penalty) substituting, we find... ([1/20]*[20-(Y-(X-P))+1])*(S+2P) = D distribute, and simplify ([1/20]*[20-Y+X-P+1])S + ([1/10]*[20-Y+X-P+1])P = D (the coefficient of 2 on P was distributed into the leading fraction of the coefficient expression) ([20+X+1-Y-P]*S)/20 + ... (the expression with two P's in it needs a couple more steps. sblock'ing them) [sblock] ([1/10]*[20-Y+X-P+1])P [20-Y+X-P+1]P = P(20-Y+X+1)-P2 .1*P*(20+X+1-Y)-.1*P[sup[2[/sup] [s/block] we now have an almost completely simplified quadratic equation. just needs a bit more distribution -.1*P2+.1*P*(20+X+1-Y)+.05*S*(20+X+1-Y-P) -.1*P2+.1*P*(20+X+1-Y)+.05*S*(20+X+1-Y)-.1*.5*S*P -.1*P2+.1*P*(20+X+1+.5*S-Y)+.05*S*(20+X+1-Y) = D Now we have a quadratic equation in standard ax2+bx+c form. Finding the value of P (our independent variable here) for which D is maximized (ie, finding the maximum of the function D(P)) will tell us our optimal PA penalty. This can be expressed as: -b/2a -1*(.1*(20+X+1+.5*S-Y))/(2*-.01) (reduce) (20+X+1+.5*S-Y)/(2) Evaluating this expression will tell us the value of P which will maximize D. For a single attack. A full attack action will complicate things somewhat. Q.E.D. Disclaimer: I do not guarantee the accuracy of this expression. Numerous other variables could have an effect on it which I have not forseen. Also, most players won't know the actual AC of their target. Therefore, they will probably have to make extrapolations based on already rolled attacks and the success thereof. [EDIT]: Alright, I borked something up. Testing my expression at the level 10 region suggests an optimal PA penalty of 14. I'm assuming this is because it doesn't restrict your PA to your BAB. Theory's all there though. [EDIT2]: Alright, tested it against my other two scenarios. Definitely won't work. Theory's still there though. I'm thinking a spreadsheet designed to test and calculate your expected damage for all possible values would be best for this. Lo and behold, the other threads make mention of just such a spreadsheet.
Tordak 04-18-08, 05:49 PM	Playing 3rd (and 3.5) edition I had 2 fighter, both of which took power attack. First, as mentioned before, it unlock an incredible number of useful feat and PrC abilities. It also opens a good feat tree if you're character doesn't have the necessary dex and int to enter other feat trees. Second of all, there are so many ways to keep a high chance to hit (or high AB) while sacrificing a huge amount to Power attack. One of my fighter would consistently start the fight with a nice heedless charge/leap attack and deal 60-90 damages without even criting (with an axe, for x3!), and that was at level 14th. Any clever player can do some math at the table and see when it should be used and when it's not worth it, and only an approximation is sufficient. The damage trade off is (usually) worth it. Did I mention my character only had a str of 20 (which doesn't seem very high by forum standards). To do the proper math, you need to compare all variables (AB, AC, damage bonus, crit chance, crit multiplier, etc) and average the damages you do in a round. Most of the time, power attack increases the average damage, at least for a 2-handed weapon weilder. I have myself done the extensive calculation using an Excel sheet to compare weapons/crit range/crit multiplier/PA effects. I'm really not trying to get on your case, there's really nothing personnal here. I'm only saying that after doing lots of calculation and using it a lot myself, I can say power attack is every bit worth it.
EjoThims 04-18-08, 06:44 PM	Don't forget, you can get massive returns on Power Attack with Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and other feats or class abilities. On top of the truly heinous Strength score that a good melee basher will be using anyone, PA helps pump out extra damage without lowering your chance to hit.
pigknight 04-18-08, 08:58 PM	Power Attack boosts my paladin's already insane damage out put. At 5th level I kill 1 creature per turn, if I hit, which is a good 90% of the time.
runestar 04-18-08, 09:38 PM	Every idiot who complains about math without doing math should shut up. See sig for lesson on basic logic. Can also be stated as "95% evidence is better than 0% evidence". If you want a 10 page proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, get a brain. The problem here is that you examined power attack only within the context of making a full attack, and even then, you made a lot of assumptions about what resources the fighter had. You then proceeded to make a hasty generalization. Just because your analysis for that 1 particular scenario might be correct, does not necessarily mean that it is accurate for power attack as a whole, because there are clearly so many other situations it is equally applicable to. I could be playing some odd melee build that revolves around me getting and using multiple natural attacks, and using multiattack+improved multiattack to negate the to-hit penalties. This means that all my attacks are effectively made at the same attack-roll, so the problem of iterative attacks is no longer relevant. Or a fighter with the overpowering attack variant option from PHB2. Since you are just making 1 attack during your turn (and the rest will likely come in the form of AoOs), there are no iterative attacks to worry over. Alternatively, the fighter could opt to devote his iterative attacks towards tripping/disarming the enemy. Since these are touch attacks, you don't need a high attack roll for success, which in turn allows for more bab to be funneled into power attack. These scenarios are just the tip of the iceberg. There are certainly many other permutations, each of which will interact with PA in their own unique manner.
aelryinth 04-18-08, 11:19 PM	By itself, Power Attack can be a difficult proposition. However, your math compares it to a Full Attack. I'll put my thoughts on Full Attacks below, but since that's not fully relevant, let's look at Power Attack closer. First of all, if you are not using a Full Attack, it remains good, since if you think you can actually hit with your second or third attack in a Full Attack, then there should be no problem taking a -5 to -10 attack penalty for +10-20 damage with a two handed weapon. That's about the extent of Power Attack's utility by itself, other than situational uses like destroying objects or ridiculous coup de grace attempts. It's with other Feats that Power Attack's value rises. Let's start off with the obvious choice, Leap Attack. With this Feat, you can inflict extra damage on a charge attack. Now if you are still in a situation where you are confident that you would strike on your 2nd attack in a Full Attack, you can take -7 to hit (thanks to the Charge bonus) for +21 damage. Not bad at all, really, for a single attack. It's true, your Full Attack would still do more, but wait, there's more. Let's take a look at Shock Trooper, specifically, Heedless Charge. Now I'm told I can apply my to-hit penalty to AC instead of my attack bonus. If I have three attacks normally (+16 BAB), then I could take a -18 to AC (including Charge penalty), still get a mostly unecessary +2 to hit, and, thank to Leap Attack, inflict a bonus 48 points of damage. And this isn't even close to fully optimized yet. So we can see that the Power Attack Feat Chain can grant incredible damage on a single attack. Yes, a Full Attack can be optimized to inflict insane amounts of damage, but as a combat option, FA is limited, since you can only make a 5' adjustment. When I first started playing a Fighter in 3.X, I thought that Full Attacks were the way to go. Then I noticed something. The monsters I fought tended to have more attacks on their full attacks, bonus reach (making it hard to close to them without an AoO, forcing me to wait for them to come to me), and higher strength. I generally took more damage from the monsters than I did in return. At first, I thought the problem was my AC, and I attempted to increase it. Then I finally clued in. Full Attacks, I realized, suck. Against some monsters, I found I would rather take two single attacks (AoO and the single hit it could get if it closed after I attacked and moved) than it's full attack sequence, especially after I got hit by a Troll's Rend attack. A few levels later, I had Power Attack and Mobility, and was making powerful single attacks, while most often, the AoO's I took missed. Then I got into Spring Attack, and for the rest of my career, I was the master of the single powerful hit. Was it optimal? Probably not, but my higher mobility on the battlefield, plus my higher longevity (since I was taking far less hits) made me a much better striker for that campaign. Full Attack relies on you standing there, slugging it out with the enemy, and it relies on your enemy wanting to do the same thing, instead of retreating from you at first opportunity. This is, in my mind, what makes Tome of Battle so good, since strikes are partial actions, you can still move and deliver them. Giving up your mobility is the main reason Full Attacks suck, and in my mind, aren't worth it. Your experience may vary in your individual campaigns, but I'd much rather dash around the battlefield, power attacking with a reach weapon, wearing boots of striding and springing, than subject myself to the full attacks of many monsters (or optimized Full Attack warriors). Another thing to consider with Power Attack is how easy it is to get attack bonuses. If you are confident* that you would hit with your baseline bonuses, what do you do if your enemy is flanked, flat-footed, entangled, or prone (thanks to Improved Trip)? You Power Attack, of course, since the extra damage is more useful to you than the attack bonus. *I stress this, because the OP made a comment about being 80% likely to hit with all the attacks of a Full Attack at higher levels, and I assume that their math is based on that fact, in which case, attack bonuses are probably less useful than bonus damage on all three attacks. In closing, however, I must admit, it all depends on the situation, and the number of opponents. If you have one big monster you must dispatch, Power Attack is great. However, in the case of multiple opponents, Combat Expertise is generally better, in my experience. And of course, if you would have difficulties striking an enemy, you shouldn't use either. Your logic here is good, but remember your BAB is the limit of your Power Attack conversion. Thus, at 16th level, the maximum you can power Attack is 16 pts, not 18....charging does not raise your BAB. The OP has a good point, but isn't carrying it all the way thru, is all, and is clearly unaware of the various feats which increase PA (and classes that do the same). He's also ignoring it's usefulness as part of a single attack, or against creatures with low AC (or if he has very high TH bonuses)...or for sundering doors, for that matter. ==Aelryinth
masamunekaigen 04-18-08, 11:58 PM	20th level Ranger (one specializes in one FE) + Solitary Hunter Variant + Favored Power Attack (which requires Power Attack) + Greatsword + Girdle of Hatred x 4 attacks= 8d6 + STR Modx6 + 240 damage to that FE. And NO ACCURACY PENALTY AT ALL That's putting on the pain. Excluding DR you could nearly kill the Lord of the Ninth layer of hell with one full attack.
Metafictional 04-19-08, 02:59 PM	I was keeping the BAB limit in mind, the -18 to AC includes the Charge penalty, the damage bonus I was claiming was only 16 x 3 = 48. Now granted, Heedless Charge is a pretty broken example of how to (ab)use Power Attack, but it's really no worse than Brilliant Energy weapons : )
navar100 04-19-08, 07:32 PM	I find the statistics to be irrelevant. I have a total attack bonus of +10. I'm happy. I flank. That's +2 to hit. No, it's +4 damage with Power Attack and still at my happy +10 total attack bonus. I charge. Hey, that's also a +4 damage attack. If I charge into a flank, +8 damage total still at my happy +10 total attack bonus. The cleric casts Bless. That's +2 damage. Cleric casts Bull's Strength on me. Instead of +2 hit/+3 damage (two-handed weapon) it's +7 damage still at my happy +10 total attack bonus. Oh Mr. Baaaard ...
Daeva 04-20-08, 01:29 AM	power attack in most games is awesome, turns every 2 points of str into 3 damage instead of one. my group often Nerf the balls out of it making it a flat -3 or -4 (depending on GM) with an improved version that can double that. really makes it a strong feat, but not the keystone to all melee builds
navar100 04-20-08, 02:02 AM	power attack in most games is awesome, turns every 2 points of str into 3 damage instead of one. my group often Nerf the balls out of it making it a flat -3 or -4 (depending on GM) with an improved version that can double that. really makes it a strong feat, but not the keystone to all melee builds Bad call. Why shouldn't melee types get nice things like Power Attack? For pure damage, spells do more than Power Attack.
Daeva 04-20-08, 03:22 AM	because in our world casters are rather nerfed too.... don't care to go into the details, its a campaign world we made like 6 years ago and continue to use, and we feel its rather balanced, guess like... i shoudla mentioned that... my bad regardless, power attack is awesome as written in the book, gonna join that crowed
aelryinth 04-20-08, 02:44 PM	Mathematically, Power Attack is generally inferior to landing extra iterative attacks until your damage bonus is literally astronomical. Generally speaking, Power Attack is useful on a charge or as part of a single attack. When you full attack, you are usually much better off making sure your iteratives hit then using Power Attack. This is why Heedless Charge is so powerful...you don't lose any accuracy, and so the combination of high hits and mega damage can be overwhelming. It contributes strongly the Uber Charger builds as 'the only viable melee attack builds.' Start stacking Power attack and charge boosting feats on and you wonder why anybody can get past sixth level with the uber chargers one hitting everyone. ===Aelryinth
Metafictional 04-20-08, 04:17 PM	That having been said, as navar100 pointed out, there does reach a point where you have extraneous bonuses to hit, with Charge, Flank, attacking prone targets, and the like, where Feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise shine. In the one DnD game I actually get to play in, with the combo of Improved Trip and Expert Tactician, I generally grant my allies the equivalent of +6 to hit (-4 AC to the prone target and +2 to hit and damage from Expert Tactician). At this point, there's almost no reason not to use Power Attack, since it's rare we encounter enemies with such high AC's that the other warrior types can't hit without my help.
navar100 04-20-08, 10:05 PM	because in our world casters are rather nerfed too.... don't care to go into the details, its a campaign world we made like 6 years ago and continue to use, and we feel its rather balanced, guess like... i shoudla mentioned that... my bad regardless, power attack is awesome as written in the book, gonna join that crowed This is why promoting house rules is dangerous. You left out another house rule that indirectly also affects the game balance of your particular gaming group. Just accepting your Power Attack nerf without knowing of your spellcaster nerf leaves melee combatants worse off. Essentially, your group has house ruled the entire game into a lower power level tier. For whatever reason you didn't like the big numbers RAW provides. That's a different argument than the worth of Power Attack RAW with everything else RAW.
navar100 04-20-08, 10:07 PM	Mathematically, Power Attack is generally inferior to landing extra iterative attacks until your damage bonus is literally astronomical. Generally speaking, Power Attack is useful on a charge or as part of a single attack. When you full attack, you are usually much better off making sure your iteratives hit then using Power Attack. This is why Heedless Charge is so powerful...you don't lose any accuracy, and so the combination of high hits and mega damage can be overwhelming. It contributes strongly the Uber Charger builds as 'the only viable melee attack builds.' Start stacking Power attack and charge boosting feats on and you wonder why anybody can get past sixth level with the uber chargers one hitting everyone. ===Aelryinth Right. Power Attack is an awesome Feat. Strategically it's just not optimal for every attack one could possibly make, and it doesn't need to be.
Someone 04-21-08, 02:11 AM	Power Attack is really handy against things with damage reduction you can't bypass. Hitting once for something is a lot better than hitting twice for nothing.
narack 04-21-08, 07:50 AM	leap attacker destroy your theory. you can easy sacrifice 4 attack to deal +16 damage or 64 damage on a crit of a X4 weapon.
Howie23 04-21-08, 02:09 PM	So in short, power attack is awesome from levels 2 to 5, it's decent from level 6 on, and as soon as you hit mid levels it is utterly useless. If you run out of good feats to choose and you'll be playing levels 2 to 9ish, then get it. Otherwise forget it. You've given a bit of lip service to situational uses, but in general, you have provided an analysis in broad strokes broken down by attacker level. Power Attack is useful in a number of ways, and is often misused for ego purposes in others. 1) Used directly, Power Attack can be used to maximize average damage delivery. This provides an additional tool to the attacker, who can use it or not as the situation dictates. 2) Power Attack can be useful in overcoming high DR that the attacker can't get through otherwise. 3) When facing a creature that you estimate is down to a certain number of hit points, power attacking to confidently deliver that number may well be better than knocking him down to single digits and then facing his full attack in reply. This can be true even in full attacks at times. 4) Power Attack is a prerequisite for a useful tree feat, even if you choose not to use it when appropriate in combat. 5) Power Attack can be very beneficial to a creature with high BAB and multiple natural attacks even though you don't get the 2/1. Curiously, this applies to hasted and twf attacks as well for the same reason. Ultimately, Power Attack is at its best when you have BAB to spare in comparision to the armor class of the opponent, or situationally to maximize damage output. However, Power Attack is at its worst when used thoughtlessly such that the opporunity cost of the attack outweighs the benefit. Power Attack should not be used, or at a lesser value, when you have iterative attacks, when the opponent is already heavily damaged, or when you have a lot of base damage without it. In other words, if you have high strength and other bene to damage (energy dice, sneak dice, weapon specialization, favored enemy, etc.) then you should use less power attack than otherwise. It is very rare beyond low levels that you should here yourself announce, "Power Attack for full...." Power Attack tends to peak in average damage output at about +4, but it depends on the AC of the critter. Swing for the fences against low AC, big HD guys (animals), and be more cautious when you are having trouble hitting and/or deliver extra damage from other sources. It is an extra tool when used appropriately, and it is a detriment when used thoughtlessly. Editted Addendum: When you have an opponent swinging hard, it's a good time to consider disarming him if you can avoid the AoO...that negative to hit makes it hard for his opposed roll. David
RobbyPants 04-22-08, 01:15 PM	You know, if you're going to be snarky, you should probably make sure you're right. You were making a mathematical statement and failed to back it up at all. You throwing a couple of vague and ill-defined numbers at it aren't anywhere near "95% evidence." More like 5% evidence, which doesn't cut it if you're making a statement that can be rigorously verified. A 10 second search results quickly in three different threads that actually do exactly what I said, which is to develop a table of "when to power attack and for how much" values. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=942798 http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-167952 http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-115727.html Maybe if you did a little research and/or provided some actual math of your own, you might get a more receptive audience. http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8258/pwned111za6.jpg Nicely done. ;)
BW0222 04-22-08, 05:00 PM	Nathreet, Your math is fine, but some of the assumptions you make do not hold true in most case. 1. You don't get many full attacks in real combats. Often in combat, you need to close (i.e. move) to reach an enemy, switch to another enemy, switch weapons, take move actions for other purposes, rough terrain preventing you from 5' stepping, creatures with reach, etc. You might only get about half your rounds doing full attacks vs. single attacks in most combats - especially vs. multiple foes. If in ten rounds, you think you get 4 attacks per round for a total of 40 attacks... power attack looks rather weak. However, if you assume you spend one round drinking a potion, five rounds doing a single attack, one round double moving over to protect the wizard, and only four rounds full-attacking... then power attack looks much better as a percentage of damage on only 21 attacks. 2. You are not including cases when you get free attacks at your full BAB. Cleave, AoO, reach weapons, haste, whirlwind attack, etc. 3. You are not including DR into your mid and higher level calculations. The percentage of extra damage from power-attack is dramatically more when you take even 5 (let alone 10) off each set of damage. 4. You are not including cases when folks are pretty much out of the combat or you have pretty high bonuses. Oponents are held, blinded, prone, coup-de-grace, etc. and there is little chance of missing. 5. You have not included cases where you are attacking doors, chains, sundering, etc. 6. Net damage dished out isn't that useful in most real combats and you aren't facing a single creature with infinite hit points. If a creature has 20hp, the difference between doing 18hp and 22hp in a single attack is not 22%. It is 100% - dropping a creature in one round vs. having to spend two. 7. You haven't included the fact that you can just turn power-attack off. Use it against easy to hit foes, during rounds with single attacks, when buffed heavily, etc. and then turn it off on other rounds when it might be less effective. Now all this is pretty hard to simulate with just straight numbers. However, your numbers are a bit too simplistic. Power attack is of course more useful at higher levels than that same person without the feat. One just has to factor in that it won't be used all the time (like many other feats).
ClockworkRevenge 04-22-08, 05:11 PM	Why you SHOULDN'T get Power Attack There are so many ways to get bonuses to hit that can be converted into damage, and moar damage is always better.
mvincent 04-22-08, 06:14 PM	Mathematically, Power Attack is generally inferior to landing extra iterative attacksWhen one is doing huge amounts of damage with each hit, iterative attacks become less common. Conversely, cleaving (which both benefits from PA and has PA as a prerequisite) can become more common. At high levels, an optimized party focused on a single opponent should rarely allow for a chance to full attack in melee (especially if the opponent is avoiding such... because surely an optimized full attack is likely to end them anyhow).
Nathreet 04-22-08, 07:47 PM	PA still caps at about 25 damage in any munchkin free game where you don't auto-hit everything. It technically caps at 30-38 damage, but gains past 20-25 are minimal. See sig for other comments.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-22-08, 08:03 PM	That's cute, call everyone that knows what they're doing and does it effectively a munchkin. And pulling more garbage numbers out of thin air, too. Power Attack alone will do up to 40 with a two-handed weapon pre-epic, calling it technically capped at 30-38 damage is plain absurdity. Just so you know, a sig whining about shooting down ideas without providing anything else doesn't really shield you when much more has already been provided well before you ever came along, you're coming out trying to shoot it down, and you're wrong.
Toki_Wartooth 04-22-08, 08:24 PM	PA still caps at about 25 damage in any munchkin free game where you don't auto-hit everything. It technically caps at 30-38 damage, but gains past 20-25 are minimal. See sig for other comments.Well, a true-striker might be a munchkin, but at 12th level she's doing an extra 72 points of damage on a spirited charge (without even harming her to hit chances). And don't get me started about cleaving off of a power attack. An optimal PC is likely doing something wrong if they get many chances to full attack. But I can see how a sub-optimal crew probably wouldn't benefit as much from PA.
pigknight 04-22-08, 10:25 PM	The only time you should be doing a full-attack commonly late game is when you have pounce (gotta love Barbarian variants).
Johannixx 04-22-08, 10:43 PM	Like most feats, Power Attack is most useful in concert with later splatbook feats (Shock Trooper and Leap Attack come immediately to mind) and as a pre-req for Cleave (the best low-level combat feat in the game, bar none). If you have a 10% chance to hit something, don't waste your time Power Attacking it. If you have a +20 attack bonus and you're fighting stuff with AC 17, why not Power Attack for the difference? It's the best way to nail that raging barbarian before he TPKs your group. And, like I said, Shock Trooper and Leap Attack combine to make Power Attack incredibly brutal.
Pandapeep 04-23-08, 12:37 AM	In the words of the late Charlton Heston: "You can pry my power attack out of my cold, dead hands."
Johannixx 04-23-08, 02:19 AM	Plus, when you add BoNS into the equation... Leaping Dragon stance + Pouncing Charge strike + Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper (Heedless Charge) = Fun for the whole family.
RobbyPants 04-23-08, 08:46 AM	PA still caps at about 25 damage in any munchkin free game where you don't auto-hit everything. It technically caps at 30-38 damage, but gains past 20-25 are minimal. See sig for other comments. I guess the question is, where do you draw the line at "munchkin free game". There are plenty of legitimate sources to keep your attack bonus up while increasing your Power Attack damage, or to increase your damage without hurting your chances to hit. Just a few: Wraithstrike Deep Impact Shock Trooper Combat Brute Leap Attack Pounce Rhino Rush Any feat, ability, or condition that grants you a bonus to hit. Getting better than a 2:1 ratio drastically improves your average expected damage per hit. Getting that extra damage at no loss of accuracey does so even further. You can get any of the above abilities with minimal or no dipping out of a melee class.
TunFiskeMad 04-23-08, 09:17 AM	Well to be honest power attack is fun and all but what makes it really worth it is the modifiers to it from shocktrooper, leap attack etc. It all really depends on the character. Last time i played a melee character I was at about 40-46 attack bonus when buffed and about +30 damage with my heavy flail, at lvl 15. Because I didnt have the other feats to up the damage from my Power Attack it never really seemed worth it since i would hit on all more or less all my attacks (I seemed to roll 1's on my middle attack way to often). It seemed to me that it wouldnt be worth starting to miss on my other attacks because then I would loose just about as much damage as I gained.
Nathreet 04-23-08, 09:31 AM	Bing, as shown. You "feel" one thing (happens to be right), others "feel" another (happens to be wrong), but the math is in 1st post. And it's super easy to do it yourself for other examples. PA isn't much use for single attacks past ~20-25 damage, and it makes things worse past ~30-38. Full attacks cap much earlier. If you're afraid of rolling a 2 in these situations, don't PA. If you aren't afraid of rolling a 2, you're probably a munchkin.
Krusk 04-23-08, 09:43 AM	If you have a 10% chance to hit something, don't waste your time Power Attacking it. If you have a +20 attack bonus and you're fighting stuff with AC 17, why not Power Attack for the difference? It's the best way to nail that raging barbarian before he TPKs your group. Ah but when you only have a 5% chance to hit? [nat 20] power attack for max, as it doesn't hurt you at all. Nathreet, you cannot say "power attack is terrible unless you are a munchkin, and then it is broken" and expect to be taken seriously. As has been proven multiple times, the math in your first post does not take everything into account, so please stop refering to it as the be all and end all of proof. See post 12. Also the extent that your math proves anything "I used computers to prove power attack sucks. The computers ran programs using math" does not really help your arguement. It is sort of vauge, can you post the code or a summary of what the program did so people can see how you got your conclusion?
Spikes01k 04-23-08, 09:44 AM	Bing, as shown. You "feel" one thing (happens to be right), others "feel" another (happens to be wrong), but the math is in 1st post. And it's super easy to do it yourself for other examples. PA isn't much use for single attacks past ~20-25 damage, and it makes things worse past ~30-38. Full attacks cap much earlier. If you're afraid of rolling a 2 in these situations, don't PA. If you aren't afraid of rolling a 2, you're probably a munchkin. Woow that is a VERY broad statement. I take offense to that. A half orc, barbarian, with his best stat in strength, raging with a masterwork weapon that they have a weapon focus feat at level 1 doesn't seem too munchkin to me, or does doing the obvious combination seem munchkin to you? I noticed that there isn't much discussion on the fact that this feat can work well with others, and is a prerequisite feat for very helpful feats. By the time your power attack reaches 20-25 damage you already should have a number of helpful feats, if not at first level. 1st: Improved initiative; they lose their dex and dodge to AC. 2nd: Keen or Improved Critical; with this on a fashion or any weapon whielded 2 handed with a crit range of 18-20 gives you a good chance to Double your power attack damage. 3rd: Leap Attack and Combat Brute: even though it can't be taken till later, you get a much better ratio of minus to bonus. 4th: Shock Trooper: you NO LONGER have a minus to hit. Prefect for a tough barbarian who cares less about getting hit. Factor these obvious combinations, even core only with improved initiative and improved crit, power attack becomes more useful.
runestar 04-23-08, 09:58 AM	Full attacks cap much earlier. If you're afraid of rolling a 2 in these situations, don't PA. If you aren't afraid of rolling a 2, you're probably a munchkin. And if I find myself having to resort to personal attacks just to get my point across, that means that something is seriously wrong with my original premise if facts alone can't suffice.:rolleyes: Bing, as shown. You "feel" one thing (happens to be right), others "feel" another (happens to be wrong) I could very well say the same thing myself. PA isn't much use for single attacks past ~20-25 damage, and it makes things worse past ~30-38. How so? Say I am a lv20 fighter. My attack bonus is as follows: +20 bab +4 weapon spec tree +5 +5 weapon +11 from 32str(base16, +5lv, +5inherent, +6enhancement) For a minimum of +40. And this is not factoring in other buffs like haste, greater heroism, luckstone, pale green ioun stone, charging etc which can further boost it. Weapon supremacy lets me take 10 me 1 attack roll/round. This means that I know with perfect certainty the results of my 1st attack. Say I charge a foe. I know that my attack roll will be a +55 (say), and he has an AC of 40. Why shouldn't I PA for 15? Your conclusion is true only for a very specific scenario (and even then, your math seems suspect at best). You are committing the mistake of hasty generalization, where you think that just because you may be right for one case, your conclusion suddenly becomes true for every single example where PA is applicable. What? Suddenly, every other scenario which does not support your theory necessarily means that we are munchkins?:confused:
RobbyPants 04-23-08, 10:31 AM	Again, what if you use Shock Trooper and Leap Attack? If you're using Power Attack with any frequency, it seems reasonable to have these feats. Mid-Levels and Later: Level 11/12. Greater rage/greater weapon spec and at least a +2 equiv magic weapon (if not more). Level 4/8 strength boost, guantlest of strength. 15+3(str)+2(GWS/more-rage)+1+1d6 (weapon) ~=24 damage. 3 attacks, not counting haste. Power attacking on a full attack is out of the question. Don't make me do the math. That's just too stupid to contemplate, and would only show that you have issues. The str/feat/weapon AB bonuses add to ~8-9, plus your BAB for ~20. CR 10ish-12ish baddies are around AC 25, so you hit 80% of the time. 0.8*24=19.2 avg. PA +1 for 0.75*26=19.5 avg (0.5% gained). +2 for 0.7*28=19.6 avg. Yeup, power attack just became useless. And it's all downhill from here. Now, you can Power Attack for 20, and get +80 damage, and still have that same 80% chance to hit. So the normal attack of (0.8*24=19.2 avg) becomes (0.8*104=83.2 avg). Even without Leap Attack, you're looking at (0.8*64=51.2 avg). Bing, as shown. You "feel" one thing (happens to be right), others "feel" another (happens to be wrong), but the math is in 1st post. And it's super easy to do it yourself for other examples. PA isn't much use for single attacks past ~20-25 damage, and it makes things worse past ~30-38. Full attacks cap much earlier. If you're afraid of rolling a 2 in these situations, don't PA. If you aren't afraid of rolling a 2, you're probably a munchkin. There. I used some numbers. It's not just a "feeling".
Johannixx 04-23-08, 11:09 AM	Let's add some more BoNS into the equation: Leaping Dragon stance + Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper (Heedless Charge) = 3:1 ratio of Power Attack with no attack penalty for one attack. Then use Sudden Leap to jump away from your opponent (you should have no trouble clearing 20+ feet of distance), and he can't full attack you in retaliation. If you make sure you've got some rough terrain between you, he can't counter-charge you either unless he's got a similar charge-monkey build. On the next round you can use the same combination, plus trigger Combat Brute and initiate Pouncing Charge to do a full attack with a 4:1 Power Attack ratio and no attack penalty. With an Impaling weapon, you can make the first attack a touch attack to pretty much guarantee an initial hit. If the target is still up after that, then you should be running away anyway ;)
Metafictional 04-23-08, 05:23 PM	Hm, so if I can hit on a 2, I'm a munchkin, am I? Ok, core only, level 17. Half-Orc Barbarian 17. Starting stats: Str 17, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 6 (poor guy, no wonder he has so much anger, can't get a date on Saturday night). 4 stat bonuses at by level 16, let's say he uses two on Str and two on Con (most Barbarians would go all Strength, I think, but you never know.) Ok, Str 19, Con 16. We'll say he has a +3 Greataxe and a Girdle of Giant Strength +4. With 5 uses of Rage each day, he will Rage in every encounter, giving him +6 Str/Con. So even if he doesn't have a Con-boosting item, that means he can rage for 9 rounds with the 22 Con his Rage gives him. We'll round off his odd-numbered Str with a Tome for a +1 inherent bonus. Ok, so, BAB +17, +3 enhancement to hit, and 30 Str in Rage for +10 to hit. That's a +30 attack bonus. Let's go find a CR 17, shall we? Oh look, it's the Marilith! http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#marilith Wow. I must be an uber-munchkin. I don't hit the Marilith's AC 29 on a 2....I actually hit it on a -1! Well except you can't hit on a 1, of course, so I can easily afford to reduce my attack bonus to +28, gaining me 4 more damage with Power Attack. I could probably go further, but you know, there are those pesky iterative attacks. Let's examine those, shall we? Base: +30/+25/+20/+15. Vs. AC 29, what is needed to hit would be a 2, 4, 9, and 14, respectively. Since the game uses a d20, you can say this is a 95%/85%/60%/35% chance to hit with each attack. Sure, you could say taking a -2 to hit would result in: 95%/75%/50%/25% to hit with each attack, but assuming 100 full attacks, you'd see the following: Weapon damage: 2d6+18. Average damage: 25. Without Power Attack: 68.75 average damage per full attack (I simply multiplied the 40 average damage by the to-hit percentage, so for example, 35% of the fourth iterative attacks are hits, adding 8.75 damage on average over the course of 100 swings). Ok, now with the -2 of Power Attack, increasing the average weapon damage per swing to 29. Over 100 hits, average damage against AC 29 is 71.05. This is a FAR from optimized character. By 17th-level, my sample Barbarian is likely under-equipped. I've only assumed one Feat (Power Attack). I haven't even given him Weapon Focus or any other Feat that would increase his ability to Power Attack! Nor have I taken into account the Enlarge Person effect he'd likely have available to fight a creature like the Marilith (which has reach and Improved Grab). In truth, I think he'd be crazy to full attack the Marilith, given the TEN attacks she can make on a full attack. This means that A: non "Munchkin" characters can have very high chances to hit their opponents. B: AC does not necessarily scale at the same rate attack bonus does. C: Full Attacks are not necessarily the most effective method of damage delivery against all opponents. Which brings us to the conclusion that Power Attack DOES increase your average damage output when used. A humble -2 to hit in my above example increased damage output by over 2%. That may not seem like a lot, but it WAS an increase, and it was gained with a character that is definitely NOT a "munchkin". Further, as CR's rise, Full Attack becomes a less viable option because enemies often inflict MUCH higher damage on a full attack than you do. In the Marilith encounter, her single attack is 2d6+9 (or alternatively, 4d6+9 with her tail slap, but at a lower attack bonus). Our Barbarian's single attack is 2d6+18, and he could easily afford a -2 to hit to bring that to 2d6+22 and have only a 5% chance to miss! It should further be noted that the Marilith's best chance to hit is +25. If our Barbarian had some method of avoiding a Full Attack and could trade one attack each round with the Marilith (say via Spring Attack), he'd easily win the encounter, as he can afford to use Power Attack liberally. Now it's true, there are other CR 17's who have higher AC and attack bonuses, such as a Very Old White Dragon. However, the Dragon doesn't get 10 attacks per melee either. Which proves you cannot calculate the benefit of Power Attack in a vacuum. Each fight is different, and requires different tactics. Just saying "mathematically speaking, using Power Attack is never good compared to an unmodified full attack" is using faulty logic, because you cannot take into account the attack bonus, AC, damage, or number of attacks a given character or monster can make. Nor can you take into account modifiers such as enemies being prone, flanking, aid another, buff spells from other party members, charging, touch attacks from Brilliant Energy weapons, or what have you. There are times when you shouldn't Power Attack. There are times when you should. And each such instance is a case-by-case scenario, you cannot simply say "math proves it's never good to Power Attack" because that's simply NOT TRUE. If I'm facing an enemy with a high AC that I can't risk Power Attacking, but then my Wizard debuffs said enemy, reducing their AC (which even the humble Grease spell can do, by denying Dex bonuses to AC -read Balance before you say Grease doesn't do that-), guess what? The situation has changed, and Power Attack can now be viable.
rivaltuna 04-23-08, 09:36 PM	Power attack sucks. IMPROVED Power Attack is where it's at :cool:
NoldorForce 04-23-08, 09:51 PM	Not being too serious, I take it? (For the curious, Improved Power Attack is the first of the two Frenzied Berserker class features that boost Power Attack.)
Fenrir_Greyback 04-24-08, 08:09 AM	In my own opinion, power attack is only useful for the feats in it's chain. Cleave, and great cleave, my of the others out the the CW and CA require power attack. To me it's like "YAY I can deal an extra 5 points of damage with a -5 to hit!" It's much easier at fifth level to just go but a shock, flaming, frost greatsword. You'll do a lot more damage. Power attack is however useful if you have a brilliant energy weapon and you're going against something wearing armor. Then it's like "YAY I'm doing five more points of damage, with no negative to hit, because I was going to hit anyway!" Seriously tho, my characters never get power attack unless it's to get some other feat up down the road.
RobbyPants 04-24-08, 08:28 AM	In my own opinion, power attack is only useful for the feats in it's chain. Cleave, and great cleave, my of the others out the the CW and CA require power attack. To me it's like "YAY I can deal an extra 5 points of damage with a -5 to hit!" It's much easier at fifth level to just go but a shock, flaming, frost greatsword. You'll do a lot more damage. Power attack is however useful if you have a brilliant energy weapon and you're going against something wearing armor. Then it's like "YAY I'm doing five more points of damage, with no negative to hit, because I was going to hit anyway!" You're not thinking big enough. If you're using a two handed weapon, it's more like "YAY I can deal an extra 10 points of daamge with a -5 to hit!" If you're using the Combat Brute feat, it's more like "YAY I can deal an extra 15 points of daamge with a -5 to hit!" (assuming you charged the round before). If you're using the Leap Attack feat, it's more like "YAY I can deal an extra 20 points of daamge with a -5 to hit!" (assuming you charged that round). If you're using the Shock Trooper feat, it's more like "YAY I can deal an extra 10 points of daamge with a -5 to AC!" If you're only getting 5 for 5, you're not doing it right. ;)
TunFiskeMad 04-25-08, 09:16 AM	But then again its not PA that is nice, its chargning with PA, shock trooper, leap attack and combat brute. :) PA is nice in the chain, but I must admit that alone PA isnt really that apealing compared to other feats. :)
aelryinth 04-25-08, 11:23 AM	Or it's "Yay, I get to do +40 pts of dmg against this wooden door with a -20 to my auto-hit!" Don't forget sundering and carving through pesky walls. ===Aelryinth
Spikes01k 04-25-08, 12:08 PM	Or it's "Yay, I get to do +40 pts of dmg against this wooden door with a -20 to my auto-hit!" Don't forget sundering and carving through pesky walls. ===Aelryinth Yeah with my adimantine great axe
StruckingFuggle 04-25-08, 02:40 PM	In my own opinion, power attack is only useful for the feats in it's chain. Cleave, and great cleave, my of the others out the the CW and CA require power attack. ... Does not compute. But then again its not PA that is nice, its chargning with PA, shock trooper, leap attack and combat brute. :) Well, not quite. It's Leap Attack + PA, Shock Trooper + PA, Massive Bonus To Hit + PA, Wraithstrike + Keen Falchion + PA ... it's synergy between the two, which requires you to take Power Attack to get. PA is nice in the chain, but I must admit that alone PA isnt really that apealing compared to other feats. :) So? Characters get multiple feats, and can have class abilities that synergize with feats, as well... why should they be judged as good or bad in some sort of vacuum?
Nathreet 04-25-08, 04:30 PM	I think leap attack is kinda cheesy, but for those who use it and want to know the damage cap, it is exactly twice as high as PA. A little bit of playing with the original numbers should reveal this pretty easily, if you'd like to check.
Johannixx 04-25-08, 10:38 PM	I think leap attack is kinda cheesy, but for those who use it and want to know the damage cap, it is exactly twice as high as PA. A little bit of playing with the original numbers should reveal this pretty easily, if you'd like to check. Twice as high if you're using a one-handed weapon. It's 1.5 times as high if you're using a two-handed weapon (which is really the only good way to use Power Attack anyway). You go from a 2:1 ratio to a 3:1 ratio.
NoldorForce 04-25-08, 10:58 PM	Leap Attack was errata'd. It's now understood to grant +100% of the normal damage from Power Attack, like Supreme Power Attack. And Nathreet...what are you trying to say there beyond the fact that you consider Leap Attack "kinda cheesy"? (How is this non-obvious? How does it further your original point?)
Nathreet 04-25-08, 11:47 PM	Sometimes I get the impression that there are people who don't think it's cheesy. Ya, maybe it's better not to address them. Assuming 1.5x damage the damage cap (the point when it's not worth it) is likewise 1.5x, assuming 2x it's 2x.
runestar 04-26-08, 12:15 AM	Sometimes I get the impression that there are people who don't think it's cheesy. Ya, maybe it's better not to address them. Assuming 1.5x damage the damage cap (the point when it's not worth it) is likewise 1.5x, assuming 2x it's 2x. Cheesy is relative. The best you should do is simply to portray an objective analysis based on existing dnd rules (without any houserules), and let us board members make an informed decision based on what we see and come to our own conclusions, rather than you tainting your own calculations with your own preferences and prejudices (or what is broken or not, which may or may not be consistent with how other people run their games), and trying to force your own beliefs down our throats.:)
Krusk 04-26-08, 12:23 AM	So I am trying to understand your point Nathreet. Using power attack effectivly is cheesy. If you don't use it effectivly, it is a wasted feat. Therefore you should not take power attack?
NoldorForce 04-26-08, 12:25 AM	Cheesy is relative. The best you should do is simply to portray an objective analysis based on existing dnd rules (without any houserules), and let us board members make an informed decision based on what we see and come to our own conclusions, rather than you tainting your own calculations with your own preferences and prejudices (or what is broken or not, which may or may not be consistent with how other people run their games), and trying to force your own beliefs down our throats.:)[List of the original assumptions]QFT. And Nathreet...how do you counter the other, notably more extensive mathematics that's been brought up here in favor of Power Attack?
curtis_ownby 04-26-08, 12:54 AM	If you are playing a martial adept power attack is not all that good since you cannot use it with your strikes, so it will not be as useful as some other feats. Yes I know it still can be useful.
Mattybee 04-26-08, 01:04 AM	I think what he's really trying to say here is that "if your math is questionable, you probably shouldn't take Power Attack". :P I mean, I was never a fan of Power Attack when I was running core-only and, uh, didn't peruse these boards - but the math pretty clearly shows that it's an effective feat, especially when used properly (and by properly, I mean "with other feats").
runestar 04-26-08, 01:37 AM	If you are playing a martial adept power attack is not all that good since you cannot use it with your strikes, so it will not be as useful as some other feats. Yes I know it still can be useful. ??? Power attack can be used with strikes. Though I wouldn't really recommend it except on a few specific strikes. Many strikes are "all or nothing" in their nature in that you get nothing if you miss, so you want your strikes to hit as often as possible, which typically precludes power attack. There is just too much riding on that strike connecting to risk funneling any away to power attack.
Tordak 04-26-08, 12:07 PM	If you plan your move carefully, it can be extremely powerfull with strikes like Ruby blade Nightmare or Diamond blade Nightmare.
aelryinth 04-26-08, 12:48 PM	If you plan your move carefully, it can be extremely powerfull with strikes like Ruby blade Nightmare or Diamond blade Nightmare. Emerald Razor. Makes a swing a Touch Attack...perfect PA material. ===Aelryinth
navar100 04-26-08, 08:16 PM	Emerald Razor. Makes a swing a Touch Attack...perfect PA material. ===Aelryinth There are also strikes that give you bonuses to hit, such as Iron Heart's Steely Strike. You can spend the bonus on Power Attack.
Fenrir_Greyback 04-27-08, 03:35 PM	... Does not compute. Great cleave is a third party feat. It lets you take a five foot step after cleaving. I believe the requirements are, Power attack, cleave, BAB +12, Str 17.
ferreon 04-27-08, 04:30 PM	Great cleave is a third party feat. It lets you take a five foot step after cleaving. I believe the requirements are, Power attack, cleave, BAB +12, Str 17. Um, i was under the impression great cleave was a core feat that allowed multiple cleave attempts per round in fact look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#greatCleave) for the feat StruckingFuggle thought you mean which is fairly pointless, because the chances of getting to use it in most games is minimal, due to the fact if you get the opportunity, an AoE spell is probably more effective
aelryinth 04-27-08, 06:52 PM	Um, i was under the impression great cleave was a core feat that allowed multiple cleave attempts per round in fact look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#greatCleave) for the feat StruckingFuggle thought you mean which is fairly pointless, because the chances of getting to use it in most games is minimal, due to the fact if you get the opportunity, an AoE spell is probably more effective He's probably thinking of Supreme Cleave, which as a feat doesn't exist. It's a class ability of the Master Samurai, one of the Knight PrC's, and the Frenzied Berserker. And yes, it should be a feat. ===Aelryinth
Orenmir 04-27-08, 09:57 PM	I keep reading this thread, waiting for the OP to get a bunch of support, and turn this into a viable debate. There were a couple of posters who are on his side: one, might have been joking (rivaltuna); and one was only slightly supportive (curtis_ownby). But, there has been no-one to whole-heartedly support the OP. There has been many a post explaining where he went wrong. I think something else to consider is that Power Attack isn't an extremely useful feat because of the math. What makes PA an essential feat for meleers is that it can be used at will and in varying amounts. Once you determine what your opponents AC is (this can be done in as little as two attacks), you can use your intelligence, not math alone, to make an educated and odds-based calculation to determine how much, if any, Power Attack to use. The OP includes math that does not take into consideration that Power Attack can be tailor-fitted to either an educated assumption or logically deduced AC for your opponent. This is where the flaw lies with the OP's rationalization that PA is not a worthwhile feat. Nothing against you personally, Nathreet -- just a difference of perception.
Lotus Crane 04-27-08, 11:18 PM	Hmm, the logic of this thread's OP seems to be diametrically opposed to that of the "Hideous Blow vs Eldritch Glaive (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1023576)" thread's OP. My answer to both is essentially the same: no mechanic operates in a vacuum. In grossly simplified terms, if A+B=4, and A*B=C, wouldn't C be maximum (4) if A=2, B=2? If A=3, B=1, or if A=1, B=3, then C would only be 3, less than the maximum possible. But getting back to the point, Power Attack is mainstay of almost all two-handed weapon builds, and even if crazy math could somehow indicate that it's a poor choice, clinical evidence would vindicate it. That being said, really good math usually indicates that when used properly, PA can be worth it. Against opponents with ridiculously high AC, there's no reason not to full-PA and wait for a natural 20; you always have at least a 5% hit chance. Against opponents with really low AC, low to moderate amounts of PA can lead to higher total damage inflicted over the course of the entire battle, even if there were fewer successful hits. Power Attack, used in combo with certain feats and PrC's, starts yielding much higher (and sometimes hard to calculate with simple math) returns. It's also a prerequisite for a bunch of important feats and useful PrC's, so telling primary combatants that they shouldn't get it, is pretty much going to fall on deaf ears. Mmm, Shock Trooper.
Thespianus 05-08-08, 11:24 AM	I'm sorry if this has been done to death, but just to make sure that I have understood this thread properly. My girlfriend decided to play a Human Barbarian(Barbarianette, maybe, if female? ) and she rolled a Str 16-character. We're currently at Lvl 1, and she picked "Furious Charge" from Players Guide to Faerun(Gives +4 to hit on charge, instead of +2), and "Power Attack" for her starting feats. If I understand this thread correctly, a build for this character up to level 6 could look like this: (Pardon the sloppy formatting) Barbarian lvl 1 1 D12 Furious Charge, Power Attack Barbarian lvl 2 2 D12 Uncanny Dodge Fighter lvl 1 3 D10 Cleave, Improved Bull Rush Barbarian lvl 3 4 D12 Trap Sense +1 (Lvl4: +1 Str = Str 17) Barbarian lvl 4 5 D12 Leap Attack Fighter lvl 2 6/1 D10 Shock Trooper, Extra Rage This would give her, with her current Masterwork Greataxe, the ability to Rage and then charge with the following numbers: Bonuses: Str 17+4=21 -> Str Bonus: +5 Charge ToHit Bonus: +4 Masterwork GreatAxe: +1 Sum: +10 She can then trade up to 6 points of BAB to get 24 points extra damage from Leap Attack, and through Shock Trooper get a -6 to AC in addition to the -2 she gets from charging. So, the damage becomes: 1D12+7(Str Bonus x1.5)+24 = 1D12+31 points of damage? This is at +10 tohit bonus (maybe a bit low, but decent at lvl 6) And, if this mighty chop does the poor guy in, she can then attack the guy's brother (conveniently located in the square next to his brother) at the same attack and damage bonuses through the Cleave feat? :eek: That's..uhm..that's just scary... ;) If anyone of you spot an error, please let me know, I'm trying to learn these new (but FUN!) 3.5 rules (Things have indeed changed since the days of AD&D ;) ) EDIT: Also, what would the damage be for a 1D12+7(str bonus)+24 hit if the attack turned out to be a critical hit? Surely she can't be hitting that poor bastard for 3D12+31*3= 3D12+93 Hitpoints worth of damage?? Or how is the damage numbers added in for a PowerAttack-charge?
Eerongal 05-08-08, 11:37 AM	I'm sorry if this has been done to death, but just to make sure that I have understood this thread properly. My girlfriend decided to play a Human Barbarian(Barbarianette, maybe, if female? ) and she rolled a Str 16-character. We're currently at Lvl 1, and she picked "Furious Charge" from Players Guide to Faerun(Gives +4 to hit on charge, instead of +2), and "Power Attack" for her starting feats. If I understand this thread correctly, a build for this character up to level 6 could look like this: (Pardon the sloppy formatting) Barbarian lvl 1 1 D12 Furious Charge, Power Attack Barbarian lvl 2 2 D12 Uncanny Dodge Fighter lvl 1 3 D10 Cleave, Improved Bull Rush Barbarian lvl 3 4 D12 Trap Sense +1 (Lvl4: +1 Str = Str 17) Barbarian lvl 4 5 D12 Leap Attack Fighter lvl 2 6/1 D10 Shock Trooper, Extra Rage This would give her, with her current Masterwork Greataxe, the ability to Rage and then charge with the following numbers: Bonuses: Str 17+4=21 -> Str Bonus: +5 Charge ToHit Bonus: +4 Masterwork GreatAxe: +1 Sum: +10 She can then trade up to 6 points of BAB to get 24 points extra damage from Leap Attack, and through Shock Trooper get a -6 to AC in addition to the -2 she gets from charging. So, the damage becomes: 1D12+7(Str Bonus x1.5)+24 = 1D12+31 points of damage? This is at +10 tohit bonus (maybe a bit low, but decent at lvl 6) And, if this mighty chop does the poor guy in, she can then attack the guy's brother (conveniently located in the square next to his brother) at the same attack and damage bonuses through the Cleave feat? :eek: That's..uhm..that's just scary... ;) If anyone of you spot an error, please let me know, I'm trying to learn these new (but FUN!) 3.5 rules (Things have indeed changed since the days of AD&D ;) ) EDIT: Also, what would the damage be for a 1D12+7(str bonus)+24 hit if the attack turned out to be a critical hit? Surely she can't be hitting that poor bastard for 3D12+31*3= 3D12+93 Hitpoints worth of damage?? Or how is the damage numbers added in for a PowerAttack-charge? at a quick glance, it looks to me you got your numbers right. Also, in regards to the crit, yes, PA AND str would get multiplied on a crit.
Thespianus 05-08-08, 11:53 AM	at a quick glance, it looks to me you got your numbers right. Also, in regards to the crit, yes, PA AND str would get multiplied on a crit. Thanks. And here I am, trying to plan for the future to get my Rogue to deliver damage in the 30ies. I guess I'll have to settle for snide remarks and a fancy hat for my character instead of competing with that Barbarian freak. ;) When doing the numbers for various feat effects, I realize I have much to learn. Most posts here include builds with fantastic equipment that I haven't even heard of, but I think I can manage somewhat by just doing the stat'n'feat numbers like above (ok, I included a masterwork axe, I admit). My brain can't handle the added benefits from various magic-enhanced superduper equipment yet. ;)
mvincent 05-08-08, 12:06 PM	My girlfriend decided to play a Human Barbarian(Barbarianette, maybe, if female? )Correct. Barbie'rian or Barba'Rihanna are also acceptable.
aelryinth 05-08-08, 02:27 PM	Thanks. And here I am, trying to plan for the future to get my Rogue to deliver damage in the 30ies. I guess I'll have to settle for snide remarks and a fancy hat for my character instead of competing with that Barbarian freak. ;) When doing the numbers for various feat effects, I realize I have much to learn. Most posts here include builds with fantastic equipment that I haven't even heard of, but I think I can manage somewhat by just doing the stat'n'feat numbers like above (ok, I included a masterwork axe, I admit). My brain can't handle the added benefits from various magic-enhanced superduper equipment yet. ;) You have stumbled onto the core of the Uber Charger build...get them dead before they can attack, and it doesn't matter how crappy your AC is. Your DM, of course, should be noting how effective this is, and broadly apply the tactics that work againt it, specifically readying against a charge to take advantage of that crappy AC, taking AoO, and so forth. Yes, charging someone and getting a hit off can be quite lethal...any decent fighter should know how to defend against it. I notice on the charge and raging your gal's character is going to be like -12 to AC for a full round. If she doesn't kill everyone, she should get fricassed. ==Aelryinth
Thespianus 05-08-08, 02:42 PM	I notice on the charge and raging your gal's character is going to be like -12 to AC for a full round. If she doesn't kill everyone, she should get fricassed. I suppose that's what the extra few HP from the +4 boost to Con from the Rage is supposed to cover. ;) You're absolutely right that 1) Our DM would counter it with nastiness and 2) she would be (literally) chopped liver unless she killed everything that moves, but it IS a fairly interesting Magic User-Torpedo scenario. Throw in a feat that allows her to change direction while charging and that magic user never knew what hit him. But, yeah, I was merely looking at the problem from an engineering perspective, I've never understood how people on boards such as these get their crazy maxed out damage/round numbers, and I think I now start to get the hang of the rules involved. Meanwhile, my own poor Human Rogue is trying his best to make a difference (Stoopid TWF-feat at lvl1, and then "Cosmopolitan", because it suited the character soo well ;) ). He's no good with traps, nor with locks or very good at searching. He is good at theatrics, though, which will serve him good when he gets back to the village inn, where he can tell the tale of how brave and fierce we all were during our little first-level dungeon crawl ;)
Donai 05-08-08, 02:48 PM	Hmm, the cleave attack gets all the charging bonuses? I don't know if my DM would go that far; but it would be interesting to see if that's how it would work. Surely you wouldn't get a flanking bonus on a cleave hit if that foe is not flanked but the original was.. right?
Thespianus 05-08-08, 02:58 PM	Hmm, the cleave attack gets all the charging bonuses? I don't know if my DM would go that far; but it would be interesting to see if that's how it would work. Surely you wouldn't get a flanking bonus on a cleave hit if that foe is not flanked but the original was.. right? The Feat description says "...at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature", so I suppose it all depends on what the definition of "bonus" is. ;) In the description for Power Attack and Charge, they talk about "bonus", so it is at least the same word used. Whether this is overruled somewhere, either by the FAQ, an Errata or Rule 0, I can not say.
Johannixx 05-08-08, 10:40 PM	Actually, I think a character with Hold The Line, Improved Disarm and a ranseur would be a holy terror against a charge-monkey.
EjoThims 05-08-08, 10:57 PM	so I suppose it all depends on what the definition of "bonus" is. ;) You don't want to bring that into this thread... Trust me.
aelryinth 05-10-08, 01:14 PM	Hmm, the cleave attack gets all the charging bonuses? I don't know if my DM would go that far; but it would be interesting to see if that's how it would work. Surely you wouldn't get a flanking bonus on a cleave hit if that foe is not flanked but the original was.. right? The Charge bonus is situational, so probably not. So are Flanking bonuses. It's similar to the fact that True Strike only lasts for one blow, regardless of what cleave allows. Charge only works against one designated opponent you charge, AFAIK (SRD). Even with Pounce, the bonus doesn't apply to other targets. ===Aelryinth
Thespianus 05-10-08, 02:45 PM	Going back to the original topic: Power Attack As I was checking through the books, I ran into an interesting weapon called an Elven Court Blade. This is a two handed exotic weapon that is light enough to qualify for Weapon Finesse use. So, has anyone looked into creating a Dex-based charger? The Power Attack feat doesn't seem to care about what you base your to Hit-bonus on, it just requires you to have Str 13 or better, and the same goes with Shock Trooper, etc. So a nimble Elven fighter, with Str 13 and Dex 20, ought to be able to Charge with the best of the other Strength-crazy barbarians, right? Granted, there's a slight difference in the damage delivered, as the damage modifier is 1.5xStr-modifier, but all the other numbers work out the same. Has anyone tried this out? Spontaneously, it feels crazy to have a dex based charger, but it seems to be working out pretty well, as far as the numbers go, as far as I can tell. What other feats would such a character benefit from, after all the required feats (Exotic Wpn, PA, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, ec) had been taken? Here's a sample build to level 7, for a human (for the extra lvl 1 feat) Class Cl Lvl BAB HP Feats Swashbuckler lvl 1 1 D10 Weapon Finesse, Exotic Wpn(Elven Court Blade), Power Attack Fighter lvl 1 2 D10 Cleave Fighter lvl 2 3 D10 Improved Bull Rush, Daring Warrior Swashbuckler lvl 2 4 D10 - Grace+1 Swashbuckler lvl 3 5 D10 Insightful Strike Fighter lvl 3 6/1 D10 Shock Trooper Fighter lvl 4 7/2 D10 Leap Attack Any comments on this? EDIT: I see now that Swashbuckler gets Acrobatic Charge later on, so..well, I suppose I'm not exactly the first player who've looked at this possibility ;) Anyhow, it does seem like a fun and quite unusual use of Power Attack, no? EDIT2: I screwed up the feats and forgot Leap Attack the first time around
Johannixx 05-10-08, 08:59 PM	An even better option is to use an Elf, max out Strength, use your Fighter/Swashbuckler build but take EWP (Elven Thinblade) and a level of Exotic Weapon Master for Uncanny Blow. Then throw in two levels of Champion of Corellon Larethian for Elegant Strike. This build allows you to add Int, Dex and 2x Str to your damage with Thinblades. You're hurting a bit against anything immune to crits, since your Int/Dex damage bonuses are negated in that case, but you still get 2x Strength from Uncanny Blow.
tharivol266 05-10-08, 09:43 PM	Any comments on this? Only that cleave is a horrible feat. as to the OP I agree that PA is a bad feat. If you are poorly funded and working alone and cant think. Anyother situation and PA is great
Johannixx 05-10-08, 09:57 PM	Only that cleave is a horrible feat. How is Cleave a horrible feat? It's an extra attack at your full BAB. I would wager that there isn't a better feat for a 1st-level fighter.
runestar 05-10-08, 10:47 PM	How is Cleave a horrible feat? It's an extra attack at your full BAB. I would wager that there isn't a better feat for a 1st-level fighter. It is a very situational extra attack. You need to be the one to land the killing blow, and there has to be an enemy within reach for you to whack (so smart DMs will just spread out the kobold fighters so you don't threaten more than 1 at any 1 time). Too unreliable from my experience. Plus the feat scales very poorly, because foes will get disproportionately more hp as they lv. You will be lucky to benefit from it more than once in any fight.
tharivol266 05-10-08, 10:48 PM	cleave is a horrible feat for the fact that if you are in a situation where the enemies are a big enough threat that you would get a huge advantage from the cleave you are in a bad situation and if it is a situation where you will be able to kill them with one hit why does it matter if it takes a little longer. Thematically it is a cool feat and i believe there are some good things that have it as a prereq but power wise it shouldnt get priority
Thespianus 05-11-08, 01:32 AM	An even better option is to use an Elf, max out Strength, use your Fighter/Swashbuckler build but take EWP (Elven Thinblade) and a level of Exotic Weapon Master for Uncanny Blow. Then throw in two levels of Champion of Corellon Larethian for Elegant Strike. This build allows you to add Int, Dex and 2x Str to your damage with Thinblades. You're hurting a bit against anything immune to crits, since your Int/Dex damage bonuses are negated in that case, but you still get 2x Strength from Uncanny Blow. Ah, yes, Exotic Weapon Master and Champion of C.L seems to add to this build, indeed. I need to learn my PrCs better ;) However, I'm not sure why the Elven Thinblade is a better option than the two-handed Elven Courtblade? The gains from the PrCs work just as well for the Courtblade as it does for the Thinblade, and the Thinblade deals less damage? And, well, if I use the Courtblade, I don't seem to get any advantages from being a Exotic Weapon Master, so it's basically a wasted level, no? However, the Champion of CL gets some nice abilities to run around like crazy in heavy armor :) It looks like a fun PrC...if you're an Elf. ;) But I really need to read up on all those PrCs.. Too much text, too many books ;)
Thespianus 05-11-08, 01:51 AM	cleave is a horrible feat for the fact that if you are in a situation where the enemies are a big enough threat that you would get a huge advantage from the cleave you are in a bad situation and if it is a situation where you will be able to kill them with one hit why does it matter if it takes a little longer. You have a point, however, please bear with me: For a low level character, speed is fairly important, right? I mean, the option of "I might as well wait another round before I hack at the second guy" seems like a bad idea when the foe is dishing out extra damage at you. Ending the battles faster can't be a bad thing. Then, granted, Cleave might not be the fastest way to end a battle, but it's not really "horrible", is it? ( And "being in a bad situation" is what D'n'D adventuring is all about, isn't it? ;) ) Also, if I'm building a charger, he's very likely to end up in "bad situations" at times, especially after his charge. So with the Cleave-feat, he would be able to attack a group of two foes (Maybe a magic user first and then his "bodyguard") and dish out some proper damage to both of them. But I will acknowledge that my practical experience with the PnP 3.5 ed is limited, so I will easily bow to anyone who can tell me why I'm stupid and misinformed. ;) But, I digress. I could pull out the Cleave feat from the build, go with the Elf-PrC that Johannixx mentioned earlier, and get a nice little elven charger from the deal. Sweet :)
Johannixx 05-11-08, 09:17 AM	However, I'm not sure why the Elven Thinblade is a better option than the two-handed Elven Courtblade? The gains from the PrCs work just as well for the Courtblade as it does for the Thinblade, and the Thinblade deals less damage? And, well, if I use the Courtblade, I don't seem to get any advantages from being a Exotic Weapon Master, so it's basically a wasted level, no? The courtblade deals 1 point higher average damage. But if you have a Str of 16 or higher, Uncanny Blow will net you a larger damage bonus than that. Even if your Str is 12, it's an even trade in terms of damage, yet you retain the ability to fight one-handed if necessary (climbing, shield, casting, etc) by using a thinblade. Str 16, Dex 16, Int 16 + courtblade = 1d10 + 10 damage Str 16, Dex 16, Int 16 + thinblade w/ Uncanny Blow = 1d8 + 12 damage (when wielded two-handed) Str 20, Dex 16, Int 16 + courtblade = 1d10 + 13 damage Str 20, Dex 16, Int 16 + thinblade w/ Uncanny Blow = 1d8 + 16 damage (when wielded two-handed) The courtblade's only advantage is more hp to avoid being sundered.
Sunic_Flames 05-11-08, 09:31 AM	:rofl: Yeah, power attack really sucks balls if you ignore all situations where your chance of landing a strike don't decrease (would have to roll in the negative numbers to miss, or can only hit on a nat 20, or take the penalty to attack as a penalty elsewhere), ignore easy output multiplication methods, ignore small percentage gains as if they were no gain at all, and avoid doing the math entirely when you expect it won't come out in your favour. Shaggy wins the thread. :cookie: More ignorance spouted by the sword and board is awesome (if you nerf everything better, that is to say almost everything else into useless) club. Ya know, I was informed yesterday of a book from Goodman Games called 'The 3.5 Powergamer's Guide to Fighters' where they spout nonsense like sword and tower shield being uber, two handed fighting having 'few benefits' and so forth. To their credit, they got that toughness and improved break own treasure suck, but still. You could consider a career in spreading false information OPer.
Thespianus 05-11-08, 09:42 AM	The courtblade deals 1 point higher average damage. But if you have a Str of 16 or higher, Uncanny Blow will net you a larger damage bonus than that. Ah, I misread the Power Attack feat, and thought it only gave you 2:1 when wielding a two-handed weapon. I now see that it also gives 2:1 on a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, so I follow you now. The Elven Thinblande does indeed seem like a winner :) Sorry for flaunting my ignorance. ;)
Johannixx 05-11-08, 09:46 AM	Ah, I misread the Power Attack feat, and thought it only gave you 2:1 when wielding a two-handed weapon. I now see that it also gives 2:1 on a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, so I follow you now. The Elven Thinblande does indeed seem like a winner :) Sorry for flaunting my ignorance. ;) No worries. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. Picking the right feats and PrCs is the other :)
Sunic_Flames 05-11-08, 09:54 AM	Ok, so I read the rest of this. It confirms what I already strongly suspected. Nathreet has it in his head an extremely sub optimal combat style is in fact the best. This disconnect of logic is preserved by him believing anything stronger like for example, your typical two handed fighter with Power Attack is either too good and needs to be nerfed, doesn't understand why it is good, or is intentionally portraying it in the worst possible light to further his claims. In other words, this entire topic exists to further his delusion sword and board is the best thing a fighter can do.
Thespianus 05-11-08, 09:54 AM	No worries. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (...) Picking the right feats and PrCs is the other :) Avoiding rolling natural 1:s is the third half of the battle, then ;)
Thespianus 05-11-08, 10:01 AM	No worries. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. By the way, getting Oversized TWF, Telling Blow and Improved Critical (or Keen weapons) seems like a (literally) bleedin' excellent feat progression when combined with the 18-20/x2-critting Thinblades? ( I'm thinking at least 4 attacks in a full round with crits on 15-20, crits that include the Sneak Attack damage from the Rogue/Swashbuckler-combo feat Daring Outlaw. Granted that's a lot of feats, but...) With two thinblades like that, with the option of using the thinblade twohanded as you said.. well, it sounds like it gives a lot of versatility to the build, no? Or is the Oversized TWF just unnecessary flair?
Sunic_Flames 05-11-08, 11:39 AM	By the way, getting Oversized TWF, Telling Blow and Improved Critical (or Keen weapons) seems like a (literally) bleedin' excellent feat progression when combined with the 18-20/x2-critting Thinblades? ( I'm thinking at least 4 attacks in a full round with crits on 15-20, crits that include the Sneak Attack damage from the Rogue/Swashbuckler-combo feat Daring Outlaw. Granted that's a lot of feats, but...) With two thinblades like that, with the option of using the thinblade twohanded as you said.. well, it sounds like it gives a lot of versatility to the build, no? Or is the Oversized TWF just unnecessary flair? *facepaws* That build focuses on delivering sneak attacks and critical hits, yes? Therefore, what functional difference is there between an average 3.5 base weapon and an average 4.5 or 5.5 base weapon that warrants multiple feats? Same crit range, without tossing feats down the drain for weapons that being rarer and thus exotic will be harder to upgrade.
Thespianus 05-11-08, 12:50 PM	*facepaws* That build focuses on delivering sneak attacks and critical hits, yes? Weeelll, yeeess...but also no, not entirely. ;) That build kind of focused on various ways to use the Elven Lightblade, both in a TWF way and a two-handed power-attack way to get two-handed bonus with one weapon. The funkiness of the Elven Lightblade would then be that you would benefit from Weapon Finesse and Power Attack. Most Weapon Finesse weapons don't allow you to use them two handed (The rapier, for example, does not benefit from two-handed use, right?) However, the Lightblade does. So it's a kind of unique weapon in that way. So, the question really was that *If* I get the Elven Thinblade Exotic Weapon feat, would it be worth the cost of one feat (Oversized TWF) to be able to dual wield two of them? The same kind of goes with the Oversized TWF when using Rapiers in conjunction with Improved Critical (or Keen), although the rapier is a bit more limited than the Elven Thinblade. So, while you're free to *facepaw* at this reasoning, I think that you'll might find it a little more thought through than it may have seemed at first glance. Then again, I might be an idiot. ;) (I left my average damage calculation software at work, otherwise I would have done the math myself)
Sunic_Flames 05-11-08, 01:07 PM	Ok, no two handing a rapier. But then, the styles are anti synergestic. After all, if you're critting for around oh... we'll say 75 damage, power attacking for a 2:1 ratio is going to actually detract from your overall damage output unless you would either hit on a 2 anyways, or only hit on a 20 anyways. Oversized TWF is a newbie trap, right beside Monkey Grip.
Thespianus 05-11-08, 01:38 PM	Ok, no two handing a rapier. But then, the styles are anti synergestic. After all, if you're critting for around oh... we'll say 75 damage, power attacking for a 2:1 ratio is going to actually detract from your overall damage output unless you would either hit on a 2 anyways, or only hit on a 20 anyways. I freely admit to being a bit of a newbie, but I was thinking along the lines of using TWF-style for "static battle" and PA for charging. With Leap Attack, the Lightblade would give me a 3:1 payoff (I think) and with Telling Blow, I have fairly high chance of scoring a critical hit, which will throw in the Sneak Attack dice as well as the crit bonus. But, yeah, it's probably too feat costly to be a viable option. I'm just playing with the feats, trying to come up with something fun and unusual here. ;) Thanks for your patience.
Sunic_Flames 05-11-08, 01:43 PM	4:1 actually. Except you either significantly lower your chance to hit, or significantly lower your AC (with Shock Trooper). Chargers don't need to rely on criticals, likewise those who auto SA on criticals don't need to rely on charge mechanics.
Thespianus 05-11-08, 02:02 PM	4:1 actually. Except you either significantly lower your chance to hit, or significantly lower your AC (with Shock Trooper). Chargers don't need to rely on criticals, likewise those who auto SA on criticals don't need to rely on charge mechanics. I believe it is 3:1, since the Leap Attack "doubles the damage" for normal weapons and "triples" the damage for Two Handed Weapons. A one handed weapon wielded in two hands is still not a two handed weapon, right? And, since doubling and tripling the damage works on the original value, by the logic of WotC, a double double damage results in 3:1 (page 304, PHB). What I wanted to toss up in the air was a versatile melee combatant, and with these feats (granted, they are MANY) the character gets pretty darn versatile. ;)
Sunic_Flames 05-11-08, 02:09 PM	Leap attack was errataed to be +100%. That makes it 4:1 on a two handed weapon. And that isn't really versatile. Hit the thing with the other thing. Hit the thing with two weaker things. Hmmm...
Thespianus 05-11-08, 02:40 PM	Leap attack was errataed to be +100%. That makes it 4:1 on a two handed weapon. Yes, +100% on a two handed weapon, which is not the same as a one handed weapon wielded in two hands, right? But, ok, I'll try too google up the errata. Thanks for the tip. And that isn't really versatile. Hit the thing with the other thing. Hit the thing with two weaker things. Hmmm... ;) Aww, come ooon, it's not that bad. ;) Well: - Effective when climbing (as opposed to THW-fighters) - Effective when charging(as opposed to normal light-weapon TWF)-fighters - Effective when TWF:ing(the meat and potato of the fights, I guess) - Effective when you're only allowed one attack - Effective when sneak attacking (got SA dice) - Effective when flanking, - (fairly) effective when throwing weapons (with a dex build, TWF and telling blow för possible crit damage). I put together this, a Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 5/Fighter 6 build (to level 15, where I couldn't come up with the next feat to pick) Class BAB HP Feats Special Rogue 0 D6 TWF, Telling Blow sneak Attack 1D6 Swashbuckler 1 D10 Weapon Finesse Fighter 2 D10 Oversized TWF, Exotic Weapon Fighter 3 D10 Power Attack Swashbuckler 4 D10 - Grace +1 Rogue 5 D6 Evasion, Leap Attack Fighter 6/1 D10 Swashbuckler 7/2 D10 Insightful Strike Rogue 8/3 D6 Daring Outlaw Sneak Attack 3D6, Dodge bonus+1 Fighter 9/4 D10 Improved TWF Fighter 10/5 D10 - Fighter 11/6/1 D10 Shock Trooper, Greater TWF Swashbuckler 12/7/2 D10 - Sneak Attack 4D6 Rogue 13/8/2 D6 Uncanny Dodge Swashbuckler 14/9/3 D10 MISSING FEAT Sneak Attack 5D6 That's to level 15, which gives the character all 5 levels of gaining more versatailiness. ;) For example, the last level of Rogue can get the UMD-score up to 17, without any ability modifier or external bonuses. That's decent for versatiliness, isn't it? You also have great tumbling skillz, trap sense, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge. Can't be all bad? :) Or we can just drop this, I'm probably trying your patience.
Johannixx 05-11-08, 04:05 PM	I'd drop Oversize TWF and EWP: Thinblade and just take Improved Weapon Familiarity from CW. It lets you treat all of your racial weapons as Martial instead of Exotic, so you could TWF with a Thinblade in your primary hand and a Lightblade in your offhand, then drop the Lightblade to THF with the Thinblade as necessary. Also, you need Improved Bull Rush as a pre-req for Shock Trooper, FYI At this point, I honestly don't know if it's better to TWF with Daring Outlaw and your SA bonus dice, or to THF with Uncanny Blow for better Str damage and play as a charge-monkey. Either way, a level or two of Warblade can net you the Pouncing Charge and Sudden Leap maneuvers as well as the Leaping Dragon stance (you'll have to take a crappy Tiger Claw maneuver as well to meet pre-reqs) for incredible evilness. Leap Attack for extra power attack bonus, plus Shock Trooper, plus a full attack with a pair of high-crit weapons with bonus SA dice? Yes, please. You won't get the sheer minimum damage that a THF would achieve via Power Attack, but you can always use the Thinblade in two hands if you need to punch DR through sheer damage.
Thespianus 05-11-08, 04:40 PM	I'd drop Oversize TWF and EWP: Thinblade and just take Improved Weapon Familiarity from CW. It lets you treat all of your racial weapons as Martial instead of Exotic, so you could TWF with a Thinblade in your primary hand and a Lightblade in your offhand, then drop the Lightblade to THF with the Thinblade as necessary. The build was for a Human, so my racial weapons are boring ;) But you have a valid point. Also, you need Improved Bull Rush as a pre-req for Shock Trooper, FYI Darnit, I looked it over twice. I KNEW I would miss something. ;) And, yeah, I know about IBR.. It just slipped my mind.. :( Leap Attack for extra power attack bonus, plus Shock Trooper, plus a full attack with a pair of high-crit weapons with bonus SA dice? Yes, please. That's what I was looking for , but I couldn't reach that point with my build... Ah, I need to borrow that book, I assume it is from Tome of Battle. Everyone's talking about that book on here, and.. well, I know nothing about it. But thanks! :) Ok, I'm done ranting about this now. Thanks a lot!:)
Johannixx 05-11-08, 08:09 PM	Here's a build I just worked out: CharLvl Class/Level: Feat: Special Ability: 1 Rogue 1 Power Attack, SA +1d6, Trapfinding Improved Bull Rush 2 Fighter 1 EWB(Thinblade) Bonus Feat 3 Swashbuckler 1 WF(Thinblade) Weapon Finesse 4 Rogue 2 - Evasion 5 Swashbuckler 2 - Grace +1 6 Rogue 3 Daring Outlaw SA +3d6, Uncanny Dodge 7 Fighter 2 Leap Attack Bonus Feat 8 Exotic Weapon Master 1 - Uncanny Blow 9 Warblade 1 Shock Trooper Weapon Aptitude, Battle Clarity (Ref) Maneuvers: Claw at the Moon, Sudden Leap, Leaping Dragon Stance, One open; 10 Warblade 2 - Improved Uncanny Dodge Maneuvers: Moment of Perfect Mind; 11 Swashbuckler 3 - Insightful Strike 12 Fighter 3 Combat Expertise - 13 Warblade 3 - Battle Ardor (Critical Confirmation) Maneuvers: One open; 14 Warblade 4 - - Maneuvers: Swap lower-level maneuver for Pouncing Charge 15 Rogue 4 Deadly Defense SA +4d6 16 Fighter 4 Weapon Spec (Thinblade) Bonus Feat . It's far from optimized, but it allows you to make a full attack at the end of a charge, with +5d6 damage against flanked or flatfooted foes (+1d6 against anyone else), with an effective BAB of +13 @ 16th level (including two points of Combat Expertise to trigger Deadly Defense). Also, Moment of Perfect Mind is necessary to counteract the crappy base Will save.
runestar 05-11-08, 10:28 PM	Weapon spec is a very weak feat. I wouldn't recommend it unless you plan on taking melee weapon mastery, and even then, there are easily better alternatives you could spend 3 feats on. Uncanny blow seems suspect. With it, you will want a high str score, yet you are wielding a finessable weapon (which implies high dex). Looks like MAD there. A straight rogue4/swashbuckler16 with daring outlaw is probably still the best bet. Simple and elegant in its design.
Johannixx 05-11-08, 10:37 PM	Dex is irrelevant here. Yes, the weapon is finessable, but that's only so it can benefit from Insightful Strike and Deadly Defense. And yes, at that level Weapon Spec is probably not ideal. Like I said, it's not a truly optimized progression. But it's the feat I found at the time. Now I'm interested in tweaking this build properly. I guess I'll take it over to the CharOp boards.
Thespianus 05-12-08, 04:06 AM	Relating to my first post in this thread... After glancing through Complete Champion, I find that the Barbarian has an Alternate Class Feature (Spiritual Totem) that sacrifices the Fast Movement class feature with a spiritual totem. The Lion Totem gives the Pounce ability, which would allow my earlier Barbarian/Fighter build to dish out a full attack at the end of a Leap Attacked Shock Trooper charge. At level 6! Barbarian lvl 1 1 D12 Furious Charge, Power Attack *Lion Spiritual Totem* Barbarian lvl 2 2 D12 Uncanny Dodge Fighter lvl 1 3 D10 Cleave, Improved Bull Rush Barbarian lvl 3 4 D12 Trap Sense +1 (Lvl4: +1 Str = Str 17) Barbarian lvl 4 5 D12 Leap Attack Fighter lvl 2 6/1 D10 Shock Trooper, Extra Rage Granted, that is at the cost of the Fast Movement feature, so it might be bad for a charger build, but.. well..damn. For a low level killbot, that's got to be pretty impressive?
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-12-08, 06:48 AM	Well as Caelic once said, Fast movement is nifty like finding a dollar on the ground. Pounce at first level is nifty like beating up the guy who found the dollar and taking that and all his other money.
Thespianus 05-12-08, 06:49 AM	I'll take the second kind of "nifty", then. ;)
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-12-08, 06:53 AM	Good call. Though I have found that having a goblin barbarian who at 1st level and with sufficient luck can jump 10x his height in distance is pretty funny.
Thespianus 05-12-08, 07:09 AM	Good call. Though I have found that having a goblin barbarian who at 1st level and with sufficient luck can jump 10x his height in distance is pretty funny. While I grant you that the leaping goblin is funny, I doubt it's an ability that will impress anyone outside of the Faerun Olympic Committee. Then again, if you give the goblin Stone Skin and put an enraged half-orc barbarian with a baseball bat at the end of the goblin's trajectory, I think we've just invented a new kind of sport. :D
Sunic_Flames 05-12-08, 10:06 AM	Well as Caelic once said, Fast movement is nifty like finding a dollar on the ground. Pounce at first level is nifty like beating up the guy who found the dollar and taking that and all his other money. Then consider Caelic the winner of the thread.
Suspect_Unusual 05-12-08, 06:02 PM	Leap attack was errataed to be +100%. That makes it 4:1 on a two handed weapon. And that isn't really versatile. Hit the thing with the other thing. Hit the thing with two weaker things. Hmmm... Actually, the errata for Leap Attack only affects power-attacking with a weapon in one hand. The third sentence, dealing with the effects of Leap Attacking with a weapon wielded in two hands, is completely untouched. One is left with three possible (though not all true, even by a strict RAW reading): 1. A 3:1 ratio, assuming the "tripling" wording is directed at the normal 1:1 ratio power attack enjoys. 2. A 4:1 ratio, assuming that we use standard D&D multiplication rules that states a x3 on a x2 = x4 and that the "normal" power attack that is being tripled is the 2:1 ratio. 3. A 6:1 ratio, assuming that, for whatever reason, the standard rules don't apply to this case AND the "tripling" is of the 2:1 ratio. Damned if I know which one is correct, but the 3:1 ratio always struck me as more likely. I'm not saying it couldn't be 4:1, but instead that the errata doesn't change the likelihood of either ratio being correct since the errata doesn't touch the "wielded in two hands" sentence of the feat. This break from the topic at hand brought to you by NITPICKER INC. :D
navar100 05-12-08, 07:44 PM	Here's a build I just worked out: 1 Rogue 1 Power Attack, Hmm. A rogue could take Power Attack at level 1 since the prerequisite is only ST 13, but he couldn't use it since his BAB is +0 and you can't subtract more than your BAB for Power Attack. Odd that.
navar100 05-12-08, 07:48 PM	Relating to my first post in this thread... After glancing through Complete Champion, I find that the Barbarian has an Alternate Class Feature (Spiritual Totem) that sacrifices the Fast Movement class feature with a spiritual totem. The Lion Totem gives the Pounce ability, which would allow my earlier Barbarian/Fighter build to dish out a full attack at the end of a Leap Attacked Shock Trooper charge. At level 6! Awwww, the newbie found the awesome barbarian trick. He's an Optimizer now! What a proud moment this is. :D
Sunic_Flames 05-12-08, 07:59 PM	Awwww, the newbie found the awesome barbarian trick. He's an Optimizer now! What a proud moment this is. :D They grow up so fast! *sniff* :rofl:
Johannixx 05-12-08, 10:43 PM	Hmm. A rogue could take Power Attack at level 1 since the prerequisite is only ST 13, but he couldn't use it since his BAB is +0 and you can't subtract more than your BAB for Power Attack. Odd that. Yeah, that struck me as well, but it was the only way to get the pre-reqs for Leap Attack and Shock Trooper at minimum levels. It's not like a level 1 Rogue should be meleeing anything anyway.
Thespianus 05-13-08, 01:13 AM	Awwww, the newbie found the awesome barbarian trick. He's an Optimizer now! What a proud moment this is. :D :D I suppose it's silly of me, but I just can't resist the "technical" challenge of adding as many rules together as I can to create something crazy. It's like a puzzle or a sudoku-challenge. I'm drawn to it like flies to.. uhm.. you know. My only excuse is that I don't play the way I come off here. I'm not really a min/maxer, I just play one on TV. ;)
Johannixx 05-13-08, 10:33 AM	My min-maxing has two limits: my desire to write a plausible backstory for such a character, and the DM's ruthlessness (because no matter how much you min/max, the DM will always win if he wants to). The first one stops me more often than the second, because some characters are just too unlikely for good taste, but the second one always wins in the end ;)
Sunic_Flames 05-13-08, 10:58 AM	Ya know, the original poster has been awfully quiet... :P
RobbyPants 05-13-08, 11:20 AM	Ya know, the original poster has been awfully quiet... :P Yeah, he seemed to stop after his initial argument got completely smashed by half a dozen posters.
qwerty1 05-13-08, 11:47 AM	For those who care for math: EAC = 13+LVL of Player or HD of Creature LVL = Hit Dice of Player or HD of Creature ATK = Total Attack bonus (Str, Weapon Enhancement, BAB, Etc...) PATK 50% Chance to Hit EAC = ATK - LVL - 3 I am unfortunately away from my home where my notes are but this is what I have done. Example 1. LVL = 20, EAC = 33, ATK = 20 (Str = 10) PATK = -3 (Needs More ATK bonus); Can hit AC 33 only 35% time Example 2. LVL = 20, EAC = 33, ATK = 25 (Str = 20) PATK = 2; Can hit AC 33 exactly 50% of the time by using this PATK. NOTE: will check my notes at home and will correct maths.
Sunic_Flames 05-14-08, 08:27 AM	Yeah, he seemed to stop after his initial argument got completely smashed by half a dozen posters. Now to give the same treatment to the rest of that crowd. :evillaugh
Someone 05-14-08, 01:17 PM	Now to give the same treatment to the rest of that crowd. :evillaughSounds like a pyramid scheme to me- get six posters to debunk an initial argument, then get six more posters to debunk the debunking arguments of the first six, etc., etc..
Sunic_Flames 05-14-08, 03:01 PM	Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me- get six posters to debunk an initial argument, then get six more posters to debunk the debunking arguments of the first six, etc., etc.. Nah, you missed the reference. There's a whole minority crowd going around arguing that sword and board is the best combat style. But their argument essentially involves nerfing anything better than it so it is in fact best, (nevermind this proves it isn't) ignoring any factors that disprove their argument so that their case is being presented in circumstances most favorable to them and/or least favorable to everyone else, and attempt to heavily devalue the reasons why the other styles are in fact better. This thread for example attempts to heavily underestimate Power Attack - the center point of two handers, which are superior in every way to both sword and board and TWF. Though the latter does still have valid but situational uses on SA and skirmish builds. In 'proving' it is useless, they have more ammo to support their false claims. Other common options this team has employed include but are not limited to committing the Arena Fallacy even when it is clear PvP is not being discussed and running their opponents around in a big circle until they get dizzy, then declare 'moving the goal posts' or some other false claim. This one wasn't done well, so it got shot down easily. The others are a bit better at debate so they aren't as transparent.
Nathreet 05-14-08, 03:02 PM	Hey got tired of talking to pre-recorded messages, but thought I'd check back since this thread was supposed to be dead. Or so one of them said, and it was dead for a while. All main arguments still stand, as only random opinons not evidence was ever provided against them. Thus no further responses were given. Please direct further questions to Mr. Basic Logic. Mr. Math might be around to assist, but don't count on it. I dunno, try wikipedia. Anywayz seems like there's nothing new going on, so I'm out again. Laterz. Glad to know people are chit-chatting at least, that's a better way to use the internet.
LordTarmos 05-14-08, 03:26 PM	Hey got tired of talking to pre-recorded messages, but thought I'd check back since this thread was supposed to be dead. Or so one of them said, and it was dead for a while. All main arguments still stand, as only random opinons not evidence was ever provided against them. Thus no further responses were given. Please direct further questions to Mr. Basic Logic. Mr. Math might be around to assist, but don't count on it. I dunno, try wikipedia. Anywayz seems like there's nothing new going on, so I'm out again. Laterz. Glad to know people are chit-chatting at least, that's a better way to use the internet. Actually from what I have seen people have put in excellent and well formatted arguments to suggest that Power Attack is indeed a good feat. They have unquestioningly provevn that while pwer attack by itself is about equal to without it does add serious power in conjunction with many other feats but insted of accepting there proof. You just push it off as being munchkin or broken when an experienced player realizes that the power of most feats is found in joining together many feats I mean yes at level 1 power attac is a big help but at level 20 you have between 5 and 20 other feats that could(and if it is a well set up character will emphasize the characters abilities and other feats and thus makes power attack for some builds a powerful and wise decission for an early feat. Open your eyes you seem to be the only one to not notice it. If you had ne other person agreeing with you in this post you may have some arguement but your (supposed math abilities{hahaha} are laughable at best and forget to include all the varibles made in good dnd character creation. sorry. show me 1 post not yours in this group that supports your theory.
Awesome_Dude 05-14-08, 03:31 PM	Hey got tired of talking to pre-recorded messages, but thought I'd check back since this thread was supposed to be dead. Or so one of them said, and it was dead for a while. All main arguments still stand, as only random opinons not evidence was ever provided against them. Thus no further responses were given. Please direct further questions to Mr. Basic Logic. Mr. Math might be around to assist, but don't count on it. I dunno, try wikipedia. Anywayz seems like there's nothing new going on, so I'm out again. Laterz. Glad to know people are chit-chatting at least, that's a better way to use the internet. I personally don't like denial, but whatever works for you is fine. Remember, though, that if you don't want a reality check, you have to shut the **** up.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-14-08, 03:36 PM	Hey, it's the same as folks that insist that given the same amount of optimization and player skill, the same freedom to utilize their own resources, and the same kinds of challenges in the same kinds of environments, melee units keep up with full casters. All they can do is make their statements, ignore all contradictory evidence, keep checking in to make a snarky post once in awhile, and wait till the people that know what they're talking about get tired of refuting a wall and move on to do something more productive. Then the OP and friends swoop back in to get the last word, claim victory and credit for correctness, and move on to start more stupid threads, or pollute other threads with their garbage.
LordTarmos 05-14-08, 03:41 PM	Hey got tired of talking to pre-recorded messages, but thought I'd check back since this thread was supposed to be dead. Or so one of them said, and it was dead for a while. All main arguments still stand, as only random opinons not evidence was ever provided against them. Thus no further responses were given. Please direct further questions to Mr. Basic Logic. Mr. Math might be around to assist, but don't count on it. I dunno, try wikipedia. Anywayz seems like there's nothing new going on, so I'm out again. Laterz. Glad to know people are chit-chatting at least, that's a better way to use the internet. Actually from what I have seen people have put in excellent and well formatted arguments and proof to those arguments to suggest that Power Attack is indeed a good feat. They have unquestioningly proven that while pwer attack by itself is about equal to without it does add serious power in conjunction with many other feats. Insted of accepting there proof, You just push it off as being munchkin or broken when an experienced player realizes that the power of most feats is found in joining together feats with class abilities and spells they relize the validity and necessity of having power attack for some builds. I mean yes at level 1 power attack is not a big help but at level 20 you have between 5 and 20 other feats that could(and if it is a well set up character will emphasize the characters abilities and other feats) make power attack for some builds a powerful and wise decission for an early feat. Open your eyes, you seem to be the only one to not notice it. If you had any other person agreeing with you in this post you may have some arguement but your (supposed math abilities{hahaha}) are laughable at best. You are talking about a feat by itself but if you put it in conjunction with other class abilities and other feats its true worth shines brightly through the cloud of your closed eyes. In Your analisis you forgot or neglected (your choice) to include all the varibles made in good dnd character creation. manyclass abilities and feats as much as double (and sometimes more)the power of power attack. My challenge redo your same previous formula at level 20 using a Frenzied Berserker with pounce and shock trooper with improved critical great sword and power attack (power attack for 5, then 8, then 10)(include critical damages) then redo the same build average damages (including criticals) without power attack and show me what build does the best damage for Ac 35, 40, 45, and 50 I guaratee you it will not be without power attack.then yo will have the proof you need. sorry. Also show me 1 post not yours in this group that supports your theory. Until you have proved this you sir have lost this battle
RobbyPants 05-14-08, 03:43 PM	Hey got tired of talking to pre-recorded messages, but thought I'd check back since this thread was supposed to be dead. Or so one of them said, and it was dead for a while. All main arguments still stand, as only random opinons not evidence was ever provided against them. Thus no further responses were given. Please direct further questions to Mr. Basic Logic. Mr. Math might be around to assist, but don't count on it. I dunno, try wikipedia. Anywayz seems like there's nothing new going on, so I'm out again. Laterz. What about Shock Trooper? How much more math or logic do you need? You maintain your same bonus to hit, and add to your damage (at the expense of AC). Your average damage per swing increases drastically. I already posted the math a few pages back.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-14-08, 03:50 PM	Shock Trooper + Robilar's Gambit = Fun for the whole family and anyone else within reach. :D Especially if you can get hold of a wrathful healing weapon.
RobbyPants 05-14-08, 04:11 PM	Please direct further questions to Mr. Basic Logic. Mr. Math might be around to assist, but don't count on it. Here are some previous posts with math, conviniently consolidated for you. Again, what if you use Shock Trooper and Leap Attack? If you're using Power Attack with any frequency, it seems reasonable to have these feats. Mid-Levels and Later: Level 11/12. Greater rage/greater weapon spec and at least a +2 equiv magic weapon (if not more). Level 4/8 strength boost, guantlest of strength. 15+3(str)+2(GWS/more-rage)+1+1d6 (weapon) ~=24 damage. 3 attacks, not counting haste. Power attacking on a full attack is out of the question. Don't make me do the math. That's just too stupid to contemplate, and would only show that you have issues. The str/feat/weapon AB bonuses add to ~8-9, plus your BAB for ~20. CR 10ish-12ish baddies are around AC 25, so you hit 80% of the time. 0.8*24=19.2 avg. PA +1 for 0.75*26=19.5 avg (0.5% gained). +2 for 0.7*28=19.6 avg. Yeup, power attack just became useless. And it's all downhill from here. Now, you can Power Attack for 20, and get +80 damage, and still have that same 80% chance to hit. So the normal attack of (0.8*24=19.2 avg) becomes (0.8*104=83.2 avg). Even without Leap Attack, you're looking at (0.8*64=51.2 avg). Hm, so if I can hit on a 2, I'm a munchkin, am I? Ok, core only, level 17. Half-Orc Barbarian 17. Starting stats: Str 17, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 6 (poor guy, no wonder he has so much anger, can't get a date on Saturday night). 4 stat bonuses at by level 16, let's say he uses two on Str and two on Con (most Barbarians would go all Strength, I think, but you never know.) Ok, Str 19, Con 16. We'll say he has a +3 Greataxe and a Girdle of Giant Strength +4. With 5 uses of Rage each day, he will Rage in every encounter, giving him +6 Str/Con. So even if he doesn't have a Con-boosting item, that means he can rage for 9 rounds with the 22 Con his Rage gives him. We'll round off his odd-numbered Str with a Tome for a +1 inherent bonus. Ok, so, BAB +17, +3 enhancement to hit, and 30 Str in Rage for +10 to hit. That's a +30 attack bonus. Let's go find a CR 17, shall we? Oh look, it's the Marilith! http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#marilith Wow. I must be an uber-munchkin. I don't hit the Marilith's AC 29 on a 2....I actually hit it on a -1! Well except you can't hit on a 1, of course, so I can easily afford to reduce my attack bonus to +28, gaining me 4 more damage with Power Attack. I could probably go further, but you know, there are those pesky iterative attacks. Let's examine those, shall we? Base: +30/+25/+20/+15. Vs. AC 29, what is needed to hit would be a 2, 4, 9, and 14, respectively. Since the game uses a d20, you can say this is a 95%/85%/60%/35% chance to hit with each attack. Sure, you could say taking a -2 to hit would result in: 95%/75%/50%/25% to hit with each attack, but assuming 100 full attacks, you'd see the following: Weapon damage: 2d6+18. Average damage: 25. Without Power Attack: 68.75 average damage per full attack (I simply multiplied the 40 average damage by the to-hit percentage, so for example, 35% of the fourth iterative attacks are hits, adding 8.75 damage on average over the course of 100 swings). Ok, now with the -2 of Power Attack, increasing the average weapon damage per swing to 29. Over 100 hits, average damage against AC 29 is 71.05. This is a FAR from optimized character. By 17th-level, my sample Barbarian is likely under-equipped. I've only assumed one Feat (Power Attack). I haven't even given him Weapon Focus or any other Feat that would increase his ability to Power Attack! Nor have I taken into account the Enlarge Person effect he'd likely have available to fight a creature like the Marilith (which has reach and Improved Grab). In truth, I think he'd be crazy to full attack the Marilith, given the TEN attacks she can make on a full attack. This means that A: non "Munchkin" characters can have very high chances to hit their opponents. B: AC does not necessarily scale at the same rate attack bonus does. C: Full Attacks are not necessarily the most effective method of damage delivery against all opponents. Which brings us to the conclusion that Power Attack DOES increase your average damage output when used. A humble -2 to hit in my above example increased damage output by over 2%. That may not seem like a lot, but it WAS an increase, and it was gained with a character that is definitely NOT a "munchkin". Further, as CR's rise, Full Attack becomes a less viable option because enemies often inflict MUCH higher damage on a full attack than you do. In the Marilith encounter, her single attack is 2d6+9 (or alternatively, 4d6+9 with her tail slap, but at a lower attack bonus). Our Barbarian's single attack is 2d6+18, and he could easily afford a -2 to hit to bring that to 2d6+22 and have only a 5% chance to miss! It should further be noted that the Marilith's best chance to hit is +25. If our Barbarian had some method of avoiding a Full Attack and could trade one attack each round with the Marilith (say via Spring Attack), he'd easily win the encounter, as he can afford to use Power Attack liberally. Now it's true, there are other CR 17's who have higher AC and attack bonuses, such as a Very Old White Dragon. However, the Dragon doesn't get 10 attacks per melee either. Which proves you cannot calculate the benefit of Power Attack in a vacuum. Each fight is different, and requires different tactics. Just saying "mathematically speaking, using Power Attack is never good compared to an unmodified full attack" is using faulty logic, because you cannot take into account the attack bonus, AC, damage, or number of attacks a given character or monster can make. Nor can you take into account modifiers such as enemies being prone, flanking, aid another, buff spells from other party members, charging, touch attacks from Brilliant Energy weapons, or what have you. There are times when you shouldn't Power Attack. There are times when you should. And each such instance is a case-by-case scenario, you cannot simply say "math proves it's never good to Power Attack" because that's simply NOT TRUE. If I'm facing an enemy with a high AC that I can't risk Power Attacking, but then my Wizard debuffs said enemy, reducing their AC (which even the humble Grease spell can do, by denying Dex bonuses to AC -read Balance before you say Grease doesn't do that-), guess what? The situation has changed, and Power Attack can now be viable. While you're at it, mess around with this Power Attack Calculator (http://direpress.bin.sh/tools/power.html). You can take some pretty big hits to your attack mod at high levels against some good ACs and still get better average damage. This doesn't even take things like Leap Attack and Shock Trooper into account. There's some more math.
aelryinth 05-14-08, 09:40 PM	Tsunic's attempt to pass off his erroneous opinion as absolutist fact aside, the viability of Power Attack has long been proven to stand on its own merits, let alone what it can do with the combination of the correct feats. If the OP chooses not to see that, and ignores the math arguments that were set down literally years ago (Op board rulez!), that's his own blindness. Being SAB or THW or TWF has nothing to do with it. ===Aelryinth
Metafictional 05-15-08, 04:19 AM	Well, I probably shouldn't weigh in on the sword and board issue in this thread, but what the heck, I'm here, you're here, we're all here... Just looking at the PHB, I can snag a +5 tower shield. By taking a -2 penalty to all my attacks, I can increase my AC by 9. Additionally, a shield can hold other kinds of enchantments, but so can off-hand weapons, so let's move on. If I really wanted to, I could take another -5 to hit with Combat Expertise for another +5 AC. I could also fight defensively, which, with 5 ranks of Tumble, easily hit +4 AC for another -4 to hit, and this is still core. So, I could reduce my attack bonus by 11 to get +18 AC. This isn't bad at all. Sure, there's times I wouldn't take a -11 to hit, but the same principles involved in Power Attack apply. There's lots of times you can afford to take an attack penalty. We're all well aware that Power Attack isn't the Feat of choice for one-handed weapons. To use it effectively, you generally have to use a two-hander. The optimal core rate of exchange is -1 for +2 damage. That's not bad, and it's enough to be worth it. But there are better possibilities as well, such as -1 for +3 damage, and even -1 for +4 damage is out there, but let's look at -1 for +3. So Shield Fighter can take a -11 to hit for +18 AC. He could also take Improved Combat Expertise if he really felt like it, and at 20th-level do something crazy like -26 to hit for +33 AC. Two Handed Fighter at level 20, we'll say, takes a -20 to hit for +60 damage. If the two opponents clash, well, there's really not much hitting going on. In most games, I'd bet that the Shield Fighter would get more licks in. However, the question becomes whether or not those hits will be better than Mr. Zweihander's awesome damage when he finally does hit. I won't go into math, because, well, it's almost 3 am. What I will say, however, is that sword and board isn't as bad as most people think. Certainly, the massive AC will actually let a melee character stand up to the abuse of most monster full attacks, and it neatly counters power attack (you take a penalty to hit to do more damage, I take a penalty to hit to up my AC). And it's not like one handed damage is really super bad...one could create a flaming, shocking, acidic, vicious, merciful, icy +4 long sword that does 2d8+6d6+strength+4 per hit. Less damage, yes, but let's be reasonable...that's probably more than enough damage, especially since you have more time, thanks to your higher AC, to inflict it. Charger builds tend to deliver insane amounts of damage, but they typically then suffer if anything is left around to return the favor. But hey, if you can decide the battle in a few hits, does that matter? It's a difference in philosophy, really. Offensive warriors reward luck more, and they shorten encounters, so the enemy has less chances to do..well..anything. Defensive warriors don't need luck as much, they can generally survive long enough to diminish the curve. In my opinion, the problems with sword-and-board fighting have less to do with it being "sub-optimal", than the following: 1) harder to optimize at low levels compared to two-handed fighting. 2) higher cost at higher levels, comparable to TWF.* 3) AC is a passive ability. It only comes into play when you can get an enemy to attack you. This is very important, because at higher levels of play, the melee warriors are generally NOT the most dangerous opponent in a party! 4) beating stuff up is an active ability. All that you need is the ability to attack an enemy. 5) shorter combats. I've run and played in quite a few 3.x campaigns, and I've noticed a trend. Combats are short, and they get shorter as the characters get stronger. A defensive build is favored by long, drawn-out battles. This is where they truly shine. But if a few spells from CoDzilla and God/Batman can end fights in a few rounds, it's harder for a defensive build to do much other than sandwich themselves between enemies and the casters and dish out a few points of damage. It is in this scenario that the offensive warrior at least gets to throw around some bone-crushing mega-damage hits and feel like he's doing something. I also have to point out, at higher levels, those casters have less need of a tank to stand in their way. Their defensive spells reach unreal proportions, and I've seen Druid builds that have AC's in the 40+ range, retain casting powers, and have a pet T-Rex to tank for them if needed. As a disclaimer, not every game runs this way. I'm currently playing in one now where I'm the MVP as a Fighter/Rogue, of all things, and our casters think damage spells are amazing. But that's simply a matter of relative experience. People who have played the game for awhile often come to the realization that they can break out of their iconic roles, with some effort, just as DM's realize they have no particular reason to deal with Mr. Full Plate when there's a mean nasty Wizard turning his precious monsters into Smurfs. I know this is a wall of text, and most people will ignore it. I apologize, but I'll get to the point. Fighters are a viable class. Sword and board is a viable option. It's not math or clearly superior options that make it bad, it's simply the fact that, as players mature and evolve, they can develop styles of play that no longer need "classic" Fighter builds, and, as a result, the "classic" Fighter begins to struggle. Because he is a class meant for a specific type of game, where the other characters need his help, and he can RELY on receiving magical support to let him enter God Mode. Once the other players stop feeding the Fighter this support, because they can function (or at least, think they can function) without the Fighter...that's where the problems begin. A few last notes. *once you add animated shields into the mix, however, things get strange. The two handed fighter can now get a shield too. It costs him at least as much, but having it totally breaks the paradigm, and the Sword and Boarder can't keep up, having lost so much of his advantage. Oddly enough, a TWF can get a fairly decent deal on Power Attack as well; if he takes Oversized TWF, he can claim the Power Attack damage for his off-hand weapon. While he does take a -2 to hit the Power Attack character doesn't, as he gets more and more attacks, he stands to inflict vastly more damage for his investment. Unfortunately, the TWF's weak point is his reliance on Full Attacks, which can often be answered in turn. This does open up the possiblity for some Feat-starved, insane build of TWF with a Heavy Shield, using Oversized TWF for a Shield Spike o' Doom and Power Attacking with the whole mess to try and claim the best of all worlds. However, even this requires higher levels and more cash than the much-simpler Zweihander builds...and again, the existence of animated shields undercut the build the instant they hit play.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-15-08, 04:34 AM	Anyone else notice how he said he was just going to the PHB, went PHB + DMG, then while continuing to restrict the 2HW power attacker to core, took a feat out of Complete Warrior for the sword and boarder? Heh. It's a small, niggling detail, but it's also endemic of the whole pro-S&B crowd. Sure, S&B is great in situations of severely limited options. Just don't look at how I severely limit your options while sneaking in help from a source I've banned for you, that would totally outclass me if you got to use options from the same source. I don't know what the hell you people think that proves. I wonder if they just don't realize what they're actually doing. Maybe these posters just think insistently, dishonestly speaking well about something is the right thing to do when you like something that sucks. It's not. I happen to like warrior type characters. I think sword and board is a good style thematically speaking, and should be as competent as other fighting options in high level play. Neither of these things really actually works at high levels. Am I doing S&B or warriors in general any favours by talking about how great they are when they're not? Hell no... if I do that, at best I sound like an idiot, at worst I convince people the bull**** I'm saying is true, and then those options don't get the attention for fixes that they so desperately need.
aotrscommander 05-15-08, 06:52 AM	Just to add my own anecdotal evidence... Our current party at level 12, is perhaps surprisingly, relying on our melee characters for dealing the bulk of the damage. The party consists of a Dwarf Fighter 11/Warblade 1 (Dwarf Waraxe + Shield), Barbarian 12 (Greataxe), Ranger 3/Rogue 9 (twin short swords), Fighter 4/Ranger 8 (twin dagger-lobbing specialist), Druid 5/Cleric 7 (twin scimitars of scimitar and spell) and a Necromancer 5/Pale Master 7 (scythe. Yes, scythe!), all human ... (okay, stretching the case a bit in the latter case!) Obviously, we don't have access to a lot of really kaboomy stuff (since my Pale Master banned Illusion and Enchantment as unecessary compared to shouting FWAKOOM and deafening the GM - or at least would if my spell damage rolls were consistently poor!) So, we tend to buff. A lot. In a combat when we're mostly prepared, usually have active about four buffs; typically Elation, Bless, Prayer and one or other of Haste, Mass Enlarge Person for me (in theory we could have both, but we don't often). So, usually our friendly Axe weilders (barbarian and Dwarf) have something in the region of +4 to attack and +2-3 to damage). They have high attack bonuses anyway (the Dwarf's is a staggering +25 - partly because of the entirely level inappropriate +5 axe we found! The barbarian's is about +23 in rage as I recall). Neither of them have Shock Trooper or Leap Attack, both relying on plain old Power Attack; usually in the 5-max range or thereabouts. Their average damage is usually about 24-30+dice per hit. Criticals make a lot of difference as well! Since hearing about 4e's crit rules, (which I already hate) it's made me appreciate crits much more. And we've actually seen an awful lot of crits from those two, and there's niothing quite like a hit from a max powered attacked forthing loon. Bugger the numbers, (even if usually it's actaully pretty worth power attacking anyway); doing upwards of 70-90 damage with a single stroke is always a jolly good laugh.
Sunic_Flames 05-15-08, 08:38 AM	Tsunic's attempt to pass off his erroneous opinion as absolutist fact aside, the viability of Power Attack has long been proven to stand on its own merits, let alone what it can do with the combination of the correct feats. If the OP chooses not to see that, and ignores the math arguments that were set down literally years ago (Op board rulez!), that's his own blindness. Being SAB or THW or TWF has nothing to do with it. ===Aelryinth Don't ya just love when they agree with you but sneak in a jab anyways? Even his own teammates agree with me. :P Metafictional: First off, a Tower Shield is not '-2 to hit for 9 AC' it is '-2 to hit for 2 AC' as a heavy shield enforces no to hit penalty, and gives +7 AC under the same conditions. And all the other stuff could be done by anyone so they are not a sword and board advantage. There is also one main factor you haven't considered. At higher levels it becomes increasingly likely the enemy doesn't give a damn about your AC. This can be because they have such an obscene attack bonus that unless you have went heavily out of your way to get your AC up super high they will still easily hit you, or because they can ignore your AC outright at least in part via Wraithstrike or similar. In either case the defensive measure of choice is miss chances, and the harder you can hit it the better as it means it gets fewer chances to hit you back, or use... just about anything other than normal attacks such as spells, SLAs, supernatural abilities... to simply ignore your AC and maul you anyways. Also, relying on elemental damage enchantments = bad. Just look at the number of things with minor energy resistances that completely negate your bonus damage. Not to mention standard actions to activate, which is important as you cannot always do this before combat. Anyone else notice how he said he was just going to the PHB, went PHB + DMG, then while continuing to restrict the 2HW power attacker to core, took a feat out of Complete Warrior for the sword and boarder? Heh. It's a small, niggling detail, but it's also endemic of the whole pro-S&B crowd. Sure, S&B is great in situations of severely limited options. Just don't look at how I severely limit your options while sneaking in help from a source I've banned for you, that would totally outclass me if you got to use options from the same source. I don't know what the hell you people think that proves. I wonder if they just don't realize what they're actually doing. Maybe these posters just think insistently, dishonestly speaking well about something is the right thing to do when you like something that sucks. It's not. I happen to like warrior type characters. I think sword and board is a good style thematically speaking, and should be as competent as other fighting options in high level play. Neither of these things really actually works at high levels. Am I doing S&B or warriors in general any favours by talking about how great they are when they're not? Hell no... if I do that, at best I sound like an idiot, at worst I convince people the bull**** I'm saying is true, and then those options don't get the attention for fixes that they so desperately need. :OMG! :bow: :cookie: Thank you! I was starting to lose hope for humanity as a whole, but Shaggy has convinced me they aren't all worthless. *powers down Armageddon device* Seriously though, dead on on all counts. And for the record, I like warrior type characters, and the concept of a sword and board fighter is nice. However, my liking it does not change the fact magic reigns supreme and those that lack it are lackluster at best, nor does it change the fact the execution of sword and board in D&D fails miserably. As a result I have accepted the way to go is to hit the thing with a really big thing. You did miss a part though. You forgot to call him on eventually resorting to saying 'oh yeah, well I drop my shield and wield my sword two handed. Ha!' which of course means he isn't sword and board anymore, he's a half assed two hander. Of course he'll try to argue he changes based on the situation, but then that means he almost never uses the shield, has wasted his shield feats, and isn't as good as he can be with his 'two hander' either. Aka he pulled a half orc (alternately half elf) and got the worst of both worlds.
aelryinth 05-15-08, 03:27 PM	And here comes Sunic again, touting his opinion as if it were fact. Likes to sneak in that, you notice? OMG the SAB can be VERSATILE and that's a BAD THING because he didn't specialize in being GREATSWORD GUY and loses 2.5 dmg per swing!!! -- to sum it up. Sorry, have to laugh. All those threads slamming melee for not having options, so you give them one and then its slammed because he didn't go strictly Uber Charger or Reach Weapon. And he can do everything Greatsword Guy can PLUS he can turtle, better touch AC, all the fun stuff. Yeah, ALL situations favor GReatsword Guy...not. As the math shows, too. Extremely high AC is not that hard to get, especially for a fighter, and the cost investment isn't that high, either. Certainly, it can easily keep pace with the enemy if that's what you build for. I'm reminded of the Against the Giants 3.5E thread where one of the level 12 characters had a 45 AC or something, and the DM had to stop him from getting it over 50 (and then later crit the character and dropped him in one hit...) I also find it funny how he bemoans how rapidly NPC TH rolls rise, and then mocks them because their AC doesn't keep pace. Pretty much I've found they go in tandem, especially with NPC's who can use spells to buff, but YMMV. If ALL you want to do is deal dmg, go be Greatsword Guy, and I'll shake your hand and leave you to your 2.5 extra dmg. If you actually want to have some tactical options, SAB can be a nice, strong, solid build. But you have to build it that way, AND, you need to fix the whole Animated Shield/Improved Buckler Defense thing. But, that's all an argument for another thread, and has nothing relevant to do with POwer Attack. Power Attack is a great feat. It gives (gasp) more versatility and options for a Fighter build, even if that option is just how heavily you want to smash something. More options are a good thing. Don't ever knock Power Attack. ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-15-08, 03:43 PM	SAB can only be called 'strong' if you're actually TWF with a shield bash. That's also the only way TWF can be considered 'strong' if you don't have a source of extra damage (such as sneak attack or unarmed damage boosts). SAB and TWF can be 'good enough' without these things, but that's a different measure entirely. Remember, initiative and damage are the key defenses in the way 3.5 is set up at higher levels.
Sunic_Flames 05-15-08, 04:32 PM	There is no versatility. Situations you need a shield compared to much higher damage = virtually nonexistent. Therefore, you have wasted feats, wasted cash (no animated by your own argument, so you cannot salvage it) and the fact you do '2.5 less damage a hit' is simply icing on the cake, not all there is to it as you argue. I'm also noticing a trend for you referring to 'facts you don't agree with' as 'my opinion'. Fact: Shields do jack crap against anything that does not target AC, and maybe touch AC. Fact: The higher your level gets the more combat is decided by single decisive moves, which are a factor of initiative. Fact: Said decisive moves are rarely a factor of AC. This alone is enough to make the shield largely a liability as they do not help with saves and the like. Then we must also consider the facts that lower damage per hit makes you more likely to be ignorable difficult terrain to be walked around, flown over, or otherwise blithely disregarded, the amount of resources required to get enough AC to matter are vastly disproportional to the amount required to get the same degree of defense via other means (miss chances), and many of the ways to do damage that matters nuke your AC in the process, which again circles us back to miss chances. 'Oh he's versatile' has no more weight or credibility than the fact the rogue can punch to deliver sneak attacks does. Sure, it's nice he has it. Maybe if he loses his rapier and dagger it will come in handy. But as his 'second option' is vastly inferior to his first, he's not going to use it unless forced to. Same with sword and board guy getting a taste of two handed goodness. It's the punching rogue who discovered the fine art of putting a knife between his opponent's ribs.
Metafictional 05-15-08, 05:54 PM	Well yes, you're right, compared to a Large Shield, a Tower Shield is -2 to hit for +2 AC. That's actually not a bad ratio, however, since normally you need a Feat to get that much. You're also right that AC doesn't always matter. It's just one of several defenses a character has. And as I noted, a passive feature is always going to be less useful than an active feature. Sure, a shield user can drop his shield and go two handed on something. And really, the damage he's losing from this isn't too significant. I mean, 1d8 (or 2d6 at large size) +30 isn't that much less than 2d6 (or 3d6 at large size) +30. This is the main thing I keep bringing up to my players when they say Halflings can't be melee monsters. At higher levels, the difference in damage between a Halfling Fighter and a Half-Orc Fighter is academic, the Half-Orc gets +1 to hit, and about 4-5 more points of damage. When you look at the damage totals a charge build can generate, a few points isn't going to matter much (and yes, I know it could be more than a 4-5 point difference, +1 to hit when Power Attack is on the table can mean quite a bit more). But even a 10 point difference when you're throwing around bonuses like +30-40 and higher, isn't that huge. And the difference between a fighter who carries a shield and goes 2H for the fights where shields don't matter and one who goes 2H all the time is actually a very small one. I mean, a Dwarven Fighter gets a 1d10 damage weapon that's perfectly fine for 2h use for basically free. Compared to the 2d6 damage greataxe, that's not a huge damage loss. And if you do go large sized, 2d8 vs. 3d6 is still far from a great loss. Especially if this allows you to have a high AC where it counts. Versatility is a massive thing in the game. A character who can perform in a wide variety of circumstances can handle a wide variety of challenges. He may not equal the peformance of a specialist in his field, but that's ok, specialists have circumstances where they perform badly as well. Mind you, it's rare when a specialty of "I dish out massive damage" doesn't come into play, but hey, you can occasionally want higher AC. As stated though, it's the animated shield that throws this all out the window. When you don't have to make a choice about defense or offense, but can get both, with no feat investment, there's no discussion. Since the animated shield is core, any discussion about games where it doesn't appear is, sadly, about the same as a discussion about banning the spiked chain. : ( Back to Power Attack, well, we know it's good. Any time you can trade one resource for another, that's a good deal. If you can get a better deal by trading in one resource for another, that's just amazing. It should always be noted, however, that sometimes you can't make the trade. Oh and btw, not every high CR creature has a super amazing attack bonus. It depends on the monster and how they are meant to challenge you. I keep using the Marilith as an example for a good reason. She's CR 17, but her AC is light, as is her attack bonus. The reason being is she's balanced around magical abilities and TEN FREAKIN' ATTACKS! A high AC build would perform well against her, but I wouldn't want to use an option, like, trade AC for damage, against her.
navar100 05-15-08, 08:29 PM	If anything, crusaders make good use of sword & shield. They have two maneuvers that utilize them. The 2nd level one, Shield Block, is a very handy tool combined with Iron Guard's Glare stance. Also, there are several maneuvers that deal +Xd6 damage, and one +8d8 damage, that are decent enough. It is obviously true if he used Power Attack the extra damage dice would be in addition to the Power Attack damage, but given he's not use Power Attack it is still decent damage output. Also, for the healing strikes and White Raven maneuvers, it's more important for the crusader to hit his opponent than the damage he deals. While a crusader does want to get hit to fuel his furious counterstrike, even with the healing strikes and possibly Stone Power/Vital Recovery, the damage will accumulate. It is the crusader's strength and point that he's so durable. Even if the shield only means one or two attacks will miss him more than not having a shield for a given combat, it's less pressure on him. He can afford to use a healing strike to help an ally. He can afford not to use Stone Power if he really, really needs to/wants to hit his opponent. The crusader can get the killing blow, but he doesn't need to. His job is to get the bad guy to focus on him so that his friend can get the killing blow without being hurt so badly. The crusader has ways to get the bad guy to focus on him. A shield helps keep the crusader conscious, however passive that help is. If you want to say this is just another excuse for me to boast upon my favorite class since the cleric ... ;)
runestar 05-15-08, 11:10 PM	Oh and btw, not every high CR creature has a super amazing attack bonus. It depends on the monster and how they are meant to challenge you. I keep using the Marilith as an example for a good reason. She's CR 17, but her AC is light, as is her attack bonus. The reason being is she's balanced around magical abilities and TEN FREAKIN' ATTACKS! Or you could just keep forcing her to move and resort to single attacks. Though it then becomes somewhat of a mixed blessing when it decides to resort to spamming blade barriers instead...:P
Sunic_Flames 05-16-08, 08:49 AM	Crusaders only make good use of it for the same reason Rogues and Scouts make good use of TWF. Bonus damage. Without those strikes to act as the bulk of their damage... Of course the original topic was not about crusaders, but about the style in general. It seemed mainly focused on Fighters. And as for Crusaders, Thicket of Blades works far better with reach, which is how they control an area.
aelryinth 05-16-08, 06:44 PM	QUOTE=Sunic_FlamesThere is no versatility. Situations you need a shield compared to much higher damage = virtually nonexistent. Therefore, you have wasted feats, wasted cash (no animated by your own argument, so you cannot salvage it) and the fact you do '2.5 less damage a hit' is simply icing on the cake, not all there is to it as you argue. This is hilarious. Obviously you come from a campaign with a very restricted style of game play. I personally think that Power Attack alone means you better have an AC option, or the incoming monster/uber charger can one shot you. You can't turtle, you can't attract AoO's, you can't survive a concentrated attack. You have NO options. And you are calling this a good thing. I really, really have to say I find this amusing. <snip> Fact: Shields do jack crap against anything that does not target AC, and maybe touch AC. And this is a problem for all melees, because it is an AC problem, not a Shield problem. Happily, a huge part of the game is based around AC, woot woot. Oh, and are we forgetting the bonus contested checks Shield ward grants? <snip> Fact: The higher your level gets the more combat is decided by single decisive moves, which are a factor of initiative. And this is a factor of what? Shield AC will STOP some of those sudden, decisive moves in their track. What can your Greatsword Guy do against someone Uber Charging him? Die. A Dragon Power Attacking him? Die. An Uber Archer releasing a Manyshot Volley of Doom? Die. A Spellcaster sending out his MM'd to the hilt Scorching Ray combo? Die Shield guy, turtle up and LIVE THROUGH IT. But hey, that's a BAD THING to you. Fact: Said decisive moves are rarely a factor of AC. Actually, if you include Power Attack, Full Attacks, and Uber Charging, AC is frequently involved! But, again, you ignore that. Instead, you are focusing on the stuff that's a problem for all classes, not the SAB guy. Which, again, is hilarious for the argument you are trying to make! I have a great chance of living through the stuff you can't because of your AC, and we both go down to the other stuff. WHo exactly comes out ahead here? This alone is enough to make the shield largely a liability as they do not help with saves and the like. Then we must also consider the facts that lower damage per hit makes you more likely to be ignorable difficult terrain to be walked around, flown over, or otherwise blithely disregarded, the amount of resources required to get enough AC to matter are vastly disproportional to the amount required to get the same degree of defense via other means (miss chances), and many of the ways to do damage that matters nuke your AC in the process, which again circles us back to miss chances. And we already found out your 'miss chances' stuff doesn't work all that well, particularly at high level (I did the math, remember? You just declared it a Truth and didn't bother to back it up). Your 'damage supremacy' is 2.5 points. Your ability to endure is way, way less. Only against the dumbest opponents with crap AC and low To Hits does Greatsword Guy shine all the time. What's even funnier is how much of that 'one shot kill stuff' that doesn't involve AC ignores your handy-dandy concealment options, too, which, btw, aren't always active like carrying a shield around is. 'Oh he's versatile' has no more weight or credibility than the fact the rogue can punch to deliver sneak attacks does. Sure, it's nice he has it. Maybe if he loses his rapier and dagger it will come in handy. But as his 'second option' is vastly inferior to his first, he's not going to use it unless forced to. Same with sword and board guy getting a taste of two handed goodness. It's the punching rogue who discovered the fine art of putting a knife between his opponent's ribs. Wow, you've really got to work on your analogies. That was really bad. Especially since the punching rogue with IUS does just as much damage as the knife-stabber, by the rules, and the only difference is a proficiency slot, AND you can't disarm him. BOnus! The correct analogy is Greatsword Guy revs up his sword and prepares to charge the enemy. Then, he gets charged himself, Manyshot dead, flanked and SA'd to death, Power Attacked dead by some pouncer, blasted over the next hill, tripped, disarmed, grappled or bull rushed somewhere out of the way. Everything is contingent on him going first and surviving to do it, which he sucks at. His SAB companion revs up sword and shield, and none of that works, and he charges the foe who is bit shocked to actually discover none of that did work. Anything else, they both suck equally at, so who comes out ahead? You realize how much work I put into my Lockdown build? I can shut down your Greatsword guy FOREVER with that build. SAB guy can just turtle up and make himself virutally unhittable, even though I spent a lot of time getting that TH bonus for Lockdown as high as I reasonably could, for just that sort of reason. In my view, it's really, really easy to get an Awesome AC without trying to break the system. And doing so shuts down a big chunk of enemy attacking power all the time, not just when you have concealment active. In short, all Greatsword Guy can do is damage, and he sucks at all the defensive/tanking things the Fighter is supposed to do. SAB can do both. <snip> ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-16-08, 07:05 PM	Pretty thing anything melee wise works better with Reach. And the only real counter to Reach is, of course, a really high AC! ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-16-08, 07:26 PM	Pretty thing anything melee wise works better with Reach. And the only real counter to Reach is, of course, a really high AC! ===Aelryinth The only way to counter reach is more reach. That's why reach is so powerful. Because my 2H PAing controller doesn't care what your AC is. My touch attacks hit regardless, so you're prone with no weapon and no shield. And even for my standard attacks to follow, my hit bonus is 20-30 higher than the average AC at my CR. My AC isn't, because the only way to hit me (short of things that AC won't help with anyway) is to have a reach greater than my 30'.
aelryinth 05-16-08, 07:50 PM	The only way to counter reach is more reach. That's why reach is so powerful. Because my 2H PAing controller doesn't care what your AC is. My touch attacks hit regardless, so you're prone with no weapon and no shield. And even for my standard attacks to follow, my hit bonus is 20-30 higher than the average AC at my CR. My AC isn't, because the only way to hit me (short of things that AC won't help with anyway) is to have a reach greater than my 30'. And you have to win the trip and disarm opposed rolls, which, if we're serious, you aren't going to do in a lot of encounters. ANd if you are size Huge, you're a walking target who is going to get dispelled and/or blasted before your Reach becomes an issue, unless your opponents are really dumb. And, I imagine most of that comes from buffs, so, like, your opponent NPC's, whose main resource is spells, should have no trouble pulling the exact same stuff on you. Which is now funny because the SAB is no worse off then THW guy, who doesn't have Shield Ward bonuses, and so is even more likely to be prone and without his weapon. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-16-08, 07:57 PM	<snip> As for Counter, I said that specifically because ReachA>ReachB doesn't counter ReachB, it simply establishes greater Reach once again. Ergo, if you want to counter a REach advantage, you need AC to do so, making the Reach Advantage irrelevant...if he can't hit, yay! ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-16-08, 07:58 PM	And, I imagine most of that comes from buffs, so, like, your opponent NPC's, whose main resource is spells, should have no trouble pulling the exact same stuff on you Any meleer going up against a spellcaster is either being carried by a friendly spellcaster, has an immense advantage in the situation, or has lost. You can only compare against other melee (NPC or otherwise). Reach Controller/2HPA win before SAB can even operate is the sad fact. Even if control methods fail, the damage and range alone will win out. T/MWF is in nearly the same boat, though they're usually paired with sneakier methods and can actually close a gap. The pure fact is that in DnD 3.5, the only combat style more sub-optimal than single attack progression SAB is single attack progression without a shield.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-16-08, 08:03 PM	Now here's the part where he raises his e-voice and goes "No, I've got Shield Ward, my shield bonus applies to opposed checks and TOUCH AC!!" and completely ignores the fact that most serious magic-using threats will hit you with a save-or-lose spell that gives less than a damn about touch AC, even though many of those same spells are the same things that ignore the miss chances he dismisses so readily. Oh, but just ignore the fact that attacks with a long reach don't disregard miss chance like save-or-lose spells that don't use attack rolls will.
Sunic_Flames 05-16-08, 08:04 PM	<snip> Since when did I become Greatsword Guy? Strawman much? Last I checked I was Spiked Chain Guy... wait a sec, isn't Lockdown a spiked chain guy? Oops, guess chain guy doesn't suck so bad after all. Way to declare Duck Season on yourself Daffy. <snip> Get charged = hello, steadfast boots. Smack the :censored: for double high damage, he dies before he gets the charge off. Or if it doesn't die after being hit like a mack truck... miss chances. Keep in mind chargers don't lose any to hit, they lose AC. Therefore they get to hit your 'turtle' as well, assuming they charged him in the first place. This is ignoring the potential for Elusive Target as the THF is more likely to have than the turtle, both because he saves feats and because it provides a more reliable defensive measure. <snip>
Sunic_Flames 05-16-08, 08:14 PM	Now here's the part where he raises his e-voice and goes "No, I've got Shield Ward, my shield bonus applies to opposed checks and TOUCH AC!!" and completely ignores the fact that most serious magic-using threats will hit you with a save-or-lose spell that gives less than a damn about touch AC, even though many of those same spells are the same things that ignore the miss chances he dismisses so readily. Oh, but just ignore the fact that attacks with a long reach don't disregard miss chance like save-or-lose spells that don't use attack rolls will. Of course he does. He is sadly predictable at this point. Because we all know, super smart characters should use the OMG DIRECT DAMAGE!!!!!!!!111111111111111 against the Fighter, and not merely snuff his pathetic life out with one spell... or kill everyone else and then toy with him. Either way. This is also true of the THF guy, but since he's not wasting feats on a style that's essentially useless and hitting harder, he is more likely to get in the decisive move first... if he gets past invisible, flying, mirror image... Ok, martial guy is screwed regardless but has even less of a chance as sword and board. Works for me. And if for some reason the caster wanted to use Scorching Ray of all things, and he did not simply have resistance or immunity to fire from something (since scorching ray is many small hits, minor resistance will take huge bites out of it) what advantage does shield boy have again? At most, 7 touch AC. 2, if you consider you'd have to be a dumbass to waste money making your shield +5 and not getting Ghost Ward to utilize it. Seems big until you consider your touch AC is going to be utter crap anyways, so it is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. You end up needing a touch AC of at least 25-30 to even start making a difference vs an unoptimized character. If you factor in to hit optimization, wraithstrike etc you need more in the range of 40-50, and will be even more easily hit on a 2 regardless.
WizO_Unicorn 05-16-08, 08:43 PM	I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. WizO_Unicorn
ORC_Tao 05-17-08, 07:11 PM	The last several posts have been deleted for violating the Code of Conduct, specifically section 3, which states "Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members." Please discontinue any further personal attacks. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action, including the loss or suspension of posting privileges.
aelryinth 05-17-08, 08:16 PM	You fall back on spellcasters vs. Melee, as if that ends the argument. You are also ignoring the fact of Improved Trip, Expertise, and EWP for a SPiked chain build tripper, and Leap attack and Shock Trooper for an Uber Charger build (assuming SAB takes Power Attack). That's um, 5 feats to 3 (Shield Ward/spec/bash) for the SAB guy. I'd say you are the one at a negative in feat cost. Decisive move first is a function of initiative. Neither build has advantage there.[/B] And if for some reason the caster wanted to use Scorching Ray of all things, and he did not simply have resistance or immunity to fire from something (since scorching ray is many small hits, minor resistance will take huge bites out of it) what advantage does shield boy have again? At most, 7 touch AC. 2, if you consider you'd have to be a dumbass to waste money making your shield +5 and not getting Ghost Ward to utilize it. Seems big until you consider your touch AC is going to be utter crap anyways, so it is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. You end up needing a touch AC of at least 25-30 to even start making a difference vs an unoptimized character. If you factor in to hit optimization, wraithstrike etc you need more in the range of 40-50, and will be even more easily hit on a 2 regardless. More errors stated as fact. 1) Scorching Ray is all one spell. If all the missiles are directed at you, you take dmg just like Meteor Swarm...resistance applies once. I also note you don't bring in the 'alternate element' argument that a true Mage would. 2) Ghost Ward affects only enhancement bonus, not the shield itself. Thus, you are giving up 3 AC vs. Shield Ward, which gives a slew more other benefits. Ghost Ward is VERY inferior...but all you can get for armor. 3) Many, many creatures use direct damage, and a lot of them use Ranged Touch to deliver it. 4) Touch AC is incredibly easy to get if you focus on it...which, of course, your Uber Charger does not. AC is irrelevant to him. Standard Uber Shield: +5 Heavy, Spec, Ward, +5 Defending Spikes, always on. Touch AC 23. Dex 16. Touch AC 26. Deflection +5. Touch AC 31. Circumstance, Insight, Luck Bonuses +1. Touch AC 34. ghost Ward on Armor +5. Touch AC 38. =======Now effectively untouchable by normal mages with a dex of less then 26. Defensive Fighting, Tumble Skill. -4/+4. Touch AC 42. Expertise (hey, you've still spent one more feat then me!) Touch AC 47 (requires +27 to be hit by a nat 20) AND Augment Missile Gem, +5 Ranged AC, for 52 ranged AC. Can only be hit by ranged touch attacks on a nat 20 by most sources (takes +32 to be hit by a nat 20). Add in Full Plate (+7) and Nat Armor (+5), and we're back up to AC 64 against Ranged Attacks and 59 against normal attacks. Nothing to fear from Uber Chargers, who if they Power Attack will need a 20 to hit us, and if they have Pounce it's irrelevant, still need nat 20's for the iteratives. ---------- And that's without doing anything really special. Removing Shield, expertise (you don't do that), defensive fighting (you don't do that either), missile gem (no shield slot for you), a THW guy has a Touch AC of 26....pretty much a hit for any monster at that level. I can see why you loathe Touch AC...it just doesn't work for your THW fighters at all. Even if you were to turtle, you could only hit a 35, which wouldn't stop, say, an Outsider with a ranged touch attack. And that's the Math of it, not opinions. We're not even getting into broken Polymorph or PrC stuff. All of the above can be done by a baseline Melee of any class. ------------ Basing your argument around Wraithstrike is really, really bad form. They don't even use it on Char Opt anymore, for good reason. If you get to use Wraithstrike, then I get to use it. More importantly, all the mosnters and NPC's get to use it. We might as well get rid of natural armor, armor and shields for everyone, then, because they'll always be irrelevant. No DM in his right mind allows that spell, and you are trying to base a defense of a combat style around it? ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-17-08, 08:28 PM	QUOTE=Sunic_Flames <snip> Since when did I become Greatsword Guy? Strawman much? Last I checked I was Spiked Chain Guy... wait a sec, isn't Lockdown a spiked chain guy? Oops, guess chain guy doesn't suck so bad after all. Way to declare Duck Season on yourself Daffy. <snip> I have no problem pointing out a weakness in my own build. It's one of the reasons I tried to get Lockdown's TH bonus as high as I could...to prevent this very tactic. And you started out as a THW wielder, which defaults to Greatsword, and then you ladled in the Spiked Chain instead...probably going for reach over the +3 dmg, or something. Get charged = hello, steadfast boots. Smack the :censored: for double high damage, he dies before he gets the charge off. Or if it doesn't die after being hit like a mack truck... miss chances. Keep in mind chargers don't lose any to hit, they lose AC. Therefore they get to hit your 'turtle' as well, assuming they charged him in the first place. This is ignoring the potential for Elusive Target as the THF is more likely to have than the turtle, both because he saves feats and because it provides a more reliable defensive measure. <snip> Your having Steadfast boots doesn't impress me, because my AC is so high your attack won't land. And your THF doesn't save feats over SAB at all. He's also more likely to get Stand Stilled and one-shotted himself, so I don't really mind. Anything he can do, the enemy can, too. With his AC tanked, he's also very easy to hit and do a lot of damage to in return...and at high levels, you either waste an action activating your cloak, or its run out of rounds, and too much stuff can simply look right through it. It comes down to the fact that you don't have the options. It's really not good to not have options. The situation 'never comes up' until it does, and then it will start to come up with increasing frequency if your DM/enemies have any brains. Really, if Uber CHarger is the only build that works, then everyone has to be Uber Chargers. If there's no defense against it, then everyone has to win initiative. And when you lose, and you will, we have a TPK and everyone dies and we start pointlessly over. ==Aelryinth
Endarrion 05-17-08, 10:07 PM	What's the problem with saying: "Hey, sometimes a sword and boarder will outshine a THF." "And sometimes, a THF will outshine a SaB." ? Seriously. The only builds that work all the time are caster builds that can ignore AMFs and win initiative. Why does everyone on these boards have to be right all the time? Sheesh.
nightwyrm 05-17-08, 10:17 PM	Regarding resist energy: Energy resistance applies to each attack, just like damage reduction. Yes, scorching ray hiting energy resistance works just like meteor swarm hiting energy resistance. But you're wrong in your statement that resistance applies only once. Fire resistance applies to each hit's damage individually. Heck, this is even mentioned in meteor swarm's spell description.
aelryinth 05-17-08, 11:53 PM	Regarding resist energy: Energy resistance applies to each attack, just like damage reduction. Yes, scorching ray hiting energy resistance works just like meteor swarm hiting energy resistance. But you're wrong in your statement that resistance applies only once. Fire resistance applies to each hit's damage individually. Heck, this is even mentioned in meteor swarm's spell description. Hmm, did they errata that? IF not, I'll accept my mistake. I was certain it all counted as one spell. I will, however, point out that they do NOT include that resist fire individually language for the Scorching Ray...take that as you will (some will call it precedent, and some will call it exception). ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-17-08, 11:55 PM	What's the problem with saying: "Hey, sometimes a sword and boarder will outshine a THF." "And sometimes, a THF will outshine a SaB." ? Seriously. The only builds that work all the time are caster builds that can ignore AMFs and win initiative. Why does everyone on these boards have to be right all the time? Sheesh. Y'know, End, that's what I'm saying. But Sunic is being VERY absolutist in that THW is always better. I'm pointing out SAB has its moments...and it can drop the shield to THW very easily, or TWF with the shield. So...eh! :) ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-18-08, 12:59 AM	What's the problem with saying: "Hey, sometimes a sword and boarder will outshine a THF." Because a well made THF can do everything a SAB build can do while still being better at damage output and battlefield control.
aelryinth 05-18-08, 02:01 AM	Because a well made THF can do everything a SAB build can do while still being better at damage output and battlefield control. Uh, no, but it's nice of you to think so. It's defenses are considerably worse. You should actually turn that statement on its head. "A good SAB build is capable of doing everything a THF build is, but with better defenses and options in combat." See, absolutism at its finest. ===Aelryinth
nightwyrm 05-18-08, 02:01 AM	Hmm, did they errata that? IF not, I'll accept my mistake. I was certain it all counted as one spell. I will, however, point out that they do NOT include that resist fire individually language for the Scorching Ray...take that as you will (some will call it precedent, and some will call it exception). ===Aelryinth Meteor Swarm? The PHB errata made no mention of it. The resistance applying to each meteor is quite specific in the description. As for scorching ray itself, I read it as a spell that generates multiple seperate attacks and the description of energy resistance in DMG 298 states that resistance applies to each attack. I take this position because of the requirement for the caster to make seperate attack rolls for each ray. The volley nature of the rays differentiate it from the single blast nature of spells like fireball. YMMV
EjoThims 05-18-08, 02:07 AM	Uh, no, but it's nice of you to think so. It's defenses are considerably worse. You should actually turn that statement on its head. "A good SAB build is capable of doing everything a THF build is, but with better defenses and options in combat." See, absolutism at its finest. ===Aelryinth If your position was true, I'd be defending it. But many, many people very finely acquainted with the details of this game come to exactly the opposite conclusion time after time after time. If you want to 'SAB,' what you actually want to do is TWF with one of them being shield bashes or shield spikes. Make sure to pick up lots of extra damage dice though, otherwise you'll still be far behind.
Howie23 05-18-08, 02:35 AM	Hmm, did they errata that? IF not, I'll accept my mistake. I was certain it all counted as one spell. I will, however, point out that they do NOT include that resist fire individually language for the Scorching Ray...take that as you will (some will call it precedent, and some will call it exception). The fire resistance language isn't included in scorching ray because the general description of fire resistance covers the effect. Meteor swarm is the exception, generating multiple saving throws and multiple resistances vs. area attacks from a single spell. The direct impact via touch for meteor swarm falls under the general case; it is only the near misses that generate the oddity that requires specific language. David
aelryinth 05-18-08, 02:36 AM	If your position was true, I'd be defending it. But many, many people very finely acquainted with the details of this game come to exactly the opposite conclusion time after time after time. If you want to 'SAB,' what you actually want to do is TWF with one of them being shield bashes or shield spikes. Make sure to pick up lots of extra damage dice though, otherwise you'll still be far behind. The 'Optimizer' boards live in a different universe then a normal campaign. Ops like Uber Chargers, because you charge, someone dies. Advantage=you. Power Attack ftw. In a normal campaign, what this SHOULD result in, is all the enemies become Uber Chargers. now, they charge, and you die. basically, as soon as the campaign hits level 6, its initiative and who wins, doesn't die. Imp Init, Power Attack, cleave, Shock trooper, Leap Attack. Level 6 Fighter pulls it off, or a Fighter/1 warrior/5, if human. barb/1 ftr/1 warriro/4 if you want Pounce, and the uber charger always does. But that's not how most campaigns work. You don't always get to charge. If you let your AC slide, you get hacked to bits, particularly by crits. combats take place in narrow places. Sometimes the enemy's AC is just, wow. Sometimes if you don't have a great AC you are going to get owned so hard your teeth come out your toes. Most campaigns, including WoTC designers, don't allow animated shields. In addition, I've only seen them in a published adventure ONCE...Maure Castle, to be precise. You only have to remember that NPC's do what works. And if Uber Charger is the only thing that works, then the party is hosed. So there has to be an alternative...and SAB actually works, if you set up the characters right. The only real things that nerf SAB is Animated SHield and Improved Buckler Defense. Conversely, both are usually outlawed in campaigns for the cheese factor. SAB can be set up to do dmg...it can go Two Handed. It can take the option of TWF...if it gets the full attack off. It can also turtle like no one's business and resist all them special manuvers pretty easily. Its all about the options. In a normal campaign, DM's will punish hard anyone relying on a one-trick pony, and that's what a THW guy generally is. he has a glaring weakness, his AC, and the enemy should and will prey on it. I am perfectly aware that SAB suffers from lack of Reach (very, very important in melee) and doesn't do as much dmg when going SAB. The flip side of that argument is that maybe he doesn't NEED to do the dmg, and the reach of the enemy doesn't matter either, if his AC is high enough. Note that in the gauntlet thread, most of the fighter builds ended up with Charger builds, to one or two hit the enemy. BUt most combats aren't going to be that quick and easy. The charger builds were also very dependent on winning initiative, and being able to run away if not, just so they could set up the mega dmg charge. That's really unrealistic. And as for saves and stuff, that's a problem with all melee builds you must accomodate for. The only real SAB build was a Crusader, who took the 'best road' of using Stone Power and completely shafted his own offense to become a better tank. He could usually kill everything, and if not, he could last an incredibly long period of time. his main problem is Stone Power mucked up his offense so much, he couldn't hit the enemy to kill it,and he couldn't win most grapples. It also showcased how powerful Belts of Battle were, Chronocharms, and Steadfast boots. But the gauntlets were also duelling situations. And not every fight is a duel. Okay, I go on too long about this! :) ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-18-08, 02:42 AM	basically, as soon as the campaign hits level 6, its initiative and who wins, doesn't die. Exactly.
runestar 05-18-08, 11:15 AM	I am perfectly aware that SAB suffers from lack of Reach (very, very important in melee) and doesn't do as much dmg when going SAB. The flip side of that argument is that maybe he doesn't NEED to do the dmg, and the reach of the enemy doesn't matter either, if his AC is high enough. But in that case, he had better have a means of enticing enemies to hit him, because if he is basically a tortoise with a toothpick (ie: high AC, but negligible damage output), then the foe can just ignore him and focus on attacking other more fragile, less defended PCs. Knights and crusaders are still quite good in this aspect, but what options does a sword and board fighter have? In the case of a 2-handed weapon fighter, he can at least pass himself off as a credible threat (high damage output, plus a moderate AC which actually makes it worthwhile for the enemy to at least contemplate trying to attack him). Complete warrior has a quite a few feats which allow you to trip/daze with a shield, as well as options for fighting with a spiked shield and armour, but that comes across as extremely feat intensive (even for a fighter) and unwieldy. Could I have a sample shield fighter build please?:)
aelryinth 05-18-08, 11:45 PM	But in that case, he had better have a means of enticing enemies to hit him, because if he is basically a tortoise with a toothpick (ie: high AC, but negligible damage output), then the foe can just ignore him and focus on attacking other more fragile, less defended PCs. Knights and crusaders are still quite good in this aspect, but what options does a sword and board fighter have? In the case of a 2-handed weapon fighter, he can at least pass himself off as a credible threat (high damage output, plus a moderate AC which actually makes it worthwhile for the enemy to at least contemplate trying to attack him). Complete warrior has a quite a few feats which allow you to trip/daze with a shield, as well as options for fighting with a spiked shield and armour, but that comes across as extremely feat intensive (even for a fighter) and unwieldy. Could I have a sample shield fighter build please?:) Here's where you have to do math. What exactly is 'negligible' dmg? Are you aware that the difference between a Greatsword two handed and a Longsword One-handed with a 30 Str is 8 pts? 8 pts of dmg makes a Longsword negligible? What? When two handed, the difference is...3 pts? If you ignore a competent fighter of any level, he will kill you. It's a given. Fighters can lay out tons of dmg. They can pull tricks on you. And they don't have to be uber charging mega power damaging all the time to do it. THW only shines if the foe has crappy AC and tons of hit points. As soon as you start introducing miss chances and high AC, you lose the great benefit of Power Attacking and iterative attacks. THW doesn't look so hot. THW builds RELY on the charge. If they can't charge, they have to do something else. Build, build for a Shield Fighter. Hrm. It comes down to me wanting to invest the time to do it right (like I did Lockdown) with 4E only a couple weeks away. If we are looking at Feats, we first have to have a couple premises: 1) No animated shields. If the Dm allows animated shields, go THW. You lose nothing. 2) No improved Buckler Defense. If the DM allows this feat, go THW. You lose 1 AC. Wahoo. 3) Defender anything must be wielded as a weapon to get the AC bonus, and thus on a secondary weapon force TWF penalties (such as spiked gaunts and spikes on armor). 4) I'm working with a fighter/20 build, no race is included, and no templates. Two levels of other classes cost you one feat you can make up for by being human. Stats are elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8. I assume Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha. No flaws, no traits allowed. This is a character that should be allowed in most campaigns. Feats to take. Well, we have 18 to play with. Weapon Focus/Spec, Melee Weapon Mastery *** Shield Spec/Ward/Improved Shield Bash. Choose Shield, SPikes or Razors for your shield, whatever will match your Melee weapon Mastery. Power Attack. Expertise. Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack. Mobility is excellent for springing AoO's from enemies. Spring Attack gives you a hit and run option. We're up to 11 feats. Seven more to play with. 1) See if your DM allows the Halfweight Armor enhancement. this allows a heavy shield to count as small, and thus a light weapon in your off hand. This brings your TWF penalty down to -2 without blowing a feat on it. If not, you can either get Agile Shield Fighter as a feat, or use a Light Shield instead of a Heavy. -1 AC and Bash/spike dmg is one step lower for a Light Shield. 2) Combat Focus tree option: Focus, Healing, and Resist Special Manuvers. If you get Elusive Target, swap in the one that allows you to change your Dodge Target. Takes care of will save, healing, and people playing combat tricks on you. Note, if you take the COmbat Focus tree, you should take at least 3 of them for the improved abilities. 3) Uber Charge Tree: Cleave, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack. There, you can uber Charge. Put Valorous on your weapon and go to town. 4) Elusive Target: Immunity to Power Attack and getting enemies to hit one another with Dodge. You have Expertise, why not compound your annoyance factor to your enemies? 5) Stand Still, (Combat Reflexes), Martial Stance (Thicket of Blades). This is battlefield control. It's not as good without reach, but it does prevent anything you are fighting from 'ignoring' you, since if they try and move away, you can stop them cold. You may or may not want Combat Reflexes...area battlefield control is if you have Reach (i.e. are Enlarged). But, you have the option of battlefield control, yay! Carry an extendable Longspear of Aptitude, or something. 6) I know few DM's that will actually make you pay for the entire Spec tree, but they might make you pay for Supremacy. 7) Combat Reflexes, (Close Quarters Fighting) and Robilar's Gambit, possibly Deft Opportunist. This nasty combo dares people to hit you. With a high AC, you can still make them miss, and you still get to hit them back. CQF punishes high level Grab/Grapplers, making you virtually immune. Deft Opportunist means you can hit them even when turtling away (buys off the Robilar AC penalty). 8) Dungeon Crasher variant, if you like. Dungeon Crasher dmg is not based on weapon size/Power Attack. Great AC and great dmg bouncing someone around. You have Expertise if you want Improved Bull Rush. 9) Ancestral Relic: Cuts the amount you have to 'pay' for a weapon in half, since you sacrifice directly to it instead of having to sell goodies. Weapon max value 350k. make a +10/+10 shield with 50k yet to blow, turn it into your primary weapon with a Sun Blade type weapon as 'light' in your off hand... 10) Improved Trip. If you want to trip often. Note that you don't need the 'no AoO' as much as a normal person...you just turtle and make the touch attack. The contested check is not penalized by you turtling. Get the feat for the +4. 11) Overwhelming Assault at 16. Works well for you, because it's one single attack for double dmg at your highest TH, leaving you room for more AC! 12) Martial Study (Mind over Body) {or Diamond Mind Item} + Ring of Evasion. Charge into the middle of a group of enemies. Get surrounded. Laugh as they fail to hit you. Laugh harder when the spellcasters drop AoE's on you and all your close, close friends, and you walk away with no dmg. Rogues and Monks tend to get chopped to bits when they try this... You might have to swing a level of Warblade or Crusader at level 10+, but pick up something to grant the Diamond Mind Save manuvers, and a stance of use. Why? Because a Stance lets you have full time use of the Martial Weapon enhancement, and there's no better +1 Enhancement out there for making sure you hit all the time. +3 TH for remaining in the only stance you know all the time? Yes, please. Just make sure it's a useful stance. Extra: A variant on this idea is also using boosts/strikes every round from a second discipline with a double Martial weapon to boost the TH even higher for when you are turtling. An Iron Heart/Devoted Mind weapon would be +12 TH if you are in Thicket of Blades and using, say, Emerald Razor to smack something, which offsets a huge amount of your Turtle penalty. A White Raven/Devoted Mind weapon where you use White Raven boosts/strikes with Crusader regens to grant your allies bonuses while you turtle is also a great tool. ==== Ideal weapon? +5 Shadowstriking Martial (your school) Aptitude . This is +9/+6 All the time, and satisfies all DR. Type is whatever your Weapon Mastery will allow. This is a +9 weapon for 162k...leaving you room for a Bane, Keen, other Martial, Valorous, etc. Pay 30k for a Prismatic burst if you like. Augment Crystal? Truedeath by default for Ghost Touch. Construct/Fiends for special needs. Uber Shield? +5 Bashing Halfweight Heavy Shield, +5 Defending Aptitude Martial (spikes/Razors/none), Augment Crystal of Missile Deflection on it. Note that's a +7 Shield/+8 Weapon...again, it's an Ideal. Clocks in at 179K + Augment Gem. -This shield is considered Light for off hand use; Applies Weapon Spec feats; Gets the TH bonus from your Stance; and neuters ranged attacks against you. Base dmg: 2-12 + 1/2 Str+ Spec. Note it only has 1 less TH then your main attack if Defender is not 'on'. Armor? +5 Ghost Warded Mithral Full Plate. +12 AC, +3 Dex, +5 Touch AC. Glove of Storing: Equip/unequip shield as free action. Steadfast Boots of Speed adn Striding, for mobility and anti-charge love. Belt of battle: For a few extra actions/day. +5 Nat Armor, +5 Ring Deflection, +3 AC from other cheap sources (ioun stone, etc) We'll ignore miscellaneous stuff that can help your dmg along, like War Gaunts and Strongarm bracers and the like, and misc defenses like Mind Blanks, SOulforges, prot/evils and so on, for now. -- At 20, I'll use the Lockdown stats of Str: 31 Dex: 21 Con: 20 which default from 15/13/14 Str/Dex/Con, add books and enhancements. I'll assume a 12 Int with a +2 enhancer if you want Expertise (and you should). If you want the Focus feats, you need a 13 Wis, somehow, if your DM won't let you waive it. +4 Wis enhancer with 10 base would do it. With your Weapon in hand, your TH should be: 20 BAB, +10 Str, +9 Weapon, +4 Spec?, for +43...about as high as anyone can expect to go without some truly uber Str buffs, or party help. Your Dmg will be Wpn Dmg +22 with Shield up, Wpn DMG + 27 Two handed. yeah, 5 pts dif!!! With Defender Active (almost always), you are +41 To hit with your Weapon and +35 To hit with your Shield (dmg 2-12 + 11, +40/+16 if Defender is 'off'). This should be your 'default' mode, as your normal AC is 48, 36 of it Touch AC (a level 20 mage with a dex of 22 needs a 20 to hit you with a Touch Attack, a Dex of 32 to hit you with a 20 with a Ranged Touch Attack). You can 'turtle' with Defensive Fighting and Expertise for -9th/+9AC, all Touch AC. And don't forget Dodge and Mobility, and your ranged bonus of +5! Pull them AoO's! Make yourself a target! Your Tactical Options: SA: Spring Attack? You can do this with two hands for +5 dmg, or you can taunt all the AoO's out of your opponents with your shield out as you close into the middle of them and whack away while they wonder why they can't hit you. Charged? Use the Ready Action to instantly Turtle to your heart's content. Uber Charger's AC goes in the toilet. Activate Belt of Battle if he has reach to let you move 5' forward inside his reach before taking your readied action to receive his charge, if you like. If you turtle, your AC can hit 57, 62 against missile, and your Touch AC is 45. And you might be immune to Power Attack. Raging unkillable FB? Turtle up and whittle him down. None of his iteratives will hit you. If you are immune to Power Attack, you'll endure far longer then he will, and unless he's truly Optimized, even if you aren't. 57 AC is a biiiig cushion. Suprised? W/O uncanny dodge, your Defender should be on all the time, so your flat-footed AC should be in the neighborhood of 45. 48 is your Walk-around AC...+5 vs. Missiles, of course. Group needs a distraction? There isn't anyone better then you when turtling. Draw them AoO's!@ Get in the face of the enemy! Laugh as they miss you! Set them up for your friends! ranged attacks? just turtle and you'll be unhittable. You automatically block the first/best arrow, and his iteratives will likely just bounce. ranged touch attacks will never hit you if you are turtling. A 20 HD Outsider needs a 20 Dex to hit you with a Nat 20 ranged Touch Attack if you are turtling...and you can still Dodge, get a Cover bonus, or Kneel, or even go Full Defense for another +4. Tripper? Your bonuses on defense more then offset his offensive benefits. Between boots, shield and focus you should get about +20 to your opposed check...shield and boots alone should be +12. Note that you don't need Improved Sunder/trip to go after those tactics...your AC is high enough as is to likely avoid the AoO, and turtling doesn't hurt the contested check. make sure and try to strip his weapon if he fails to trip you... Reach standstiller? Turtle and sidle up to him. remember you get mobility and dodge (+5 more to your AC) against his AOO's. He's not going to hit you except on a 20, more then likely. Lockdown, optimized for this role, would still need a 14, and an 18 without Deft Opportunist... Uber damage monster? You might be immune to Power Attack, but if not, just turtle to the point it takes a 17+ to hit you and proceed to hack him down. Get right up next to him if you have Stand Still and make sure he can't move away...even with shield up, that's an average 37 Reflex save for him to get away from you, which means he can't ignore you at all. Watch him wail as he has to keep dialing back his Power Attack, and then the Party Rogue sidles up and SA's the hell out of him... Low AC high HP monster? Drop the Shield and Go two handed Power Attack, if it won't get you killed taking dmg. Your Armor Class drops waaaay down to 35, tho, so be careful! you can only stow/release your shield 1/rd, remember... reliable Uber Charge op? take it, and then get your shield back at the end of the round, if you get the drop on them. Remember you won't get the Defender bonus if you go two handed, as you aren't wielding the shield. Multiple soft targets? Two weapon fight with your shield whenever you get the full attack option for additional damage. Turn Defender off to max out your Bash Dmg and TH chance. 'Only' AC 43...oh well! If someone Robilar's you, turtle and take them up on it. Not only are they giving you a 'free' AC boost, you do extra dmg to them to boot! (Effectively, they are giving you +4 AC, +4 Dmg against them). If you want to Robilar yourself, you can still turtle to make yourself very hard to hit, if you so desire. Works best if the enemy has iteratives they are going to miss anyway. Note: On a full attack, unless you have problems hitting, it's probably better to Shield Bash then use the additional +2 TH for 4 pts of TH Power attack, because you do so much dmg when Bashing. Note that with Aptitude, all your spec/supremacy applies to your Shield attacks... All the other problems with melee, like flying, will save, etc, address as a normal melee addresses them. The key thing is, your Options are open when in combat, and with picking 1-3 different sets of feats, you have multiple ways you can approach any fight. And that's a SAB build. There's some excellent manuvers in Devoted Mind and White Raven that would go superbly in this build (You, my friend, are now the proud recipient of a +8 Shield bonus...) Choosing your 'normal' stance is going to be key. THe 'eternal cycle' of a Double Martial Weapon might require some careful planning. But, your Shield skill gives you a whole new set of approaches to combat a straight THW or TWF guy doesn't have, because of your High AC. Learn what it means to be a tank with STYLE. Spend 3 feats on your Shield, and go to town! ===Aelryinth
runestar 05-19-08, 12:08 AM	Here's where you have to do math. What exactly is 'negligible' dmg? Are you aware that the difference between a Greatsword two handed and a Longsword One-handed with a 30 Str is 8 pts? At least. 1 lv of exotic weapon master lets me add 2xstr mod to damage if I wield a 2-handed exotic weapon (probably spiked chain), or maybe bastard sword. There is also the improved damage bonus due to power attack (even more if I am using leap attack and/or frenzied berserker). If I am using Tome of battle maneuvers which multiply my damage dealt (such as ruby blade nightmare), it makes sense to increase the base damage dealt by as much as possible. If you ignore a competent fighter of any level, he will kill you. It's a given. Fighters can lay out tons of dmg. They can pull tricks on you. And they don't have to be uber charging mega power damaging all the time to do it. It is an issue of opportunity cost. Even if the fighter is proving to be more than a nuisance, there is the issue of trying to attack him successfully given his high AC (unless the foe in question uses attacks which ignore AC altogether, like maze, forcecage, summons to grapple the fighter etc). Compare this to attacking a more fragile foe such as the rogue or wizard, and having too high an AC might actually make you a worse tank if your objective is to soak up hits on behalf of the other party members. This isn't some computer game where the AI will automatically zone in on the nearest foe and attack blindly, regardless of whether it is the most appropriate course of action or not. Given a choice, who would you attack? The fighter with AC43 and 300hp, or the rogue with AC35 and 175hp? Likewise, all other things equal, lower AC also means the enemy can PA for a greater amount, even if its attack roll is normally high enough to make AC irrelevant (as is the case with monsters like the tarrasque and dragons). When I mean sword and board, I refer to one who is consistently using sword and shield, not one who switches fighting styles depending on the opponent. Also, can you even wield a light shield and a weapon 2-handed? :confused:
aelryinth 05-19-08, 01:19 AM	QUOTE=runestarAt least. 1 lv of exotic weapon master lets me add 2xstr mod to damage if I wield a 2-handed exotic weapon (probably spiked chain), or maybe bastard sword. Very good. That's an EWP spent, and a level in a PrC for +5 dmg so far. note I consider this key...your TH numbers do NOT go up. There is also the improved damage bonus due to power attack (even more if I am using leap attack and/or frenzied berserker). If I am using Tome of battle maneuvers which multiply my damage dealt (such as ruby blade nightmare), it makes sense to increase the base damage dealt by as much as possible. Again, Power Attack isn't applicable all the time. It's best on Standard Attacks and Charges. Once you get into iteratives, it rapidly loses it's value. And combining High level manuvers with FB isn't possible, so basically you are making a choice of Play style between the FB and ToB classes. I'll note that one very, very important thing the FB does is gives you up to +4 to hit with the increased strength buff. That translates into 'hit for same chance, +16 damage at the highest end'. That's important. But to get there, you have to send your AC racing into the toilet, and that can be equally bad... It is an issue of opportunity cost. Even if the fighter is proving to be more than a nuisance, there is the issue of trying to attack him successfully given his high AC (unless the foe in question uses attacks which ignore AC altogether, like maze, forcecage, summons to grapple the fighter etc). Compare this to attacking a more fragile foe such as the rogue or wizard, and having too high an AC might actually make you a worse tank if your objective is to soak up hits on behalf of the other party members. Right...but look at the duration of combats, and default dmg for most fighters. At high levels, monster damage can be as horrendous as PC dmg, especially if PC's have crap AC. Any decent fighter can pound out 100 dmg/rd...at any level, that's a huge threat. Can you do 100 dmg/rd back to him and get rid of him? No? Can you avoid him? He's going to take that into account, too! The foe can't ignore you. You are way too high of level to be ignored once you reach him. ANd then the problem is, how does he get rid of you? Spellcasters have some options against all melees...but all the hit/kill/grapple/block options simply aren't going to work against you. Your Touch AC is too high, your CQF will stop a grapple before it starts, and you happily spring AoO's all day. This isn't some computer game where the AI will automatically zone in on the nearest foe and attack blindly, regardless of whether it is the most appropriate course of action or not. Given a choice, who would you attack? The fighter with AC43 and 300hp, or the rogue with AC35 and 175hp? Likewise, all other things equal, lower AC also means the enemy can PA for a greater amount, even if its attack roll is normally high enough to make AC irrelevant (as is the case with monsters like the tarrasque and dragons). I agree...and so what if the monster simply can't get away? If he PA's the rogue, the rogue retreats...and I'm still here killing him. I'll be here killing him next round when he rounds on me again. He'll try to get away and I wn't let him go. And every round he tries to kill me he's not killing someone else, and they can then do Bad Things to him. I've got a massive bonus TH on this build to insure steady, consistent damage that can only go up with buffs. Nothing on this build is maximized buff-wise. Stick a good set of caster buffs on him, and he becomes a fiend for damage. Likewise, I'll note that truly uber foes like a Dragon, you can't Power Attack against, and that reduces the utility of a THW build down immensely, as they don't get the chance to put their weapon into play, and they are still immensely vulnerable to enemy attacks because of low AC. When I mean sword and board, I refer to one who is consistently using sword and shield, not one who switches fighting styles depending on the opponent. You see, I refer to someone using SAB as a Fighter with options. SAB is his default, and he has the choice to do more or less at the situation demands. A THW fighter does NOT have those options. His AC will always suck, relatively, and he'll always be vulnerable. His one shtick is damage, and he has to hit to make it go. Smart foes with high AC can render him moot. And as I noted, in a campaign where only Uber Charger works, everyone should Uber charge, and the campaign will end very soon. Also, can you even wield a light shield and a weapon 2-handed? :confused: ? Missing something. With Improved Buckler Defense, you can wear a buckler and use a THW. If you are referring to the tactic of above where SAB guy ubercharges and then grabs his shield, he's doing it out of his Glove of Storing as a free action. Because he didn't have it out during his fight, he can't activate it as a weapon (his attack is over), so he loses the Defender bonus. Also, note he's using a one handed weapon, such as a longsword (or bastard sword...I could do that Uncanny Blow thing too, you know...) in two hands, not using a THW. So, he'd take his longsword in two hands, uber charge, wreak havoc, and at the end of his attack take one hand off his weapon and summon his shield back on as a free action. He's in the middle of his enemies, but with an AC much higher then they'd expect, and has a better chance of living through the counter-attack. tactics! He could also Spring Attack in, hopefully drawing bunches of movement AoO's he can nimbly avoid with Mobility and Expertise, whack someone, and pull back, enticing a charge or a break in the line. he can run right past everyone, provoking tons of AoO's that won't hit, to get back to the mages/spellcasters who likely have a lower default AC, and suddenly be threatening them. Note I don't have Mage Slayer anywhere in the build, and should have mentioned it...I'll have to go back and do it. He can literally sit in the middle of his enemies and hack on them, and they can't do much about him. It basically forces the spellcasters to focus on him or get hosed by ready actions to disrupt spellcasting/mage slayer/standstill/whatnot. He can't be bull rushed, trampled, or otherwise moved without huge bonuses. Touch Attacks aren't going to hurt him if he's turtling, or from mages even if he's not. If he has Thicket, you can't tumble around him. Most summoned monsters can't even grapple him while turtling, with that 45/high Touch AC, and won't get a successful grapple even if they do (and they'll spend AoO...hooty hoo!) ======================= "Pure" SAB won't prevail anymore then 'Pure" THW will...but SAB has the option of being THW. I don't think I could make a pure SAB build that wasn't, hmm, fighting with his shield all the time. Huh. You know, that could be an interesting build right there. You know, you could make a very viable ONE WEAPON build out of an Improved Shield bashing Fighter. Grrr. Now you got me thinking again. No TH penalty when attacking with a Bash, now. You'd have to choose between Defender and no Defender is all. Hrm. gah. You could call it, who needs a Greatsword? Heavy Shield as primary weapon! Frak. Turns this whole argument on its head. Go Defender on armor spikes as optional turn on/off, and then fight two handed with Improved Shield Bash all the time. It's the exact same damage as a Greatsword, except you choose one or two hands, dmg type, and you get to keep all the Shield AC goodies from your 3 feats. Sigh. What would you call this, the Board And Spikes build? Heh. And would armor spikes count as heavy weapons or light weapons in the off hand?.... What's even worse? What if a FB could spare the three feats to do this? Blah. So now it takes two feats to get Shield AC with a Two Handed weapon instead of one...and now you get to pick the dmg type. ===Aelryinth
Jaimas 05-20-08, 10:27 AM	You're wrong. Dozens of people have mentioned why this is. You clearly haven't crunched the numbers yourself. If you truly believe, for whatever reason, that the opinion that the sword-and-shield style isn't quite as OMGWTFLOL isn't as great as you think is incorrect, then I urge you to go to the Character Optimization board, where you can learn - in frightening detail - why this setup isn't quite as all that and a sack of chips as you're making it. Again, this isn't to say it's a bad setup, but there's no way in heck it's as strong as some of the 2-handed setups I've seen on that board.
aelryinth 05-20-08, 02:16 PM	You're wrong. Dozens of people have mentioned why this is. You clearly haven't crunched the numbers yourself. If you truly believe, for whatever reason, that the opinion that the sword-and-shield style isn't quite as OMGWTFLOL isn't as great as you think is incorrect, then I urge you to go to the Character Optimization board, where you can learn - in frightening detail - why this setup isn't quite as all that and a sack of chips as you're making it. Again, this isn't to say it's a bad setup, but there's no way in heck it's as strong as some of the 2-handed setups I've seen on that board. I am aware of both sides of the arguments. Yes, amazingly, I've seen the numbers on Uber Chargers. Funny how they all end up being Water Orc Frenzied berserkers, which I find grokking hilarious. And notice my build has absolutely nothing in it a DM in any campaign would find objectionable, while the THW argument keeps devolving down to a nigh-unplayable PrC. And none of those dmg numbers address the fact that the Uber Charger dishes it out and can't take it, nor the fact that if THW is all that works, all the NPC's should be uber chargers, and at level 6, all campaigns end when one encounter, you lose initiative, get charged, and the party TPK's. And I still haven't seen any math on the other side for a reasonable campaign. It's just like my Lockdown build. Pages of pages of casters all chiming in to say they could eat up Lockdown for lunch. Well, no. Their only defense was a few broken spells I could buy up for pocket change and reset the whole paradigm they were operating on. The way they scrambled for defenses was hilarious. I've gotten tons of supportive comments on the side for the build...clean, simple, lays out everything, has nothing objectionable in it, and it works. I even posted links to more complex variants of it if you really have to mult-class and template and be the latest, greatest PC race. ===Aelryinth
Jaimas 05-20-08, 04:56 PM	I am aware of both sides of the arguments. Yes, amazingly, I've seen the numbers on Uber Chargers. Funny how they all end up being Water Orc Frenzied berserkers, which I find grokking hilarious. Pics or it never happened. I've seen non-TOB combos that can kick out tons more damage than this setup using 2-handed weapons on the Optimization Board, and most, if not all of them, use available and existing setups with splatbooks infinitely less contreversial than TOB. Hell, I've seen builds that outdamage in a ton of situations. For someone claiming to "be aware of both sides," you seem hell-bent on being entirely dismissive of the one that disagrees. Moreover - again - you've been actively trying to skew the discussion well in your favor by stacking the arguments themselves. Do you want open discussion or not? I must say I'm a bit perplexed. And I'll say it again: Your listed build certainly isn't horrible, but I've seen better, and no, not simply Water Orc Frenzied Berserkers. :rolleyes:
overfiend_87 05-20-08, 05:44 PM	Okay, then I'll add a side note: If you have a way that makes it ridiculously easy to hit, and/or for some reason your damage is unusually low, power attack may still be useful later in the game. hmm...well now at level 3, thanks to my abilities I gain a +8 to hit and when using power attack it becomes +5. It's still great help and since my character is a dwarf then he gets +1 against goblinoids and Orcs. Including half-orcs. Pretty useful and against Giant types +4 AC which is great and alot of other bonuses, making power attack very useful. I have weapon focus to add to my axe so it's very good.
Endarrion 05-20-08, 06:16 PM	I don't understand. Aelryinth has shown that he's right. You know what he's right about? SWORD AND BOARD IS A VIABLE IDEA FOR A MELEE CHARACTER! He's never said that it's better than an uber charger AT DEALING DAMAGE. I mean, he writes an in depth post with a complete build, and all people do is tell him he's wrong and to ... and this is great ... go to the char op boards. Wow. I mean, why is there this argument? Uber charger = good at dealing damage. Sword and Boarder = good at AC. Both have merits: Uber charger = doesn't matter what my AC is 'cause you're too dead to hit me! BAM! Sword and Boarder = doesn't matter how much you can hurt me, 'cause you can't even HIT me. Why is it so hard to believe that SAB is viable? Ugh. EDIT: And what is "negligible damage"? If this guy walks up to someone, hits them, and even does no damage, he's still a threat. Know why? Because he's probably locking them down, so they can't move away. Then they try to kill him to make him stop, but they can't hit him, or they can't him enough times to kill him before ... wait for it... HIS PARTY shows up. Geez. Even if all the SAB guy does is keep a foe focused on him, that means he's doing the best job he can by not letting his allies get killed. Why is that BAD? Oh, and the only answer to that is, "It isn't." Not, "Because this does it better." SAB is still a good tactic. Even if it's not the best.
aelryinth 05-20-08, 06:20 PM	I don't understand. Aelryinth has shown that he's right. You know what he's right about? SWORD AND BOARD IS A VIABLE IDEA FOR A MELEE CHARACTER! He's never said that it's better than an uber charger AT DEALING DAMAGE. I mean, he writes an in depth post with a complete build, and all people do is tell him he's wrong and to ... and this is great ... go to the char op boards. Wow. I mean, why is there this argument? Uber charger = good at dealing damage. Sword and Boarder = good at AC. Both have merits: Uber charger = doesn't matter what my AC is 'cause you're too dead to hit me! BAM! Sword and Boarder = doesn't matter how much you can hurt me, 'cause you can't even HIT me. Why is it so hard to believe that SAB is viable? Ugh. They're too focused on flaming me to argue coherently, Endarrion. Thanks for your support, however! You sum it up very nicely. I'm just waiting for a reply from Runestar and how much farther in depth he wants to go... ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-20-08, 06:22 PM	Why is it so hard to believe that SAB is viable? Ugh. Because SAB with only one attack sequence is not vastly superior AC while it is vastly inferior damage and battlefield control. In short, you will be safer and your party will be safer with a well played 2HF contoller/charger than with a SAB using a single attack progression.
Endarrion 05-20-08, 06:31 PM	Because SAB with only one attack sequence is not vastly superior AC while it is vastly inferior damage and battlefield control. In short, you will be safer and your party will be safer with a well played 2HF contoller/charger than with a SAB using a single attack progression. Seriously? I mean... did you even read post 181? At all? He gave so many examples where his build can diversify. I'm really just flabbergasted.
aelryinth 05-20-08, 06:32 PM	Because SAB with only one attack sequence is not vastly superior AC while it is vastly inferior damage and battlefield control. In short, you will be safer and your party will be safer with a well played 2HF contoller/charger than with a SAB using a single attack progression. Define single attack progression in more detail, please. What exactly does this mean? And ascribe to me how 8 or 2.5 pts of dmg is vastly inferior damage? ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-20-08, 06:38 PM	Define single attack progression in more detail, please. What exactly does this mean? ===Aelryinth /facepalm It means only making one attack progression. No TWF. No MWF. No set of extra attacks with which to get lots of bonus dice. No one here is arguing that TWF with a shield as one weapon is that suboptimal (it's actually better than TWF without a shield if you're proficient with one and have the feats to spare). Your problem is that you think 2HF can't have good AC or use a shield (it's even possible to wield a shield in two hands for higher PA returns on your pounces). You go on and on about how a SAB can still use a 2H weapon, but seem to think the reverse is impossible. The point everyone else is making is that someone built to make the most of the best technique will be more powerful than someone built to make the most of a suboptimal technique. Each can use any technique at any time as needed, regardless of build.
aelryinth 05-20-08, 09:35 PM	/facepalm It means only making one attack progression. No TWF. No MWF. No set of extra attacks with which to get lots of bonus dice. No one here is arguing that TWF with a shield as one weapon is that suboptimal (it's actually better than TWF without a shield if you're proficient with one and have the feats to spare). Your problem is that you think 2HF can't have good AC or use a shield (it's even possible to wield a shield in two hands for higher PA returns on your pounces). You go on and on about how a SAB can still use a 2H weapon, but seem to think the reverse is impossible. The point everyone else is making is that someone built to make the most of the best technique will be more powerful than someone built to make the most of a suboptimal technique. Each can use any technique at any time as needed, regardless of build. The THW fighter also has only one progression. How is this just a SAB problem? I could put up the Three TWF techniques as a chain to take...it's only three feats. Instead of lots of bonus dice, what you get is tons of extra AC while fighting, something TWF's also suffer from. I.e. if you're going to take the Defender bonus, you may as well TWF, right? The fallacy of this is, you want the AC. Going THW means you don't get the AC, because you shaft your TH/DMG, or you shaft your AC because you can't use Defender. The THW guy can pick up a shield and use it...but then he has to drop his weapon, and rely on shield bashing. Shield bashing SUCKS for damage, unless you have SPikes and a bashing Shield. You don't get to keep the AC unless you burn two feats, at which point you either have a SAB guy who is denying it, or you've wasted two feats, according to Sunic. It also disguises the fact that a shield is a lousy weapon until you DO have a Bashing shield with Spikes, probably not til level 6 (when you can afford a +2 shield). SAB guy can charge with his shield and do the extra dmg for THW, all right. That's a valid tactic, and I mention it at the end of my post. HE won't have Defender as an option if he's attacking, of course, but he might do some crazy dmg and have a decent AC left over. I have to note, however, that a Shield is not your best of weapons. It's 1-8/20 if bludgeon, once you get Bashing. It's 2-12/20 once you get spikes or razors. That's either a low crit mod or low crit threat range for a martial weapon. It's great fora one-handed weapon, but if really want to do dmg, you should stick to a weapon that's devoted to being a weapon most of the time, IMO. Although you might want that +8 AC on the Charge. It's another tactical option for SAB users! The argument for a THW user getting 'all the same benefits' falls short. Either he has to burn feats on Shield use, which takes away from his core ability, or he has to find a way to wield a shield. By the premises above, I am assuming no Animateds, no Imp Buckler. Getting a great AC as a THW guy is HARD. Shields account for a lot. Money you spend on magic items to up your AC, the Shield user can, too...this is the argument Sunic tried to pass off, which when you apply math and time to it, doesn't fly. If you want to post a build that does TWF with a heavy shield (or even a Light one) feel free! It's not going to look that much different then a build with two short swords, and a heavy shield is the best one-handed base dmg weapon in the game, with Bashing and Spikes. Indeed, a Sun blade and Shield combo build sounds particularly fun, with the sun blade as the 'light' weapon. You give up three feats to keep a great AC while you TWF. Too many people focus on the damage. Damage is not the be-all and end all. This build can do dmg...I pointed that out above. But it shines best at defense and not getting hit, so that it can tank and endure. It has options of build and play, something that people keep clamoring for a Fighter to have, and then when it's intro'd, people rage all over it for not doing uber damage. Can you see why I am not taking people extolling the total uberness of THW seriously? THW builds are not going to be built for versatility quite like this. They have to devote as much time to their shtick as the SAB guy does, if not more, and they can get derailed just as easily. Power Attacking dominance only works if it hits. This is a build designed to make you miss, especially with all those iteratives. And if you miss, it doesn't matter how much dmg you COULD do. and, if you want to get into silly, silly abuse of stuff, it is TONS easier to raise AC then it is bonuses TH as you get higher level, with abuse of the right spells (particulalry the Polymorph chain) and/or templates/races. Which, of course, is why Istayed away from them in posting this very functional build. Nothing there for a DM to look askew at or question. It simply works at all levels of play...is customizable...and with a little multi-classing can be made to buff and shine as you deem fit in particular directions. ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-20-08, 09:42 PM	The THW fighter also has only one progression. How is this just a SAB problem? Because you fail to miss the point. TWF with extra damage dice is the only way for any melee other than 2HF to equal it's damage output. By the premises above, I am assuming no Animateds, no Imp Buckler. Then your problem is you're running house games and trying to limit everyone else to their rulesets. You might as well say "If a game where Wizards can only cast 0 level spells, Fighter 20 is better than Wizard 20."
runestar 05-20-08, 09:50 PM	They're too focused on flaming me to argue coherently, Endarrion. Thanks for your support, however! You sum it up very nicely. I'm just waiting for a reply from Runestar and how much farther in depth he wants to go... ===Aelryinth I am not sure how to reply, honestly, and these few days have seen me trying to keep up to date with the inter-CO board politicking, so forgive me if I seem more than a little tardy. For instance, regarding the part as to how the monster is forced to contend with the shield fighter, my experience is that higher lv foes are highly mobile for their cr. I mean - what does the fighter have to keep the foe in its tracks and dissuade him from attacking anyone else? Why can't they fly, teleport, or just jump overhead? And so what if the fighter is still attacking him? If the monster moves to attack the rogue, the fighter has to move to attack the monster, which means that he is limited to 1 attack/round. Assuming everyone is engaging in hit-and-run (the rogue moves because he does not want to be subject to a full-attack, the monster moves to get within reach, the fighter moves because everyone else is also moving). At the end of the day, I don't see how the monster is necessarily any worse off, or the fighter any better off. :confused:
aelryinth 05-20-08, 10:02 PM	Pics or it never happened. I've seen non-TOB combos that can kick out tons more damage than this setup using 2-handed weapons on the Optimization Board, and most, if not all of them, use available and existing setups with splatbooks infinitely less contreversial than TOB. Hell, I've seen builds that outdamage in a ton of situations. For someone claiming to "be aware of both sides," you seem hell-bent on being entirely dismissive of the one that disagrees. Moreover - again - you've been actively trying to skew the discussion well in your favor by stacking the arguments themselves. Do you want open discussion or not? I must say I'm a bit perplexed. And I'll say it again: Your listed build certainly isn't horrible, but I've seen better, and no, not simply Water Orc Frenzied Berserkers. :rolleyes: Then you should post a build...but you don't, I notice. It's 'I've seen', 'this is true', 'you can't argue with me', etc etc etc. I too, have seen all them uber builds. They are largely unplayable. So many of them take forever to mature. They rely on the DM continually letting them get away with the same tactic over and over, instead of being smart about such things. but such little things don't occur to people. I like the one William Meyer noted on another thread...an Optimizer read about how great cleric archers were, so he went ahead and made one to play in a campaign. He got so frustrated with the dead levels (Cleric archers don't really take off until 9+) he rerolled up a Fighter archer and was much more satisfied. That's how I feel about most charge builds. They are either one trick ponies, or they mature so late you may as well have never played them. I consider any build with Frenzied Berserker in it an excuse for the DM to wipe the party...repeatedly, until they get the idea it's a bad idea. I consider builds where you can build something uber with the latest template/race/monster/buff spells to be silly, and dumb. I especially regard arguments of uberness based on broken spells that can be purchased and turned on the casters to be stoopid. That's my position. You aren't going to change it. I know casters can do great things. I don't really care. I know the Fighter has problems...I've done lots of big, long posts on it, especially on Regdar's. My disappointment over the failure to fix them is profound (MOnte is doing it with his book of experimental Might II). I don't consider ToB a fix...I consider it an alternative. The feat system had what it needed, it just wasn't applied properly. Lastly, these are the WoTC boards, and I like having discussions that don't devolve to flaming and finger pointing. So, I won't take Sunic up on his 'offer', because I don't post to get flamed, which at this point is pretty much all he wants to do. I post to debate, get critiqued, critique back. Sometimes I might change someone's position. I might not. I'll understand where they come from. I just don't accept it as 'Truth'. There's always another way to do things, and the game goes on. ==Aelryinth
navar100 05-20-08, 11:28 PM	I don't understand. Aelryinth has shown that he's right. You know what he's right about? SWORD AND BOARD IS A VIABLE IDEA FOR A MELEE CHARACTER! He's never said that it's better than an uber charger AT DEALING DAMAGE. I mean, he writes an in depth post with a complete build, and all people do is tell him he's wrong and to ... and this is great ... go to the char op boards. Wow. I mean, why is there this argument? Uber charger = good at dealing damage. Sword and Boarder = good at AC. Both have merits: Uber charger = doesn't matter what my AC is 'cause you're too dead to hit me! BAM! Sword and Boarder = doesn't matter how much you can hurt me, 'cause you can't even HIT me. Why is it so hard to believe that SAB is viable? Ugh. EDIT: And what is "negligible damage"? If this guy walks up to someone, hits them, and even does no damage, he's still a threat. Know why? Because he's probably locking them down, so they can't move away. Then they try to kill him to make him stop, but they can't hit him, or they can't him enough times to kill him before ... wait for it... HIS PARTY shows up. Geez. Even if all the SAB guy does is keep a foe focused on him, that means he's doing the best job he can by not letting his allies get killed. Why is that BAD? Oh, and the only answer to that is, "It isn't." Not, "Because this does it better." SAB is still a good tactic. Even if it's not the best. Because for some people, if Sword and Shield is not Mary Poppins, it sucks. Nothing is "good enough" for them.
Jaimas 05-20-08, 11:39 PM	The simple fact of the matter - and which you keep conveniently ignoring - is that TWF/2HF setups save feats compared to the SAB setup - a fact which is irrefutable. Using the TWF setup with a pair of weapons (god bless them Drizz't Clones for doing something right) yields much better damage than any SAB setup and is capable of the same manuvers. Moreover, it offers better chances to hit, higher damage, and the capacity to be much more effective for cost, and that's not even factoring in some of the insanity that can be done with TWF and late-game builds. 2HF is definitely weaker defensively but works in your favor, quickly, for sheer damage, and when you're dealing with things with say, DR, is exactly what you want - and that's not even factoring in the saved slots or better styles specifically available to specific weapons. It's this combination of saved costs and feat slots that makes the above much more desirable, and certainly more workable than the Sword and Board setup. In short, it saves money, feats, and provides better tactical options down the road, and you're being completely thick if you don't see the advantages.
aelryinth 05-21-08, 12:16 AM	QUOTE=runestar I am not sure how to reply, honestly, and these few days have seen me trying to keep up to date with the inter-CO board politicking, so forgive me if I seem more than a little tardy. Ah, yes, the Autumn thing, and CO people thinking they are smarter then all the board mods and know what's right. It's just a kick in the teeth coming on top of the 4E 'Now we have to start all over' stuff. Don't worry about it, it will all blow over. For instance, regarding the part as to how the monster is forced to contend with the shield fighter, my experience is that higher lv foes are highly mobile for their cr. I mean - what does the fighter have to keep the foe in its tracks and dissuade him from attacking anyone else? Why can't they fly, teleport, or just jump overhead? Mobility has always been an issue for ALL melees. My question to you is...why is it suddenly more important for the SAB guy? Why are you ignoring it for THW guy and TWF guy? If he gets up next to it, he can Stand Still it and make it not go anywhere, if that's what you want him to be designed to do. THW guy has all the same problems. They all get solved the same way...you compensate with gear, tactics or feats. And so what if the fighter is still attacking him? If the monster moves to attack the rogue, the fighter has to move to attack the monster, which means that he is limited to 1 attack/round. Assuming everyone is engaging in hit-and-run (the rogue moves because he does not want to be subject to a full-attack, the monster moves to get within reach, the fighter moves because everyone else is also moving). At the end of the day, I don't see how the monster is necessarily any worse off, or the fighter any better off. :confused: Here's where you have the specific scenario where THW guy does marginally better with his +8 dmg/rd, and ToB really shines with the dmg/standard manuvers stuff...and it's why you get Stand Still and Trip builds, to stop monsters from doing this kind of thing, and keep your full attacks. It's why they have Belts of Battle, to grant extra move actions. It's also key whether the monster is going to chase the rogue, or its going to turn on the other convenient target. Remember also that if it moves, and you can reach it, you're now set up for a charge. And we all agree charges are nice to have...if the monster can't stop you. remember also that it doesn't know you're unhittable until you actually aren't getting hit by it, which is probably bound to suprise it. If it chases the rogue, it loses its full attack, and bad guys love full attacks too, doncha know...is the dragon gonna run after the Rogue for one attack, or turn on you for a full attack action? Decisions, decisions. Your AC can't really be that high...can it? Mr THW might just eat a full attack with Power Attack. that could be rather bad. It all depends. So, the whole mobility is situational. you are, after all, making yourself a fat target for full attack actions. It's just you have a much better chance of living through them then your friend without a shield does. And at the end, you still have the chance to drop your shield and go to it with both hands...or grab your shield in two hands and go to it, as the case may be. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-21-08, 12:20 AM	Because for some people, if Sword and Shield is not Mary Poppins, it sucks. Nothing is "good enough" for them. Amen. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-21-08, 12:31 AM	The simple fact of the matter - and which you keep conveniently ignoring - is that TWF/2HF setups save feats compared to the SAB setup - a fact which is irrefutable. Using the TWF setup with a pair of weapons (god bless them Drizz't Clones for doing something right) yields much better damage than any SAB setup and is capable of the same manuvers. Moreover, it offers better chances to hit, higher damage, and the capacity to be much more effective for cost, and that's not even factoring in some of the insanity that can be done with TWF and late-game builds. 2HF is definitely weaker defensively but works in your favor, quickly, for sheer damage, and when you're dealing with things with say, DR, is exactly what you want - and that's not even factoring in the saved slots or better styles specifically available to specific weapons. It's this combination of saved costs and feat slots that makes the above much more desirable, and certainly more workable than the Sword and Board setup. In short, it saves money, feats, and provides better tactical options down the road, and you're being completely thick if you don't see the advantages. You don't save feats. You spend feats on other things. There's a difference. You don't have better chances to hit. You have the SAME chances to hit. Effectiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Keeping a balor occupied for three rounds gives the party other things to do, particularly if it would kill mr THW in two. Your dmg is better...marginally, +8, +2.5. Three feats worth of marginally? All the time? No. It's all situational. SAB isn't about all the damage, all the time. It's about the defense. But you just spent a paragraph, two, extolling the virtues of damage, and half a sentence on defense. It shows where you place defensive importance. We're of a different mindset. DR is something everyone has to contend with, and generally isn't that hard to overcome with some planning and the right weapon/enchantment. It's why my favorite high level weapons are Shadow-Striking...overcomes all DR save Epic. Never have to worry about the bloody stuff again. Right tool for the job. Blowing Power Attack just to get thru DR is very much Not Fun. Not only do you miss more, but your dmg will still suck. Better to be smart and just satisfy the DR. And I can grab my shield in two hands and pound on things with Power Attack just fine for DR, ty. And keep my AC while I do it. Priorities, man. All you want is damage...it comes across in your post. SAB isn't all about damage...it's about more options then that, and damage is just one thing it can do. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-21-08, 12:40 AM	Because you fail to miss the point. TWF with extra damage dice is the only way for any melee other than 2HF to equal it's damage output. Then your problem is you're running house games and trying to limit everyone else to their rulesets. You might as well say "If a game where Wizards can only cast 0 level spells, Fighter 20 is better than Wizard 20." Ahh, more hyperbole. AGAIN, you are missing the whole point. I don't CARE about TWF damage. I'm trading damage for AC. I can put it in there, and be respectable...more then respectable, actually. I just consider it silly to put in THREE MORE FEATS just so you can equal the dmg you get THW fighting, when it's easier to drop your shield, go TH, and do the dmg without all the feat investment. If you want your AC and great damage, then do both. It's not an issue. Sure, sure, lots of extra dice is better. So is +4-13 AC over TWF guy. And you also didn't read the post, did you? Something that was actually thought out, with numbers and defenses, and I actually started it with the entire premise of, if those two things were not true, "then go THW. You lose nothing." Because you have your cake and can eat it, too. There would be no tradeoff. And you completely, utterly ignored, or missed it, and this is my problem? ==Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-21-08, 07:29 AM	Because you have your cake and can eat it, too. There would be no tradeoff. Exactly the point against you. Each 'type' of fighter can do all the maneuvers and use all the techniques of the others. But building for a 2HW pouncer/controller will allow you to do better at the most advantageous of the techniques with hardly any lack in the technique you are claiming as superior. The same cannot be said (without deceit, misconception, or houserules) for building for a single attack progression SAB.
Eerongal 05-21-08, 09:33 AM	really, why is this debate going on? i've been keeping up with it, and really, all aelryinth has been saying is that SAB is a viable build for a fighter. I haven't seen him claim anywhere that it's SUPERIOR to a THF charger build, merely that it's fun to play and has some options to it, which is all a matter of personal preference. Realisticly, no side is going to change the other's mind, so why continue hammering at the same points over and over? Note that I am not supporting either build, just stating that i think this discussion is an effort of futility. Why not let aelryinth have his SAB fighter as he likes it, it won't affect YOUR gaming habits. Maybe he's had DMs who had battles that required him to "turtle", maybe some fights he's had haven't been able to use an uber charger, maybe he just doesn't think having one ability is fun, either way, he can play how he wants, and the rest of you can play how you want. Your experiences may be different, yes, but that doesn't make anyone else's experiences less valid. in short, i really see no point for either side to continue the argument, so why not just let it lie and accept that not everyone agrees with you (to both sides of the debate)?
Jaimas 05-21-08, 09:36 AM	If you want your AC and great damage, then do both. It's not an issue. Sure, sure, lots of extra dice is better. So is +4-13 AC over TWF guy. This would be valid - if it weren't for the fact that there comes a point where high AC does nothing for you. Don't misunderstand, a high AC is always desirable - but there comes a point where it's going to do nothing to save you against certain foes - these include larger critters (like most high-level dragons), big ticket constructs, and so on. Feel free to argue against it, but there's little difference between 31 AC and 43 AC when your enemy is getting like +50 to hit. Trust me, I've been on the recieving end of a Dragon's attacks MORE than a few times, and it sucks. You aren't evading it with anything less than concealment. Additionally you aren't pointing out that in order to maximize the effectiveness of a SAB Build, you need to either blow a slot on the bashing enchantment (ergo reducing the shield's effectiveness down the line) or buy a spiked shield and - this is key - add another 200000+ GP to the cost. Assuming you go full-bore for defensive enchantments as well, that makes your shield cost well over 300000 GP - almost half of your wealth at 20th level going by treasure tables - making for a very, very obvious target for enemies looking to hamstring you with a Sunder and putting way too many eggs in one basket if you get caught out in an antimagic field or - gods help you - get MDJ'd or nailed by a Dispel Magic as you close in. More to the point, you still need Two-Weapon Fighting and its subsidiaries to be able to throw out the number of attacks you'd normally need - and you need higher stats as well, meaning that SAB is less compatible with a heavy armor build since you need DEX 19 for GTWF. In order to use a SAB Build you need: * Improved Shield Bash * Two-Weapon Fighting * Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (which needs Dex 17) * Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (which needs Dex 19) * Weapon Focus for your Primary Weapon * Weapon Focus for your Shield * Weapon Spec for your Primary Weapon * Weapon Spec for your Shield * Improved Critical for your Primary Weapon (See Addendum #1) * Improved Critical for your Shield (See Addendum #1) * Weapon Finesse (See Addendum #2) Now for comparison, here's what someone getting a standard TWF build, using two Short Swords or the like needs: * Weapon Finesse (See addendum #2) * Two-Weapon Fighting * Improved Two-Weapon Fighting * Greater Two-Weapon Fighting * Weapon focus for your Weapon * Improved Critical for your Weapon (see addendum #1) And for some real fun, here's the basic feats needed to get a 2HWF ready: * Weapon Focus * Improved Critical * Exotic Weapon Proficiency (see addendum #3) Addendum #1: This is assuming your DM shows the initiative to allow Improved Critical and Keen to stack. If they do not, then the choice is yours to either get Impcrit or Keen as needed. Addendum #2: The TWF fighter and SAB fighter, if they're going with a light armor route to use their DEX effectively need to either use lighter armor (Medium at Most) or Bracers of Armor outright to benefit from their higher DEX (which is needed for TWF). If you do go with the Bracers route or even lighter armor than recommended, these builds can sometimes benefit from Weapon Finesse. It's very build-specific, however. Addendum #3: EWP isn't expressly necessary, but it gives the 2HWF a ton of useful tricks and makes them far more viable directly. The above said, the TWF uses less feats and costs less than the SAB fighter - monetarily, by over 100000 GP. The TWF is still costly, but less so as he/she/it needs only upgrade his weapons and not the shield as well. A good analogue to the above, and one you're only going to see in Renaissance-era campaigns, is why campaigns that allow dual-focus weapons, like the bladed crossbow, musket-mounted bayonet, or parthian rapier seldom see use in TWF builds - because each of the above requires seperate enchantments - and thus a hell of a lot more money - for both parts of the weapon as opposed to just one weapon. The Bladed Crossbow needs its blade and crossbow mechanism enchanted seperately, the musket needs the bayonet and musket itself enchanted seperately, and the Parthian Rapier needs the Rapier itself AND the Pistol component enchanted seperately. That comes to over 400000 a weapon when maxed-out - a jaw-dropping expense for the uninitiated. Some TWF builds can dance around this (like dagger or hand axe builds) - but Sword and Board cannot. The real prince of cost-effect however is the 2HWF. He gets a lot less attacks, yes, and his AC is, in general, lower - but he saves a metric shitload of money on the weapon front, and in exchange gets both notably higher attack damage and chances to hit, 3-4 feats over the TWF, and a weapon that can provide a useful secondary benefit (either reach or disarm/trip ability or bull rushes from afar or whatever). But there's more to it than that. In D&D, you usually see creatures with either a high AC and middling HP, a fair AC and high HP, or the errant "way-too-effective for CR Has 15 hit dice and casts MDJ/Implosion/Disintegrate and deals 5d10 damage + per melee attack foe that somehow is CR 7", but the last catagory is an abomination and shunned by all sane DMs. In the case of creatures that have high ACs, you will often find that getting into melee is either an unfeasible or undesirable option, depending on the creature. High-AC units of note include powerful constructs, some NPCs, and high-level Fiends, Dragons, and some very rare units of other creature types. In these circumstances, tactical setup plays a bit of a role. A typical Golem won't show tactics, but it's all too common to wind up facing one of these abominations with a weapon you won't be able to damage it effectively with - whilst a high-level fiend such as a Marilith is going to horribly, horribly rape you if you stay close (and worse if you lack a weapon that can breach their DR). Dragons and NPC Wizards and the like present a similar challenge in that they're not going to fight you on anything remotely resembling your terms. The former is going to breath weapon from the air and only land to try to land on you and then horrible tear you to shreds. The latter is going to do everything in his power to keep you from getting close, and these are exactly why a reach 2HWF is a good option in contrast, since the increased overall attack power and potential for hitting outside of what the enemy would normally consider "safe" is invaluable. There's more beyond the SAB build than merely "is this build viable" - which nobody really said it wasn't - it's less efficient in regards to both feats and cost - which is what the CO board was mentioning - and that's an irrefutable point proven with simple mathematics. You've continued attempting to frame SAB as a build to end all builds, and it isn't - it's simply a solid melee build that isn't as efficient as TWFs or 2HWFs.
aelryinth 05-22-08, 12:25 AM	QUOTE=JaimasThis would be valid - if it weren't for the fact that there comes a point where high AC does nothing for you. Don't misunderstand, a high AC is always desirable - but there comes a point where it's going to do nothing to save you against certain foes - these include larger critters (like most high-level dragons), big ticket constructs, and so on. Feel free to argue against it, but there's little difference between 31 AC and 43 AC when your enemy is getting like +50 to hit. If he's getting +50 to hit, reasonable buffs to your armor class can send it shooting into the 70's. Heck, most DM's let Expertise scale with BAB because it's so limited, rather then forcing you to blow another feat on Superior Expertise. +50 to hit sucks when you don't have a 60+ AC, I agree. Dragons Power attacking are really bad news. Trust me, I've been on the recieving end of a Dragon's attacks MORE than a few times, and it sucks. You aren't evading it with anything less than concealment. Additionally you aren't pointing out that in order to maximize the effectiveness of a SAB Build, you need to either blow a slot on the bashing enchantment (ergo reducing the shield's effectiveness down the line) or buy a spiked shield and - this is key - add another 200000+ GP to the cost. The standard shield to cap the build for defense is 108K, same cost as a +10 shield, and half the price of a +10 Weapon. If you want to go full bore, however, go full bore! Note this is roughly the same cost as a +7 Weapon and a +7 Weapon, which is 200k, which is equal to a +10 Weapon. Your ideal weapon to fit into the price Schema is going to be a +4 Martial SHadowstriking Weapon. (+7 also). The Ideal Weapons above are if you actually have the money to get them. Assuming you go full-bore for defensive enchantments as well, that makes your shield cost well over 300000 GP - almost half of your wealth at 20th level going by treasure tables - making for a very, very obvious target for enemies looking to hamstring you with a Sunder and putting way too many eggs in one basket if you get caught out in an antimagic field or - gods help you - get MDJ'd or nailed by a Dispel Magic as you close in. I never stipulated you are going to spend that much money on the shield...UNLESS you get Ancestral Relic. Then you can do so, and it actually costs half price. Keep in mind this is OPPORTUNITY as well as cost...you have basically an extra slot you can stuff lots of extra money into if you wish. More to the point, you still need Two-Weapon Fighting and its subsidiaries to be able to throw out the number of attacks you'd normally need - and you need higher stats as well, meaning that SAB is less compatible with a heavy armor build since you need DEX 19 for GTWF. In order to use a SAB Build you need: * Improved Shield Bash * Two-Weapon Fighting * Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (which needs Dex 17) * Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (which needs Dex 19) * Weapon Focus for your Primary Weapon * Weapon Focus for your Shield * Weapon Spec for your Primary Weapon * Weapon Spec for your Shield * Improved Critical for your Primary Weapon (See Addendum #1) * Improved Critical for your Shield (See Addendum #1) * Weapon Finesse (See Addendum #2) Now for comparison, here's what someone getting a standard TWF build, using two Short Swords or the like needs: * Weapon Finesse (See addendum #2) * Two-Weapon Fighting * Improved Two-Weapon Fighting * Greater Two-Weapon Fighting * Weapon focus for your Weapon * Improved Critical for your Weapon (see addendum #1) And for some real fun, here's the basic feats needed to get a 2HWF ready: * Weapon Focus * Improved Critical * Exotic Weapon Proficiency (see addendum #3) I need to point out to you something. 1) Shortswords are pretty suboptimal, although you could turn it into dual sunblades. A Shield actually does much better dmg. 2) 19 Dex takes a +6 booster from a starting 13. I agree it's ridiculous. But at the end of the build I'm assuming a Dex of 21-23 anyway. It's not an early tactic, it's a late one. 3) He doens't need to spend feats twice. Aptitude means that all his weapon feats apply to what he's wielding. Thus, he only needs the spec tree/improved crit/weapon supremacy ONCE. Just make his MWM the same dmg type as his shield and he's golden (hence why I say, shield/spikes/razors) 4) If you're going to go the TWF route, use the other weapon as the off hand. THe shield's probably better to start, and you can make it exotic if you like. I recommend the sunblade shortsword/bastard route interchange if you do this. Or you can make the shield light. Hell, maybe you can make it extreme and get EWP applied to it. 5) The reason you are doing this is extra damage. The reason you go with the shield is extra AC. If you don't want the extra AC, why are you bothering with a shield in the first place? Addendum #1: This is assuming your DM shows the initiative to allow Improved Critical and Keen to stack. If they do not, then the choice is yours to either get Impcrit or Keen as needed. [B]Scabbard of Keen edges :) Note that Aptitude affects Imp Crit, etc. Addendum #2: The TWF fighter and SAB fighter, if they're going with a light armor route to use their DEX effectively need to either use lighter armor (Medium at Most) or Bracers of Armor outright to benefit from their higher DEX (which is needed for TWF). If you do go with the Bracers route or even lighter armor than recommended, these builds can sometimes benefit from Weapon Finesse. It's very build-specific, however. Oh, I agree. I also know personally that the problem with this route is that without Uncanny Dodge, ambushes and lose Dex situations murder you. I consider this discrimination against those wearing armor, however, not something exclusive to SAB. SAB doesn't penalize Dex...this is an Armor problem. Addendum #3: EWP isn't expressly necessary, but it gives the 2HWF a ton of useful tricks and makes them far more viable directly. I think what you're saying is that there are some very unbalanced Exotic Weapons, and it's great to take them. Not denying it! The above said, the TWF uses less feats and costs less than the SAB fighter - monetarily, by over 100000 GP. The TWF is still costly, but less so as he/she/it needs only upgrade his weapons and not the shield as well. Cost is factored into the build...I'm not blind. I cap the shield at 108K normally. If you really want both, you need to be prepared to invest in the shield, and Ancestral Relic is probably how it's going to happen. That's a lot of cash. However, the flip side of it is it also represents a ton of POTENTIAL...which is a bit harder to quantify. A good analogue to the above, and one you're only going to see in Renaissance-era campaigns, is why campaigns that allow dual-focus weapons, like the bladed crossbow, musket-mounted bayonet, or parthian rapier seldom see use in TWF builds - because each of the above requires seperate enchantments - and thus a hell of a lot more money - for both parts of the weapon as opposed to just one weapon. The Bladed Crossbow needs its blade and crossbow mechanism enchanted seperately, the musket needs the bayonet and musket itself enchanted seperately, and the Parthian Rapier needs the Rapier itself AND the Pistol component enchanted seperately. That comes to over 400000 a weapon when maxed-out - a jaw-dropping expense for the uninitiated. Some TWF builds can dance around this (like dagger or hand axe builds) - but Sword and Board cannot. Actually, the APtitude enchantment and cost/benefit means you can. A +5 Defending Spiked Heavy Shield of +5 Bashign is 108k (138K with APtitude if you want TWF)....with another +7 Weapon is the same cost as TWF....with the potential for more money on it then either build, heading into Epic. Which is a good thing, right? Money gets crazy going into Epic... The real prince of cost-effect however is the 2HWF. He gets a lot less attacks, yes, and his AC is, in general, lower - but he saves a metric shitload of money on the weapon front, and in exchange gets both notably higher attack damage and chances to hit, 3-4 feats over the TWF, and a weapon that can provide a useful secondary benefit (either reach or disarm/trip ability or bull rushes from afar or whatever). Yes, Focusing on one 200K weapon is nice. However, it also means he only HAS one weapon. Your sundering/disarm/disenchant arguments now come to a head here. Smash his one weapon, and he has...nothing. It IS the downside of having a better weapon...it's just one that most campaigns choose to ignore, as said tactics are 'cheese'. But there's more to it than that. In D&D, you usually see creatures with either a high AC and middling HP, a fair AC and high HP, or the errant "way-too-effective for CR Has 15 hit dice and casts MDJ/Implosion/Disintegrate and deals 5d10 damage + per melee attack foe that somehow is CR 7", but the last catagory is an abomination and shunned by all sane DMs. In the case of creatures that have high ACs, you will often find that getting into melee is either an unfeasible or undesirable option, depending on the creature. High-AC units of note include powerful constructs, some NPCs, and high-level Fiends, Dragons, and some very rare units of other creature types. In these circumstances, tactical setup plays a bit of a role. A typical Golem won't show tactics, but it's all too common to wind up facing one of these abominations with a weapon you won't be able to damage it effectively with - whilst a high-level fiend such as a Marilith is going to horribly, horribly rape you if you stay close (and worse if you lack a weapon that can breach their DR). Dragons and NPC Wizards and the like present a similar challenge in that they're not going to fight you on anything remotely resembling your terms. The former is going to breath weapon from the air and only land to try to land on you and then horrible tear you to shreds. The latter is going to do everything in his power to keep you from getting close, and these are exactly why a reach 2HWF is a good option in contrast, since the increased overall attack power and potential for hitting outside of what the enemy would normally consider "safe" is invaluable. Most monsters also have automatic reach when they advance to later levels, and so THW have no reach advantage...it's negated/equalled by that of the monster...which places THW guy at a DISadvantage, because he's more vulnerable to attacks. A normal marilith has a +25 Attack bonus. At level 20, your walk around AC is 'only' 48...she can hit you on a nat 20. If you want to start advancing her, fine...but that just means I have to focus more and more on AC, and I might be higher level, too. As you've noted, mOnster AC's don't tend to advance as fast as their Str/TH do. She's not going to rape me anywhere near as badly as THW guy, sitting there with an AC of maybe 40, and probably 35ish. Heck, Lockdown defaults to a 35-36, which means a normal marilith hits him half the time. She doesn't hit SAB guy at all. There's more beyond the SAB build than merely "is this build viable" - which nobody really said it wasn't - it's less efficient in regards to both feats and cost - which is what the CO board was mentioning - and that's an irrefutable point proven with simple mathematics. You've continued attempting to frame SAB as a build to end all builds, and it isn't - it's simply a solid melee build that isn't as efficient as TWFs or 2HWFs. I've done no such thing to say it's the 'build to end all builds'. Stop putting words in my mouth. I've repeatedly said it's viable, useful, flexible and versatile. Too many people keep misrepresenting my positiion because they focus exclusively on the ONE thing the other builds are better at...straight dmg. The SAB guy devotes THREE feats to Shield usage...and then does something else. Focus: High AC THW guy spends his three feats on something else. By default, the Uber Charger line. Focus: Big hunks of damage. TWF guy spends his three feats on something else...by default, multiple attacks. Focus: Lots of attacks. The latter two builds NEVER spend their feats on Shield feats. They do other things, and they never get the advantage of the high AC, because that's the SAB's 'shtick'. The SAB can go grab the multi weapon feats and uber charger feats, and do service that way, if you want to build him that way. The misrepresenting of my position is exactly the same thing people were accusing me of for Lockdown, thinking I was claiming it was the greatest build of all time. Even when I posted other's alternate builds, focusing on different aspects of the same job as seen by other people, they still had their noses in the air and couldn't see what I was doing was showing the alternatives and how to play the guy. SAB is not the greatest build EVAR. It's viable, useful, and an alternative. Cost is no more an issue then it is with the TWF guy. Feat investment is a hand-waved illusion that isn't being looked at seriously. Item vulnerability is no more an issue then it is with the other builds. The only truly valid issue here is REACH...and that's more an issue for battlefield control then it is for any type of attack benefit. HIgh enough AC, you WANT the enemy to try them AoO on you, so they don't take it against the rogue! And I don't see why that is so hard to understand. My build above wasn't the be-all and end all of builds, either. You can shift the focus drastically by dropping and pasting feat chains. Thank you for staying reasonable and not flaming. You just have to remember the underlying reason for taking a shield build are different from the others. Once you do that, it's much easier to understand where it comes from, and how the synergies of the build quickly alter based upon it. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-22-08, 12:36 AM	really, why is this debate going on? i've been keeping up with it, and really, all aelryinth has been saying is that SAB is a viable build for a fighter. I haven't seen him claim anywhere that it's SUPERIOR to a THF charger build, merely that it's fun to play and has some options to it, which is all a matter of personal preference. Realisticly, no side is going to change the other's mind, so why continue hammering at the same points over and over? Note that I am not supporting either build, just stating that i think this discussion is an effort of futility. Why not let aelryinth have his SAB fighter as he likes it, it won't affect YOUR gaming habits. Maybe he's had DMs who had battles that required him to "turtle", maybe some fights he's had haven't been able to use an uber charger, maybe he just doesn't think having one ability is fun, either way, he can play how he wants, and the rest of you can play how you want. Your experiences may be different, yes, but that doesn't make anyone else's experiences less valid. in short, i really see no point for either side to continue the argument, so why not just let it lie and accept that not everyone agrees with you (to both sides of the debate)? Probably because I get annoyed with blank-eyed absolutism and dismissal of arguments that have no real foundation or math behind them. SAB is just a different mindset of a fighter and his job. But too many people have pigeon-holed all fighters as needing to be the 'big weapon dmg guy' and that's not what SAB does, and they dismiss any type of fighter who isn't expressly built to do that job, which I find funny. Since I'm willing to except the merits of more then one build approach, and they aren't, we have loggerheads. ===Aelryinth
Callix 05-22-08, 08:04 AM	Probably because I get annoyed with blank-eyed absolutism and dismissal of arguments that have no real foundation or math behind them. SAB is just a different mindset of a fighter and his job. But too many people have pigeon-holed all fighters as needing to be the 'big weapon dmg guy' and that's not what SAB does, and they dismiss any type of fighter who isn't expressly built to do that job, which I find funny. Since I'm willing to except the merits of more then one build approach, and they aren't, we have loggerheads. ===Aelryinth You are arguing with Character Optimisation. They claim that your build is suboptimal. Not useless, but not the most effective use of your resources. While opening up new magic item slots for enhancements do create potential, the split focus is seldom worthwhile. Put simply, a Sword and Board fighter, while exceptionally hard to hit in combat, is very easily incapacitated by some simple spells and effects. While a Two-Hander isn't implicitly less vulnerable to such effects, he has far more of his gold available to devote to dealing with the problems of high-level play without magic. The 200,000 gold he saves simply by not having a second weapon to enchant is more than sufficient to get a Ring of Freedom of Movement, Boots of Flying, a Cloak of Resistance +5, and a Minor Ring of Spell Storing, with which the Fighter can get a set of True Strikes for when concealment and high ACs are a problem. All of these items are crucial for handling high-level opponents with spellcasting capabilities; you can't afford to be demolished by a single Fly, Web, or Black Tentacles spell. Nor can you afford to carry a low Will save to a fight involving Dominate Person, Irresistible Dance, or Plane Shift. And a Dragon, along with an attack bonus in the 50's, can bring any and all of these to the table. Meanwhile, the two-handed weapon fighter is also capable of handling casters (though not dragons) in a few rounds, meaning he needs to be dealt with by the enemy. Which in turn means that the casters on the fighter's side get a few more turns to bring down that caster. It might not look that glorious, but it's a real and powerful contribution to soak a few actions from your opponents when a single Finger of Death can end the proceedings. Remember, casters make touch attacks and force will saves. Dead casters make no attacks and force no saves.
aelryinth 05-22-08, 03:28 PM	QUOTE=Callix You are arguing with Character Optimisation. They claim that your build is suboptimal. Not useless, but not the most effective use of your resources. While opening up new magic item slots for enhancements do create potential, the split focus is seldom worthwhile. No, I'm not. I'm arguing with people who take Char Ops as gospel, without considering their campaign, playability, and fun factor. There's a major difference. Char Ops says all melee have to be uber chargers to be effective. If not, they have to be capable of awesome battlefield control to the point of brokenness (something more like Lockdown). Having a high AC and being able to endure? What? 'The enemy will automatically ignore you in favor of someone it can do something against, all the time. You are irrelevant." What? Put simply, a Sword and Board fighter, while exceptionally hard to hit in combat, is very easily incapacitated by some simple spells and effects. While a Two-Hander isn't implicitly less vulnerable to such effects, he has far more of his gold available to devote to dealing with the problems of high-level play without magic. No, he doesn't. I pointed that out above. I spend 100k on my weapon and 108K on my shield. Now I've actually got a backup weapon if I want it, and your guy doesn't, and we've spent the same amount of money. Furthermore, you CAN spend up to 500k on your weapon and weapon/shield...somethign probably going to wait for Epic, but the potential is there. The 200,000 gold he saves simply by not having a second weapon to enchant is more than sufficient to get a Ring of Freedom of Movement, Boots of Flying, a Cloak of Resistance +5, and a Minor Ring of Spell Storing, with which the Fighter can get a set of True Strikes for when concealment and high ACs are a problem. All of these items are crucial for handling high-level opponents with spellcasting capabilities; you can't afford to be demolished by a single Fly, Web, or Black Tentacles spell. Nor can you afford to carry a low Will save to a fight involving Dominate Person, Irresistible Dance, or Plane Shift. And a Dragon, along with an attack bonus in the 50's, can bring any and all of these to the table. I can buy all of those too. This isn't an argument. You figure it into your build, and you are a fool if you don't. You work within your budget. +5 Defender Spiked Heavy Shield +5 of Bashing = 108k. +4 Martial Shadowstriking weapon = 98k, = 206K. Budget. Have I lost any AC? Not a dime. Lost +2 TH, +1 which can be replaced by GMW, oR, since we are talking Char Ops, I could go +3 and Martial and just 'buy a Pearl of Power and have a caster do GMW for me'. Gold is NOT the issue, either. A point I've addressed multiple times now. Meanwhile, the two-handed weapon fighter is also capable of handling casters (though not dragons) in a few rounds, meaning he needs to be dealt with by the enemy. Which in turn means that the casters on the fighter's side get a few more turns to bring down that caster. It might not look that glorious, but it's a real and powerful contribution to soak a few actions from your opponents when a single Finger of Death can end the proceedings. Since I'm capable of handling the casters equally well, arguably better since my Touch AC is MUCH higher, this also isn't an argument. Remember, casters make touch attacks and force will saves. Dead casters make no attacks and force no saves. If we're bringing Char Ops into it, "No smart caster will ever be caught in melee." Thus invalidating both points. and since you can't get them dead any better then I can, and I have a high Touch AC and the same Will defenses as you, where exactly is your point coming from? /QUOTE ----------------------------------------------------------- These points keep getting brought up, I point out I've addressed them, and then they keep getting brought up again because people ignore them. It's almost mind-numbing. Thank you for not resorting to flames to get your point across. Just realize I took all those arguments well into account before I ever started arguing. I know the Char Ops arguments. But a SAB build is not a build for Char Ops. Char Ops live in a different world then a normal game. SAB is built on the premise of a 'real' game. I presume personally that anyone making a Char Ops style build will find it used on NPC's...and those NPC's will SHAFT them. Repeatedly! Remember, CharOps considers builds GOLDEN...NPC's can do anything a Build can do. As a matter of fact, the ONLY advantage PC's have over NPC's is GEAR. That's it. And if the power is all in the class/feat/template/race, NPC's can and should use them all, and crush the PC's and drive them before them, and hear the lamentations of their Players. Because that's what I'd do as a DM. If Uber Charge and Mega damage were the only way to play melees, all the NPC melees would follow this tactic. And at level 6 when every melee enemy has Power attack, shock trooper, leap attack, any PC who loses initiative DIES. That's optimized play. In optimized Play, the DM wins, hands down. ===Aelryinth
Callix 05-22-08, 05:16 PM	Thank you for acknowledging my not flaming. However, as a minor player in Character Optimisation, I'd appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. "In optimised play, the DM wins hands-down": That seems to be fundamental to your agrument. CharOp is this alternate reality where fighters don't have a hope in hell, and all we can do is pray not to get put in there. I can see several formal and less formal issues with this thesis. Please allow me to refute them. 1. The Player vs DM fallacy. This is not a formal issue, but still serves to weaken your argument. You assume that the DM's goal in all this is to kill the characters. They always have the "Rocks fall, everybody dies" option; the DM's word is law in-game, and they can always destroy a party if they want to. However, that isn't the point of the game. D&D is actually a collaborative enterprise, in which the DM creates challenges to try and make a fun time for the players, and the players try to surprise and entertain the DM. Yes, this often necessitates the matching of optimisation levels to ensure challenging, but not overwhelming, encounters, but it does not mean that a Focused Specialist/Shadowcraft Mage wizard build is an excuse for the DM to unleash Pun-Pun. 2. The false dichotomy. In this case, you construct "optimisers" and "real players" as two completely distinct groups with an unbridgeable gulf between them; this has been debunked many times. The local name for the argument is the Stormwind Fallacy. Its conclusion is that roleplaying ability and optimising ability are unrelated: it is as easy to be bad at both as to be good at both. The degree of mechanical power needed varies from game to game; you are quite right that in a significant proportion of games, your build will be sufficient; although it is a little slow to come together, the high AC will allow you to survive those low levels, even if you're not as effective as you might have been. However, that's not to say that you have a blank cheque to imply that Power Attack is a wrong choice; only that there is no need for cookie-cutter builds as other options are "good enough" in some games. Of course, there's no inherent problem with cookie-cutter builds: a good roleplayer can give a character an identity beyond their fighting style. 3. As an extensiomn of 2, an all-or-nothing, us-and-them mentality. You claim tat uberchargers are the only way CharOp thinks melee should be played. That is simply not true. The Lockdown Tripper comes within a few inches of being able to assasinate a prepared caster; he can't quite afford all the items. Against a melee threat, he can vitamise them if they so much as try to close. And he's a Fighter 20. Similarly, non-fighter melee builds have significant variation; Stormguard Warrior from the Tome of Battle can be exploited to create a powerful character that eviscerates everything on the second turn of combat. There are a number of powerful builds for melee; the Shock Trooper charger is only the simplest, and so is the advice given to people who come to CO and do not show much in the way of tactical experience. Furthermore, you can optimise anything. Aelryinth, you have done a very good job of creating an optimal sword-and-boarder. But that's not a claim that Power Attack is useless, simply that it's not the only way to play melee. I accept this, but have some reservations; even with TWF and Improved Shield Bash, I'm cautious about your damage potential against high DR. That, of course, is one of the selling points of Power Attack; that even when you can't find a cold iron weapon, you can still get significant damage through. On the buget issue; I made a minor mistake. That array of equipment costs 100,000 gp; the saving by not having a shield. There's another 200,000 gp by not having a secondary weapon.
aelryinth 05-22-08, 07:37 PM	QUOTE=CallixThank you for acknowledging my not flaming. However, as a minor player in Character Optimisation, I'd appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. I will appreciate youdoing likewise. CharOps is CharOps, and the opinions there are of the general board, not any one person. You simply seem to be reflecting their opinions and beliefs. "In optimised play, the DM wins hands-down": That seems to be fundamental to your agrument. CharOp is this alternate reality where fighters don't have a hope in hell, and all we can do is pray not to get put in there. I can see several formal and less formal issues with this thesis. Please allow me to refute them. You're actually going to be DEFENDING the fighter here? Against Char Ops? 1. The Player vs DM fallacy. This is not a formal issue, but still serves to weaken your argument. You assume that the DM's goal in all this is to kill the characters. They always have the "Rocks fall, everybody dies" option; the DM's word is law in-game, and they can always destroy a party if they want to. However, that isn't the point of the game. D&D is actually a collaborative enterprise, in which the DM creates challenges to try and make a fun time for the players, and the players try to surprise and entertain the DM. Yes, this often necessitates the matching of optimisation levels to ensure challenging, but not overwhelming, encounters, but it does not mean that a Focused Specialist/Shadowcraft Mage wizard build is an excuse for the DM to unleash Pun-Pun. No, it's a reason for a DM to start using FS/Shadowcraft users. They are all builds, and NPC's can take builds easily. Builds don't use gear. If PC's want to use hugely powerful builds, then so should the NPC's. NPC's outnumber PC's. PC's will lose initiative, and then PC's will die to these uber builds. It's not a question of if...it's just a question of when. And the most abusive builds/combos all resolve around broken spells and magical effects...NOT around classes. 2. The false dichotomy. In this case, you construct "optimisers" and "real players" as two completely distinct groups with an unbridgeable gulf between them; this has been debunked many times. The local name for the argument is the Stormwind Fallacy. Its conclusion is that roleplaying ability and optimising ability are unrelated: it is as easy to be bad at both as to be good at both. The degree of mechanical power needed varies from game to game; you are quite right that in a significant proportion of games, your build will be sufficient; although it is a little slow to come together, the high AC will allow you to survive those low levels, even if you're not as effective as you might have been. However, that's not to say that you have a blank cheque to imply that Power Attack is a wrong choice; only that there is no need for cookie-cutter builds as other options are "good enough" in some games. Of course, there's no inherent problem with cookie-cutter builds: a good roleplayer can give a character an identity beyond their fighting style. This is not Stormwind at all. It's a message that there are some very specific things in the game that are UNbalanced, and CharOps loves to make use of them. If they do, the DM/NPC's should. Promptly the game should collapse under the power of these builds...everything comes down to initiative, and at some point the PC's will lose. As soon as you invoke the 'Celerity+Timestop' autowins rule (which I see all the time), then every NPC of that level should autowin. Otherwise, how did they get to that level? And there's no feasible reason to deny it to them - "My caster has a 30 Int and knows his fighting!" applies also to NPC's. Kindly note I've also never argued against taking Power Attack. I think it's an essential feat for Fighters in many ways. The Fighter has his feats. I can't personally think of any feat that is as unbalanced as something as simple as Alter Self, let alone Poly Self, or even Divine Power. Feats are not unbalanced, and so the Fighter is great! But CharOps leverages itself around magic and magical effects more then anything else, and these can be ANYTHING but balanced. When you use CharOps opinions to build stuff, instead of sitting back and taking a look at balance, the game should TPK. There is NO reason it should not, unless your DM plays his NPC's stupid. <snip> 3. As an extensiomn of 2, an all-or-nothing, us-and-them mentality. You claim tat uberchargers are the only way CharOp thinks melee should be played. That is simply not true. The Lockdown Tripper comes within a few inches of being able to assasinate a prepared caster; he can't quite afford all the items. Against a melee threat, he can vitamise them if they so much as try to close. And he's a Fighter 20. Similarly, non-fighter melee builds have significant variation; Stormguard Warrior from the Tome of Battle can be exploited to create a powerful character that eviscerates everything on the second turn of combat. There are a number of powerful builds for melee; the Shock Trooper charger is only the simplest, and so is the advice given to people who come to CO and do not show much in the way of tactical experience. Furthermore, you can optimise anything. Aelryinth, you have done a very good job of creating an optimal sword-and-boarder. But that's not a claim that Power Attack is useless, simply that it's not the only way to play melee. I accept this, but have some reservations; even with TWF and Improved Shield Bash, I'm cautious about your damage potential against high DR. That, of course, is one of the selling points of Power Attack; that even when you can't find a cold iron weapon, you can still get significant damage through. [B]Whoa, now...there's that putting words thing into my mouth. Wherever did I say Power Attack was worthless? Go back to the very first post of mine in this thread...I said exactly the opposite. All the arguments here revolve around viability of SAB builds, not Power Attack. Note I have Power Attack in my SAB build core feats...not in the electives. Also note, the primary weapon has SHAdow Striking. DR is not an issue for the build at all. The design is for consistent hits and consistent damage all the time. I did the same with Lockdown...I loathe DR. On the buget issue; I made a minor mistake. That array of equipment costs 100,000 gp; the saving by not having a shield. There's another 200,000 gp by not having a secondary weapon. I'm not quite following you. My IDEAL SAB spends 350k on Weapon+Shield w Ancestral Relic (feat chops it to 200K net), and COULD spend 500k (Heading to Epic). I pointed that out. The BUDGETED SAB spends 200K on weapon + Shield, same as the THW guy with his +10 Weapon, and same as TWF guy with his 2 +7 Weapons. If you don't take cost into account for a build, you stir up these arguments. I addressed them well ahead of time...why are you dwelling on them again? When I post about shields, I post Uber Shield: +5 Bashing Heavy Shield, +5 Defender spikes/razors. Cost, 108k. +5 Martial Aptitude Defending is nice...shall we call it a MAD shield? But not in the budget, unless for some reason you elect to make the shield primary weapon, or take Ancestral Relic. If you are saying that THW guy downgrades his sword...okay, that all works. But then he's trading offense for defense...I don't have a problem, and his offense advantage shrinks accordingly. The kind of defense things you mentioned are ESSENTIALS for high level play...the kind of stuff you hand wave in because everyone is assumed to have it. Thus, my comparison has to be 200K for a +10 weapon, vs 200k for +7weapon/ +6/+6 shield vs 200k for 2 +7 Weapons for TWF. That's the only equitable way to compare weapon costs. Everything else should remain constant. 200k vs 206k vs 196k. I've met that 200K limit. Gold is not an issue. If you are saying he's downgrading his sole weapon for extra defenses above and beyond, like Sunic's array of concealment devices, THEN you have an argument here. but as the math proved, that was anything like the 'simple' issue he made it out to be, and cuts into the 'better weapon' argument of the THW guy. keep up the polite posting! :) ==Aelryinth
Callix 05-22-08, 08:50 PM	Thank you for resolving the gold issue. I won't raise it further. At the beginning of my post, I stated your argument as clearly as I could so I could proceed to refute it. The opinion of the CharOps boards is that, in general, a two-handed weapon is the best and easiest way to build for melee. If you have a means of obtaining large amounts of bonus damage, TWF takes off. Your build is, in their parlance, a TWF build using a bashing shield. It is significantly AC oriented, but not actually bad. A more standard sword-and-board build, without TWF, is clearly numerically inferior in its damage output to little gain; and that is why CO regulars will not suggest sword-and-board builds in general. For every measure, there is a counter-measure. Uberchargers lose to chain trippers. Chain trippers lose to archers. Archers lose to uberchargers. It's never that losing initiative will always result in death. At high levels, initiative becomes more and more important, but only in the most abusive of games does the roll for initiative determine the entire fight. Simple measures like Invisibility can change the entire situation, forcing your opponent to take vital actions in getting around your defences. I know. I run fights in a PvP arena on these boards. The high-level fights hinge on initiative, but also on tactics, preparation, and clever surprises. For example, I ran a fight between a level 14 wizard with a cohort (level 13) and a level 14 psion with a Ring of Invisibility, who habitually rode a pegasus. The wizard won initiative, but his tactics relied on using the pegasus to locate his opponent. They were brutally effective, but without the pegasus, he had to spend the first round casting See Invisibility instead of Black Tentacles. That killed him. High-level, magic-rich D&D is brutal at times, but initiative is not the only way to win. Creativity and forward planning also have their roles. So, for anything short of Pun-Pun, you can still have a fun game, even as it moves toward a cold war. Yes, CharOp loves broken stuff. It also likes the good, usable stuff that isn't abusive by any standard above "my character's really tough, so he'll take Toughness". No-one on CO really thinks the wizard is balanced at any level. The general power level consensus is that classes like the Rogue, Warlock and Psychic Warrior are good, and that other classes should try to reach them. That means making melee stronger by adding a few extra tricks, while seriously toning back spellcasters. The little we have seen of 4e seems to suggest that the designers agree with us. All the same, "unbalanced" doesn't mean "the party should always TPK". The point where a TPK is inevitable exists, but it's using Shrink Item for several million damage, not using Web to end an encounter at ECLs 3+. And no-one seriously suggests abusing Shrink Item any more. Finally, I have talked to SunicFlames. He directed me to this thread from the BrilliantGameologists board, where he wanted to take this discussion. The forum is moderated by, amongst other people, the former WizO Autumn, one-time moderator for the CharOp boards. It is not a place where his pet moderator will put you back in your place; if he were to flame you there, he may well get banned from a forum that he seems to enjoy being on. Here, on the other hand, he has openly stated that he is seeing how far he can push it. I'm glad we can have a civilised discussion like this. There is a very interesting argument here about the importance of game balance. I believe that balance is always relative, and that if the DM uses similar levels of power to the players, the game will remain fun, because that similarity implies that neither side is truly helpless against the other. This feeds both strategic thinking and dramatic tension, both of which are elements of a good game of D&D.
aelryinth 05-23-08, 01:36 AM	It's pretty plain that even talking about Sunic is now going to get me reported to the WizO's, so I'll leave my comments on him aside. You've posted well and kept it polite, and you understand where I'm coming from. CharOps thinks I've got a TWF build with more AC...and less damage output. Again, everything is framed in terms of 'damage' with CharOps. A SAB build is framed in 'AC', and everything else develops from there, by my view. TWF is defined in # of Attacks, and everything develops from there. THW is defined by big hunks of damage, and everything develops from there. Controller is based on huge mods, and everything develops from there...that's my view. CharOps has its consensus, but its the optimizer consensus, and it doesn't belong in a real game. I don't consider spellcasting broken...I consider SPELLS broken. As soon as you start removing overpowered spells, spellcasters fall right into line with the other classes again. Likewise, as soon as you start introducing feats that actually DO things, fighters start looking better and better. Your own example of the Stormguard Warrior is one such feat that can become very powerful. but too many people cling to the old rules, they don't want to upgrade feats, and they don't want to downgrade or eliminate spells. Instead, they keep trotting the latter out as examples of the power of a class. Its the CharOps way. Fighters could be horrendously powerful if feats were as strong as broken spells. If spells were no better then feats, spellcasters would be nearly useless. It is indeed a balance issue, one that should have been redressed long ago, and one people still refuse to dwell on, now. WoTC decided to avoid it and went into 4E. Paizo is trying to work around it all and stick with 3.5, but is definitely having problems to a degree. We'll see how it all goes. ===Aelryinth
StruckingFuggle 05-23-08, 02:01 AM	Aelryinth, I'm curious. I don't mean this to sound snarky, but ugh, it's going to. I just can't figure out how to rephrase it. You keep saying feats should be very powerful, comparable to spells. Is that linked somehow to how it's all Fighters get for class features, or is it independent of that issue?
Callix 05-23-08, 02:45 AM	It's pretty plain that even talking about Sunic is now going to get me reported to the WizO's, so I'll leave my comments on him aside. You've posted well and kept it polite, and you understand where I'm coming from. Thank you. I'm sorry if my posts led you in any way to be reported. CharOps thinks I've got a TWF build with more AC...and less damage output. Again, everything is framed in terms of 'damage' with CharOps. A SAB build is framed in 'AC', and everything else develops from there, by my view. TWF is defined in # of Attacks, and everything develops from there. THW is defined by big hunks of damage, and everything develops from there. Controller is based on huge mods, and everything develops from there...that's my view. That's fair enough, but look at it this way: Your character wields two weapons and has the Two Weapon Fighting feat tree. What part of this does not satisfy the definition of a two-weapon fighting build? CharOps has its consensus, but its the optimizer consensus, and it doesn't belong in a real game. Thisis what I meant when I said you had an us-and-them mindset. The CharOp consensus is that the way that gets you out of combat alive in D&D more of the time is to kill your enemy quicker. This can be mathematically supported in terms of average damage taken. You have an interesting point that raising your power level will result in facing stronger opponents, but that's part of the fun of D&D. Otherwise, why would we want to gain levels? CharOp isn't the antithesis of "real D&D". It's an important part of it, helping to reduce the level of "PC Shield" needed, which improves verisimilitude. Rules abuse does the reverse, but that's the fundamental line between Character Optimisation and Theoretical Optimisation. I don't consider spellcasting broken...I consider SPELLS broken. As soon as you start removing overpowered spells, spellcasters fall right into line with the other classes again. Likewise, as soon as you start introducing feats that actually DO things, fighters start looking better and better. Your own example of the Stormguard Warrior is one such feat that can become very powerful. That's not an argument. If no one spell is broken, the spellcasting system can still be broken. And D&D's is pretty close to it, as a few combinations of reasonable spells can show. Black Tentacles and Stinking Cloud forms a hard lock, as the victim can't take a standard action to break out of the grapple, and they can't end the nausea until they break the grapple. Both of those spells are strong, but not broken. Their combination is ridiculous. As you say, feats are significantly weaker than spells. That means, in order to match the effectiveness of a full spellcaster, you have to play a melee type a little more abusively than a caster. Stormguard Warrior and Shock Trooper are both capable of becoming absurd when combined with other tricks (Stormguard Warrior + Avalanche of Blades + Robilar's Gambit = dead enemy next turn), but are not broken on their own. Still, even at their cheesiest, they can't match the Infinite Titan Loop. but too many people cling to the old rules, they don't want to upgrade feats, and they don't want to downgrade or eliminate spells. Instead, they keep trotting the latter out as examples of the power of a class. We're discussing D&D. How can we houserule the issues if we don't first identify them. CharOp, as part of its functions, serves as a repository for all the tricks that shouldn't be allowed as-is. This allows DMs to find out what they need to houserule. It doesn't change the fact that, as written, fighters are underpowered. It's called the Oberoni Fallacy: Rule Zero is not an excuse for poor game balance by the designers. Its the CharOps way. Fighters could be horrendously powerful if feats were as strong as broken spells. If spells were no better then feats, spellcasters would be nearly useless. It is indeed a balance issue, one that should have been redressed long ago, and one people still refuse to dwell on, now. WoTC decided to avoid it and went into 4E. Paizo is trying to work around it all and stick with 3.5, but is definitely having problems to a degree. We'll see how it all goes. ===Aelryinth WotC, in moving to 4e, is trying to rid itself of the broken rules baggage of 3.5. With each edition, they refine their ideas of game balance, and hopefully deliver us a product that needs fewer houserules, while enabling more playstyles. It was certainly true in the shift from 3.0 to 3.5; the Druid in particular got a significant cut in power. Not to the point that it was weak, but the Cleric could now take a near-equal footing with them. While finding the best ways to fix the system is good, there is a certain authority in te printed book. By printing a new edition, WotC hopes to reach more game tables with their better system. They also hope to make a profit, but this is also a good way to achieve that. Also, if you want to interrupt a quote, insert [/quote] and [quote] tags around your responses. It makes reading significantly easier, and I've seen people complain about your habit of using bold text to mark your responses. Hope this helps.
EjoThims 05-23-08, 03:24 AM	Again, everything is framed in terms of 'damage' with CharOps. Wrong. It's just that for a melee character, damage is the key to utility and survival. For melee, AC doesn't matter. Casters will screw you regardless, as will MOST monsters at higher CRs. AC is meaningless at higher levels, because so many things (even other melee) tend to ignore it. IF you want mitigation, cover, concealment, and miss chance is far superior to AC, while a higher damage output maximizes your contribution while you're alive and gives you a higher chance of staying alive (a dead opponent hurts you less than a half dead one who ignores your AC). This is why building for SAB and AC over damage is sub-optimal. It's not an automatic loss. It's not an instant death. But you will contribute less while other melee builds are still able to fill your role effectively. This has been the point against you from the start, and why CO people don't build SAB.
aelryinth 05-23-08, 05:22 PM	Aelryinth, I'm curious. I don't mean this to sound snarky, but ugh, it's going to. I just can't figure out how to rephrase it. You keep saying feats should be very powerful, comparable to spells. Is that linked somehow to how it's all Fighters get for class features, or is it independent of that issue? It's both, actually. Spells scale and can improve with caster/user level (save DC's from stats, more dice, better range, bigger areas) Spells change by spell level, giving you access to bigger and broader effects. This is generally seen almost as doubling by every spell level. Spells CHOOSABLE get better by spell level. The potential of a fireball is greater then magic missile. The potential of a meteor swarm is greater then fireball, etc. Dmg caps increase, DC's go up, areas increase again, etc. There is no cap on number of spells known/preparable for Vancian Casters. There is no limit on which spells can POTENTIALLY be known for spontaneous casters, except the number of splatbooks out there. There are two prereqs for spells...one stat, and casting ability for spells of that level. Spells allow you to do impossible things. Most feats don't scale. The difference in power between late and early level feats is, for the most part, very small. Feats choosable at later level first capped at level 8. There's a few more, now, but the power of them does not tend to be an order of magnitude or more above what you could get at first, like some spells are (Cone of cold vs Burning Hands as an AoE, for example). There are often three, even FOUR different common pre-reqs for feats: Skill ranks, BAB, Other Feats, and Stats. Add to that certain class abilities, classes, spellcasting, etc... The most overblown feats are those that work with spells, the 'star' being DMM Persistent. Feats seem to have a problem with letting you do 'impossible' things, merely relegating you to doing 'extremely highly trained' things. Somehow, you're supposed to make up for that with your base class...and special abilities. You get seven feats over 20 levels. You get a potentially unlimited number of spells. What is more precious? A Fighter gets 11 feats over 20 levels. A mage gets a minimum of 40+Int spells known. Which should be stronger? A Fighter gets 11 bonus feats over 20 levels. A cleric gets turning, two domains, and unlimited access to the clerical spellcasting list. Which should be more precious, a Fighter bonus feat, or a cleric spell of the same level? A Warblade gets 13 Manuvers known, 5 Stances, 8 Manuver Upgrades, and 9 Class abilities, not counting bonus feats. The Fighter gets 11 Fighter bonus feats. Which should be stronger, all other things being equal, a manuver, or a feat of the same level? Which should be more powerful, something with 4-6 prereqs, many of them level based and often odious to acquire, or something with 2 pre-reqs, generally sliding right into place? (Can you imagine a Mage being unable to learn Fly unless he had, oh, 8 ranks in Jump?) That's rather the position I'm coming from. Sure, sure, I know all the counter arguments, studying, prayer, have to get spells back, spells run out, etc. But we all also know that the situations where having feats be better then spells (i.e. the spellcasters run dry) is very rare and to be avoided at all costs. So much so, casters simply wave it away. If casters can't cast, they run, and the rest of the party best run along with them, because it's a given the party can't survive without them. Spells and associated cheese render the jobs of skill monkeys and fighters superfluous, something that is only confirmed in much of WoTC's fiction. The idea of interrupting 'sleep' time, 'pray/study' time, stealing spellbooks, and 'forcing' low spell encounters on a party is decried as DM harassment and discrimination against casters. They might as well not exist. Bad spell design, and poorer feat design, are the cause of class imbalances. I see NO problem with base chassis. I see a problem with feats and spells, which should be equal counterparts, and by no definition are. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-23-08, 05:47 PM	QUOTE=Callix Thank you. I'm sorry if my posts led you in any way to be reported. That's fair enough, but look at it this way: Your character wields two weapons and has the Two Weapon Fighting feat tree. What part of this does not satisfy the definition of a two-weapon fighting build? Ah,ah! there's that putting words in my mouth thing. TWF is an option for the build. Nothing more, nothing less. Bashing gives you a chance to do some additional dmg and keep a very high AC if you like. The TWF is not default...it's an option you can take. Look at the core feats again. Thisis what I meant when I said you had an us-and-them mindset. The CharOp consensus is that the way that gets you out of combat alive in D&D more of the time is to kill your enemy quicker. This can be mathematically supported in terms of average damage taken. You have an interesting point that raising your power level will result in facing stronger opponents, but that's part of the fun of D&D. Otherwise, why would we want to gain levels? CharOps makes builds to kill the enemy. the only advantage PC's have over NPC's is gear. Builds from CharOps 'poo poo' gear. Everything has to come from the class. Ergo, NPC's should have the same power level as PC's in a Char Ops world. And if those are the optimized builds, NPC's should have those builds. And if they do, then CharOps' 'consensus' on damage goes right out the window. Sure, they'll win more combats if they kill the enemy first. They've no choice. Because if the enemy goes first, then the PC's die. It's pretty much that simple. Look at the CharOps builds that are serious. You win init, or you get schmuckd if you face someone with the same build, even with slightly less valuable gear (made up by potions/scrolls/buffs, just like an arena build would be, for NPC's.) So, yeah, their attitude holds true...it's either win init and win, or lose init and die. Unfortunately, at some point, you're going to lose init, and die. Average dmg doesn't mean squat in this kind of scenario. What does an Uber Charger care about dmg/rd? He charges, hits, you die. Shadowcraft mages wins init, massive buff cycle, spells of death all over, you save, and take extra dmg/greater effect/you die. CharOps is basically you take no dmg, or you die. There really is not much middle ground. Avg/dmg round doesn't come into it. You're basically either racing against a TPK or losing a PC a round, if your enemies have ANY brains. There's no room for anything else BUT kill the enemy as fast as possible, because there's no such thing as defense in a CharOps world. CharOp isn't the antithesis of "real D&D". It's an important part of it, helping to reduce the level of "PC Shield" needed, which improves verisimilitude. Rules abuse does the reverse, but that's the fundamental line between Character Optimisation and Theoretical Optimisation. I enjoy seeing CharOps at work. They illustrate broken stuff very thoroughly and passionately. But you'll find very, very few DM's who actually bring that stuff into their campaigns, for the exact reason Ops loves it...it's broken, and if there's any equality, the campaign will die within a level. If the only difference between NPC's and PC's is gear, and gear is poo-pooed and easily replaced, then in the 13 1/3 encounters per level, the PC's should be getting wiped. Over and over. Spell of instant death, Charge of instant death, whatever. They live in a different world. It's a fun world to see, but to intimate that it should actually be the rules by which everyone lives is, well, laughable. There wouldn't be any game, unless all your NPC's are stupid. That's not an argument. If no one spell is broken, the spellcasting system can still be broken. And D&D's is pretty close to it, as a few combinations of reasonable spells can show. Black Tentacles and Stinking Cloud forms a hard lock, as the victim can't take a standard action to break out of the grapple, and they can't end the nausea until they break the grapple. Both of those spells are strong, but not broken. Their combination is ridiculous. One could say the same thing about any potent combination. Stand Still and Thicket of Blades is an awesome combo. The system works fine...x spells/day, gradually growing in power and options. But there are very clearly spells that bork the whole system, and CharOps dwells on them fondly indeed. Note that among their fondest is Celerity, simply because of the total importance of initiative in the CharOps world. As you say, feats are significantly weaker than spells. That means, in order to match the effectiveness of a full spellcaster, you have to play a melee type a little more abusively than a caster. Stormguard Warrior and Shock Trooper are both capable of becoming absurd when combined with other tricks (Stormguard Warrior + Avalanche of Blades + Robilar's Gambit = dead enemy next turn), but are not broken on their own. Still, even at their cheesiest, they can't match the Infinite Titan Loop. Yes. And that's a spell problem, not a caster problem. I would also like to note that your Stormguard Warrior Trick is, by CharOps standards, too slow. By the next round, he's automatically dead/disabled/locked/neutralized/crying for momma because he's a melee. One round too long to kill, sorry! We're discussing D&D. How can we houserule the issues if we don't first identify them. CharOp, as part of its functions, serves as a repository for all the tricks that shouldn't be allowed as-is. This allows DMs to find out what they need to houserule. It doesn't change the fact that, as written, fighters are underpowered. It's called the Oberoni Fallacy: Rule Zero is not an excuse for poor game balance by the designers. Oh, very much so. ANd CharOps does it well, yes? Just don't make me play by CharOps standards around the broken rules, and think it's 'the only way'. WotC, in moving to 4e, is trying to rid itself of the broken rules baggage of 3.5. With each edition, they refine their ideas of game balance, and hopefully deliver us a product that needs fewer houserules, while enabling more playstyles. It was certainly true in the shift from 3.0 to 3.5; the Druid in particular got a significant cut in power. Not to the point that it was weak, but the Cleric could now take a near-equal footing with them. While finding the best ways to fix the system is good, there is a certain authority in te printed book. By printing a new edition, WotC hopes to reach more game tables with their better system. They also hope to make a profit, but this is also a good way to achieve that. Also, if you want to interrupt a quote, insert [/quote] and [quote] tags around your responses. It makes reading significantly easier, and I've seen people complain about your habit of using bold text to mark your responses. Hope this helps. I tend to spend a lot of time on posting, hence using bold instead of quotes. Also, when I use bold, you can see the question I replied to directly, instead of scrolling up and down the screen, when it comes time for you to reply. That does get somewhat messy unless you 'quote' your own reply to make it stand out, and for that I apologize. I've found that numerically responding to points in a block, which I used to do, is entirely ineffective, as people lose track of what is being replied to and from when I do that, and it gets messy looking back and forth. Ergo, I interrupt text. You have to admit, it is easier reading then flicking back and forth so much! ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-23-08, 06:35 PM	QUOTE=EjoThims Wrong. It's just that for a melee character, damage is the key to utility and survival. That right there is the total foundation of CharOps opinion on melee, because every character should be Optimized. There IS no defense in a CharOps world. There are only two things...init, and who wins, doesn't die. For melee, AC doesn't matter. Casters will screw you regardless, as will MOST monsters at higher CRs. AC is meaningless at higher levels, because so many things (even other melee) tend to ignore it. again, this is the world of CharOps. They automatically overcome all defenses. AC is meaningless (even against Iteratives and Power Attack!). Saves are meaningless. Immunities and resistances and buffs are meaningless. You go first and kill, or you die. IF you want mitigation, cover, concealment, and miss chance is far superior to AC, while a higher damage output maximizes your contribution while you're alive and gives you a higher chance of staying alive (a dead opponent hurts you less than a half dead one who ignores your AC). AH! Now you are hosing your own argument. Cover, concealment and miss chances are all defenses. There are at least as many creatures and people out there that can ignore these as can ignore AC, saves, resistances and immunities. Therefore, I call shenanigans. These are defenses, and in the CharOps world, they are meaningless. You go first and kill, or you die. This is why building for SAB and AC over damage is sub-optimal. It's not an automatic loss. It's not an instant death. But you will contribute less while other melee builds are still able to fill your role effectively.. They are sub-optimal in the world of CharOps, that ignores all defenses. I heartily agree. If you ignore all defenses, then all you have left is offense, so you best be very, very good at offense to hope to live. And because of that, you'd best go first, or you die. This has been the point against you from the start, and why CO people don't build SAB. Also agreed. See prior paragraph. CO people would be INSANE to rely on Sword and Board...there are no defenses. They immediately get talked around and neutralized before they are ever put to the test. Offense is all that matters. Win Init and Kill them in one round, or die yourself. There's no middle ground. Heck, the whole problem they had with Lockdown is that he couldn't wipe a mage in one round reliably, i.e. he was not an uber charger. Then they went jumping through every convoluted hoop imaginable trying to show how he couldn't get a spellcaster in a lock and keep them there, which would require more then one round...and one round is an eternity in CharOp. In one round, your foe should already be dead! Happily, normal campaigns are not made that way, and SAB is a superb build for a normal campaign. CharOps thinking is NOT normal campaign thinking. CharOps thinking is radical fringe thinking. And pure Opts builds destroy any campaign, they don't provide an advantage to PC's. NPC's should use any and all of them, too, with easily foreseen results...because PC's will eventually lose Init, and they will die. It's not avg DOT, even...it's you win and take almost nothing, or you die. There is literally almost no middle ground. Why do you think Lockdown has endured so well, despite the fact it runs contrary to CharOp consensus? Because it's not broken, it's playable, and its not hugely abusive. It's even customizable fairly easily...seven spare feats and all! The caster lovers handwave him away...and then they died, because the 'handwave' solutions just didn't work on him. They really, really had to start pulling out the over-the-top 'big guns' to be able to deal with him...and he could STILL get to them, and kill them, if he won init. In a real campaign, defenses DO count...even concealment. And SAB is a defenses based build...offense comes after. Defense gives the rest of your party time to work, time to act...and gives you time, too. And maybe lets you live through the occasional Uber Charge, too! ===Aelryinth
ciaran 05-23-08, 06:47 PM	Why is this rediculous thread still running?
GuyrtheadamantineOne 05-23-08, 07:23 PM	Why is this rediculous thread still running? +1
nightwyrm 05-23-08, 07:25 PM	Why is this rediculous thread still running? http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png brought to you by xkcd.
aelryinth 05-23-08, 07:30 PM	Sunic's friends, come to offer their informed opinions and contribute to the topic at hand? Possibly from a link at that message board I'm not going to bother visiting? Welcome! ===Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-23-08, 08:43 PM	That right there is the total foundation of CharOps opinion on melee, because every character should be Optimized. There IS no defense in a CharOps world. There are only two things...init, and who wins, doesn't die. There is a defense, but it's a lot harder to have a worthwhile defense than to do enough damage to make having a defense not matter. For melee, AC doesn't matter. Casters will screw you regardless, as will MOST monsters at higher CRs. AC is meaningless at higher levels, because so many things (even other melee) tend to ignore it. This is exactly correct. again, this is the world of CharOps. They automatically overcome all defenses. AC is meaningless (even against Iteratives and Power Attack!). Saves are meaningless. Immunities and resistances and buffs are meaningless. You go first and kill, or you die. Essentially, yes. Immunities, buffs, and resistances though are vital, as they can stop even the Save or Dies if you do them right, allowing you another round of your own actions. IF you want mitigation, cover, concealment, and miss chance is far superior to AC, while a higher damage output maximizes your contribution while you're alive and gives you a higher chance of staying alive (a dead opponent hurts you less than a half dead one who ignores your AC). Completely correct. AH! Now you are hosing your own argument. Cover, concealment and miss chances are all defenses. There are at least as many creatures and people out there that can ignore these as can ignore AC, saves, resistances and immunities. Therefore, I call shenanigans. These are defenses, and in the CharOps world, they are meaningless. You go first and kill, or you die. Defense are marginally effective, but only when the right type and when that marginal benefit outweighs their cost. In one round, your foe should already be dead! If theyr'e not, you most likely are. SAB is a superb build for a normal campaign. False. It is adequate for a normal campaign. Someone built as a charge choosing to use a shield at the time or built as a TWF (shield or not) choosing to use a shield without attacking with it will perform better overall, and in other roles more than make up the very small gap between them and a pure SAB. And pure Opts builds destroy any campaign, they don't provide an advantage to PC's. False again. Many, many CO builds work wonderfully in normal campaigns. But it's up to the player to not overshadow the others. You don't always have to use all your options, but only a fool never gives himself the options in the first place. it's playable, and its not hugely abusive. So is Monk 20. Or playing a Sorceror instead of a wizard. Or playing a Druid that doesn't do anything but heal. That does not mean that those choices are optimal or even decent. Edited for clarity and quote errors.
Callix 05-24-08, 01:38 AM	Aelryinth, why do you persist in claiming that optimising your characters destroys the game of D&D? You are right on one level; game play turns into something of an arms race. However, there are lots of defensive countermeasures that can be taken, all of which can keep you alive long enough to win fights, even if you lose initiative. The simple idea we are trying to put out there is that a shield is not one of those defenses; while defense does matter, AC does not. As EjoThims put it, resistances, immunities and miss chances are much more efficient ways of keeping yourself safe against threats. Sword and Board builds can be good enough for most games. Yours probably is. But it's not better than a two-handed weapon wielder, be they charger, chain tripper, or Tome of Battle beatdown build. Similarly, an Evoker who prepares nothing but damage spells can be a sufficient wizard for many games. That doesn't mean he's better than a battlefield contoller with Stinking Cloud and Wall of Stone. Finally, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, if the DM is justified in using only opponents on a similar power level to the PCs, then no build is better than another, because it only means you get to face harder opponents. In this case, Sword and Board isn't superb, because there are neither good nor bad builds; everything is equal. This seems a little too relativist for me; I like to be able to say that a fighter with with Combat Expertise and Improved Trip is better built than one with Toughness twice. By this standard, sword and board is suboptimal. Often sufficient, but suboptimal.
aelryinth 05-24-08, 02:34 AM	Aelryinth, why do you persist in claiming that optimising your characters destroys the game of D&D? You are right on one level; game play turns into something of an arms race. However, there are lots of defensive countermeasures that can be taken, all of which can keep you alive long enough to win fights, even if you lose initiative. The simple idea we are trying to put out there is that a shield is not one of those defenses; while defense does matter, AC does not. As EjoThims put it, resistances, immunities and miss chances are much more efficient ways of keeping yourself safe against threats. Sword and Board builds can be good enough for most games. Yours probably is. But it's not better than a two-handed weapon wielder, be they charger, chain tripper, or Tome of Battle beatdown build. Similarly, an Evoker who prepares nothing but damage spells can be a sufficient wizard for many games. That doesn't mean he's better than a battlefield contoller with Stinking Cloud and Wall of Stone. Finally, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, if the DM is justified in using only opponents on a similar power level to the PCs, then no build is better than another, because it only means you get to face harder opponents. In this case, Sword and Board isn't superb, because there are neither good nor bad builds; everything is equal. This seems a little too relativist for me; I like to be able to say that a fighter with with Combat Expertise and Improved Trip is better built than one with Toughness twice. By this standard, sword and board is suboptimal. Often sufficient, but suboptimal. Optimizing and 'CharOps' are two different things. Optimizing as in not taking bad choices, building with an eye to the future and to supplement future tactics, are two different things. CharOps is about maximum leveraging to the point of insta-kills and one round/stroke deaths. And if you optimize this high, it will destroy a campaign, because your NPC's should wipe you cold the one time you lose init. This is what I consider an Uber Charger. A Glass Jaw. he can dish it out...and then he dies, because he can't take it. Ditto TWF guy. If all he does is dish it out and never take it, he's fine, he's great, he's wonderful. He looks like he's contributing. Until he loses init and the enemy TWF/Uber Charger comes in and dusts him...which is exactly what should happen in a CharOps world. Not making subpar choices? Very good. Not instantly devaluing AC as worthless? Also very good. Being realistic about expectations? Also good. There's as many ways around miss chances, concealment and so forth as there is around high AC...but naturally, that's ignored, because miss chances cater to spellcasters and people who have low AC, and thus get hit a lot. Sure, when your AC is in the toilet, concealment looks great. When your AC is high, concealment is almost useless. One is 'ignored' just as often as the other...but because AC is more common, we naturally will disdain it. And so I ignore the CharOps opinion on AC. If AC was valueless, don't ever wear armor or take stuff to boost it...suicide at all levels. Suddenly it has value...only to be ignored at convenience? I don't think so. CharOps is all about the giving, and not about the taking...never about the taking. The taking is impossible, because they will kill the enemy first!...which is a litany I get tired of hearing, and unrealistic, to boot. I build strong builds. I optimize. to the CharOps level? No. The CharOps level is simply, to me, an invitation to TPK the party. Someone will come up, pull some ridiculous hat out of the bag from the CHarOps bag o' tricks, and wipe the party. They SHOULD do it, unless they are stupid. And CharOps never sees that other side of the coin. It's always Super Ops guys against the same guys as Ops guys against the same guys as not-so-Opt guys. Of course Super Ops looks like the be-all and end-all way to go. Could YOUR party survive in a world where every melee was an Uber CHarger? Where every mage was built to the level of these Incantatrix abusers and Shadowcraft sorts? I doubt it. Thus, espousing the Uber Charger idea is, to me, utter foolishness as the 'only' way to build a melee. All I have to do is send in Uber chargers, and when I finally get suprise/Init, the party wipes. they're just builds...I don't even need uber gear, although I can supply much of that with potions and buffs. The only way PC's are better then NPC's is in their gear, and gear is not important in Optimizing, yes? Sorry if that's a restatement of my opinion, but it's why I don't cleave too strongly to CharOps opinions of much of anything. CharOps plays on their on world, showing us weaknesses in the rules and what not to do or a campaign spins out of control. Arguing against stuff that is not broken or abusable just makes me laugh, is all, and SAB is not broken or truly abusable that way. They live in a world without defenses. Such a world is not worth playing in. You're immune? They automatically knwo and have a way around it. You have a high AC? Thy ignore it. You have resistances? They know and overcome/avoid it. You have concealment? They see right thru it. Anything you can think of? They have a way around it, and they have it right now. It's irritating in the extreme. It's not realistic. And so I pretty much ignore CharOps opinions on a lot of stuff, and SAB is among them. I love the builds, love the way they point out rules abuse/imbalance...but I don't play in their world. ============== Kindly note that I never, ever said SAB is superior to THW...I've said over and over that it's reliable, versatile, flexible, and can do what you want it to do. It's the Opts guys who INSIST it's very, very subpar, and give the standard CharOpts spiel. I just say it's equal, but from a different direction. It's a different focus, but CO only allows for the one focus, theirs, and is attempting to convince me that the other is simply not worth having/unrealistic/etc. I happen to disagree, and I don't see a cogent argument to the contrary. And that's all there is to it. Every time they point out their superiority, it has holes. Big, honking holes. If they want to get some validity to the arguments, they need to post examples, comparisons, and they ahve to be fair and realistic. As it stands now, I'm just seeing 'shouts', and shouts are not going to work for me. Bring me logic, bring me math, bring me parity. That's it. Don't bring me 'because I say so, and so does the CO board.' It just isn't going to fly. I didn't buy it on Lockdown, and I'm not buying it here...and all I'm getting is a lot of shouting, and one person with reason who's not taking the extra step on comparisons. ============== For comparisons, the fighters are perfectly equal in stats. They are perfectly equal in gear, defenses. They have spent the same money on everything, including weapons. So, Uber SHield and +7 weapon against +10 weapon against two +7 Weapons. Shield guy's used three feats. THW guy uses what he likes. Default, uber Charger. Three feats. TWF is obligated to spend the TWF feats, three of them. Char Opts immediately wants to do three things. 1) Ditch fighter for a PrC. There's PrC's that cater very, very heavily to TWF and Uber Charger. 2) Get a race/template with stat mods and abilities. Probably not core. 3) Multiclass and MultiPrC out the kazoo, because dips rule the world. and, of course, all builds start at level 20. And I don't buy any of those four as defense of a build, either. The best of CharOps is done using the above rules, and showing how you can break the game. Lockdown was built without any of that, and that's how I compare builds. As soon as you move away from just one class, then it becomes wildly complex on balance and comparison issues. The whole PrC thing...why isn't there a PrC that focuses on high AC/shield use, a counterpoint to the FB or the Dervish? Makes you wonder, no? ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-24-08, 02:55 AM	There is a defense, but it's a lot harder to have a worthwhile defense than to do enough damage to make having a defense not matter. Exactly! You're learning. Essentially, yes. Immunities, buffs, and resistances though are vital, as they can stop even the Save or Dies if you do them right, allowing you another round of your own actions. Completely correct. Defense are marginally effective, but only when the right type and when that marginal benefit outweighs their cost. This is why building for SAB and AC over damage is sub-optimal. It's not an automatic loss. It's not an instant death. But you will contribute less while other melee builds are still able to fill your role effectively.. If theyr'e not, you most likely are. False. It is adequate for a normal campaign. Someone built as a charge choosing to use a shield at the time or built as a TWF (shield or not) choosing to use a shield without attacking with it will perform better overall, and in other roles more than make up the very small gap between them and a pure SAB. False again. Many, many CO builds work wonderfully in normal campaigns. But it's up to the player to not overshadow the others. You don't always have to use all your options, but only a fool never gives himself the options in the first place. So is Monk 20. Or playing a Sorceror instead of a wizard. Or playing a Druid that doesn't do anything but heal. That does not mean that those choices are optimal or even decent. Thims, don't mean to be rude, but I reply in bold, and you're replying to the person I was replying to, and me, and not me, and I'm losing you as a result:) Your replies make it look like I'm on both sides of the issue. LOL, I'm not. ===Aelryinth
Callix 05-24-08, 03:39 AM	Optimizing and 'CharOps' are two different things. Optimizing as in not taking bad choices, building with an eye to the future and to supplement future tactics, are two different things. CharOps is about maximum leveraging to the point of insta-kills and one round/stroke deaths. And if you optimize this high, it will destroy a campaign, because your NPC's should wipe you cold the one time you lose init. This is what I consider an Uber Charger. A Glass Jaw. he can dish it out...and then he dies, because he can't take it. Ditto TWF guy. If all he does is dish it out and never take it, he's fine, he's great, he's wonderful. He looks like he's contributing. Until he loses init and the enemy TWF/Uber Charger comes in and dusts him...which is exactly what should happen in a CharOps world. Not making subpar choices? Very good. Not instantly devaluing AC as worthless? Also very good. Being realistic about expectations? Also good. There's as many ways around miss chances, concealment and so forth as there is around high AC...but naturally, that's ignored, because miss chances cater to spellcasters and people who have low AC, and thus get hit a lot. Sure, when your AC is in the toilet, concealment looks great. When your AC is high, concealment is almost useless. One is 'ignored' just as often as the other...but because AC is more common, we naturally will disdain it. And so I ignore the CharOps opinion on AC. If AC was valueless, don't ever wear armor or take stuff to boost it...suicide at all levels. Suddenly it has value...only to be ignored at convenience? I don't think so. CharOps is all about the giving, and not about the taking...never about the taking. The taking is impossible, because they will kill the enemy first!...which is a litany I get tired of hearing, and unrealistic, to boot. I build strong builds. I optimize. to the CharOps level? No. The CharOps level is simply, to me, an invitation to TPK the party. Someone will come up, pull some ridiculous hat out of the bag from the CHarOps bag o' tricks, and wipe the party. They SHOULD do it, unless they are stupid. And CharOps never sees that other side of the coin. It's always Super Ops guys against the same guys as Ops guys against the same guys as not-so-Opt guys. Of course Super Ops looks like the be-all and end-all way to go. Could YOUR party survive in a world where every melee was an Uber CHarger? Where every mage was built to the level of these Incantatrix abusers and Shadowcraft sorts? I doubt it. Thus, espousing the Uber Charger idea is, to me, utter foolishness as the 'only' way to build a melee. All I have to do is send in Uber chargers, and when I finally get suprise/Init, the party wipes. they're just builds...I don't even need uber gear, although I can supply much of that with potions and buffs. The only way PC's are better then NPC's is in their gear, and gear is not important in Optimizing, yes? Sorry if that's a restatement of my opinion, but it's why I don't cleave too strongly to CharOps opinions of much of anything. CharOps plays on their on world, showing us weaknesses in the rules and what not to do or a campaign spins out of control. Arguing against stuff that is not broken or abusable just makes me laugh, is all, and SAB is not broken or truly abusable that way. They live in a world without defenses. Such a world is not worth playing in. You're immune? They automatically knwo and have a way around it. You have a high AC? Thy ignore it. You have resistances? They know and overcome/avoid it. You have concealment? They see right thru it. Anything you can think of? They have a way around it, and they have it right now. It's irritating in the extreme. It's not realistic. And so I pretty much ignore CharOps opinions on a lot of stuff, and SAB is among them. I love the builds, love the way they point out rules abuse/imbalance...but I don't play in their world. ============== Kindly note that I never, ever said SAB is superior to THW...I've said over and over that it's reliable, versatile, flexible, and can do what you want it to do. It's the Opts guys who INSIST it's very, very subpar, and give the standard CharOpts spiel. I just say it's equal, but from a different direction. It's a different focus, but CO only allows for the one focus, theirs, and is attempting to convince me that the other is simply not worth having/unrealistic/etc. I happen to disagree, and I don't see a cogent argument to the contrary. And that's all there is to it. Every time they point out their superiority, it has holes. Big, honking holes. If they want to get some validity to the arguments, they need to post examples, comparisons, and they ahve to be fair and realistic. As it stands now, I'm just seeing 'shouts', and shouts are not going to work for me. Bring me logic, bring me math, bring me parity. That's it. Don't bring me 'because I say so, and so does the CO board.' It just isn't going to fly. I didn't buy it on Lockdown, and I'm not buying it here...and all I'm getting is a lot of shouting, and one person with reason who's not taking the extra step on comparisons. ============== For comparisons, the fighters are perfectly equal in stats. They are perfectly equal in gear, defenses. They have spent the same money on everything, including weapons. So, Uber SHield and +7 weapon against +10 weapon against two +7 Weapons. Shield guy's used three feats. THW guy uses what he likes. Default, uber Charger. Three feats. TWF is obligated to spend the TWF feats, three of them. Char Opts immediately wants to do three things. 1) Ditch fighter for a PrC. There's PrC's that cater very, very heavily to TWF and Uber Charger. 2) Get a race/template with stat mods and abilities. Probably not core. 3) Multiclass and MultiPrC out the kazoo, because dips rule the world. and, of course, all builds start at level 20. And I don't buy any of those four as defense of a build, either. The best of CharOps is done using the above rules, and showing how you can break the game. Lockdown was built without any of that, and that's how I compare builds. As soon as you move away from just one class, then it becomes wildly complex on balance and comparison issues. The whole PrC thing...why isn't there a PrC that focuses on high AC/shield use, a counterpoint to the FB or the Dervish? Makes you wonder, no? ===Aelryinth Not all of CharOp is builds that destroy theri opponents in one round, but don't come together until level 20. There is a significant amount of analysis on that board of 1-20 playability, designing characters that won't simply die if the DM is a bit tougher than the core rules suggest. They do tend to dismiss high-AC builds. This is not because AC is irrelevant, but because attaining a high AC is almost always inefficient, and because there are so many different ways to circumvent your armor class. Spending much more than your Armor slot on AC boosters is not often, in a strict cost/benefit sense, a good idea. On the gear issue as a whole, there are several useful defenses (Invisibility, Freedom of Movement, Concealment, several immunities) that is is very difficult to have longer-term by build, but quite easy to get in an item. As such, yur level of gear has a major impact on how likely you are to survive combat. Why do you assume, in a CharOp game, that both sides would know each others' weaknesses? That's blatant metagaming on both sides, with a heavy dose of DM vs Players thrown in; in other words, a game run very badly, regardless of the PCs' power levels. You can't know precisely where your opponent's weaknesses and immunities will be; you need to take a good guess. The guy in full plate is likely to have high AC and Fort saves, with poor Reflex, just by considering what these things represent in-game (armor, toughness, agility). It's not iron-clad, but it's a decent guide. Still, sometimes when you turn to Web, your opponent has that ring of Freedom of Movement. Equally, if your DM is anything like fair, sometimes he will use Finger of Death, even though your wizard has a Death Ward up, because it's a logical opening gambit. No, my party couldn't survive in a world of incantatrices. However, our DM has nearly caused a number of accidental TPKs; if we weren't squeezing all the juice we could out of them, we would all have died. That's the other side of suboptimal; sometimes, you get beaten. This is mainly because our DM wanted a no-casters game, and gives out remarkably little loot. And as I keep saying, your SAB build is often sufficient. But it remains suboptimal, and sometimes, you need the extra power. Edit: On the issue of taking Fighter levels: I agree with the CharOp consensus; you cna ususally duplicate most of the effect of a straight-fighter build, with a few other abilities, by taking other classes and PrCs. And doing so is almost always in your interest. Furthermore, I subscribe to one of the tenets of "roleplaying optimisation" - class is metagame. As this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) shows, your class distribution doesn't have have to determine what you call yourself. Your character doesn't know he's a hodgepodge of three base classes and four PrCs. He knows he's a hero, forging his own style from the best the world has to offer, and proving its effectiveness by the corpses of his foes. And the reason there isn't a PrC for focusing on sword-and-board fighting with high AC is that it's what the designers felt the Fighter class did all by itself. Really, what would the features be? Additional AC boosts? Improved Expertise returns? It lacks the "prestige" part of Prestige Class. Although a case could be made that Dwarven Defender is an AC-oriented melee class. It is also screwed against anyone who thinks, as they just move away from the Defensive Stance and shoot them.
EjoThims 05-24-08, 08:19 AM	Thims, don't mean to be rude, but I reply in bold, and you're replying to the person I was replying to, and me, and not me, and I'm losing you as a result:) Your replies make it look like I'm on both sides of the issue. LOL, I'm not. ===Aelryinth Sorry, but your lack of proper quotes makes it incredibly difficult to decipher which words are yours and which aren't, since I read and respond in the reply box. :D All my points stand, but I'll work back to try an remove your name from the words that are not yours.
Sunic_Flames 05-24-08, 10:07 AM	Sunic's friends, come to offer their informed opinions and contribute to the topic at hand? Possibly from a link at that message board I'm not going to bother visiting? Welcome! ===Aelryinth If you mean the people who just posted to flame, they aren't mine and I don't know them. If you were not being sarcastic and referring to the ones who were debating this constructively... I still didn't send them, but they did come after seeing the reference on their own. So I suppose by a loose definition of the word 'friends' you are correct. Long on topic post follows.
Nathreet 05-24-08, 10:28 AM	http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png brought to you by xkcd. QFT. I was surprised this thread hadn't died yet, so I thought I'd check back. Given the length of the posts I just made a quick scan to see if anyone actually did any math. Sorry if I missed a post, but I didn't see any. I did notice some posts that must have taken an hour to write and a side debate on THF vs. SAB. For those interested, I wrote a computer program to simulate THF vs. SAB before and - in a simple hack-n-slash-no-special-tricks fight - SAB comes out ahead by a mile. The exception is the animated shield (THFAB?), which makes THF come out ahead. I could post the 2+ page computer program but I doubt anyone will read it. PM me if you want it, it's in javascript. You need to edit the source code to change the settings and, no, I don't feel like making a simpler interface at the present time. Unlike some, I don't have hours to devote to stupid debates.
Sunic_Flames 05-24-08, 12:15 PM	Examples, comparisons, fair and realistic. Alright. Premise: Effectiveness of sword and board vs effectiveness of a two handed fighter in a normal game. First, normal game is defined as mid power. Not highly optimized, and not anti optimized. Competent characters, who are neither over nor underpowered. It is also defined as PvM where you fight monsters, humanoid NPCs, and so forth. As opposed to other PCs, which is the Arena Fallacy. Edit: Here's an excellent way of expressing it courtesy of JanusJones: 1. "I'm a ROLE-player!": This is the dimwitted "I took WP Focus 'cuz my wizard has this dagger he really likes!" level. Woo. 2. Competent: A Wizard with Color Spray at 1st. This is the level for most competent players, at which they don't make DUMB moves and know what things do. 3. Slick: This is when some totally legal, inarguable, but pretty unique and effective tricks come out. Entangling Exhalatiion on a 1st-level DFA, Tomb-Tainted Soul on a Dread Necro, Dragonfire Strike + Shape Soulmeld - Dissolving Spittle for a 3d6 touch attack at-will at level 1, etc. 4. Slightly Cheesy: This is where things are still legal, but you run the risk of annoying a DM. Examples include using the Half-Minotaur, White Dragonspawn Kobold + 1 level of Binder as a 1-level entry into Anima Mage, etc. 5. Limburger: Pun-pun's the worst of these, but there's a big list. Candles of Invocation, using Racial Emulation and Assume Supernatural Ability to change into a crazy templated were-form with a Changeling at 1st, etc. These are pretty much game-breaking and not worth it, on the whole. Most games and what I define as normal games run at level 2-3. As in 2.something. CharOps runs at level 4. Level 5 is pure TO material and never meant to see a real game. So in order to present a comparison, before even looking at either side we must look at the opposition. For this, I will be using the MM1. The reasons for this are threefold: 1: Anything else would violate OGL, as it is not in the SRD. 2: This allows for much easier referencing for the same reason. 3: It is the only way to ensure the information is relevant to all as MM2-5 may or may not be in play. If they were used however MM2 is basically random numbers and is an invalid basis for any balance discussion, MM3 contains generally more optimized creatures which disfavors fighters of all types, MM4 is primarily existing creatures with templates and/or class levels for those who cannot do it themselves, and MM5 I don't know enough about to comment on. So this should not influence matters much overall. Even a cursory glance reveals a pattern here, and the creatures can be neatly summed up into one of three categories, divided in a pyramid set up. The first group I will refer to as soft targets. Soft targets have high HP, but most if not all of their other defenses (especially AC) are very low. They soak a lot of abuse like a sponge but aren't very tough at all. This is the largest group. Examples include but are not limited to just about any animal, magical beast, vermin, giant, elemental and (if for some reason you want to fight one) oozes. The ideal tactic against these is to take advantage of the fact their defenses are crap and that they have some glaring weakenss to end the fight in a single decisive move. Any animal will die with no saving throw if targeted with a Ray of Stupidity, for example. Well not quite die, but seeing as anyone will eventually succeed with Coup de Graces at their leisure and they are completely neutralized in the meantime close enough. Neither type can do this, so we must resort to other tactics. THF guy can PA for large amounts, still have high or maximum accuracy, and get in big hits to quickly chew through that large amount of HP. This may screw up his iterative attacks, but then who says he has to make them? Consider, if he does one big attack instead of several smaller ones he loses far less damage if any. Especially if damage reduction is involved. This also allows him to move. Moving might provoke an AoO if he does not have a reach advantage, but even so one attack + one AoO is likely to measure out to less than trading full attacks. In fact you will notice several other trends here. Not only do such combatants tend to be simple and straightforward melee brutes, they full attack as good or better than you while having HP as good or better than yours. Trading full attacks is a losing proposition, whereas focusing on one big hit and limiting their number of potential counterattacks means they lose out on much more than you do. And they cannot simply use the same tactic back against you because you have at least a mid AC combined with other defenses - whereas they have low AC and no such thing. You are not Power Attack bait. They are. Sword and board guy... he is either TWFing with his shield as an offhand and therefore cannot effectively Power Attack or is only attacking with his one handed weapon, could Power Attack, but this will screw up his iteratives. It also won't be as effective for obvious reasons. The only thing sword and board guy has going for him here is that since such creatures tend to be simple and straightforward, they are most likely to stand there and allow themselves to be 'tanked' instead of smashing whoever is posing the greatest threat. And their own tactics involve a lot of 'hit the thing with the other thing', meaning that sword and board guy's advantage actually matters here. If he tries the same tactic THF guy is using, he loses his only advantage in that he is 'tanking' the creature and taking advantage of one of his few strengths. Of course, a few good hits (from THF guy) will simply kill it, dead creatures do 0 damage. And even with higher defenses against hit the thing with the other thing, he'll still take a few smacks as he has to trade full attacks to stay in its face. Now remember that ideal tactic? Yeah, these guys have separate parties that are otherwise identical. His teammate can employ it even though he cannot. THF guy can deal with his foe in a round or two, no problem. Wizard can focus elsewhere, screw up other opponents, not a big deal. Sword and board guy takes a lot longer, does less each round, and takes the same or more damage because even though his AC might be higher, he faces more attacks to do his job, and the THF guy can just get a miss chance item or two to end up as much or more defensively sound even if we ignore that Animated Shields and Improved Buckler Defense exist. He is either doing nothing to influence the outcome or is being an active liability. The Ray of Stupidity example means either taking a -4 for firing into melee, or having to waste two feats to get Precise Shot. Then after the fight, he needs as much or more healing resources... it ends up more intensive, and thus less efficient to deal with these sorts of encounters as sword and board guy. Anyways. Second type. These guys have better defenses. Mid ACs (they don't have the resources for high ACs), higher saves, other tricks (DR, miss chances, etc) and so forth. They do have lower HP though, often much lower. We'll call these fragile targets because they break easily when hit, but it's considerably more difficult to get said hits in. Examples include but are not limited to most humanoid NPCs (it is not possible to get enough defensive stuff to have a high AC on NPC WBL, offense doesn't suffer much though), outsiders, and various creatures of other types. The ideal tactic against them is to weaken them first, and as much as possible as aside from AC they sometimes have high defensive stats (saves, for example). Neither of them can do this either, so we have to make do. These guys tend to not be straightforward, and often have spells, spell like abilities, and so forth. These do not care one iota about your AC. A few might care about your touch AC, but the most threatening ones do not. As such the defensive 'advantage' possessed by sword and board plays a greatly lessened or non existent roll. Their loss of offense still has its full effect though, unless they choose to stash the shield and wield a longsword two handed or whatever. Which means they need to spec the same as THF guy in addition to spec as sword and board guy. More to the point, this is a concession of defeat for the sword and board style. Chances are, they aren't much interested in melee at all. Your role, as either type is to get in lucky shots where you can and otherwise try to stay out of the way, and maybe finish off something that fell victim to a save or suck or other such crippling effect. THF's lucky shots count for more as he hits harder, especially when you consider DR. Yes, a +2 enhancement negates DR, but as THF guy can better brute force it he can devote his cash and enhancement slots elsewhere. Sword and board guy cannot perform the role of tanking as the enemy is not interested in sitting in front of the tin can. THF guy can still perform the role of hurt the thing, albeit not as well. The third time isn't really a fair comparison or analysis, but I will mention it for completeness. These guys are just tough. High AC, high HP, high other defenses... Strong all around. Main example here is dragons. There are few if any others. Both types are pretty much useless here as the creature is going to use aerial superiority to negate you, breath weapon strafe, etc. You won't be hitting or tanking it much, if at all because by the time it joins the fray, you're all either near dead or it is taking advantage of stupidity to quickly off a key character. Maybe you'll get a lucky shot, in which case THF's contribution still counts for more. Only hope here is something like boots of the battle charger to charge as a standard action + readied action to do an aerial charge. This battle is the sole province of the casters. And maybe an archer, but those aren't the topic here. Meanwhile THF guy is just as solid in the defensive areas that matter here (saves, HP, and so forth). Now speaking overall, sword and board guy loses a large amount of offense for a less valuable and far more narrowly focused defense, that is also highly inefficient in that concealment and such grant the same manner of protection or better for the same cost or less. Many things ignore AC, starting with the fact offense scales far faster than it. Not so many things ignore concealment and other such miss chances. Fewer still ignore saves in a meaningful way (aka save or die, without the save part). As such, not only is concealment a more reliable defense overall against 'hit the thing with the other thing', but there are defensive concerns greater than 'being hit by the other thing' that AC and by extension sword and board do nothing for. Optimization plays no particular role here as casters can already end fights in 1-2 rounds with the right spell right out of the box. Non casters need heavy optimization to attempt the same feats, but I focused on normal characters, aka not Lockdown tanks or uber chargers. Even so, note initiative is still very important and though you may not automatically win before they can act you will still do enough to sway the outcome in your favor. This is the source of win init = win, and it does not require 'CharOps views' to reach this state. It simply requires that the table does not actively anti optimize and make horrible tactical choices such as attempting to have the rogue bull rush the giant (and be subsequently AoOed due to lack of the feat) to drag combats out. Even that much is not assured, as I am playing in a game where everyone anti optimized at least a little bit, enemies are not very well designed, and the only time the sword and board guy gets to do anything involving 'tanking' is when his class feature from the 3.0 PRC 'Devoted Defender' allows him to actually take hits for the real threats (which include my character, he is a cohort thereof) in their place. Otherwise he is ignored, and the enemies attack my character/the druid/the crusader with varying degrees of success. This is not a fair example though for several reasons. One, cohorts are supposed to be a bit subservient to PCs, whereas other PCs should be equal. A concept that involves a character being a servant of another is thereby invalid. Two, there are multiple house rules boosting the effectiveness of the two weapon fighting combat style drastically that render it invalid in anything closer to a RAW stance regarding it, whereas there are none that do the same for two handed fighters. Those work as RAW indicates. Three, he has approximately 250,000-275,000 gold worth of wealth due to the fact being the cohort of an Artificer means he effectively has 166% more treasure due to craft cost = 37.5% normal. By comparison, the actual PCs who are two levels higher started with 200,000 as is standard for WBL for the level. If he had normal wealth and no house rules in his favor he wouldn't do anything meaningful at all, as opposed to being decent as long as his foes have low ACs to allow iteratives to hit and no DR to take a huge bite out of his half dozen low damage attacks. (this is rare) And no, he can't afford Shadowstriking yet, much less twice. If he were expected to function as a PC his player would naturally and quickly become bored and lose interest. In closing, the reason he exists as he does is because I deliberately made him suboptimal to avoid overshadowing the PC Crusader. A big part of that was going sword and board. If he were a two handed fighter... well I don't think any more needs to be said.
aelryinth 05-24-08, 03:34 PM	QUOTE=Callix Not all of CharOp is builds that destroy theri opponents in one round, but don't come together until level 20. There is a significant amount of analysis on that board of 1-20 playability, designing characters that won't simply die if the DM is a bit tougher than the core rules suggest. They do tend to dismiss high-AC builds. This is not because AC is irrelevant, but because attaining a high AC is almost always inefficient, and because there are so many different ways to circumvent your armor class. Spending much more than your Armor slot on AC boosters is not often, in a strict cost/benefit sense, a good idea. On the gear issue as a whole, there are several useful defenses (Invisibility, Freedom of Movement, Concealment, several immunities) that is is very difficult to have longer-term by build, but quite easy to get in an item. As such, yur level of gear has a major impact on how likely you are to survive combat. Aie! Callix, quick, you must run go hide. Remember, gear is worthless in CharOp. Relying on gear is bad, bad, bad. Is why Melee sucks. You must only rely on cast spells and buffs...it's a truism! Run before they hunt you down and beat on you. Why do you assume, in a CharOp game, that both sides would know each others' weaknesses? That's blatant metagaming on both sides, with a heavy dose of DM vs Players thrown in; in other words, a game run very badly, regardless of the PCs' power levels. You can't know precisely where your opponent's weaknesses and immunities will be; you need to take a good guess. The guy in full plate is likely to have high AC and Fort saves, with poor Reflex, just by considering what these things represent in-game (armor, toughness, agility). It's not iron-clad, but it's a decent guide. Still, sometimes when you turn to Web, your opponent has that ring of Freedom of Movement. Equally, if your DM is anything like fair, sometimes he will use Finger of Death, even though your wizard has a Death Ward up, because it's a logical opening gambit. Aie! My 40 Int wizard does not know anything and everything about your character that there is to know? IMPOSSIBLE. I do NOT believe you!~ Go ahead and see some of the ***-for-tat arguments that spellcasters love to devolve into. It irritates the hell out of defensive fighters and melee. They auto assume they have the right spell on hand to overcome ANYTHING...but poor, useless Melee has to design it ahead of time, because they rely on gear. Gear is bad! (slap, slap, slap!) Spells! Spells are everything! You must hide even further now. Very deep indeed. (i.e. see why I don't hold too close to CharOps maxims? You're making my argument for me!) No, my party couldn't survive in a world of incantatrices. However, our DM has nearly caused a number of accidental TPKs; if we weren't squeezing all the juice we could out of them, we would all have died. That's the other side of suboptimal; sometimes, you get beaten. This is mainly because our DM wanted a no-casters game, and gives out remarkably little loot. Suboptimal should get beaten...but it shouldn't be instantaneous. Optimal should get beaten...and it might be really fast, done right. CharOps should get beaten, and it should be >SPLAT< TPK, "next party, guys. Yep, start at level 15-20, ignore how hard it is to survive the lower levels, just make a build and bring it." And as I keep saying, your SAB build is often sufficient. But it remains suboptimal, and sometimes, you need the extra power. It has extra power when you want it to. You call it suboptimal, and don't present any math proof. And so I take your 'suboptimal' rating with a grain of salt, because every time I see the word, it seems to mean "Doesn't automatically do the best dmg on a full attack." That's not what it's designed to do...but it can be, if you want it to. Edit: On the issue of taking Fighter levels: I agree with the CharOp consensus; you cna ususally duplicate most of the effect of a straight-fighter build, with a few other abilities, by taking other classes and PrCs. And doing so is almost always in your interest. Furthermore, I subscribe to one of the tenets of "roleplaying optimisation" - class is metagame. As this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) shows, your class distribution doesn't have have to determine what you call yourself. Your character doesn't know he's a hodgepodge of three base classes and four PrCs. He knows he's a hero, forging his own style from the best the world has to offer, and proving its effectiveness by the corpses of his foes. Class is metagame is an excuse. PrC's are not neccessary in ANY game. They should have been simply written up as feat chains, and become a career choice. Instead, they utterly dominate the core feats and classes with what they hand out. In short, they are unbalanced. ANd everyone knows it, and avoids the subject, because you get so much more out of them then you do with Core. So, I adhere to the other side of the scale...PrC'ing is breaking the metagame balance of classes. A PrC that is stronger then core needs to be toned down to core, preferably by writing it up as a feat chain and comparing it to what a Core class would gain. Every time I've done this, it's pretty much been agreed the feats are way, way too strong...which means the PrC's are, as well. Multiclassing to build a concept is okay...I do it, too. Being forced to multiclass because of ramped up power levels from PrC proliferation? Nah. And so I don't subscribe to the practice of rampant multiclassing. And the reason there isn't a PrC for focusing on sword-and-board fighting with high AC is that it's what the designers felt the Fighter class did all by itself. Really, what would the features be? Additional AC boosts? Improved Expertise returns? It lacks the "prestige" part of Prestige Class. Although a case could be made that Dwarven Defender is an AC-oriented melee class. It is also screwed against anyone who thinks, as they just move away from the Defensive Stance and shoot them. What's Prestige? Being the iconic tank isn't? CharOps thinking, the only prestige is improved Offense or weird tricks... The Dwarven Defender has a +4 AC bonus, a good Will save, d12 HD, grants DR 6/-, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and has Spot, Listen and Sense Motive on its skill list, all over ten levels. Ignore the Stance...I do. Too many people focus on the uselessness of the stance. The Strength of the DD is in everything else it grants. I wrote this class up as a feat chain, and it was strong, but not too much so. Basically, you'd have to make 5 feats that: Give out +4 AC (Dodge), +4 Will save, +1 hp/level, Improved Uncanny Dodge, DR 6/-. And access to three valuable skills. No mention of stance...it was a freebie, one per feat. Wow, thems some strong feats. Stance is a non-issue. Look at the class to see its strength. The stance is not important to a DD like rage is to a barbarian. And then there's the problem that the class is restricted to dwarves, and has never been updated with all the new stuff available since the splatbooks came out. It's hugely due for a re-write and losing the Dwarf-only moniker (which it did, but gained the Exalted one for Defender of Sealtiel, basically the same thing). -- As for Fighters being the 'high AC' class, this isn't supported by the rules. Clerics can wear all the armor a Fighter can, and get access to spells that enhance AC in numerous ways, without penalizing them for doing so. Armor wearers of all sorts are penalized for having high DEX scores, and can't use it in armor. Stats scale infinitely. Full Plate is always +7. Touch Attacks and Brilliant weapons specifically discriminate against 'high AC' classes, and Touch AC only gets more and more valuable at higher levels. The whole Polymorph line of spells grants AC bonuses that dwarf what you get from armor. They give away Shield AC with Animated Shields and Imp. Buckler Defense. and Lastly, there isn't a real feat out there that gives any Melee a solid, scaling bonus to AC to drive home their AC advantage. The only class that gets it? A monk. And thematically, it's to replace the fact they don't get a shield! Even CharOps will tell you, the best AC builds are not Fighters. usually, they are variant Monk builds, using stat multipliers (Deepwarden/Fist of the Forest/Forsakers, and the like, 3x Con to AC! +wis, +Dex...) Even the 'Duellist', the posterboy for a high AC build, sucks because the Int AC bonus is restricted by class level...and the +level to AC class feature forces you into Defensive Fighting and shafts your offense. So, high AC Fighter from design doesn't thrill me, either, because it never, ever delivered. Paizo, at least, is giving a scaling AC bonus to Fighters. 4E is allowing fighters to get their full Dex in heavy armor, which is what Fighters originally had. There is nothing in the game, really, to let Fighters reclaim the high AC/tank role indubitably. The closest you get for Melees is the Crusader, who do it because of their ability to self-heal, not because of their AC or other defenses. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-24-08, 03:50 PM	QFT. I was surprised this thread hadn't died yet, so I thought I'd check back. Given the length of the posts I just made a quick scan to see if anyone actually did any math. Sorry if I missed a post, but I didn't see any. I did notice some posts that must have taken an hour to write and a side debate on THF vs. SAB. For those interested, I wrote a computer program to simulate THF vs. SAB before and - in a simple hack-n-slash-no-special-tricks fight - SAB comes out ahead by a mile. The exception is the animated shield (THFAB?), which makes THF come out ahead. I could post the 2+ page computer program but I doubt anyone will read it. PM me if you want it, it's in javascript. You need to edit the source code to change the settings and, no, I don't feel like making a simpler interface at the present time. Unlike some, I don't have hours to devote to stupid debates. This was actually worked out befoe 3E ever shipped (one of the few times they actually did the math right). CharOps ignores your argument, because they automatically note that 1) Your AC is nothing to the right attack, so you have no advantage and 2) If you don't kill your enemies now, they will find a way around your defenses and kill you. And that's why they advocate total offense, with partial control as backup. Defenses mean nothing, especially high AC, the most common defense. Get them dead fast enough, and it won't matter if your AC is that low. And they note that the game SUPPORTS this view, because it gets easier and easier to do dmg to things as you level, but it gets harder and harder to avoid them (Monster TH scales faster then monster AC). So, the game itself is telling you, the math is nice, but in real play, you need offense more. On the other hand, I note that getting a High AC doesn't cost all that much, and your TH doesn't go up any faster as SAB then it does as THW...and the addition of a shield can be very significant. The key issue for CharOps is 'time'. An SAB guy foils the enemy and drags out the fight. Ideally, 'it doesn't work that way', by their standards. The enemy will come up with something to neutralize you, so you MUST kill it fast. Different ways of looking at the situation. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-24-08, 04:01 PM	QUOTE=EjoThim There is a defense, but it's a lot harder to have a worthwhile defense than to do enough damage to make having a defense not matter. Ah! But you ignore the flip side of the argument. If you lose init, you have no defense, and you are dead, hence you have no offense. And it only need happen once. Essentially, yes. Immunities, buffs, and resistances though are vital, as they can stop even the Save or Dies if you do them right, allowing you another round of your own actions. But, this obviates the CharOps overcomes all defenses automatic rule. It's a false argument. Defense are marginally effective, but only when the right type and when that marginal benefit outweighs their cost. And who decides what those are? CharOps? I don't play in Char Ops. If theyr'e not, you most likely are. And then you start the campaign over. Wonderful. It looks like someone needed to work on their defenses, eh? False. It is adequate for a normal campaign. Someone built as a charge choosing to use a shield at the time or built as a TWF (shield or not) choosing to use a shield without attacking with it will perform better overall, and in other roles more than make up the very small gap between them and a pure SAB. What's a pure SAB? Someone who ONLY fights SAB? That's silly...that's dumb...that's not tactical. And I've never advocated that SAB seem so inflexible, but people are bound and determined that SAB means SAB all the time. False again. Many, many CO builds work wonderfully in normal campaigns. But it's up to the player to not overshadow the others. You don't always have to use all your options, but only a fool never gives himself the options in the first place. Of course CO works wonderful in a 'normal' campaign. It's SuperGuy with Normal Guy against normal monsters. You'll shine and dominate right up until the DM does it back to you, and the party wipes. In reality, it should be Superguy with Normal Guy against Super Monsters. If you allow CharOps, you should apply it to the enemy, if you are a smart DM...and CharOps, it's win Init or dead. The Party will wipe. So is Monk 20. Or playing a Sorceror instead of a wizard. Or playing a Druid that doesn't do anything but heal. That does not mean that those choices are optimal or even decent. That also doesn't mean that you should be facing Monks, or sorcerors instead of wizards, or Druids who only heal. Good for the goose, good for the gander. And if you force that high level of play, the party wipes, unless the DM is giving you the edge. CharOps is a brutal, fast, merciless style of play. Most campaigns will not be that way. So, in essence, CharOps comes down to exploiting the willingness of the DM not to wipe the party. It's not something I cater to. ===Aelryinth
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-24-08, 04:14 PM	So, when exactly were you planning to stop intentionally misrepresenting the optimizer/CO position and attacking that straw man? Nobody in their right mind, CO or otherwise, considers defense useless, attacking that position is pointless and you know it. All that's really being claimed (and correctly so) is that AC - including touch AC - is among the least effective defenses in terms of what it can stop, and what resources are required to get that stopping power (and consequently aren't being used to tie up an opponent, kill them, or force them to use their resources to defend themselves rather than unleash hell). Immunities, miss chances, unavailability as a target (whether by distance, interrupted line of effect or some other method), menacing retaliation abilities, and action denial are just more effective uses of the available resources. As for Core as a standard of power, I guess you're not familiar with Druid X, SF (Conjuration), Augment Summoning, Natural Spell, and whatever else feats you feel like having. Or is that one of those things that's broken when you want to ignore it (it's broken all the time, FYI) and just fine when holding up the book that includes it as the standard of power for the easygoing ideal game, against which all else is judged and all splats dominate?
Sunic_Flames 05-24-08, 04:54 PM	And I am still awaiting counterpoints.
aelryinth 05-24-08, 05:09 PM	QUOTE=Sunic_FlamesExamples, comparisons, fair and realistic. Alright. Premise: Effectiveness of sword and board vs effectiveness of a two handed fighter in a normal game. First, normal game is defined as mid power. Not highly optimized, and not anti optimized. Competent characters, who are neither over nor underpowered. It is also defined as PvM where you fight monsters, humanoid NPCs, and so forth. As opposed to other PCs, which is the Arena Fallacy. Edit: Here's an excellent way of expressing it courtesy of JanusJones: Most games and what I define as normal games run at level 2-3. As in 2.something. CharOps runs at level 4. Level 5 is pure TO material and never meant to see a real game. So in order to present a comparison, before even looking at either side we must look at the opposition. For this, I will be using the MM1. The reasons for this are threefold: 1: Anything else would violate OGL, as it is not in the SRD. 2: This allows for much easier referencing for the same reason. 3: It is the only way to ensure the information is relevant to all as MM2-5 may or may not be in play. If they were used however MM2 is basically random numbers and is an invalid basis for any balance discussion, MM3 contains generally more optimized creatures which disfavors fighters of all types, MM4 is primarily existing creatures with templates and/or class levels for those who cannot do it themselves, and MM5 I don't know enough about to comment on. So this should not influence matters much overall. Even a cursory glance reveals a pattern here, and the creatures can be neatly summed up into one of three categories, divided in a pyramid set up. The first group I will refer to as soft targets. Soft targets have high HP, but most if not all of their other defenses (especially AC) are very low. They soak a lot of abuse like a sponge but aren't very tough at all. This is the largest group. Examples include but are not limited to just about any animal, magical beast, vermin, giant, elemental and (if for some reason you want to fight one) oozes. The ideal tactic against these is to take advantage of the fact their defenses are crap and that they have some glaring weakenss to end the fight in a single decisive move. Any animal will die with no saving throw if targeted with a Ray of Stupidity, for example. Well not quite die, but seeing as anyone will eventually succeed with Coup de Graces at their leisure and they are completely neutralized in the meantime close enough. Neither type can do this, so we must resort to other tactics. THF guy can PA for large amounts, still have high or maximum accuracy, and get in big hits to quickly chew through that large amount of HP. This may screw up his iterative attacks, but then who says he has to make them? Consider, if he does one big attack instead of several smaller ones he loses far less damage if any. Especially if damage reduction is involved. This also allows him to move. Moving might provoke an AoO if he does not have a reach advantage, but even so one attack + one AoO is likely to measure out to less than trading full attacks. In fact you will notice several other trends here. Not only do such combatants tend to be simple and straightforward melee brutes, they full attack as good or better than you while having HP as good or better than yours. Trading full attacks is a losing proposition, whereas focusing on one big hit and limiting their number of potential counterattacks means they lose out on much more than you do. And they cannot simply use the same tactic back against you because you have at least a mid AC combined with other defenses - whereas they have low AC and no such thing. You are not Power Attack bait. They are. Sword and board guy... he is either TWFing with his shield as an offhand and therefore cannot effectively Power Attack or is only attacking with his one handed weapon, could Power Attack, but this will screw up his iteratives. It also won't be as effective for obvious reasons. The only thing sword and board guy has going for him here is that since such creatures tend to be simple and straightforward, they are most likely to stand there and allow themselves to be 'tanked' instead of smashing whoever is posing the greatest threat. And their own tactics involve a lot of 'hit the thing with the other thing', meaning that sword and board guy's advantage actually matters here. If he tries the same tactic THF guy is using, he loses his only advantage in that he is 'tanking' the creature and taking advantage of one of his few strengths. Of course, a few good hits (from THF guy) will simply kill it, dead creatures do 0 damage. And even with higher defenses against hit the thing with the other thing, he'll still take a few smacks as he has to trade full attacks to stay in its face. Wait, wait, what? 1) First fallacy. TWF with his shield screws up his iteratives. -2TH? Exactly how much are you power Attacking for? That screws up all your iteratives, as well. Math will show that iteratives are considerably more important then Power Attacking over time, unless your foe really sucks. Do the math side by side, and you'll see this. You're better on the single attack, more then likely. But on Full attacks? Trading blows? If the advantage is so huge to go THF, then SAB can drop the shield and Power Attack for net 2.5 less dmg then you. 2) Second Fallacy: You mention the THW guy is killing it, but getting slammed back in reply. You make no mention that the SAB guy is killing it, but either not getting slammed back, or getting slammed back a lot less. You might be killing it in fewer hits, but if you are Power Attacking, you are hitting it less...it's pure math. I'm hitting it more. More chances to crit, more chances to do dmg, and I'm NOT getting hit at all. At the end of the fight, you need to be healed and SAB guy doesn't. The animal is dead. Which is better for the party? You are ignoring resource conservation in the face of the thrill of big dmg numbers. That's not how tanking works. Now remember that ideal tactic? Yeah, these guys have separate parties that are otherwise identical. His teammate can employ it even though he cannot. THF guy can deal with his foe in a round or two, no problem. Wizard can focus elsewhere, screw up other opponents, not a big deal. Sword and board guy takes a lot longer, does less each round, and takes the same or more damage because even though his AC might be higher, he faces more attacks to do his job, and the THF guy can just get a miss chance item or two to end up as much or more defensively sound even if we ignore that Animated Shields and Improved Buckler Defense exist. He is either doing nothing to influence the outcome or is being an active liability. The Ray of Stupidity example means either taking a -4 for firing into melee, or having to waste two feats to get Precise Shot. Then after the fight, he needs as much or more healing resources... it ends up more intensive, and thus less efficient to deal with these sorts of encounters as sword and board guy. 1) You repeat the fallacy. His damage is not that much less. At low levels, its 2-6 points per swing. How is that a 'lot less'? It's made up by one shield bash landing, and more. maybe it's going to be one round...so what? The creature is still dead, and you didn't burn any party resources. You occupied the critter and rendered it useless. If someone else takes out their guy first, they can pitch in and help on yours. Or they can sit back and have tea. 2) AC is not a linear effect. You don't take half dmg for 5 pts more AC. Going from AC 20 to 25 can go from taking dmg 30% of the time to 5% of the time. He would have to attack me SIX TIMES as often as you, to do the same dmg. That's not going to happen. 3) Blur items are not cheap, especially effective ones. A MINOR cloak of displacement is 24000 Gp! That's the same as a Shield +5! and for a whopping 20% displacement? 1/5 of dmg? In the above example, you'd go from 30% dmg to 24%...wahoo? That's 8 pts of AC, reducing a creatures chance to hit by -40%, and their dmg accordingly! What's more effective...-20%, or -40%? Especially if they start at anything under a 100% hit chance? 4) A MAJOR cloak of displacement gives 50% miss chance 12 rounds/day...but you have to turn it on. It costs as much as a +7 Shield, OR a +5 Bashing Shield with +2 Defending Shield spikes. AC advantage, now +10. If the monster starts out at 100% hit chance, your ticking rounds of 50% miss chance do exactly the same thing as the shield. At anything under 100%, the shield is more effective, until at a 55% hit rate or lower, it's literally 5% hit chance against 25% hit chance. Better yet, if I can finangle a Pearl and a GMW, the spikes could be +4 or better, and the AC advantage ramps up accordingly. Which numbers are superior, here? And mind you, this is an item you get at 15th level! Anyways. Second type. These guys have better defenses. Mid ACs (they don't have the resources for high ACs), higher saves, other tricks (DR, miss chances, etc) and so forth. They do have lower HP though, often much lower. We'll call these fragile targets because they break easily when hit, but it's considerably more difficult to get said hits in. Examples include but are not limited to most humanoid NPCs (it is not possible to get enough defensive stuff to have a high AC on NPC WBL, offense doesn't suffer much though), outsiders, and various creatures of other types. The ideal tactic against them is to weaken them first, and as much as possible as aside from AC they sometimes have high defensive stats (saves, for example). Neither of them can do this either, so we have to make do. These guys tend to not be straightforward, and often have spells, spell like abilities, and so forth. These do not care one iota about your AC. A few might care about your touch AC, but the most threatening ones do not. As such the defensive 'advantage' possessed by sword and board plays a greatly lessened or non existent roll. Their loss of offense still has its full effect though, unless they choose to stash the shield and wield a longsword two handed or whatever. Which means they need to spec the same as THF guy in addition to spec as sword and board guy. More to the point, this is a concession of defeat for the sword and board style. These guys who don't care about AC have to be compensated for in defenses. This is the CharOps thing. They forget that being neutralized is being neutralized, and it doesn't matter if it's your offensive ability or your defensive ability. Also, these guys tend to rely a suprising amount against your Touch AC, and Shield Man has an advantage. I'd also have to say that you are undervaluing high AC against this subsector, and specifically dwelling on spells and defenses against. Here, the SAB guy has the option of dropping his shield if it is totally useless and going to town. These same people ignore miss chances as readily as Touch AC. His dmg is 2.5 pts less then a two hander, on average. He has lost nothing, and yet his default defenses are far, far higher then THW guy. Why is this a defeat for an SAB guy? It's simply the only situation where the THW guy is automatically superior...the situation where AC is ignored, which seems to be where all of CharOps dwells. It's simply not the case. This is not a defeat for his style. It's a defeat for the THW guy, who can't pick up a shield when this is all done and go back to be effective against every other foe. Chances are, they aren't much interested in melee at all. Your role, as either type is to get in lucky shots where you can and otherwise try to stay out of the way, and maybe finish off something that fell victim to a save or suck or other such crippling effect. THF's lucky shots count for more as he hits harder, especially when you consider DR. Yes, a +2 enhancement negates DR, but as THF guy can better brute force it he can devote his cash and enhancement slots elsewhere. Sword and board guy cannot perform the role of tanking as the enemy is not interested in sitting in front of the tin can. THF guy can still perform the role of hurt the thing, albeit not as well. The DR argument goes both ways. If you try to brute force it, you hit less. So you hit less, but do more dmg when you hit. The smart play is have the ability to bypass the DR. If not, doing consistent dmg while taking none in return works fine. Nickel and dime them dead, or quarter-piece them dead. It's all good. Whether the enemy is interested in sitting in front of the tin can is moot. The tin can is very interested in sitting in front of him, and can kill it if he is ignored. That is the fighter's job. Not having the mobility to do so is a question of preparation. "Lucky" shots are anything but. They are applied tactical capability and the mobility to carry them out. Both THW and SAB guy had best have the tools to accomplish this, or they aren't doing their own jobs. The third time isn't really a fair comparison or analysis, but I will mention it for completeness. These guys are just tough. High AC, high HP, high other defenses... Strong all around. Main example here is dragons. There are few if any others. I'd throw in buffed outsiders, and buffed spellcasters. Both types are pretty much useless here as the creature is going to use aerial superiority to negate you, breath weapon strafe, etc. You won't be hitting or tanking it much, if at all because by the time it joins the fray, you're all either near dead or it is taking advantage of stupidity to quickly off a key character. Maybe you'll get a lucky shot, in which case THF's contribution still counts for more. Only hope here is something like boots of the battle charger to charge as a standard action + readied action to do an aerial charge. This battle is the sole province of the casters. And maybe an archer, but those aren't the topic here. Meanwhile THF guy is just as solid in the defensive areas that matter here (saves, HP, and so forth). Aerial superiority is a mobility issue, not a fighting style issue. No FB build is ever presented without the ability to fly by mid levels...the ability is too tactically important. No MELEE build should be complete without flying ability. It's just too important. Breath weapons are a thing you prepare for ahead of time with potions, get buffs for, or soak with hit points. Nobody else in the party is going to do any better then you are...although the rogue might be able to avoid the breath, who knows? THF guy here has a HUGE problem, and that's the Dragon can Power Attack (they all have it). Moreover, they can Power Attack for HUGE amounts (+20?) against his comparatively low AC, and/or pull special moves on him he has less chance to resist because of no Shield Ward. The damage he takes skyrockets accordingly, and can wipe him in no time at all. Claw/Claw/Bite/Wing/Tail combos all at the same hit chance? He's a smear. SAB guy can't be attacked that way. If the Dragon tries it, he will miss. Repeatedly. This wastes the Dragon's actions. This is a good thing. Now speaking overall, sword and board guy loses a large amount of offense for a less valuable and far more narrowly focused defense, that is also highly inefficient in that concealment and such grant the same manner of protection or better for the same cost or less. Many things ignore AC, starting with the fact offense scales far faster than it. Not so many things ignore concealment and other such miss chances. Fewer still ignore saves in a meaningful way (aka save or die, without the save part). As such, not only is concealment a more reliable defense overall against 'hit the thing with the other thing', but there are defensive concerns greater than 'being hit by the other thing' that AC and by extension sword and board do nothing for. There it is again...the 'large' amount of offense argument. At level 20 with a 30 str, 8 pts per swing, 2.5 pts if both going THW. They both hit exactly the same. Then there's the fallacy of the 'less valuable' and 'far more narrowly focused defense', which operates against 90% of the foes in game, and does so far more effectively then THW guy's. The offense scales faster then defense is something that applies to monsters by design. It does not apply to PC's unless they CHOOSE to let it apply that way. It is VERY easy to get SAB to a 48 walk around AC, and this elevates quickly with the right buffs. It is considerably harder to get TH bonuses for monsters to rise faster then that. THe number fo monsters that can hit a +38 attack bonus is extremely limited. Concealment is a hellaciously pricey 'cure' for this, that doesn't apply in as many situations as AC doesn't apply, generally isn't permanently available until later levels in the game, and doesn't compare in anything close in most melee combat situations which, after all, the fighter is supposed to be finding himself in. Optimization plays no particular role here as casters can already end fights in 1-2 rounds with the right spell right out of the box. Non casters need heavy optimization to attempt the same feats, but I focused on normal characters, aka not Lockdown tanks or uber chargers. Even so, note initiative is still very important and though you may not automatically win before they can act you will still do enough to sway the outcome in your favor. This is the source of win init = win, and it does not require 'CharOps views' to reach this state. It simply requires that the table does not actively anti optimize and make horrible tactical choices such as attempting to have the rogue bull rush the giant (and be subsequently AoOed due to lack of the feat) to drag combats out. And as CharOps knows, spellcasters always have the right spell to overcome your defenses, all of the time, so effectively, no one can defend against spellcasters. Even that much is not assured, as I am playing in a game where everyone anti optimized at least a little bit, enemies are not very well designed, and the only time the sword and board guy gets to do anything involving 'tanking' is when his class feature from the 3.0 PRC 'Devoted Defender' allows him to actually take hits for the real threats (which include my character, he is a cohort thereof) in their place. Otherwise he is ignored, and the enemies attack my character/the druid/the crusader with varying degrees of success. This is not a fair example though for several reasons. One, cohorts are supposed to be a bit subservient to PCs, whereas other PCs should be equal. A concept that involves a character being a servant of another is thereby invalid. Two, there are multiple house rules boosting the effectiveness of the two weapon fighting combat style drastically that render it invalid in anything closer to a RAW stance regarding it, whereas there are none that do the same for two handed fighters. Those work as RAW indicates. Three, he has approximately 250,000-275,000 gold worth of wealth due to the fact being the cohort of an Artificer means he effectively has 166% more treasure due to craft cost = 37.5% normal. By comparison, the actual PCs who are two levels higher started with 200,000 as is standard for WBL for the level. If he had normal wealth and no house rules in his favor he wouldn't do anything meaningful at all, as opposed to being decent as long as his foes have low ACs to allow iteratives to hit and no DR to take a huge bite out of his half dozen low damage attacks. (this is rare) And no, he can't afford Shadowstriking yet, much less twice. If he were expected to function as a PC his player would naturally and quickly become bored and lose interest. So what you are saying is you built your man to be ineffective delibrately, not taking advantage of his multiple attacks knowingly, not giving him the ability to bypass DR if need be, and not having consumables ready to address situations that come up frequently just so he looks bad? I thought you were talking about not making bad play choices? In closing, the reason he exists as he does is because I deliberately made him suboptimal to avoid overshadowing the PC Crusader. A big part of that was going sword and board. If he were a two handed fighter... well I don't think any more needs to be said. Right. You would have optimized the character to exploit his high damage, instead of nerfing the character by shafting the build you chose. So, I'm wondering, why are you playing the henchie so stupid? Especially with an Artificer for a boss? DR should never be an issue...it's an infusion away, at best, or a consumable away, at worst. GMW takes care of hitting the enemy and enhancement bonuses...if DR is that horrible a problem, move resources to address it. And you aren't doing this. So, you are delibrately playing him stupid. Is he supposed to be a damage dealer? No? He's supposed to be a damage sponge. Is he doing his job? Yes? Does he take less dmg then the Crusader (ignoring the fact the Crusader can heal some of his away?) Yes? Then what you have is inability to see effective role in favor of 'glamour'. People don't cheer the tank. They never have. They cheer the 100 pt crit. They cheer the save-or-die that gets through. The guy who sits there and slugs it out and keeps on going? He becomes invisible. he's always doing his job. If he does it right and well, everyone else gets to be heroes, too, and they forget what he's doing because he's not uber spectactular at it. Sounds to me like you'd be better off taking a look at your henchie and seeing what you are doing wrong, because it doesn't sound like you're doing anything right. ===Aelryinth
Callix 05-24-08, 06:26 PM	Aelryinth, I'm beginning to tire of this. Claiming that I'm in danger of being lynched by CO is not an argument. It's a show trick, and it's not winning you any support. Spells are considered superior to gear because they can be customised at little cost. One of the key tricks of Wizard play from LogicNinja's Guide to Being Batman, amongst other places, is to leave a few slots open each day, to be used for the utility and buff spells you find yourself needing later in the day. Stopping for 15 minutes before confronting the dragon is a good thing if it ensures that all your Resist Energy buffs are set to the right type. On the other hand, for rounds/level buffs that are frequently useful, life-saving when they are, and need to be in place at little warning, continuous items are a good way to get them. This is especially true for immunities, such as Freedom of Movement. Can you explain the logic behind the idea that the survival of a party is inversely proportional to its power? The weaker you are, the more likely a given out-of-the-book encounter is likely to kill you. Yes, if you optimise your character to hell and back, the DM needs to step up the challenges to keep it interesting. But no DM is perfect. A party that struggles to overcome most level-appropriate encounters will one day fight a Closet Troll in a closed space. If they don't have a few options to pull out of the bag, they're dead. And most of those options are the Optimiser cheese you've been railing about. "Suboptimal" means "using resources inefficiently". You've put a significant amount of resources into boosting your non-touch AC. While it helps reduce the damage from melee threats, realistically that doesn't matter much because in actual play, you have casters on your side. The high-HP sponges that sword-and-board can match THF against all have glaring weaknesses that a caster can exploit easily. So the most efficient way to handle the encounter is to let them. In other fights, AC matters less and less, so you have invested quite a bit into boosting an AC that isn't helping you much. Core is not balanced. It contains the Druid, a full-caster that basically comes with a free Fighter. And yes, feats are less powerful than class features. Which is why everyone on CO is convinced that the Fighter is underpowered, and should only be used as a dip in a feat-heavy build. Compare the Druid's animal companion, the wizard's ability to cast each level of spells, the Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge and DR. They're all too strong to be normal feats; +1 DR/-- is an Epic feat. That's the way the game is designed, and saying "I think feats should be as good as class features" is irrelevant to this discussion. It would be nice if they were, but we're discussing D&D, not Aelryinth's Houserules. And D&D comes in books, even if it's played by houserules. As for Fighters being the 'high AC' class, this isn't supported by the rules. Clerics can wear all the armor a Fighter can, and get access to spells that enhance AC in numerous ways, without penalizing them for doing so. Armor wearers of all sorts are penalized for having high DEX scores, and can't use it in armor. Stats scale infinitely. Full Plate is always +7. Touch Attacks and Brilliant weapons specifically discriminate against 'high AC' classes, and Touch AC only gets more and more valuable at higher levels. The whole Polymorph line of spells grants AC bonuses that dwarf what you get from armor. They give away Shield AC with Animated Shields and Imp. Buckler Defense. and Lastly, there isn't a real feat out there that gives any Melee a solid, scaling bonus to AC to drive home their AC advantage. The only class that gets it? A monk. And thematically, it's to replace the fact they don't get a shield! Even CharOps will tell you, the best AC builds are not Fighters. usually, they are variant Monk builds, using stat multipliers (Deepwarden/Fist of the Forest/Forsakers, and the like, 3x Con to AC! +wis, +Dex...) Even the 'Duellist', the posterboy for a high AC build, sucks because the Int AC bonus is restricted by class level...and the +level to AC class feature forces you into Defensive Fighting and shafts your offense. And now you make my argument for me. Fighter is not a good class to be boosting AC in. Therefore, Sword and Board, with its investment in boosting AC, is being inefficient by trying to make the fighter into something he is not. It can be done, but for the same effort, you can have a stronger character by going in the direction the mechanics lead you, rather than fighting them. I'll concede the high-AC fighter point; it was more of a designer's-intention argument, but not that strong.
Sunic_Flames 05-24-08, 06:55 PM	[B]Wait, wait, what? 1) First fallacy. TWF with his shield screws up his iteratives. -2TH? Exactly how much are you power Attacking for? That screws up all your iteratives, as well. Math will show that iteratives are considerably more important then Power Attacking over time, unless your foe really sucks. Do the math side by side, and you'll see this. You're better on the single attack, more then likely. But on Full attacks? Trading blows? If the advantage is so huge to go THF, then SAB can drop the shield and Power Attack for net 2.5 less dmg then you. I already addressed that. That's why instead of trading full attacks with the stuff that is as good or better than you at making full attacks and as good or better at absorbing HP damage you play your game and not theirs, do single powerful hits, and make them lose out far more than you. If SAB drops the shield and goes two handed he is conceding the THF style is superior by regarding it as better even though he isn't built for it. And as this is the only one a shield can be considered somewhat useful against... Go look at the ACs of creatures in this category. Here is an example: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elephant.htm AC 15. You have a to hit higher than 13, yes? No loss. Depending on the exact numbers, it may prove worthwhile to reduce your chance to hit below 95% for a better average damage result. And this is a fairly weak example, there are plenty of mid and even high level creatures with abysmal ACs. Especially when you consider you are more likely facing multiple lower CR creatures than a single equal or higher one. 2) Second Fallacy: You mention the THW guy is killing it, but getting slammed back in reply. You make no mention that the SAB guy is killing it, but either not getting slammed back, or getting slammed back a lot less. You might be killing it in fewer hits, but if you are Power Attacking, you are hitting it less...it's pure math. I'm hitting it more. More chances to crit, more chances to do dmg, and I'm NOT getting hit at all. At the end of the fight, you need to be healed and SAB guy doesn't. The animal is dead. Which is better for the party? SAB guy takes more attacks for reasons also already addressed, he has to stand there and take full attacks to do the tanking job instead of being smart. In addition, miss chances shore up the minor AC deficiency. So either THF guy has the same defenses or better, and the enemy gets fewer chances to smack him. Your statement also presumes your AC is so high you can only be hit on a natural 20. This is not happening, unless you employ heavy turtling tactics (Improved Combat Expertise) at which point... you're hitting less, and getting ignored more. As opposed to only having to deal with 1-2 rounds of attacks. Hmmm... You are ignoring resource conservation in the face of the thrill of big dmg numbers. That's not how tanking works. No, I am focusing on resource conservation. 1) You repeat the fallacy. His damage is not that much less. At low levels, its 2-6 points per swing. How is that a 'lot less'? It's made up by one shield bash landing, and more. maybe it's going to be one round...so what? The creature is still dead, and you didn't burn any party resources. You occupied the critter and rendered it useless. If someone else takes out their guy first, they can pitch in and help on yours. Or they can sit back and have tea. 2-6 damage at level 1 is near double. Compare to being hit about oh... 20% less? Hmmm... 75% more offense or 20% more defense some of the time. That's a tough one... Oh right, it isn't. Also, you likely don't have a shield bash at level 1, and if you do it hasn't been made good yet. You are again assuming that for some illogical reason donning a shield grants you invincibility. 2) AC is not a linear effect. You don't take half dmg for 5 pts more AC. Going from AC 20 to 25 can go from taking dmg 30% of the time to 5% of the time. He would have to attack me SIX TIMES as often as you, to do the same dmg. That's not going to happen. Ok, so you somehow got AC 25 before enemy to hit scaled above +5... seeing as a Fighter 1 with a MW weapon or WF has a +5 to hit, and one with both has higher this example is invalid on the grounds it will never actually happen. If you look at higher level examples you will observe the same trend. 3) Blur items are not cheap, especially effective ones. A MINOR cloak of displacement is 24000 Gp! That's the same as a Shield +5! and for a whopping 20% displacement? 1/5 of dmg? In the above example, you'd go from 30% dmg to 24%...wahoo? That's 8 pts of AC, reducing a creatures chance to hit by -40%, and their dmg accordingly! What's more effective...-20%, or -40%? Especially if they start at anything under a 100% hit chance? And it also protects against touch attacks. Since it counts as concealment it grants an additional advantage: A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. Hmmm... immunity to sneak attack... I can live with that. Now consider Heavy Fort costs anywhere from 35k to 75k depending on existing enchantments. Granted, such also grants immunity to critical hits, but even so 24k for SA immunity and other benefits is more than worth it. 4) A MAJOR cloak of displacement gives 50% miss chance 12 rounds/day...but you have to turn it on. It costs as much as a +7 Shield, OR a +5 Bashing Shield with +2 Defending Shield spikes. AC advantage, now +10. If the monster starts out at 100% hit chance, your ticking rounds of 50% miss chance do exactly the same thing as the shield. At anything under 100%, the shield is more effective, until at a 55% hit rate or lower, it's literally 5% hit chance against 25% hit chance. Better yet, if I can finangle a Pearl and a GMW, the spikes could be +4 or better, and the AC advantage ramps up accordingly. Which numbers are superior, here? And mind you, this is an item you get at 15th level! First, 15 rounds. Second, you overlook other miss chance options. Third, saving the caster resources (what THF guy does and sword and board guy does not) means more resources for you. THF guy therefore has a much better chance of getting GMW for free. These guys who don't care about AC have to be compensated for in defenses. This is the CharOps thing. They forget that being neutralized is being neutralized, and it doesn't matter if it's your offensive ability or your defensive ability. Also, these guys tend to rely a suprising amount against your Touch AC, and Shield Man has an advantage. ...What are you talking about? I'd also have to say that you are undervaluing high AC against this subsector, and specifically dwelling on spells and defenses against. Here, the SAB guy has the option of dropping his shield if it is totally useless and going to town. These same people ignore miss chances as readily as Touch AC. His dmg is 2.5 pts less then a two hander, on average. He has lost nothing, and yet his default defenses are far, far higher then THW guy. Nope, you are overvaluing it. Drop shield = concession, already addressed. Not nearly as many of them have True Seeing as effects that do not target AC. Both THF and sword and board have about the same defenses, but THFer is better offensively. Oh and if they do have True Seeing, it's probably an action to turn it on. Now compare round 1 TS, round 2-x do whatever to round 1-x use spells, SLAs, supernatural abilities... THF guy has another advantage - the enemy has to waste actions just to counter his advantage. Why is this a defeat for an SAB guy? It's simply the only situation where the THW guy is automatically superior...the situation where AC is ignored, which seems to be where all of CharOps dwells. It's simply not the case. This is not a defeat for his style. It's a defeat for the THW guy, who can't pick up a shield when this is all done and go back to be effective against every other foe. Let me know when you stop overestimating the shield. It does not grant invincibility. It does not grant uber defenses. It isn't even that good. I will simply be ignoring further remarks that grossly overestimate the effectiveness of AC. The DR argument goes both ways. If you try to brute force it, you hit less. So you hit less, but do more dmg when you hit. The smart play is have the ability to bypass the DR. If not, doing consistent dmg while taking none in return works fine. Nickel and dime them dead, or quarter-piece them dead. It's all good. You can still PA it, just not as much. Whether the enemy is interested in sitting in front of the tin can is moot. The tin can is very interested in sitting in front of him, and can kill it if he is ignored. That is the fighter's job. Not having the mobility to do so is a question of preparation. "Lucky" shots are anything but. They are applied tactical capability and the mobility to carry them out. Both THW and SAB guy had best have the tools to accomplish this, or they aren't doing their own jobs. Focus on guy that might nickel and dime them to death, or focus on guy who can 1-2 round them by himself? Hmmm... If you got attacked by a guy with a gun, a guy with a knife, and a guy with fisticuffs, which would you be most interested in taking out first? Me, I'd focus on gun guy, ideally getting the gun away from him and using it to hold off the others from attacking me. Now consider most stuff in D&D is more intelligent on average than a human. If you can arrive at the correct answer instantly, why shouldn't they? I'd throw in buffed outsiders, and buffed spellcasters. These tend to rely on miss chances more than AC. Also, spellcasters don't end up with super high HP, they just have defenses so high so as to rarely lose any. Effectively about the same, but semantics. Aerial superiority is a mobility issue, not a fighting style issue. No FB build is ever presented without the ability to fly by mid levels...the ability is too tactically important. No MELEE build should be complete without flying ability. It's just too important. Already considered that. Doesn't change the fact dragons still fly faster than you. It's also why I said this wasn't a fair example as it screws all fighters except archer builds. Breath weapons are a thing you prepare for ahead of time with potions, get buffs for, or soak with hit points. Nobody else in the party is going to do any better then you are...although the rogue might be able to avoid the breath, who knows? Doesn't change the fact you can do nothing, the dragon can do something. Other party members... spells, ranged attacks... Yeah, I suppose you could sit there and plink away with a piddly unspecced bow as either type, but this won't do much. THF guy here has a HUGE problem, and that's the Dragon can Power Attack (they all have it). Moreover, they can Power Attack for HUGE amounts (+20?) against his comparatively low AC, and/or pull special moves on him he has less chance to resist because of no Shield Ward. THF guy's AC is not that low. CR 20 dragon = about 42 to hit. He could PA for 5 maybe, and that's with multiattack and improved multiattack to avoid screwing secondary natural attacks. If a Gargantuan creature with Strength in the mid 30s wants to do a special maneuver on you, then damnit it's going to do a special maneuver on you! And it won't care about your silly Shield Ward, it's not enough. The damage he takes skyrockets accordingly, and can wipe him in no time at all. Claw/Claw/Bite/Wing/Tail combos all at the same hit chance? He's a smear. SAB guy can't be attacked that way. If the Dragon tries it, he will miss. Repeatedly. This wastes the Dragon's actions. This is a good thing. The dragon does 5 more damage on each attack, but faces at least a 36% miss chance. SAB still gets hit most of the time. Ends up either about the same, or a bit in favor of the THF. There it is again...the 'large' amount of offense argument. At level 20 with a 30 str, 8 pts per swing, 2.5 pts if both going THW. They both hit exactly the same. Only looking at base damage is an invalid comparison skewed in your favor. Then there's the fallacy of the 'less valuable' and 'far more narrowly focused defense', which operates against 90% of the foes in game, and does so far more effectively then THW guy's. ...Which would you rather have happen? Fail an 'AC check' = get hit for maybe, maybe 20% of your max HP. And that's from a really good hit. Results not so typical. Fail a saving throw = die, be effectively killed (petrify, insanity, paralysis... long list here), be turned against your party... Now, which of these is more important? Which is less valuable and far more narrowly focused? Which protects you against the things you really, really don't want working on you? Exactly. Now consider this 'defensive sacrifice', because that's what SAB is does not boost your defenses in the ways that matter. Whereas killing things faster gives them fewer chances to use such offering a pseudo defense = the best any fighter can do in this case. It also means that against that lesser defense, the enemy gets fewer chances to test it offering a pseudo defense there as well. Combine with actual defenses (again, those miss chances) and it's clear the choice never was a choice. The offense scales faster then defense is something that applies to monsters by design. It does not apply to PC's unless they CHOOSE to let it apply that way. It is VERY easy to get SAB to a 48 walk around AC, and this elevates quickly with the right buffs. It is considerably harder to get TH bonuses for monsters to rise faster then that. THe number fo monsters that can hit a +38 attack bonus is extremely limited. Concealment is a hellaciously pricey 'cure' for this, that doesn't apply in as many situations as AC doesn't apply, generally isn't permanently available until later levels in the game, and doesn't compare in anything close in most melee combat situations which, after all, the fighter is supposed to be finding himself in. Numbers or it didn't happen. I expect something involving sinking half or more of your WBL into AC items due to the diminishing returns that kick in at such a stage. Which among other things renders arguments of the cost of concealment, which by the way is less invalid. And as CharOps knows, spellcasters always have the right spell to overcome your defenses, all of the time, so effectively, no one can defend against spellcasters. Ok, so your fighter can only be hit on a 20, even with a touch attack, only fail a saving throw on a natural 1 and so forth? No? Probably not even close? Oops. Will save please. Remember, THF guy at least gives the caster fewer chances to attack that weakness. So what you are saying is you built your man to be ineffective delibrately, not taking advantage of his multiple attacks knowingly, not giving him the ability to bypass DR if need be, and not having consumables ready to address situations that come up frequently just so he looks bad? I thought you were talking about not making bad play choices? Nope, I am saying that under conditions ideal for him, he still is only decent at best. He has a full half dozen conditions in his favor that would not be the case in a RAW game. 1: Multiple house rules boosting TWFing, which he does with his sword and board. 2: Over double standard wealth = more good gear. 3: Slightly below average game power wise, meaning a lot fewer of the better tricks play a role. 4: Being a cohort = held to a much lower standard. 5: 3.0 PRC, not something that's normally allowed. This lets him switch places with an adjacent ally to take a hit for them - something that otherwise sword and board guy can't do. 6: Homebrew feat, also increases his effectiveness. Despite this, he is still a disappointment in all things except taking a hit for my character when she is standing right next to him. Right. You would have optimized the character to exploit his high damage, instead of nerfing the character by shafting the build you chose. So, I'm wondering, why are you playing the henchie so stupid? Especially with an Artificer for a boss? DR should never be an issue...it's an infusion away, at best, or a consumable away, at worst. GMW takes care of hitting the enemy and enhancement bonuses...if DR is that horrible a problem, move resources to address it. No, if I were making him as a PC I would have went with a two hander, took an animated shield so I lose nothing, stack on some miss chances for the lols and go to town slaughtering stuff. Because I did not want my cohort overshadowing the PC Crusader, I deliberately made him suboptimal by making him sword and board. By sword and board standards he is actually quite good. By overall standards... he sucks. As a cohort, this is acceptable. As a PC, it is not. Also, let's see... spend 1-2 rounds of actions buffing the cohort to deal with DR, or spend 1-2 rounds ending the encounter? Now if given advance warning, I certainly would buff him to deal with DR in addition to various other prep moves. Seeing as it was more like... oh ****, demons are attacking right now, this was not an option. And seeing as I have a fairly limited spell capacity barring consumables, and there are other PCs that add more than my cohort to the table as well as ya know... don't want to be overshadowed by a single feat he is not the first priority. And you aren't doing this. So, you are delibrately playing him stupid. No, I am using my resources in the most efficient manner. That means not helping the sword and board guy as even with the odds heavily stacked in his favor he still falls short because he is sword and board. Simple as that. Is he supposed to be a damage dealer? No? He's supposed to be a damage sponge. Is he doing his job? Yes? Does he take less dmg then the Crusader (ignoring the fact the Crusader can heal some of his away?) Yes? Then what you have is inability to see effective role in favor of 'glamour'. False. Though he is 'supposed to be' a damage sponge he does not actually function as such. In fact there are only three situations where he has been attacked at all. The first is where six hezrou demons and other creatures all attacked at once, so he sat in a corner trading full attacks with one while the other enemies mauled the rest of the party at random. The second is where AoE spells were spammed in tight quarters - not really valid. The third was when there was barely enough squares on the grid for everyone to stand so he got to use his 'switch places' PRC ability to take hits originally directed at my Artificer who was their first target. Then use a different ability from the same PRC to parry another attack directed at her, as the enemy continued to ignore sword and board guy, which I find especially amusing as my Artificer didn't even do anything that dangerous in this fight and yet was persisted after so eagerly. Then I think he tried a third time to attack my Artificer (he has reach obviously, and remember no room to maneuver further away from the guy or else I would have just went the invisible mobility route I usually use to never get attacked) at which point I Greater Mirror Imaged it away, and the enemy finally said screw it and started fighting the sword and board guy he was being forced repeatedly to fight anyways, only because of this 3.0 PRC. Otherwise he would not have even accomplished that much, he'd just be a half assed damage dealer whose 'supreme toughness' means nothing save that he dies last. Too bad the fight was just about over at this point. In other words, he is only taking less damage than the Crusader because the enemies are not ignoring the Crusader. The Crusader is also far better at doing damage than him. These two are related. Also, the Crusader only has slightly lower AC than my sword and board cohort. Main thing making my guy tough is damage reduction 5/-, and healing 5 HP after every hit with one of his weapons. Both of which a THF can do just as easily. Also, they cap at 50 points a day before turning off. My Artificer has the same AC, and I deliberately avoided optimizing her AC. Otherwise it would instead be in natural 20 only range. Now, the point I set out to make when citing him as an example. Even though among many other things the opposition is suboptimal and enemy tactics are suboptimal, sword and board guy is still basically useless as he is ignored by the enemy due to the fact he is not threatening enough to warrant immediate attention. You would think that since the enemy casters are regarding stuff like Flame Strike as the epitome of awesomeness and the enemy melees rarely do anything other than full attack (perhaps with a 5 foot step) or move and attack this would not be the case, but it still is. If the enemy were actually trying, as they are in most games it would only be more true. Most recent battle? Enemies ignore my Artificer, who is invisible, running around, and casting spells everywhere to great effect. Enemies ignore the Druid, who is also invisible, standing right behind the Crusader, and supporting him. Enemies ignore the skirmisher type guy, but this is no surprise since he does at most 30 damage a hit and that's with a crit + max damage. More typically he does 6-15 which is simply pathetic at the level. Enemies ignore the sword and board guy, who is cuisinarting away with his six attacks a round and maybe pushing them around with Brutal Surge. Enemies love the Crusader, and all focus their attacks on him, nearly killing him from full HP every round, forcing the aforementioned Druid to cast Heal every round to keep him alive as the support I mentioned. Again I remind you the Crusader's AC is only slightly lower than sword and board guy's. As in... 2 points? He has a shield too you see, and not Animated. Of course if they were not ignoring him, and divided their efforts it would work out better for all. But if they instead focused on sword and board guy... he wouldn't fare much better. He'd hurt them a lot less though. And considering that this was a CR 9, a CR 9, a CR 8, and a CR ??? attacking him, he was level 15, and the three low CR creatures were responsible for around 50% of the damage he took because they'd still get one smack in each at least on a full attack despite their high miss rate against him... Well you get the idea. Now imagine if he were more like level 10-12, and facing the same 3 mid CR creatures who by the way, have +20-25 to hit. Exactly. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direTiger.htm http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental (Greater, * 2) Likely buffed given the nature of the fight. Oh yeah, and there's a house rule in play that basically means the Crusader had 28 more HP than he would in a RAW game. He would survive one round of attacks with a margin of ~30 HP. Hmmm...
aelryinth 05-25-08, 02:32 AM	[QUOTE=Sunic_Flames;15941723]I already addressed that. That's why instead of trading full attacks with the stuff that is as good or better than you at making full attacks and as good or better at absorbing HP damage you play your game and not theirs, do single powerful hits, and make them lose out far more than you. If SAB drops the shield and goes two handed he is conceding the THF style is superior by regarding it as better even though he isn't built for it. And as this is the only one a shield can be considered somewhat useful against... And if the THF can't pick up a shield and wield a weapon effectivelhy then he's penalized and lacks versatility. Ho hum. bad Argument. I have tactical flexibility, and you do not. You might as well drop this point, because it's opinion based, and not fact based. you are holding to an extremely rigid view of melee options, and I most definitely am not. Go look at the ACs of creatures in this category. Here is an example: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elephant.htm AC 15. You have a to hit higher than 13, yes? No loss. Depending on the exact numbers, it may prove worthwhile to reduce your chance to hit below 95% for a better average damage result. And this is a fairly weak example, there are plenty of mid and even high level creatures with abysmal ACs. Especially when you consider you are more likely facing multiple lower CR creatures than a single equal or higher one. Oh look, we all fight elephants. That's a really good example of a campaign monster, yes sirree. We aren't even fighting an elephant with barding, or with barkskin allied to a druid, no sir. We're just gonna fight an elephant as it is. Nice pick of a creature catering exclusively to your point of view. At level 7, your shield-less THF will be lucky if he has AC 21. The elephant has a 75% chance of hitting with all his attacks, and at level 7 you are unlikely to kill it in one round, meaning you are going to take 30 points of dmg/rd. You might do enough dmg to kill it in two rounds, with full PA doing +14 dmg per hit. If the elephant went first, you take 60 pts of dmg. SAB guy, on the other hand, will have a Spiked SHield +1 by now, for a minimum AC of 25 (+4 better then you). HE can defensive fight for another +3, and has improved Shield Bash. He takes a -6 TH, meaning he will be hitting every bit as often as you (more, actually), and has 3 attacks at normal dmg chances. He can power attack for +1 dmg/attack and be on par with you, except he gets more attacks. The Elephants hits his AC of 28 on a rolled 12+, or 45%. So he's taking 18 pts dmg/round. His Shield Bash auto hitting means he's doing basically the same dmg as his main hand, minus half str bonus of +3 maybe. Since you didn't give dmg numbers, I'm just going to point out that you might be doing, oh, 20 pts more a round more dmg at best, and this against the very best opponent you could fight. However, the elephant has to last twice as long against the SAB guy to do the same amount of dmg to him as you took, and its not going to take SAB twice as long to kill him...one more round, tops. So, this contest of resources goes to SAB guy. Your THF guy needs more healing. Additionally, I used Defensive Fighting instead of Expertise, which would have been more efficient. You can't even revoke the example without providing some solid numbers and doing the math showing th's and dmg. I do know you can't afford miss chance stuff at this level, and you don't even have the Trample Resistance of +4 the SAB guy gets from Shield Ward. In short, the only way you MIGHT be way better is some example where you Uber Charge and manage to kill it in one round, which is unlikely. A Shield+1 is 1K gp...you can't even get an extra +1 onto your weapon for that much. Seriously, don't just post links to monsters. Post numbers and do the math, or you lose the argument before it begins. SAB guy takes more attacks for reasons also already addressed, he has to stand there and take full attacks to do the tanking job instead of being smart. In addition, miss chances shore up the minor AC deficiency. So either THF guy has the same defenses or better, and the enemy gets fewer chances to smack him. And mathematically, he takes less dmg because more of those attacks miss. But you're not seeing that, because THF guy definitely does NOT have equal defenses. Your statement also presumes your AC is so high you can only be hit on a natural 20. This is not happening, unless you employ heavy turtling tactics (Improved Combat Expertise) at which point... you're hitting less, and getting ignored more. As opposed to only having to deal with 1-2 rounds of attacks. Hmmm... My statement presumes that I'm advancing my shield along so the dmg curve I'm taking is falling steeply, and that I CAN reach an AC where it takes a 20 to hit if I so choose. Whereupon I take such little dmg that it would have to be attacking me for multiples in rounds to deal the same dmg it's piling up on you in one or two. Numbers. You are making statements with NO factual support. Again, a fallacy. Do the work, or be silent. No, I am focusing on resource conservation. And youa re losing. How is this a focus? 2-6 damage at level 1 is near double. Compare to being hit about oh... 20% less? Hmmm... 75% more offense or 20% more defense some of the time. That's a tough one... Level 1? What about at level 4? 10? The spread is still the same. And you are borking the numbers. THat's 25% of, say, avg elephant dmg of 40/rd, vs 5% of avg elephant dmg, which is...2/rd. A 5:1 advantage. You want your +75% offense? Go right ahead. Oh right, it isn't. Correct. I win. Also, you likely don't have a shield bash at level 1, and if you do it hasn't been made good yet. Level 1? Ah, you just focused in on the AC example for some reason. Fine. AC 30, and 35. AC 40, 45. I used example numbers. THe spread only gets BIGGER as you level. A heavy spec shield +1 is 1K Gp, for +4 AC. +2 Shield is 4k Gp...+5 AC for the cost of +1 of any other type of AC. You are again assuming that for some illogical reason donning a shield grants you invincibility. Youa re now putting words in my mouth. I am looking at numbers, and you are either delibrately misinterpreting them, or simply don't understand them. Ok, so you somehow got AC 25 before enemy to hit scaled above +5... seeing as a Fighter 1 with a MW weapon or WF has a +5 to hit, and one with both has higher this example is invalid on the grounds it will never actually happen. If you look at higher level examples you will observe the same trend. Lessee...Fighter/1 can't afford masterwork...15 str...might have focus...BAB +1...looks like a +4 to me. Heavy Shield Spec takes care of +3 of that, with banded mail for both of us and our 13? Dex giving us +6. So you have 16 AC and SAB has 19. He hits you on a 12+ and me on a 15+. That's 45% vs 30%. I take 1/3 less dmg then you. Huh. And it also protects against touch attacks. Since it counts as concealment it grants an additional advantage: A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. Hmmm... immunity to sneak attack... I can live with that. Now consider Heavy Fort costs anywhere from 35k to 75k depending on existing enchantments. Granted, such also grants immunity to critical hits, but even so 24k for SA immunity and other benefits is more than worth it. Yeah...at level 10 when you can afford this. At which point a rogue can certainly take some form of tremorsense, blindsense, blindsight, or a feat to ignore concealment and SA you anyways. It doesn't grant you immunity to SA. It grants you concealment. And there's plenty of ways to get around concealment. Improved Precise Shot or whatever it is is merely the first one that springs to mind. I'm sure a dozen or more methods spring to mind, especially on CharOps. And the rest of the time, it works out to saving you 20% of your DOT, which is horrible compared to teh AC a shield grants. Unless, of course, everyone you fight is a SA type who is dumb enough to not have options to attack someone with concealment. First, 15 rounds. Second, you overlook other miss chance options. Third, saving the caster resources (what THF guy does and sword and board guy does not) means more resources for you. THF guy therefore has a much better chance of getting GMW for free. What other miss chance options? Concealment is concealment...it doesn't stack with itself. Furthermore, you never, ever said how you were paying for this. Where exactly is the money for this concealment coming from? A Minor Cloak is the cost of a +5 Shield. A major Cloak is the cost of a +6 Shield with +3 of Spikes on it, for a whopping +11 AC to make up for. Your numbers suck! Starting out with an enemy making 100% hit chances, your dmg is reduced by 50%, and mine's reduced by 55! If it starts out with 50% hit chances, your dmg is reduced by 50%, and mine is reduced by...90%. Your numbers, once again, suck. ...What are you talking about? If you don't understand, don't worry about it. You're posting unsupported statements anyways. Nope, you are overvaluing it. Drop shield = concession, already addressed. Not nearly as many of them have True Seeing as effects that do not target AC. Both THF and sword and board have about the same defenses, but THFer is better offensively. Oh and if they do have True Seeing, it's probably an action to turn it on. Nope, unable to use shield effectively = penalty, lack of options. Already addressed. If you want to spout absolutism, so can I, so you may as well drop the point. It's your opinion, and I have mine. They do not have the same offenses, and the THF offenses don't conserve party resources except in the most lethal games and most extreme of circumstances. And creatures with blindsight, tremorsense, true seeing, etc tend to have them active all the time. Likewise people with Pierce Magical Concealment, or PrC's with expanded senses. Now compare round 1 TS, round 2-x do whatever to round 1-x use spells, SLAs, supernatural abilities... THF guy has another advantage - the enemy has to waste actions just to counter his advantage. The Guy wastes actions trying to overcome defenses of SAB guy. This is no different unless you are at CharOps level where 1 rd = dead. Then it's initiative and THF's offense means squat. Let me know when you stop overestimating the shield. It does not grant invincibility. It does not grant uber defenses. It isn't even that good. I will simply be ignoring further remarks that grossly overestimate the effectiveness of AC. let me know when you do the math to back up your claim. All I see so far is uninformed opinion. I will simply be ignoring remarks that underestimate the value of a good AC. You can still PA it, just not as much. Focus on guy that might nickel and dime them to death, or focus on guy who can 1-2 round them by himself? Hmmm... If I'm nickel and diming, you're just quartering...and you';re getting slaughtered. Again, you aren't posting the math, so you're just fantasizing. If you got attacked by a guy with a gun, a guy with a knife, and a guy with fisticuffs, which would you be most interested in taking out first? how far away are they? If you're a cop, he'll shoot the knife guy first, assuming he's in striking distance. That's an uninformed question. Me, I'd focus on gun guy, ideally getting the gun away from him and using it to hold off the others from attacking me. knife guy would have you dead. You need to read up more on combat tactics. Now consider most stuff in D&D is more intelligent on average than a human. If you can arrive at the correct answer instantly, why shouldn't they? You came to the wrong answer. So, I'm assuming they are going to have a different answer then you are. These tend to rely on miss chances more than AC. Also, spellcasters don't end up with super high HP, they just have defenses so high so as to rarely lose any. Effectively about the same, but semantics. Miss chances are overcome as or more easily then AC. Especially at very high levels. They are so irrelevant because they tend to be neutralized as part of expanding overall sensory awareness. Overcomign high AC tends to need specific focus. Already considered that. Doesn't change the fact dragons still fly faster than you. It's also why I said this wasn't a fair example as it screws all fighters except archer builds. They can fly faster all they like. If they are close enough to use breath weapons adn pummel you with spells, they are close enough to close with aerially. If they are attacking at range, they lose...our side will have considerably more ranged attacks then it has, and probably stronger. To be effective and win a fight, a dragon MUST close to melee and dominate. Otherwise, the extra actions of a party doom it. Heck, both fighters could kick back, pull out a bow, and snipe at it if all it wants to do is fly around at range. Doesn't change the fact you can do nothing, the dragon can do something. Other party members... spells, ranged attacks... Yeah, I suppose you could sit there and plink away with a piddly unspecced bow as either type, but this won't do much. The dragon can't do crap, either, at range. And if it gets close, it's on our turf, wot? melee problem, not SAB problem. THF guy's AC is not that low. CR 20 dragon = about 42 to hit. He could PA for 5 maybe, and that's with multiattack and improved multiattack to avoid screwing secondary natural attacks. Lockdown's AC at 20 is 36. The Dragon could reasonably take 10 pts, assumign no buffs, and expect to hit you with every attack (it needs a 4). With 5 attacks, that's +50 dmg/rd on top of base dmg, which is about, what, 20 per attack? So, 150 dmg. A crit, and you wipe. Any buffs to it, and you wipe. Ten points of power attack means it takes a 16 to hit SAB, with no precautions. It hits with ONE attack in 4. With defensive Fighting, it needs a 20. It won't hit at all. Wasted round for the Dragon. Very bad thing for the Dragon. So, you take uber dmg, and SAB takes none. We both hit its AC of 45ish about the same...you'll do dmg for two rounds, maybe, and die. SAB will keep right on plugging away. If a Gargantuan creature with Strength in the mid 30s wants to do a special maneuver on you, then damnit it's going to do a special maneuver on you! And it won't care about your silly Shield Ward, it's not enough. That all depends on what yoru mods are, doesn't it? I've seen enough shows of Trip Resistance, Anti-grappling, Anti-bulls Rush, and so forth that those mods really do start to mean something. And his mods are +8 over yours, in addition to the fact that they've got to hit in the first place, AND not every creature you fight is 'gargantuan'. Again, numbers. Please! Every time you supply them, you keep losing. The dragon does 5 more damage on each attack, but faces at least a 36% miss chance. SAB still gets hit most of the time. Ends up either about the same, or a bit in favor of the THF. Why would he face 'at least' a 36% miss chance? Concealment doesn't stack. Numbers! Source! -5 to a TH of +42 is +37. He now needs an 11 to hit the SAB who is taking NO extra precautions. 50% is half the time. He's hitting you EVERY time. And even with your unsupported statement, 36% of dmg is less then 50% of dmg untaken. You lose, again. Only looking at base damage is an invalid comparison skewed in your favor. It is? Then give me other numbers! Are you saying most creatures don't do base dmg in melee?? ...Which would you rather have happen? Fail an 'AC check' = get hit for maybe, maybe 20% of your max HP. And that's from a really good hit. Results not so typical. Fail a saving throw = die, be effectively killed (petrify, insanity, paralysis... long list here), be turned against your party... Now, which of these is more important? Which is less valuable and far more narrowly focused? Which protects you against the things you really, really don't want working on you? Exactly. And we both have those defenses. Ergo, it's a non-issue, so why are you bringing it up? Now consider this 'defensive sacrifice', because that's what SAB is does not boost your defenses in the ways that matter. Whereas killing things faster gives them fewer chances to use such offering a pseudo defense = the best any fighter can do in this case. It also means that against that lesser defense, the enemy gets fewer chances to test it offering a pseudo defense there as well. Combine with actual defenses (again, those miss chances) and it's clear the choice never was a choice. Ah, the CharOps 'perfect solution' mindset. Always having the attack that ignores AC. Heck, ignores all defenses. Unfortunately, it's not the case. THW and SAB guy are not dumb. They know their weaknesses. It's not a style question. If THW fails his non-AC defenses, he's dead. So is SAB. However, THW guy is going to fail his AC defenses frequently, and so end up dead, at least compared to SAB guy. SAB guy is going to laugh and stay alive with his AC defenses...the enemy has NO CHOICE but to use non-AC attacks on him. THW guy has no such recourse, and can be taken down in melee. He will die in melee combat, and it's very unlikely SAB guy will. It's simply a question of resource allocation. Numbers or it didn't happen. I expect something involving sinking half or more of your WBL into AC items due to the diminishing returns that kick in at such a stage. Which among other things renders arguments of the cost of concealment, which by the way is less invalid. You start providing numbers. I already have...numerous times. You are either ignoring them or don't understand them. In either case, you need to support your opinions, because you aren't...when you do supply numbers, they support mine. Ok, so your fighter can only be hit on a 20, even with a touch attack, only fail a saving throw on a natural 1 and so forth? No? Probably not even close? Oops. Will save please. Remember, THF guy at least gives the caster fewer chances to attack that weakness. Where's this save on a 1 coming from? Will save? Oops, prot/evil or Mind Blank, sorry, friend. Me and my THW buddy both laugh at you...because Will save or die sucks for us both. Either you address the weakness...both builds...or you die. Really, what kind of argument is that? If both have a sucky Will save, both will die. And even if your position was true all the time, you'd be dying equally more in melee, so it would even out. After all, fighters are only the prime candidate for spells if your casters are not a threat. ===================== I'm assuming the following section is about your cohort. Nope, I am saying that under conditions ideal for him, he still is only decent at best. Is there an ideal condition for someone delibrately built and played wrong? He has a full half dozen conditions in his favor that would not be the case in a RAW game. 1: Multiple house rules boosting TWFing, which he does with his sword and board. 2: Over double standard wealth = more good gear. 3: Slightly below average game power wise, meaning a lot fewer of the better tricks play a role. 4: Being a cohort = held to a much lower standard. 5: 3.0 PRC, not something that's normally allowed. This lets him switch places with an adjacent ally to take a hit for them - something that otherwise sword and board guy can't do. 6: Homebrew feat, also increases his effectiveness. So, what you're saying is: He can't take advantage of a house rule, for some build reason. Numbers. He's got good gear, that's yet not helping in combat. Numbers. You say game is below avg power wise. Okay... He's two levels lower then the rest of the party, and somehow expected to be just as powerful. Numbers. 3.0 PrC as valid as 3.5 unless updated. Numbers. Build. Homebrew feat, that for some reason you can't employ effectively. Numbers. Lots of facts, with no numbers. Everything is numbers, and numbers you refuse to yield. So, I take all with a grain of salt. Despite this, he is still a disappointment in all things except taking a hit for my character when she is standing right next to him. If that's his purpose, what's the problem? We need to see a build. No, if I were making him as a PC I would have went with a two hander, took an animated shield so I lose nothing, stack on some miss chances for the lols and go to town slaughtering stuff. Because I did not want my cohort overshadowing the PC Crusader, I deliberately made him suboptimal by making him sword and board. By sword and board standards he is actually quite good. By overall standards... he sucks. As a cohort, this is acceptable. As a PC, it is not. Ah, animated shield. My first caveat. If you allow animated shield cheese, go THW. You lose almost nothing. Does the Crusader have the animated shield? There's your problem right there. Numbers. Need to see both the cohort and the Crusader to see where the problem lies. Also, let's see... spend 1-2 rounds of actions buffing the cohort to deal with DR, or spend 1-2 rounds ending the encounter? Now if given advance warning, I certainly would buff him to deal with DR in addition to various other prep moves. Seeing as it was more like... oh ****, demons are attacking right now, this was not an option. And seeing as I have a fairly limited spell capacity barring consumables, and there are other PCs that add more than my cohort to the table as well as ya know... don't want to be overshadowed by a single feat he is not the first priority. Or, spend a day or two giving him the right gear well ahead of time, or let him suck. Hmm. I know, we'll just let him suck. And not do the GMW or stuff ahead of time, because, you know, that would be dumb, too. Numbers. No, I am using my resources in the most efficient manner. That means not helping the sword and board guy as even with the odds heavily stacked in his favor he still falls short because he is sword and board. Simple as that. Numbers or this is opinion, nothing else. From everything you keep posting, it looks more likely delibrately lousy design and play. False. Though he is 'supposed to be' a damage sponge he does not actually function as such. In fact there are only three situations where he has been attacked at all. The first is where six hezrou demons and other creatures all attacked at once, so he sat in a corner trading full attacks with one while the other enemies mauled the rest of the party at random. The second is where AoE spells were spammed in tight quarters - not really valid. The third was when there was barely enough squares on the grid for everyone to stand so he got to use his 'switch places' PRC ability to take hits originally directed at my Artificer who was their first target. Then use a different ability from the same PRC to parry another attack directed at her, as the enemy continued to ignore sword and board guy, which I find especially amusing as my Artificer didn't even do anything that dangerous in this fight and yet was persisted after so eagerly. Then I think he tried a third time to attack my Artificer (he has reach obviously, and remember no room to maneuver further away from the guy or else I would have just went the invisible mobility route I usually use to never get attacked) at which point I Greater Mirror Imaged it away, and the enemy finally said screw it and started fighting the sword and board guy he was being forced repeatedly to fight anyways, only because of this 3.0 PRC. Otherwise he would not have even accomplished that much, he'd just be a half assed damage dealer whose 'supreme toughness' means nothing save that he dies last. Too bad the fight was just about over at this point. So, what you are saying, is that he's supposed to be tanking dmg, and the DM is not letting him because the DM is ignoring him? Because that's what I'm reading. In other words, he is only taking less damage than the Crusader because the enemies are not ignoring the Crusader. The Crusader is also far better at doing damage than him. These two are related. So, why are they ignoring him? Numbers. Also, the Crusader only has slightly lower AC than my sword and board cohort. Main thing making my guy tough is damage reduction 5/-, and healing 5 HP after every hit with one of his weapons. Both of which a THF can do just as easily. Also, they cap at 50 points a day before turning off. Only slightly lower AC? How? why? Numbers. My Artificer has the same AC, and I deliberately avoided optimizing her AC. Otherwise it would instead be in natural 20 only range. But nat 20 range AC isn't important, you said so yourself...oh, right. right? Confused. Now, the point I set out to make when citing him as an example. Even though among many other things the opposition is suboptimal and enemy tactics are suboptimal, sword and board guy is still basically useless as he is ignored by the enemy due to the fact he is not threatening enough to warrant immediate attention. You would think that since the enemy casters are regarding stuff like Flame Strike as the epitome of awesomeness and the enemy melees rarely do anything other than full attack (perhaps with a 5 foot step) or move and attack this would not be the case, but it still is. If the enemy were actually trying, as they are in most games it would only be more true. Numbers. builds. Animated Shields allowed? Etc etc etc. Most recent battle? Enemies ignore my Artificer, who is invisible, running around, and casting spells everywhere to great effect. ignroe the spellcaster. That's smart. Enemies ignore the Druid, who is also invisible, standing right behind the Crusader, and supporting him. Um, okay. Wow. Enemies ignore the skirmisher type guy, but this is no surprise since he does at most 30 damage a hit and that's with a crit + max damage. More typically he does 6-15 which is simply pathetic at the level. So he's got a poor build, or doesn't know how to play. Okay. Enemies ignore the sword and board guy, who is cuisinarting away with his six attacks a round and maybe pushing them around with Brutal Surge. You describe a cuisinart and he's actually moving them around, and they are IGNORING one of the three targets. Interesting. Enemies love the Crusader, and all focus their attacks on him, nearly killing him from full HP every round, forcing the aforementioned Druid to cast Heal every round to keep him alive as the support I mentioned. And why are they focused on him? DM's choice, sounds like. Did they have a choice? If so, WHY did they ignore him? Sounds like he was being effective. Again I remind you the Crusader's AC is only slightly lower than sword and board guy's. As in... 2 points? He has a shield too you see, and not Animated. Of course if they were not ignoring him, and divided their efforts it would work out better for all. But if they instead focused on sword and board guy... he wouldn't fare much better. He'd hurt them a lot less though. Wait a sec. You're comparing a SAB build...to a SAB build? And one sucked and the other didn't? What? And considering that this was a CR 9, a CR 9, a CR 8, and a CR ??? attacking him, he was level 15, and the three low CR creatures were responsible for around 50% of the damage he took because they'd still get one smack in each at least on a full attack despite their high miss rate against him... Well you get the idea. Now imagine if he were more like level 10-12, and facing the same 3 mid CR creatures who by the way, have +20-25 to hit. Exactly. he's a level 15 SAB guy, and these things can reliably hit him? With only +20 to hit? and he's got 'good' gear? I've made level 12 builds with 36 AC without trying...and no shield. Full Plate +_5 and H. Shield +5 w Shield Spec is AC 33 right there. Dex of 16, mithral armor, 36. +2 Nat Ac, +2 Deflection. AC 40. Nat 20 to hit him. Within his budget. Furthermore, their AC is horrible...defensive fighting or expertise could make up for any shortfall in his AC, and he should still have hit them with every single attack. ANd he's still money left for a +3 sword and a torc of prot/evil, plus consumables. A +3 sword is +1 + Shadow striking, if DR is a problem,a nd GMW lasting all day takes care of the lack of enhancement. One infustion cast way ahead of time. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direTiger.htm http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental (Greater, * 2) Likely buffed given the nature of the fight. And he wasn't buffed? Or couldn't be? Oh yeah, and there's a house rule in play that basically means the Crusader had 28 more HP than he would in a RAW game. He would survive one round of attacks with a margin of ~30 HP. Hmmm.. So, what you are saying is the Crusader had a crappy AC, too, and killing the enemy fast wasn't saving him. You know, if he raised his ac 5-10 pts, the amount of dmg he took would have dropped like a rock, and the druid wouldn't have had to heal him every round. And could have killed the animals. Or summoned, or something. But AC is unimportant. Especially against animals. that are tearing you to shreds. In short, man, you need to get off your opinion high horse and start posting some serious numbers for comparison. Until then, you are only blowing a LOT of hot air. Do it in small bits so the comparison can be made real. If you are not understanding how numbers relate, then you need to ask for points to be clarified. But a big long, unsupported opinion rant like above won't convince anyone your position is 'right'. Likewise, claiming your definitiion of SAB all the time or 'concede' is 'right' isn't going to fly, either, because your THW doesn't even HAVE the option of picking up a shield and turtling with his greatsword...which would be the only thing that could validate your position, having the option and choosing to never use it. Because your guy doesn't have the option, you are insisting the SAB can't, either. Unfortunately for you, the SAB DOES have the option. And thus apples and oranges. Much better on the not flaming, btw. Now, you need to take your arguments to the next level. No more opinions. Math. Cold, hard facts that can be compared evenly. Without them, you are just blowing smoke, and I'm not going to reply again. At this point, you are mostly recycling opinions. I gave you criteria. Use it. If you want to WIN this argument, you MUST support it with math and logic. Until then, you simply cannot. BTW I will be gone most of Sunday, so you have plenty of time to post stuff. Use multiple stuff if you want multiple examples and replies. If you are unsure of criteria, ASK, so as to head off misunderstandings and fingerpointings. Be conservative. Follow guidelines. Don't get radical. Even keels. Good luck! ==Aelryinth
CrimsonDeath 05-25-08, 04:12 AM	So, when exactly were you planning to stop intentionally misrepresenting the optimizer/CO position and attacking that straw man? Nobody in their right mind, CO or otherwise, considers defense useless, attacking that position is pointless and you know it. Actually, there was an interesting build a while ago that used Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, and two or three other things that tank AC in order to boost attack power, accuracy, or frequency, on the principle that AC 0 isn't all that much worse than AC 10. I think he wound up with an AC in the -80's once he got going. It was amusing, if nothing else. Incidentally, I've been working on a two-handed shield-bashing Psychic Warrior build. I suspect it might be better as a Barbarian-- a Greatsword scales better with size increases. The main reason I went with a PsyWar was the Deflective Armor feat, for the high touch AC. Anyway, does anyone want to weigh in on whether the idea of two-handed shield-bashing has any merit?
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-25-08, 04:45 AM	Actually, there was an interesting build a while ago that used Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, and two or three other things that tank AC in order to boost attack power, accuracy, or frequency, on the principle that AC 0 isn't all that much worse than AC 10. I think he wound up with an AC in the -80's once he got going. It was amusing, if nothing else.I've toyed a bit with such builds myself, on paper and in practice. I wouldn't call them defenseless (neither would the TWFer that got one-rounded when he thought PVP was a good idea), so much as using a menacing retaliation ability for defense. "Touch me and die" is plenty defended, as long as you can provide the "and die" part. That's mostly semantics though, I suppose. I'm pretty much done with the thread. Watching a certain poster disregard any numbers he's given that he doesn't like as broken cheese, and then demand numbers as if they weren't already given and claim everything said against his side of things is unsubstantiated, is getting very old. Just figured I ought to clarify I'm probably using a broader definition of 'defense' than some other participants when I acknowledge its importance.
Sunic_Flames 05-25-08, 09:10 AM	Yes, I'm noticing that too. He ignores anything that doesn't support him like when people specifically say this isn't meant to be a very good example and attacks it anyways, requests numbers while ignoring them, puts words in my mouth, misrepresents mine and other's position, attacks strawmans, and generally does everything he should not do to conduct a proper debate. Here is my response to his entire argument: Lacking a bad option does not mean lacking versatility. It means you are not falling into a trap to get said bad option and rely upon it. Higher AC that gets tested more by attacks ends up about equal, or in favor of the lower AC guy who avoids many of the potential attacks in the first place. Especially if lower AC guy uses other methods of defense. Level 1 does not automatically mean level 1 with 0 XP. Both a level 1 PC with a few fights under their belt and any level 1 NPC are both capable of possessing a MW weapon as it is only 350 gp or so at most whereas level 1 PCs have up to 899 gp and level 1 NPCs have 900. NPCs ignore him because despite not being very tactically apt or mechanically sound, they are still quite capable of working out that the guy that does at most 22 damage a hit is nowhere near as dangerous as the guy who does 40-60, at least nor is he as dangerous at either of the guys (actually guy and a girl) that can end the entire fight in 1-2 rounds by themselves. The Crusader was a THF. He has a shield he could use anyways, while THF. Enemies focused on the Crusader because he had some Lockdown elements in to control an area and hit hard. He kept attacking the CR ??? which relied on touch me and die defenses which amusingly enough are the best kind it seems. Funny AoO chains there. It was the best course of action though as all of the others had almost as many HP, but not so much attack power and damage - the CR ??? had a low miss rate. Therefore he was the most dangerous, and the only one who definitely wasn't a disposable summon. Meanwhile my Artificer was 2 rounding all 6 druids at once by herself who would otherwise Flame Strike, summon more elementals, and generally make asses of themselves. Also, killing them means the two elementals go away, so this was the best possible tactic. Skirmisher guy did nothing particularly useful, he couldn't even 1 round a low level mook. Guy has a fairly high to hit, ignores just about every type of AC except maybe stat to AC and some other very rare and minor bonuses... but nothing to take advantage of it. A simple Power Attack would turn his pathetic little 6-15 into more like 36-45... I suggested this, he wasn't interested. Guy ended up quitting soon after. Wonder why. :rolleyes: Being two levels lower is irrelevant. If he were a PC... ok, 2 BAB, small amount of HP, one feat, small save boost. Except he loses 50-75k of equipment as he is no longer an Artificer's cohort and therefore no longer gets cheap gear, so his overall stats end up the same or lower. Oops. My Artificer was 2 levels lower. Funny thing. She did more than fine. In fact I got asked why she was getting such insane amounts of XP (I believe one fight she got 13,750 XP for, others got around half that - this is the one where the Crusader got smacked around), it was because of that catch up mechanism for lower level PCs. The others were shocked to learn she had been 2 levels lower the entire time as she was Just That Awesome so that they thought she wasn't lower level. By the way, that 3.0 PRC doesn't require a shield in any way. It just requires you take hits for them by standing right next to them. So what little he can do has nothing to do with the fact he is SAB. He could do it just as easily as a THF. While doing other useful stuff such as hitting for damage that matters. And having his other defenses, you know the ones that matter more like his high saves (23/13/19 and doesn't fail Fort saves on a 1... not bad at all for the level) still intact. And the standing right next to them part means he's likely on the back row until someone tries to pounce on the Artificer. Oops. I am ignoring the rest of that on the grounds it is either flaming/baiting, unfounded, or just flat out wrong. For example, GMW would not make any difference. It adds nothing. He was using the house rules, as I stated from the start. It still did not help the suckitude that is sword and board cease to be such. He is built very well by sword and board standards. The fact he is sword and board means he sucks overall because the DM, even in an 'easy' game is still playing enemies intelligently enough to ignore who poses the least threat in favor of greater threats. Unless and until I request he inflict our opponents with severe brain damage which I will not do, this will continue to be the case, and sword and board guy will continue to be ignored. Maybe we will fight in a lightning rail car again, in which case the tight quarters defense will be necessary again and he'll do the bodyguard shuffle to thwart the persistent attacks against my Artificer. Maybe not. As it stands, the most he can do is act as one of several layers of defenses for my Artificer, for when going unseen and being a massive pain to pin down and Immediate actioning up a 90ish% miss chance if someone manages it (presumably because they can see her) won't do. Course, True Seeing ruins both but then I have an IC reason to apply an AC buff or two to keep her defenses sky high anyways, still can counter it through one of several means, and therefore will be fine.
Jaimas 05-25-08, 10:39 AM	Ael, seriously. You have yet to respond to the economic issue - that an OMG-level offensive shield costs almost half of a level 20 character's wealth and the fact that they spend more feats to become as effective as a TWF offensively - that's not refutable given the evidence, and I've posted it twice now. Feats are worth their weight in gold, and have to be spent carefully. Those three to four feats that the TWF didn't spend on advanced shield bash, and weapon focus/weapon spec/impcrit for the shield are capable of being plunked down in other areas to fortify the TWF's combat abilities far more impressively than the SAB fighter could hope to accomplish. Putting it simply, the TWF gets more advantages for less, and no amount of bold-faced text on your part is going to take down the peerless force of simple mathematics. Similar is true for the 2HWF as well, however, who spends far less in terms of both feats and cash. He admittedly gets less attacks - but this is made up for by both his greater damage capacity and better effectiveness for cost - again, a claim made via both cash (the 2HWF spends only 200000+ for his maxed-out weapon compared to the 400000+ for the TWF and 500000+ for the SAB) and feat math (you're 100% insane if you're not seeing how 3-4 feats for optimal effectiveness is better than the 6 or so for the TWF or nearly 10 of the SAB build) and thus irrefutable due to simple math. And the feat math matters. Go ahead, argue that weapon focus, specialization, and impcrit aren't necessary for SAB - you'll still wind up dealing less DPR and both hitting less and critically hitting less than a TWF or 2HWF who blew less feats than you did for the exact same result. Now, don't get me wrong - shields are damn good - I've got a Crusader backed with a Diamond Mind style that uses one to boost his AC quite a bit - but what you've been arguing this whole time is that this is a build as strong offensively as the TWF and 2HWF styles - and whilst it's no slouch, it's not going to be as powerful as they are - the math shows it.
Sunic_Flames 05-25-08, 10:52 AM	I missed another one. Here it is: Me: If you got attacked by a guy with a gun, a guy with a knife, and a guy with fisticuffs, which would you be most interested in taking out first? Ael: how far away are they? If you're a cop, he'll shoot the knife guy first, assuming he's in striking distance. That's an uninformed question. Me: Me, I'd focus on gun guy, ideally getting the gun away from him and using it to hold off the others from attacking me. Ael: knife guy would have you dead. You need to read up more on combat tactics. Ok. Let's say hypothetically speaking you are correct here. Knife guy is the greatest threat if he's in melee range, otherwise gun guy is. Fist guy is the lowest priority. ...SAB is fist guy. THF guy is knife guy. Gun guy is the caster. Thank you for making my point for me, as clearly knife guy can protect gun guy by being regarded as a more immediate threat and fist guy can die last. Of course I think they'd still take out gun guy first if they could or be taken out by him before knife guy gets into range. So either SAB/fist guy is the least threatening and is ignored, or SAB/fist guy is the least threatening and is ignored, AND THF/knife guy can actually cover caster/gun guy. Lose/lose.
aelryinth 05-26-08, 12:24 AM	Actually, there was an interesting build a while ago that used Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, and two or three other things that tank AC in order to boost attack power, accuracy, or frequency, on the principle that AC 0 isn't all that much worse than AC 10. I think he wound up with an AC in the -80's once he got going. It was amusing, if nothing else. Incidentally, I've been working on a two-handed shield-bashing Psychic Warrior build. I suspect it might be better as a Barbarian-- a Greatsword scales better with size increases. The main reason I went with a PsyWar was the Deflective Armor feat, for the high touch AC. Anyway, does anyone want to weigh in on whether the idea of two-handed shield-bashing has any merit? I noted above that it's a decent alternative for a SAB build...focus your spec feats around the shield and let the off hand weapon dovetail, instead of the Shield. Also, stick the defender on your off hand weapon as an elective, and put combat buffs on your shield spikes. Problems? Well, you need Bashing +Shield SPikes/Razors to get the dmg to 2-12/20/x2. That's strictly inferior to a greatsword. Without spikes/razors its 1-8 blud, and you lsoe the magic on the spikes. Getting Bashing Shield means waiting until level 6 or so for real dmg. It also means spending the majority of your money directly on your shield, which could get pretty fun cash wise. On the other hand, you get to choose your dmg type, AND you never have to give up defense to attack. You also get the option of drawing your defender weapon and upping your AC further, and all that happens is your shield drops to one handed dmg for Str and PA. You could keep defender on the shield, but then you'd lose all your enhancement bonuses when fighting/doing dmg, which is not a win situation for you. If you aren't worried about crits, it's not a bad strategy. Certainly your enemy should be vastly confused when you are just smashing him with a shield instead of using the sunblade in your off hand, or something. I can see doing it when charging with a PA, once you have Bashing and the Uber Charger feats, esp since it would suprise the heck out of your opponents. Not sure about a full time build...something elective and fun to try, maybe. The Focus of the build would be slightly inferior dmg to a greatsword, but keeping +8 AC. Hmm. Heh. Might not be a bad exchange, really. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 12:50 AM	QUOTE=Sunic_FlamesYes, I'm noticing that too. He ignores anything that doesn't support him like when people specifically say this isn't meant to be a very good example and attacks it anyways, requests numbers while ignoring them, puts words in my mouth, misrepresents mine and other's position, attacks strawmans, and generally does everything he should not do to conduct a proper debate. You are now flaming again. Nowhere in your above post did you give numbers. Nowhere in your post that started your whole tirade did you give numbers. You give opinions and you make blanket statements, with no factual support. I posted an entire build...you did nothign similar. And you are calling ME out as unreasonable? Here is my response to his entire argument: Lacking a bad option does not mean lacking versatility. It means you are not falling into a trap to get said bad option and rely upon it. NOW you are again falling into opinion...in your opinion, this is a 'bad' option. In other words, you have no facts to back it up. Irrelevant. NUMBERS. Higher AC that gets tested more by attacks ends up about equal, or in favor of the lower AC guy who avoids many of the potential attacks in the first place. Especially if lower AC guy uses other methods of defense. As noted above, the number of attacks that have to occur to render the AC difference moot is almost entirely in shield guy's favor. And you missed that, too. It only gets better with iteratives. Post NUMBERS. Level 1 does not automatically mean level 1 with 0 XP. Both a level 1 PC with a few fights under their belt and any level 1 NPC are both capable of possessing a MW weapon as it is only 350 gp or so at most whereas level 1 PCs have up to 899 gp and level 1 NPCs have 900. Now you are nitpicking at an example instead of posting numbers, sigh. I don't recall the numbers saying a level 1 PC has 335 GP to afford a masterwork longsword, and your example was level 1, not 'halfway to level 2'. Please post a real argument and stop the nitpicking. NPCs ignore him because despite not being very tactically apt or mechanically sound, they are still quite capable of working out that the guy that does at most 22 damage a hit is nowhere near as dangerous as the guy who does 40-60, at least nor is he as dangerous at either of the guys (actually guy and a girl) that can end the entire fight in 1-2 rounds by themselves. 22 vs 44-60. Every hit. Uh, huh. Numbers, source, tactics, etc. Irrelevant or fantasizing. The Crusader was a THF. He has a shield he could use anyways, while THF. So he's using an Animated Shield, whereupon he's basically a SAB build that 'cheats' by going THF. AC must be important, I gather. Okay, this supports your position how? Especially in light of my prior assertation that if you allow this, there's no reason to use a one-handed melee weapon FTMP? Enemies focused on the Crusader because he had some Lockdown elements in to control an area and hit hard. He kept attacking the CR ??? which relied on touch me and die defenses which amusingly enough are the best kind it seems. Funny AoO chains there. So he was using Thicket and Stand Still to force them to stay in place so they had to attack him. Okay, works for me. It was the best course of action though as all of the others had almost as many HP, but not so much attack power and damage - the CR ??? had a low miss rate. Therefore he was the most dangerous, and the only one who definitely wasn't a disposable summon. Low Miss Rate, as in high To hit? So the dire tiger and elemental were irrelevant? Could I see some numbers instead of asserations? Meanwhile my Artificer was 2 rounding all 6 druids at once by herself who would otherwise Flame Strike, summon more elementals, and generally make asses of themselves. Also, killing them means the two elementals go away, so this was the best possible tactic. Skirmisher guy did nothing particularly useful, he couldn't even 1 round a low level mook. Guy has a fairly high to hit, ignores just about every type of AC except maybe stat to AC and some other very rare and minor bonuses... but nothing to take advantage of it. A simple Power Attack would turn his pathetic little 6-15 into more like 36-45... I suggested this, he wasn't interested. Guy ended up quitting soon after. Wonder why. :rolleyes: Bad build and worse player. Okay, and you were taking on 6 other spellcasters at once, who could not use a single summons with scent to tie you up somehow. Well, interesting combat, to say the least! Being two levels lower is irrelevant. If he were a PC... ok, 2 BAB, small amount of HP, one feat, small save boost. Except he loses 50-75k of equipment as he is no longer an Artificer's cohort and therefore no longer gets cheap gear, so his overall stats end up the same or lower. Oops. Except now he's the artificer's friend who makes things for him, leveraging the gold available to greater extent and effectively enhancing the party's gear, at the same cost. Irrelevant point. Why aren't you posting numbers? You're talking around and around and around the point. My Artificer was 2 levels lower. Funny thing. She did more than fine. In fact I got asked why she was getting such insane amounts of XP (I believe one fight she got 13,750 XP for, others got around half that - this is the one where the Crusader got smacked around), it was because of that catch up mechanism for lower level PCs. The others were shocked to learn she had been 2 levels lower the entire time as she was Just That Awesome so that they thought she wasn't lower level. Leveraging gear does that. Oh, wait. Gear isn't important, we all know that. Only buffs and spells. By the way, that 3.0 PRC doesn't require a shield in any way. It just requires you take hits for them by standing right next to them. So what little he can do has nothing to do with the fact he is SAB. He could do it just as easily as a THF. While doing other useful stuff such as hitting for damage that matters. And having his other defenses, you know the ones that matter more like his high saves (23/13/19 and doesn't fail Fort saves on a 1... not bad at all for the level) still intact. And the standing right next to them part means he's likely on the back row until someone tries to pounce on the Artificer. Oops. So you built him without damage capability that you could enjoy and wield while using a one-handed weapon, you are asserting. And your THW guy is actually a SAB guy using a THW. I'm missing the importance of him being SAB. You are intentionally gimping him all over the place...and still aren't providing numbers. I am ignoring the rest of that on the grounds it is either flaming/baiting, unfounded, or just flat out wrong. For example, GMW would not make any difference. It adds nothing. He was using the house rules, as I stated from the start. And you won't relate the house rule now... It still did not help the suckitude that is sword and board cease to be such. And now you are making a flat opinion without support again... He is built very well by sword and board standards. The fact he is sword and board means he sucks overall because the DM, even in an 'easy' game is still playing enemies intelligently enough to ignore who poses the least threat in favor of greater threats. You have a fighter that can't do dmg. You have a SAB fighter type who CAN do dmg...the crusader. And this is a SAB problem? Unless and until I request he inflict our opponents with severe brain damage which I will not do, this will continue to be the case, and sword and board guy will continue to be ignored. Definitely a campaign problem. SAB looks alive and well in the form of your crusader. Maybe we will fight in a lightning rail car again, in which case the tight quarters defense will be necessary again and he'll do the bodyguard shuffle to thwart the persistent attacks against my Artificer. Obviously he also isn't getting to do the job he was designed for. Huh. And you personally suboptimize him, and wonder why he sucks, and accuse it because it's SAB, and not because you built him poorly? Maybe not. As it stands, the most he can do is act as one of several layers of defenses for my Artificer, for when going unseen and being a massive pain to pin down and Immediate actioning up a 90ish% miss chance if someone manages it (presumably because they can see her) won't do. More unverifiable statements and numbers, and you continue to denigrate your own creation. I admit to being very unimpressed with this post. Course, True Seeing ruins both but then I have an IC reason to apply an AC buff or two to keep her defenses sky high anyways, still can counter it through one of several means, and therefore will be fine. Or, you could just keep AC high all the time, and you wouldn't need the other stuff which is so easily seen thruough. But, play style, I suppose. I admit to being thoroughly unimpressed. I didn't see any supported numbers, any builds, no real comparisons. Your own comparison of characters immediately broke the SAB wall, with the 'superior Character' being SAB using an Animated Shield and THW. That promptly invalidates the whole comparison, as that character is having their cake and eating it, too. Obviously, AC is much more important then you let on, or such wouldn't be neccessary. You were doing very well, and then got goaded into a rant spiel again. NUMBERS. MATH. SOMETHING WE CAN COMPARE TO. Your opinions are not and were never PROOF. We need NUMBERS. I've supplied them multiple times, and in context. You throw them out, without context or support. If you want to compare instead of rant, say so, and we'll start comparing. If you want to be secure in your opinion and not compare, then you have no confidence the numbers will support you...or you just can't/won't do the work. In which case you should ask one of your fellows to come up with numbers, or conceed the argument until you can. I don't have a problem with it, but until you have comparable numbers to run against, nothing you say has any solid basis. If you don't know how to contribute solid numbers, admit it, and we can advance from there. I'm trying very hard to be reasonable, and you keep being goaded into not being so. Give your emotions a rest and start on logic, and then this can be hashed out. Otherwise, just admit you can't do what needs to be done, and we'll let it go at that. I can even deal with pointed QUESTIONS. I can DO the math. But you need to, too. If you find it impossible to frame the questions right, just post them! That's what the boards are for! ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 12:59 AM	QUOTE=Sunic_Flames I missed another one. Here it is: Me: If you got attacked by a guy with a gun, a guy with a knife, and a guy with fisticuffs, which would you be most interested in taking out first? Ael: how far away are they? If you're a cop, he'll shoot the knife guy first, assuming he's in striking distance. That's an uninformed question. Me: Me, I'd focus on gun guy, ideally getting the gun away from him and using it to hold off the others from attacking me. Ael: knife guy would have you dead. You need to read up more on combat tactics. Ok. Let's say hypothetically speaking you are correct here. Knife guy is the greatest threat if he's in melee range, otherwise gun guy is. Fist guy is the lowest priority. ...SAB is fist guy. THF guy is knife guy. Gun guy is the caster. Thank you for making my point for me, as clearly knife guy can protect gun guy by being regarded as a more immediate threat and fist guy can die last. Of course I think they'd still take out gun guy first if they could or be taken out by him before knife guy gets into range. So either SAB/fist guy is the least threatening and is ignored, or SAB/fist guy is the least threatening and is ignored, AND THF/knife guy can actually cover caster/gun guy. Lose/lose. Okay, that has to be utterly the WORST example of a combat scenario analog that I have EVER seen. Gun guy is Archer...at best. Fist Guy is Fist Guy. A cop isn't as worried about a guy with fists as he is with a knife. A master martial artist isn't worried as much about a guy with fists as he is a knife. Dagger person is person with melee weapon. You asked about a real life melee scenario and you are extrapolating it to stand in for a fantasy combat scenario? Where's Fist guy's shield, eh? A Shield is a MUCH better weapon then a knife. This post is downright insulting to our intelligence. Please do better. Your luck is NOT improving. Please use some reason and logic before you post. This was very, very bad. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 01:20 AM	QUOTE=Jaimas Ael, seriously. You have yet to respond to the economic issue - that an OMG-level offensive shield costs almost half of a level 20 character's wealth and the fact that they spend more feats to become as effective as a TWF offensively - that's not refutable given the evidence, and I've posted it twice now. Jaimas, seriously, have you been reading my posts at all? Or just skimming to find the parts you don't want to see? If I want that IDEAL UBER shield of 300K, I get Ancestral Relic to cut the cost in half. Otherwise I get a Sword and Shield combo = THW's +10 Sword in cost... Which is +7 Weapon + Uber Shield +6/+6. 200k for both of us. Upside...in one level I can afford the whole IDEAL UBER shield at Epic. And the goal isn't to become THW's 'equal' in damage. It's to do VERY good dmg without sacrificing AC and getting owned as a result...to keep his combat options open. That has been my purpose ALL ALONG...and you are subverting and misinterpreting it yet again. How many times do I have to redeclare it? Feats are worth their weight in gold, and have to be spent carefully. Those three to four feats that the TWF didn't spend on advanced shield bash, and weapon focus/weapon spec/impcrit for the shield are capable of being plunked down in other areas to fortify the TWF's combat abilities far more impressively than the SAB fighter could hope to accomplish. THen Provide the examples. Three feats is a MINIMAL investment. It leaves FIFTEEN feats for a good build behind. There are no three feats that grant a +8 to TOuch AC, an offensive attack preserving that AC, and a +8 To various manuvers getting pulled, or that provide such a nice vehicle for putting Defender on. Putting it simply, the TWF gets more advantages for less, and no amount of bold-faced text on your part is going to take down the peerless force of simple mathematics. You are making declarations. Let's see some proof. Similar is true for the 2HWF as well, however, who spends far less in terms of both feats and cash. He admittedly gets less attacks - but this is made up for by both his greater damage capacity and better effectiveness for cost - again, a claim made via both cash (the 2HWF spends only 200000+ for his maxed-out weapon compared to the 400000+ for the TWF and 500000+ for the SAB) and feat math (you're 100% insane if you're not seeing how 3-4 feats for optimal effectiveness is better than the 6 or so for the TWF or nearly 10 of the SAB build) and thus irrefutable due to simple math. uh, what? You now went completely beyond the parameters of what was going on. I posted a build. Go through it. Note the optional feats and the like. Build a weapon +10 that doesn't perfectly discriminate against everyone in armor (after all, I cna cheese a Brilliant weapon, too). That's your ONLY gear advantage. My weapon is +4 Martial Shadowstriking, OR +3 Aptitude Martial Shadowstriking, if I have Weapon Focus. I have a standard Uber Shield 6/6. Name the three feats you take instead of Shield Ward. That's the only difference there needs to be in our builds. Every other feat, we both have unless it's blatantly THW only. And the feat math matters. Go ahead, argue that weapon focus, specialization, and impcrit aren't necessary for SAB - you'll still wind up dealing less DPR and both hitting less and critically hitting less than a TWF or 2HWF who blew less feats than you did for the exact same result. Math, man. DO IT. Don't declare it...DO IT. Stack it side by side and let people compare. I don't need to outdamage him per round. I need to outdamage him before one of us is dead, be it fighting monsters or one another. Now, don't get me wrong - shields are damn good - I've got a Crusader backed with a Diamond Mind style that uses one to boost his AC quite a bit - but what you've been arguing this whole time is that this is a build as strong offensively as the TWF and 2HWF styles - and whilst it's no slouch, it's not going to be as powerful as they are - the math shows it. ARGHHHH! Where do people keep putting words into my mouth?!?! I have NEVER< EVER said he does the SAME or more dmg then THW guy! NEVER! EVER! NOT ONCE! Where are you getting this assertion I have been?!?! SUNIC keeps posting I do 'so much dmg less it's irrelevant.' And then Compares a THW guy using an Animated Shield to get SAB benefits against a SAB guy. That's NOT ME. I'm saying that with a 30 Str, 7.5 pts a normal swing less is not "insignificant damage"...2.5 if SAB drops his shield as he has the option to do. 13 pts of AC is a HUGE difference in AC, which allows for a ton of options. Even 8 AC is a huge amount more, which directly increases survivability. Not ONCE have I ever intimated he does even the SAME dmg as a THW guy. Where exactly are you pulling those words out of?? He does very GOOD dmg, and has an AC so superior that it completely overshadows the minor amount less dmg he does. That IS what I'm saying. That's it, that's all, no more, no less. And that high AC gives him a versatility and flexibilty that can be utilized very, very effectively. Sigh. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 01:40 AM	QUOTE=Callix Aelryinth, I'm beginning to tire of this. Claiming that I'm in danger of being lynched by CO is not an argument. It's a show trick, and it's not winning you any support. Spells are considered superior to gear because they can be customised at little cost. One of the key tricks of Wizard play from LogicNinja's Guide to Being Batman, amongst other places, is to leave a few slots open each day, to be used for the utility and buff spells you find yourself needing later in the day. Stopping for 15 minutes before confronting the dragon is a good thing if it ensures that all your Resist Energy buffs are set to the right type. On the other hand, for rounds/level buffs that are frequently useful, life-saving when they are, and need to be in place at little warning, continuous items are a good way to get them. This is especially true for immunities, such as Freedom of Movement. Callix, you probably haven't been on the receving end as I have of 'every spellcaster has the perfect spell for every possible defense or option he needs perfectly on hand at any given moment.' It's a standard CharOpt tactic. Batman is GREAT. Anyone is GREAT, given time to prepare. Prepared casters especially. What happens when you have spellcaster who has no time to prepare those spells and customize on the fly? You have an underpowered caster who actually just restricted his options. You could do the exact same thing burning a teleport scroll, fetching a bunch of other potions or scrolls, or buying them, and teleporting back. The logic ends where you don't have time. And you can't assume you always have time, and casters always do. Thus, this isn't a valid argument. Can you explain the logic behind the idea that the survival of a party is inversely proportional to its power? The weaker you are, the more likely a given out-of-the-book encounter is likely to kill you. Yes, if you optimise your character to hell and back, the DM needs to step up the challenges to keep it interesting. But no DM is perfect. A party that struggles to overcome most level-appropriate encounters will one day fight a Closet Troll in a closed space. If they don't have a few options to pull out of the bag, they're dead. And most of those options are the Optimiser cheese you've been railing about. Optimizer adn optimizer cheese are two very different things. There's a load of difference between clever use of spells and cheese, as even CharOps can say. If you want to ramp things up to the CharOps level, you are taking your game to win Init or die. Your foes should be just as optimized, and then your only advantage is gear, which CharOpts dismisses. So, you'll lose init in some normal encounter, TPK, and start over. Having good tricks available to deal with stuff? Nothing wrong with that at all. They can be turned on you, and hopefully you can counter/deal with them. One shot kill tricks turned on you? It's too late, you're dead. "Suboptimal" means "using resources inefficiently". You've put a significant amount of resources into boosting your non-touch AC. While it helps reduce the damage from melee threats, realistically that doesn't matter much because in actual play, you have casters on your side. The high-HP sponges that sword-and-board can match THF against all have glaring weaknesses that a caster can exploit easily. So the most efficient way to handle the encounter is to let them. In other fights, AC matters less and less, so you have invested quite a bit into boosting an AC that isn't helping you much. I've put significant resources into buffing my non-Touch AC and my Touch AC (+13 points of Touch AC).. And you are now trotting out the standard caster argument...they will have on hand whatever spell is needed to deal with any encounter, and the time to employ it...which is not true in any normal campaign. If it IS true, the NPC's are playing stupid. There should be no Melee, everyone should be a caster, and Init rules, first caster to go wins and the enemy dies. Since it doesn't happen, there's very, very little reason to believe that the rest is true, yes? Core is not balanced. It contains the Druid, a full-caster that basically comes with a free Fighter. And yes, feats are less powerful than class features. Which is why everyone on CO is convinced that the Fighter is underpowered, and should only be used as a dip in a feat-heavy build. Compare the Druid's animal companion, the wizard's ability to cast each level of spells, the Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge and DR. They're all too strong to be normal feats; +1 DR/-- is an Epic feat. That's the way the game is designed, and saying "I think feats should be as good as class features" is irrelevant to this discussion. It would be nice if they were, but we're discussing D&D, not Aelryinth's Houserules. And D&D comes in books, even if it's played by houserules. +1 DR actually is a feat...actually I think it's +2. Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are by no means too powerful to be taken as feats. A ranger animal companion is a level 1 feat. And referring to Epic is bad...Pounce is an Epic feat available at level 1 barbarian, and natural ability for various races and classes decidedly non-Epic. Plenty of formerly EPic stuff is available way before Epic. As for spellcasting...Extra Spell is a feat. The fact that bad feat design gimps the fighter doesn't make the fighter weak...bad feats are bad feats. If you put in feats the strength they should be, the fighter is no longer weak. If you put in spells that are not overpowered, then casters don't dominate. We call this 4E...where they have ramped up feats (Toughness is now Toughness+IMproved Toughness, for example) and downtoned spellcasting considerably. I never intimated Core was balanced. A good Fighter relies on non-Core feats, because COre feats use bad design philosophy. Unfortunately, they are plenty eager to come out with new spells that 'correct' problems, and not so eager to correct old, bad feats. And now you make my argument for me. Fighter is not a good class to be boosting AC in. Therefore, Sword and Board, with its investment in boosting AC, is being inefficient by trying to make the fighter into something he is not. It can be done, but for the same effort, you can have a stronger character by going in the direction the mechanics lead you, rather than fighting them. I'll concede the high-AC fighter point; it was more of a designer's-intention argument, but not that strong. Whoa, whoa. I never said Fighter wasn't a good class to boost AC in. I said that there's discrimiination against armor wearers, and stacking Ability mods gets you a higher AC if you want to get ridiculous. Boosting AC stands on its own as a viable tactic, and Fighters can do it, and it works perfectly well for them. Are they going to get the absolutely highest AC out of it? Not a chance, in the face of so many PrC's to be raided, templates, races, stat mods, and builds. But a balanced Fighter with a 'high AC' in a standard campaign is a potent tool, and this seems to be hard for some people to fathom. It's a different argument. Thanks for keeping it polite! =Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 04:14 AM	Here's a brief example of how dmg lays out. IF SAB blows three more feats on TWF...level 20 with a 30 Str. We'll keep it basic to +5 weapons, with Shadowstriking to snurf DR. THF guy has +1 more on weapon to counterbalance shield...he also has a Greater Cloak of Displacement which he can conveniently activate before any combat, for a 50% miss chance, and we'll tack on +5 dmg from Collision, or something. Cost for his sword+Cloak is roughly equal to wpn+Uber Shield. The opponent is AC 40 or so. Maybe a balor with no armor on. Str 31, lets assume +4/+6 spec tree for the price of a feat for each of them. Bonus TH will be +20 BAB, +10 Str, +5 Weapon, +4 Spec =+39. Dmg is +10 & +5 Str (15), +5 weapon, +6 Spec, (+5 Energy)= +21 (31) ======================================== ============ THW: Th chance is 95/75/50/25. Cumulative chance to hit: 245. Dmg: 2.45 x avg 7 (greatsword/glaive) +31 = 38 x 2.45 = 93.1 dmg/rd on full attack. If he PA's for 5, his hit chance drops like a rock...155% cumulative (75/50/25/5) of 48 is 73. He won't power Attack. Standard attack dmg is 38 pts. Impressive! 95% to hit. PA for 5? 48 x 75% to hit is 36 pts. He won't power attack unless his bonus TH gets higher then 100%. ================ SAB guy has three options. Sword, Sword and Shield, or Two-handed Sword. weapon is a longsword. Shield is uber shield 6/6. TH chances are the same with just sword. AC is +8 Higher then THW guy. Dmg is 2.45 x (4.5 +10+5+6) or 25.5, for 62.475 dmg on a full attack. SA dmg is 25.5, or 25 if wielding shield, for +13 AC benefit. Full attack, TWF. Note: running both with and without Defender. Without Defender: +8 AC. Shield: 2-12 (7) +5+5+2 = 19 per attack. Sword: 1-8 (4.5) +10+5+6= 25.5 per attack. Shield hits 80/55/30/5 = 170% of 19 = 32.3 Sword hits 90/65/40/15 = 210% of time of 25.5 = 53.5. Dmg total = 86 pts...7 less then THW guy. With Defender, +13 AC. Shield hits 55/30/5/5 = 95% of 14 = 13, +53.5 = 66.5, about 70% of THW guy, for +13 Higher Touch AC. NO TWF tree, Full Attack = only ONE shield bash, +8 AC 53.5 + 80% of 19 = 17 = 70 pts, vs 93.5. Better to bash with the shield in this instance then take a full attack without it. +13 AC. 53.5 + 55% of 14 = 7 = 60 pts. He loses 10 pts of offense, for +5 AC. Insignificant? Just plug in the HP and see how long the killing takes. 200 hp is 3 rds for THW, 3 rds for straight Shield TWF, 3 rds for Shield Defender TWF. It's also 3 rds for SAB with no TWF, but 4 rds for TWF with Defender. At 400 HP, THW guy takes 5 rds. SAB takes 5 rds all out. Defender takes 6 rds. SAB no TWF takes 6 rds. SAB no TWF, Defender takes 7 rds. Insignificant dmg? Well, you decide. ======================================= Now, taking dmg. I'm going to use Greatsword Guy as the baseline dmg inflictor. this gives us nice, high numbers to work with for quick kills. Offender is +39 to hit, doing 38 avg dmg. Has no special senses to overcome concealment, and no PMC. Sword is +1 Collision with GMW on it. Str comes from buffs or potions or something to equal inherents. Based on an AC of Mithral Full Plate+5, Dex+3, +5 NAt AC and +5 Displacement, +1 Ioun stone, Greatsword guy has AC 36, and a 50% miss chance. Add to that, SAB guy has an AC of +8 from Shield, with +13 if defender is active, for an AC of 44 OR 48. We'll assume both our boys have ~230 HP (avg 110+6/level/con). Offender attacks Greatsword Guy. 95% hit chance for 37 dmg on Standard Attack. He can PA for 4 to improve this to 45 dmg/rd on SA's, cut in half by 50% miss chance for 22.5dmg/rd. ON full attack, 95/90/70/45% = 300% chance for dmg x 38 = 104 dmg/rd, x 50% miss chance = 52/rd. So, dead in 5 rds or so. Let's PA for 4, taking TH down to 95/75/50/25, = 245% of 46 dmg = 112.7, x 50% = 61 dmg/rd. Dead in 4 rds. PA for 9? 75/50/25/5 for 155% of 56 dmg = 86.8 = 43.4. Clearly, PA for 4 is the 'Sweet Spot'. (BTW, this reflects the 'Monster TH/Dmg increases faster then PC AC argument). Offender attacks SAB at 44 'low AC'. Hit chance is 80/55/30/5 or 170% of 38 for 64.6 dmg. Miss chance is superior! (except they are both dead in 4 rds, so the point is moot) Why? Because miss chance is best when monster TH is very, very high. At PA 4, 60/35/10/5 = 110% of 46 dmg = 50 pts. 5 rds to kill. Outlasts THW guy. At PA9, it's just silly. 35/10/5/5 of 56 dmg = 29 pts/rd. 8 rds of flailing to kill. Ah, but wait. 44 is the 'bad AC'. 49 is the 'good AC'...with Defender on. TH Chance base drops to 55/30/5/5 of 38, or 95%, for 37 dmg/rd...clearly better then THW guy's miss chance, and this is 'default AC'. It will take him 7 rds to be killed by 'da monster'. If Monster PA's, his dmg goes down even further. 5 pts of PA lowers TH chance to 30/5/5/5, or 45% of 48, or 22 dmg/rd. And it only gets worse. Shield guy can force this number by Defensive Fighting for +4 AC, or Expertise for 5. Dmg taken keeps dropping. ====================================== If we pit the two against one another in full attack modes, it takes THW guy ~ 6rds to kill SAB guy, or 10 rds if SAB goes Defensive. It takes SAB guy, with One Bash, Defender up, Power Attack for 2 to max dmg out, 50% miss chance... 245% of 27,5 is 67.5, Shield is 75% of 16 = 12 = 80 total, x 50% miss chance = 40 dmg/rd, = dead in 6 rds. If he actually has the TWF tree, this is 46 dmg/rd (150% of 16), and dead in 5 rds. If he has any way to overcome the miss chance, it's not even close. THW guy dies in 3 rds, tops. At level 20, it's highly likely both characters have some means of blindsight or truesight available to them to ignore such things. ==== Summary: SAB guy kills monster in 1-2 rds less then THW guy. THW guy lasts as long as SAB guy with 'low AC', if has miss chance. He dies twice as fast if not. THW guy dies faster then SAB guy with 'normal AC', even with miss chance. THW guy dies way faster then SAB turtling. THW guy tends to get hurt by a high TH monster using Power Attack. Such monsters hurt SAB less. THW guy against a monster with equal attack/rd power to himself and 400 hp is a race to the death. He who crits first, wins. SAB guy against a monster with equal attack/rd power to THW guy is a win by 1 rd. If monster Power Attacks, it's a win by 2 or more rounds, as Power Attack only lowers its avg dmg. SAB guy is less vulnerable to crits, especially on iteratives, since they are going to be hard to confirm. Power Attack generally only comes into play if the monster has an AC under the TH bonus of the attacker, as all other times it basically lowers dmg. SAB's Touch AC for all of this (assuming both of them have Ghost Ward on +5 armor) is 37, +5 if both have an Gem of Arrow deflection (unlikely for THW guy). A mage/20 with a ranged Touch attack has to hit a 42 AC to hit him...nat 20 requried. A Balor (27 Dex, +20 BAB), still needs a 16 to do the same. Defensive Fighting raises that to a 20. THW's AC is 24, 29 with Gem...he gets normally hit by an 8 in the same circumstance, 13 with Gem. The Balor will hit him on a 2+. =================== Money spent: Approx the same. +8 Weapon+Major Cloak/Dis = +7 Wpn +6/+6 Shield. Note: Can improve shield and weapon much more in Epic levels for SAB. Feats spent: Assuming both have PA, same. THW is assumed to have Cleave, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack for an uber charger build. SAB has Imp Shield bash/spec/ward. ================ Other notes: Most level 20 monsters don't seem to have +39 to hit. An exception might be a dragon (which probably has blindsight or true sight). As numbers go lower and lower, higher AC tends to become worth more then misschance, just based on iteratives scrolling to nat 20's. A standard Balor has +30 to hit, hitting THW guy on a 6. It takes a 19 to hit SAB guy. 75% on THW gets cut to 37.5% dmg, ignoring a balor's natural True Sight. Balor has only a 10% chance to hit SAB guy, which also means almost no chance to Vorpalize him (1:2o0 vs 3:80 for THW) =================== If you want to see more specific hard numbers on comparisons, write out the questions and the scenario. ===Aelryinth
CrimsonDeath 05-26-08, 04:24 AM	I noted above that it's a decent alternative for a SAB build...focus your spec feats around the shield and let the off hand weapon dovetail, instead of the Shield. Also, stick the defender on your off hand weapon as an elective, and put combat buffs on your shield spikes. Problems? Well, you need Bashing +Shield SPikes/Razors to get the dmg to 2-12/20/x2. That's strictly inferior to a greatsword. Without spikes/razors its 1-8 blud, and you lsoe the magic on the spikes. Getting Bashing Shield means waiting until level 6 or so for real dmg. It also means spending the majority of your money directly on your shield, which could get pretty fun cash wise. Assuming a heavy spiked shield, you only lose about 3.5 damage/hit compared to a Greatsword (or 6 damage at Large size, or 7 damage at Huge size). Paying for a spiked shield that's enchanted as both a weapon and a shield isn't any more expensive than a sword-and-board fighter getting a magic weapon and a magic shield, and is less expensive than a two-handed fighter getting a weapon and a floating shield. I'm not sure if Bashing is that important... There's always the option of building up your Shock Trooper tree first and using a Greatsword until the damage die doesn't matter quite as much, then pick up Improved Shield Bash and invest in a shield-- which would probably confuse your allies about as much as your enemies. Also, having an off-hand Defending weapon kind of defeats the point of the build. Defending Armor Spikes might work though-- and would leave you with a Light weapon to use when grappled. Still might not be worth the money. The reason I thought of this is because one time one of my characters had his whip dagger sundered (by a hammer...), so he grabbed heavy darkwood shield in both hands and started bashing.
Sunic_Flames 05-26-08, 09:37 AM	It is very difficult to get anything at all out of your post Ael. Most of it is requesting numbers and proof, or denying numbers and proof when they are given. 'Prove AC is useless without just ignoring it!' he says. Except methods that ignore it are perfectly valid. Just as methods that ignore concealment and other such miss chances are perfectly valid - just less common as True Seeing has a short duration and therefore requires a combat action and an expensive component, or one of the few outsiders that have it as an always on ability. Whereas Brilliant Energy makes for an excellent NPC weapon, spells can make a weapon Brilliant Energy if it isn't already, anyone who can cast second level spells with at least decent melee prowess can use Wraithstrike, and so on down the line. As the only advantage SAB can be argued to have is AC and AC is negated pretty easily, that means he does not have an advantage at all. In other words, he is actively choosing to disregard anything that does not support him. Now the logical counter would be for me, as the representative of THF guy to start ignoring True Seeing as if it did not exist. Except... I'm not doing that. I do not need obfuscate the issue to win the argument. I do not need to misrepresent my and/or my opponent's position to win the argument. As this is an attack on his argument and not his person, it is not a violation of the rules here. The druids could not do anything to stop me because by the time they knew I existed, 1-2 were dead, 1-2 were near dead and retreating to avoid being finished off, and the others had bigger things to worry about. If they had attempted a summon spell at this point, guess what? They've just become the highest priority targets. They don't get to finish their spell until after I act again. Even if they survive my next encounter ending move, they need to make an impossible Concentration check to keep their spell. They would have been wasting their action. For the record, they survived the first because they were prepared enough to be highly resistant. Further, I stayed mobile, moving every round and keeping at least 35 feet away from the dire tiger and the other animal that didn't play much of a role in the fight as it spent the entire time chewing on a summon spell our druid had cast as part of the prep. If however I did get within 30 feet of one or more likely one gets within 30 feet of me... They would need a move action to gauge direction by Scent. That means no pouncing charge, and no move + attack. Total concealment due to invisibility = no AoOs. Even if they got around that somehow, I auto succeed the Tumble check, still take no AoOs, and the animal wastes its action without even getting to try to attack. If they get around that... a standard action that does not provoke and is not casting defensively puts my bodyguard, the Crusader, or anyone else interested in smashing face in their face in my place allowing me to escape. You know, just in case animals now come equipped with Mage Slayer, Stand Still, and Thicket of Blades. :rolleyes: See, I'm smart. I have layer upon layer of defenses and counters. I can get out of a bad situation. I'll be fine regardless. As for getting gear... He starts with no special gear advantage. He doesn't know my character pre game, so he has to pay full price. Later, maybe he gets cheaper upgrades. Though to do this we need to be at a point where there is enough downtime to do so, sell off crap gear, and start crafting. This has not happened yet as we are still on a fairly tight time table. When the time does come... Let's see... spend my XP to boost him... He better hope he's gotten on my character's good side to warrant this, otherwise he gets nothing. Still, it is possible he can persuade her it is worth the resources - just not right now. No time for long crafting. Therefore it is irrelevant to the current situation. The Crusader isn't SAB. Not even an Animated shield or IBD. He had a +4 shield bonus via other means. Sword and board sucking miserably is a hard fact. This thread and others prove it as the few advantages are easily negated. The many disadvantages are not. Compare to THF, which is not so easily made redundant. That was the only 'suboptimal' choice made here, as he is the best sword and board can be and still sucks. This is purely a reflection upon the SAB style. Were he instead even a decent THF, he would not suck. He would not be ignored by enemies except when he switches places with my character to take hits intended for her or as one of several targets to drop an AoE bomb on. The fact he has high saves - something the shield plays no role in would matter as the enemy may attempt to target his Will save, only to find that he does not share the typical weakness of his archetype against such. The fact he had DR 5, and heals 5 HP on every hit would also matter, as he would be actually taking hits as he would be regarded as an actual threat. It is no surprise - and perfectly reasonable they do not regard him as a threat. After all, he does 22 damage maximum. The only reason it is that high is because a house rule is in play allowing him to get Powerful Build and +2 Strength for 3,000 XP. More than worth it. Without that houserule, he drops by 1 to hit, and to a Medium longsword. 17 max damage. More pathetic. Shield bashes? Those are there to attempt to make up for the massive offensive deficiency. They still aren't good enough, but he'd be even worse without them. Further, there are several house rules here. With them, he gets to attack with his primary and his offhand weapon as an attack action. This means that he can hit with both and move, or full attack for what is currently 6 attacks and can become as high as 10 assuming BAB 16 and Haste. This costs 1 feat and does not require a high dex. Normally this would require four feats, one of which is Epic, you'd still only get to attack once period if you moved, and you would need a high Dex which means diverting away from Str and Con. Even with that massive help, sword and board still sucks. Now remember this is level 15 we're talking about. 22 maximum damage per hit is simply pathetic. If I half cared, I could have my Artificer doing 22 minimum damage per hit all day long. With her fists. And with the same or greater accuracy, depending on enemy AC (the higher their AC is, the more they shut down SAB, whereas she doesn't care because she ignores it). This is with completely ordinary gauntlets, and minimal resource expenditure. In other words, I could easily do better damage, tank as good or better, and so forth with an 8 strength caster. SAB guy is extremely easily replaced. I'm having to actively try hard not to. Now here's a different example for contrast. Quarterstaff. Completely ordinary. Everything else the same. 36 minimum damage. Now consider, THF guy is doing more like 50-60, still about the same accuracy but is also doing other things such as threatening a larger area with reach, locking it down, and so forth. Not so easily replaced. I could still do it if I wanted to, but it would require more resources to render him completely redundant as he is more useful by far, and therefore more difficult to replace. I have no intention of replacing either of them, however the fact I have to actively try to keep SAB guy somewhat useful whereas it would require a more significant resource expenditure to render THF guy obsolete. THF guy in this case is only decent by THF standards. Sword and board guy is about the best he can ever be by SAB standards before you consider the multiple house rules in his favor. If THF guy was a good THFer, and not merely a decent one it would be even more difficult. THF guy has a solid role in the party. We could make do without him, but we would feel the loss fairly strongly. SAB guy... the only reason she would care at all is because she likes her bodyguard. Fulfilling the same role in general combat is simple to do. Were SAB guy just another PC, that she hasn't known for years prior to campaign start... "Oh well, he didn't do anything noteworthy or useful anyways." *does not make note to self to pull strings to have him brought back from the dead* And that is all the thought he would get. Oh and the reason why I do not further buff my AC now is I am already tied with SAB guy for highest AC in the party and am trying not to be overpowered - no easy task as a full caster, especially an Artificer. IC... she doesn't have any reason to. She already has layers of counters upon counters to any attack. No enemy has even reached the point of making an attack roll against her AC because assuming they make it to the stage of trying to without being killed first, they get to deal with Greater Mirror Image and other such fun. As such, she has never lost a single hitpoint from anything that isn't an AoE spell. As her current defensive measures have proven more than adequate, even by her paranoid high standards she has no reason to add more at the moment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. First time it does come up... might prove painful, but she'll be fine, and then she has a reason to further stack on the defenses. If nothing else, the fact she is faster than just about any non Hasted melee now is a very solid counter to being hit by the other thing. Ranged attacks? Enjoy the 50% miss chance and +5 bonus AC against them, that True Seeing, True Strike, Seeking etc do not thwart. I am ignoring the rest of Ael's post as it is the same emotion centered rant he is falsely accusing me of posing, the same flames he is falsely accusing me of hurling, and so on down the line. Further, he is openly admitting to baiting which is what being 'goaded' means, and despite what he believes he is incorrect about the bait being taken. Moving on to his other post... SAB is fist guy. He does low damage and therefore will take a while to kill you. If he were alone, it would be a good idea to fight him so you don't have to deal with a guy punching you in the head/smacking you for low damage repeatedly. He has buddies though. His buddies are more dangerous. THF is knife guy. He's far more dangerous than fist guy, can hurt you very badly in short order and kill you very quickly. Like fist guy, he is limited to close range to do so, however close range might be a bit longer due to THF guy has reach/knife guy can throw with enough accuracy to kill you as opposed to merely negating his advantage. The wizard (or any other full caster) is gun guy. Not only is he far more dangerous than both fist/SAB guy and knife/THF guy, he poses his threat at much greater distances. If you do not have such a weapon yourself, he will kill you long before you can do the same to him. Even if you do, you have only negated his advantage rather than come out ahead. Provided he does not miss/spell fails, gun/caster guy will seriously screw you over with every shot, therefore every offensive action he takes counts for a lot more. Depending on where you are hit a bullet can kill you, cripple you, or leave you to die a slow and painful death without being able to retaliate. If he is good, he will not miss/have his spell fail very often. As such, it is clear gun/caster guy is the greatest threat and should be taken out first. If knife/THF guy can get close enough to stab you, it would likely be a good idea to deal with him first instead. Fist/SAB guy can die last. Ideally you kill off gun/caster guy before knife/THF guy and fist/SAB guy can close the distance. If you cannot do this, you are likely screwed due to the subsequent actions of gun/caster guy and knife/THF guy. Fist/SAB guy is just there to look pretty. He's of no particular use. Therefore, the fact he has a defensive advantage is irrelevant as he is not threatening enough to be attacked until all of the greater threats (everyone else) have been eliminated. All he has ensured he will do is dying last. Now if the others can somehow get a Kevlar vest (best parallel that can be drawn here to a shield) they will be just as defensively apt as fist/SAB guy while also posing a greater threat. In such cases their advantage does matter as it delays their being taken out first, ideally long enough so that they can kill their opponent. Of course, said advantage can be bypassed. AC, including that from shields can be ignored. Kevlar vests only stop attacks to the torso, they do not protect the entire body. In such cases, the defense doesn't matter, only the offense. Caster/gun guy is going to do much more with fatal/crippling shots/spells, and knife/THF guy is going to do more with deadly attacks than fist/SAB will do with swinging away for mild/moderate effect. And moderate may be being overly generous. Fist/SAB guy is doing nothing to protect his companions - he is being ignored. Fist/SAB guy is completely useless. If only he focused on a gun or a knife instead, he could contribute. I also am noticing the only example of numbers he provides is one deliberately skewed to favor him. First, Balor AC is 39 with Unholy Aura, 35 if you can surprise it or something. Not likely to happen granted, but still not 40. Second, see that part about favoring ranged attacks? And how it flies faster than you? Both THF and SAB are going to be useless here, even before it Quickened TKs you to disarm or generally screw you over while Implosioning the wizard as its round 1 standard tactics for the lols. Alternately it uses its swift action to do something else and just happily ignores you as you can't catch it. Third... how about some more typical CR 20 creatures? Or at least stop assuming the THF guy is being dumb and just trading full attacks with it instead of being smart and focusing on one big attack as I have stated several times. Which is probably all you get anyways, due to the fact it doesn't stand there and full attack. It keeps moving.
aelryinth 05-26-08, 03:28 PM	Assuming a heavy spiked shield, you only lose about 3.5 damage/hit compared to a Greatsword (or 6 damage at Large size, or 7 damage at Huge size). Paying for a spiked shield that's enchanted as both a weapon and a shield isn't any more expensive than a sword-and-board fighter getting a magic weapon and a magic shield, and is less expensive than a two-handed fighter getting a weapon and a floating shield. I'm not sure if Bashing is that important... There's always the option of building up your Shock Trooper tree first and using a Greatsword until the damage die doesn't matter quite as much, then pick up Improved Shield Bash and invest in a shield-- which would probably confuse your allies about as much as your enemies. Also, having an off-hand Defending weapon kind of defeats the point of the build. Defending Armor Spikes might work though-- and would leave you with a Light weapon to use when grappled. Still might not be worth the money. The reason I thought of this is because one time one of my characters had his whip dagger sundered (by a hammer...), so he grabbed heavy darkwood shield in both hands and started bashing. The Bashing Enchantment turns your dmg from 1-6 to 2-12 with a heavy shield, +3.5 dmg is a great use of an enhancement bonus. It also adds +1/+1 to dmg usage if you don't have it enchanted as a weapon (or you use it as blud instead of spikes.) The 'off hand defending weapon' could be a spiked guantlet, too. however, 'wielding it' means its ready to strike, which means its a second weapon, and you'll get the TWF penalty of -2. I consider Armor spikes to probably be heavy weapons (armor certainly isn't light!). Also, if you have it an actual weapon, it could be a dagger, short spear, or hand axe, which can be used as missile weapons, possibly set against a charge, or have other uses by the fact that they are weapons. Since you are going to invest less in this secondary weapon, it's also a prime candidate for being +1 with a ton of passive effects (eager, warning, etc) and sticking a GMW on, while your main weapon (the shield) gets the permanent stuff. I'm not saying you are wrong in your position...I'm just pointing out things. Note that without bashing your spiked shield is only doing 1-6 dmg, which is pretty low for a TH weapon. As for cost of the shield...well, it's another thing you can get slammed for, one item with 300K of your wealth potentially tied up into it. I'm not saying it wouldn't be really fun to do, however!!! You'd be a THF with +8 AC and no Animated Shield or Improved Buckler Cheese. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 04:30 PM	QUOTE=Sunic_FlamesIt is very difficult to get anything at all out of your post Ael. Most of it is requesting numbers and proof, or denying numbers and proof when they are given. It's worse getting any numbers out of you, I'm afraid. You don't give any numbers at all...you give observations. When you do throw out numbers, they have no context for comparison, so they are also invalid. Have you never posted numbers or equations in a debate environment? When it comes down to comparing builds, it's all in the math. 'Prove AC is useless without just ignoring it!' he says. Except methods that ignore it are perfectly valid. Just as methods that ignore concealment and other such miss chances are perfectly valid - just less common as True Seeing has a short duration and therefore requires a combat action and an expensive component, or one of the few outsiders that have it as an always on ability. magic items, natural abilities, and class abilities have no duration on them. These also happen to be the primary means of bypassing AC. Ergo, this is not an argument. Blindsight bypasses concealment, as does tremorsense. Covering everything in Darkness and having Blindfighting works pretty good, too. More ways around it then there are a high AC. Whereas Brilliant Energy makes for an excellent NPC weapon, spells can make a weapon Brilliant Energy if it isn't already, anyone who can cast second level spells with at least decent melee prowess can use Wraithstrike, and so on down the line. As the only advantage SAB can be argued to have is AC and AC is negated pretty easily, that means he does not have an advantage at all. Brilliant Energy discriminates against all wearers of any armor, and don't even bring up Wraithstrike. You may as well be arguing Pun Pun. It also is a +5 Weapon investment, turning your weapon into something useless against undead and constructs, two of the most very popular monsters. Brilliance is a very bad argument. No serious build takes Brilliance. When there's an enchantment of Energize that thwarts Brilliance or Wraithstrike, you can talk to me about either spell. And Brilliance is very situational and considerably less useful overall then True Seeing, which can also be cast as a spell. And a Druid can get Blindsight at level 5, so again, bringing up spellcasting isnt' going to change anything. In other words, he is actively choosing to disregard anything that does not support him. Now the logical counter would be for me, as the representative of THF guy to start ignoring True Seeing as if it did not exist. Except... I'm not doing that. I do not need obfuscate the issue to win the argument. I do not need to misrepresent my and/or my opponent's position to win the argument. As this is an attack on his argument and not his person, it is not a violation of the rules here. Yes, it is, because I'm not ignoring either factor. I've long, long, LONG ago taken both into account, discounted both as being equal, and removed them from the equation. Ergo, you don't have a 'moral high ground', which you seem to be alluding to. instead, you have a cycle of repetition. Could you find some new ground to wander, please? ============================= The druids could not do anything to stop me because by the time they knew I existed, 1-2 were dead, 1-2 were near dead and retreating to avoid being finished off, and the others had bigger things to worry about. If they had attempted a summon spell at this point, guess what? They've just become the highest priority targets. They don't get to finish their spell until after I act again. Even if they survive my next encounter ending move, they need to make an impossible Concentration check to keep their spell. They would have been wasting their action. I wasn't present and can't comment on their tactics. I would assume CharOps would be calling them pretty dumb if their animal companions didn't even have scent to note someone invisible, and/or they were clustered up so you could AOE them. Without seeing it, I can't call it. For the record, they survived the first because they were prepared enough to be highly resistant. Well, that's good. Further, I stayed mobile, moving every round and keeping at least 35 feet away from the dire tiger and the other animal that didn't play much of a role in the fight as it spent the entire time chewing on a summon spell our druid had cast as part of the prep. by your standards below, this is dumb. Trading full attacks? If however I did get within 30 feet of one or more likely one gets within 30 feet of me... They would need a move action to gauge direction by Scent. That means no pouncing charge, and no move + attack. Total concealment due to invisibility = no AoOs. Even if they got around that somehow, I auto succeed the Tumble check, still take no AoOs, and the animal wastes its action without even getting to try to attack. The key thing would be they point out your location to others, who then take action to negate your invis, with low level spells or something as simple as Cantrip: Flour. but, I digress. Sounds like good tactics, if nothing else, even if they were dumb enough to not be prepared for hidden enemies. Note it's only a DC 20 Spot check to notice someone invisible around... If they get around that... a standard action that does not provoke and is not casting defensively puts my bodyguard, the Crusader, or anyone else interested in smashing face in their face in my place allowing me to escape. You know, just in case animals now come equipped with Mage Slayer, Stand Still, and Thicket of Blades. :rolleyes: It's funny, but trading places would activate Thicket:). And your bodyguard may or may not be able to get to you, yes? Problems of their own, and they wouldn't know where you are...you're invisible! See, I'm smart. I have layer upon layer of defenses and counters. I can get out of a bad situation. I'll be fine regardless. Sounds more like good tactics then 'layers and layers of defenses', but c'est la vie. As for getting gear... He starts with no special gear advantage. He doesn't know my character pre game, so he has to pay full price. Later, maybe he gets cheaper upgrades. Though to do this we need to be at a point where there is enough downtime to do so, sell off crap gear, and start crafting. Yes, that's how it goes with gear. This has not happened yet as we are still on a fairly tight time table. which is how you control the power of an Artificer...good DM. He should be doing the same for spell acquisition, I hope.. When the time does come... Let's see... spend my XP to boost him... He better hope he's gotten on my character's good side to warrant this, otherwise he gets nothing. Still, it is possible he can persuade her it is worth the resources - just not right now. No time for long crafting. Therefore it is irrelevant to the current situation. I.e. she doesn't want to spend money on her own henchman's efficiency and duties. Time for a new henchman, I'd think. The Crusader isn't SAB. Not even an Animated shield or IBD. He had a +4 shield bonus via other means. You just said he had an animated shield?!? That's a shield+Weapon, which is the definition of sword and board. You just made it apparant you have to have a THW and cheese it out to get around the limitations. With no shield bonus, that Crusader would have been dead several times over, yes? Sword and board sucking miserably is a hard fact. This thread and others prove it as the few advantages are easily negated. The many disadvantages are not. Compare to THF, which is not so easily made redundant. Sigh. Opinion. I post numbers, you must not be able to read them. Irrelevant statement. That was the only 'suboptimal' choice made here, as he is the best sword and board can be and still sucks. This is purely a reflection upon the SAB style. LOL. Sure he was. Opinion, no numbers, no support. Irrelevant. Give me numbers. Don't violate the 'natural' SAB balance when comparing. Were he instead even a decent THF, he would not suck. He would not be ignored by enemies except when he switches places with my character to take hits intended for her or as one of several targets to drop an AoE bomb on. Opinion, and accusing yourself of a bad build using the rules available. Irrelevant. The fact he has high saves - something the shield plays no role in would matter as the enemy may attempt to target his Will save, only to find that he does not share the typical weakness of his archetype against such. And that's not a SAB problem, it's a melee problem. irrelevant. The fact he had DR 5, and heals 5 HP on every hit would also matter, as he would be actually taking hits as he would be regarded as an actual threat. That again has nothign to do with SAB and is a gear choice. Irrelevant. It is no surprise - and perfectly reasonable they do not regard him as a threat. Agreed. you built him to suck in melee delibrately, and guess what? he does. After all, he does 22 damage maximum. The only reason it is that high is because a house rule is in play allowing him to get Powerful Build and +2 Strength for 3,000 XP. More than worth it. Without that houserule, he drops by 1 to hit, and to a Medium longsword. 17 max damage. More pathetic. so, you are saying he does +9 dmg at level 15? When the Spec tree gives +6, a +3 weapon gives the same dmg (and GMW would give more), and his Str would do even better on top of that? This is a SAB problem how? And he's compared to the stats on the Crusader howso? Esp that Furious COunterattack which is basically a built in spec tree for the class? You finally tender a number, and we can instantly see how gimped your build is, and it has nothing to do with SAB. His pathetic Str, lack of Spec, and poor magic means he has nothing to compare to the Crusaders Furious Counterattack, likely at least equal Str and magic. His TH rate is also at -2, -4 for TWF. The numbers on his damage are going to be ANEMIC. Of course he looks like crap in melee. You built him to do nothing in combat. Go look at the numbers I posted above. Without his extra +1 enchantment of Collision on his weapon, assuming all else equal, the Uber Charger with his Cloak actually will do LESS dmg then a TWF shield guy. And that's with a base dmg of 33 vs 25.5. At 38 base dmg, he's only 9 pts ahead with a full attack action. Shield bashes? Those are there to attempt to make up for the massive offensive deficiency. They still aren't good enough, but he'd be even worse without them. Further, there are several house rules here. With them, he gets to attack with his primary and his offhand weapon as an attack action. This means that he can hit with both and move, or full attack for what is currently 6 attacks and can become as high as 10 assuming BAB 16 and Haste. This costs 1 feat and does not require a high dex. Normally this would require four feats, one of which is Epic, you'd still only get to attack once period if you moved, and you would need a high Dex which means diverting away from Str and Con. We've already done the math here. Your build sucks, it's a given. you didn't give him any extra sources of dmg, and he's at -4 TH compared to the Crusader on top of that. He's got no spec, and Power Attack is generally useless to any melee doing full attacks unless your hit rate is 100%+. Furious Counterstrike alone seals the deal. Even with that massive help, sword and board still sucks. SAB isn't the problem here. Your build is. Now remember this is level 15 we're talking about. 22 maximum damage per hit is simply pathetic. Agreed. So, where is your spec tree to advance it 6 pts and take care of the problem? Why is his strength so anemic? Where is his To hit rate at? Numbers, man. Go Get the Crusader's numbers and write them down next to your own, and see the problem. This is all a base dmg problem you set him up to lose, that's all. It's got nothing to do with him being SAB. You're coloring your observation and only reluctantly letting real facts out. If I half cared, I could have my Artificer doing 22 minimum damage per hit all day long. With her fists. And with the same or greater accuracy, depending on enemy AC (the higher their AC is, the more they shut down SAB, whereas she doesn't care because she ignores it). So why isnt' she? Why isn' she buffing her henchie to do the same? This is with completely ordinary gauntlets, and minimal resource expenditure. In other words, I could easily do better damage, tank as good or better, and so forth with an 8 strength caster. ah, now we are into, what, size mods? or Poly cheese? either of which would help henchie more with his higher BAB. SAB guy is extremely easily replaced. I'm having to actively try hard not to. His build is crap. Need a new one? post the old one and we'll rip it apart. Now here's a different example for contrast. Quarterstaff. Completely ordinary. Everything else the same. 36 minimum damage. Numbers, source, adn why SAB guy doesn't get them. You throw out numbers without any context. If youcan't justify them, they are meaningless and this entire argument exists in a vacuum. Now consider, THF guy is doing more like 50-60, still about the same accuracy but is also doing other things such as threatening a larger area with reach, locking it down, and so forth. Not so easily replaced. A Quarterstaff does not have Reach. It also has lower base dmg then a longsword or Bashing Shield. With the same feats and gear as SAB guy, he'd still suck, I'd wager. His Dmg bonus is only +9. 15 points a swing? Right. Does Staff Guy have all those great save numbers, too? No? Devoted Defender levels? Does THF guy only have a +9 bonus to dmg? No? then where's it all coming from, and why doesn't DD have that kind of stuff if he wants to contribute in melee? I could still do it if I wanted to, but it would require more resources to render him completely redundant as he is more useful by far, and therefore more difficult to replace. I'm sure they could render you redundant, too, with sufficient resources and a pet caster, but you'd be difficult to entirely replace. Not a SAB problem. I have no intention of replacing either of them, however the fact I have to actively try to keep SAB guy somewhat useful whereas it would require a more significant resource expenditure to render THF guy obsolete. Yawn. THF guy in this case is only decent by THF standards. Sword and board guy is about the best he can ever be by SAB standards before you consider the multiple house rules in his favor. My SAB standards are way, way different then yours. you obviously didn't read my numbers post. That has to be the most pathetic SAB build I've ever seen, and I haven't even seen it yet. And your THF guy is a SAB 'cheater'. If THF guy was a good THFer, and not merely a decent one it would be even more difficult. THF guy has a solid role in the party. We could make do without him, but we would feel the loss fairly strongly. SAB guy... the only reason she would care at all is because she likes her bodyguard. Fulfilling the same role in general combat is simple to do. Were SAB guy just another PC, that she hasn't known for years prior to campaign start... She wouldn't have been built so pathetic, that's for sure. Delibrately gimping a build says nothing about the style. "Oh well, he didn't do anything noteworthy or useful anyways." *does not make note to self to pull strings to have him brought back from the dead* And that is all the thought he would get. Oh and the reason why I do not further buff my AC now is I am already tied with SAB guy for highest AC in the party and am trying not to be overpowered - no easy task as a full caster, especially an Artificer. All depends on the campaign and what is allowed. casters tend to have more difficulties where I play. IC... she doesn't have any reason to. She already has layers of counters upon counters to any attack. Uh, huh. No enemy has even reached the point of making an attack roll against her AC because assuming they make it to the stage of trying to without being killed first, they get to deal with Greater Mirror Image and other such fun. As such, she has never lost a single hitpoint from anything that isn't an AoE spell. In other words, she's never faced an Optimized character prepared to deal with her. Gotcha. As her current defensive measures have proven more than adequate, even by her paranoid high standards she has no reason to add more at the moment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Suboptimal opponents do tend to make things easy for ya. First time it does come up... might prove painful, but she'll be fine, and then she has a reason to further stack on the defenses. or be dead. It's all in the hands of the DM. If nothing else, the fact she is faster than just about any non Hasted melee now is a very solid counter to being hit by the other thing. Ranged attacks? Enjoy the 50% miss chance and +5 bonus AC against them, that True Seeing, True Strike, Seeking etc do not thwart. But Improved Precise Shot would? And I love Augment Gems, too. I am ignoring the rest of Ael's post as it is the same emotion centered rant he is falsely accusing me of posing, the same flames he is falsely accusing me of hurling, and so on down the line. sorry, no emotion centered there. Just your fairlure to post numbers. Now you are just insulting me. Further, he is openly admitting to baiting which is what being 'goaded' means, and despite what he believes he is incorrect about the bait being taken. In other words, you can't post numbers. In the entire example above, you post ONE relevant number...your level 15 fighter has a +9 dmg bonus. I can hear the laughter from every person who has ever built a Melee from here. That's just totally pathetic, and has nothing to do with being SAB. Your THF crusader is usinig a Thicket/Lock combo, but has to 'cheat' by using a Shield for AC or he ends up dead. I'm just shaking my head at this point in wonder at where your argument is going and what exactly you are trying to prove. ======================================== === Moving on to his other post... Ah, now to third person. Trying for that 'I'm above that air.' Fair enough, don't talk with me. SAB is fist guy. He does low damage and therefore will take a while to kill you. If he were alone, it would be a good idea to fight him so you don't have to deal with a guy punching you in the head/smacking you for low damage repeatedly. He has buddies though. His buddies are more dangerous. THF is knife guy. He's far more dangerous than fist guy, can hurt you very badly in short order and kill you very quickly. Like fist guy, he is limited to close range to do so, however close range might be a bit longer due to THF guy has reach/knife guy can throw with enough accuracy to kill you as opposed to merely negating his advantage. The wizard (or any other full caster) is gun guy. Not only is he far more dangerous than both fist/SAB guy and knife/THF guy, he poses his threat at much greater distances. If you do not have such a weapon yourself, he will kill you long before you can do the same to him. Even if you do, you have only negated his advantage rather than come out ahead. Provided he does not miss/spell fails, gun/caster guy will seriously screw you over with every shot, therefore every offensive action he takes counts for a lot more. Depending on where you are hit a bullet can kill you, cripple you, or leave you to die a slow and painful death without being able to retaliate. If he is good, he will not miss/have his spell fail very often. As such, it is clear gun/caster guy is the greatest threat and should be taken out first. If knife/THF guy can get close enough to stab you, it would likely be a good idea to deal with him first instead. Fist/SAB guy can die last. Ideally you kill off gun/caster guy before knife/THF guy and fist/SAB guy can close the distance. If you cannot do this, you are likely screwed due to the subsequent actions of gun/caster guy and knife/THF guy. Fist/SAB guy is just there to look pretty. He's of no particular use. Therefore, the fact he has a defensive advantage is irrelevant as he is not threatening enough to be attacked until all of the greater threats (everyone else) have been eliminated. All he has ensured he will do is dying last. Now if the others can somehow get a Kevlar vest (best parallel that can be drawn here to a shield) they will be just as defensively apt as fist/SAB guy while also posing a greater threat. In such cases their advantage does matter as it delays their being taken out first, ideally long enough so that they can kill their opponent. Of course, said advantage can be bypassed. AC, including that from shields can be ignored. Kevlar vests only stop attacks to the torso, they do not protect the entire body. In such cases, the defense doesn't matter, only the offense. Caster/gun guy is going to do much more with fatal/crippling shots/spells, and knife/THF guy is going to do more with deadly attacks than fist/SAB will do with swinging away for mild/moderate effect. And moderate may be being overly generous. Fist/SAB guy is doing nothing to protect his companions - he is being ignored. Fist/SAB guy is completely useless. If only he focused on a gun or a knife instead, he could contribute. Yawn. Okay, I ignored all of this because it's still the worst combat analaogy I've ever seen, and it has no numbers to back it up, only 'my opinion, and that's all that matters'. Irrelevant. back to the story. Can Sunic actually compare and critique numbers? ======================================== ============ I also am noticing the only example of numbers he provides is one deliberately skewed to favor him. First, Balor AC is 39 with Unholy Aura, 35 if you can surprise it or something. Not likely to happen granted, but still not 40. First, are you saying you'd like to run the numbers at AC 40? Or 35? No? Instead, you make it seem like an error instead of a deliberate choice on my part. I suggest you learn how to rephrase things politely. Second, see that part about favoring ranged attacks? And how it flies faster than you? Both THF and SAB are going to be useless here, even before it Quickened TKs you to disarm or generally screw you over while Implosioning the wizard as its round 1 standard tactics for the lols. Alternately it uses its swift action to do something else and just happily ignores you as you can't catch it. So, what you are saying, is that you can't read the numbers for the melee situation there for a comparable monster. Instead, you are deflecting the argument because you can't answer the math. Fair enough, I just wanted to know that. Avoiding the math is something people who can't debate do frequently. Third... how about some more typical CR 20 creatures? Or at least stop assuming the THF guy is being dumb and just trading full attacks with it instead of being smart and focusing on one big attack as I have stated several times. Which is probably all you get anyways, due to the fact it doesn't stand there and full attack. It keeps moving. OMG, he actually read the end and asked for a 'typical' monster. Note, he did no analysis of the numbers. I'm assuming he can't, at this point. Note, he doesn't tender a monster of his own or give any stat changes. Note, he deliberately avoids the very idea that the fighters might be equal in their resources and damage potential. Challenge: Give me the 'typical' monster. Calling it 'wrong' and then not providing a substitute means you don't have any idea what a 'typical' monster is. Challenge: Forget the tactical stuff for the monsters, it obfuscates your entire argument and its annoying...it blatantly shows you are ignoring the subject of damage in melee. Tactics are a player's problem, we are talkinga bout builds. If you want a tactical assessment, give me the monster, the tactics, and the situation. If it's Arena play, forget it. If you are blatantly going to assume neither THW guy or SAB guy can reach the monster, forget it (although this fight goes to SAb with much better ranged defenses). If all you want to do is charge, charge, charge, you somehow need to explain to me how you can do this all the time. best would be if you post the examples and math yourself, using the figures provided. Challenge: Post numbers and builds. Real numbers, not this contextless stuff you've been tossing out. At this point I'm so amused at the ineptitude of some of the character builds you've been creating I wonder if you know what you've been talking about at all. ==Aelryinth
Jaimas 05-26-08, 05:44 PM	By the flying spaghetti monster, enough bold-faced text, Ael. Any more and I will unleash a Black Rabite. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/mavken/lapinnoir.gif Anyway. You want numbers? Fine. Let's do this. First, you dismissed the Cloak of Displacement as "the same cost as a +5 shield," when it isn't. It's over 1000 GP less, and this isn't factoring in that you'd be having to grab Shield Ward as part of the bargain. You're equally wrong on cost. A Fully-tricked out Shield/Weapon combination is well over 300000. A +5 Animated Shield is a little over 50000, and that's assuming it's made out of Mithral. Net savings to 2HWFs: 50000 GP. That said, there is - literally - nothing that the SAB build has, other than number of attacks, over the 2HWF. Assuming equal economics, the 200000 that the 2HWF saves by not integrating his shield as a weapon in and of itself pays for a +5 Animated Shield and leaves him with over 150000 GP in reserve, allowing him to basically soak the cost of getting basically any high-value enchantment on his armor - or freeing up cash that he can blow on things like a Belt of Giant Strength, Boots of Striding and Springing, and anything else he wants. You're frankly out of your gourd if you are not seeing how that much extra cash saves your ass. Yeah, the 2HWF has less attacks. This is true. But with an Animated Shield that isn't acting as his weapon, his AC is exactly the same as the SAB's. Because shield-exclusive feats can work (defensively - you can't shield bash with an animated shield) on an Animated Shield, none of the OMGWTF benefits you can get from specifically using that style, save for attacks, apply. Compare these two fighters: Fighter A: +5 Mithral Full Plate Armor wth +5 in abilities (110000 GP) +5 Mithral Heavy Shield With Shield Spikes and Shield Ward that is also a +5 Magical Weapon and has +5 in abilities (301030 GP) +5 Weapon (Assume a Longsword for Simplicity) with +5 in abilities (200300) +5 Ring of Protection (50000 GP) +5 Amulet of Natural Armor (50000 GP) Assuming your armor is Full Plate for efficiency's sake, and that you had the max +2 DEX that Mithral Full Plate allows, that's 40AC right there. Respectable, especially if the magic weapon you're swinging has an enchantment like Defending, so you can push it higher still (to 45). However, the above costs a walloping 711330 GP, or close to 99% of a 20th level character's wealth to afford it. Let us compare now: Fighter B: +5 Mithral Full Plate Armor wth +5 in abilities (110000 GP) +5 Mithral Animated Heavy Shield (50020 GP) +5 Spiked Chain with +5 in abilities (200350) +5 Ring of Protection (50000 GP) +5 Amulet of Natural Armor (50000 GP) Now this is rather interesting. Assuming - again - the fighter has the same +2 Dex bonus to maximize the efficacy of Mithral Full Plate, this fighter has spent a meager 460370 GP, or roughly 59% of his wealth - and has the same damned AC. He has nearly 260000 left to blow on items, which can be spent on things to further boost both his offensive or defensive might, like a Belt of Giant Strength, something that boosts his CON, a Cloak of Displacement, Boots of Speed, or whatever else he wants for close to 260000 GP in cash. This is extremely relevant when you stack both up next to one another. If Fighter A wants something like a Belt of Giant Strength, he needs to sac items for it. cutting down his Longsword to a +6 (so it can have just defending but be +5) frees up over 120000, and doing similar with his shield (cutting it down to the point where it just has the +5 and Shield Ward) likewise frees up some cash (about another 50000) - but the total is notably less than Fighter B's nearly 260000 in reserve - more pressing when you consider that Fighter B's equipment isn't nearly as hamstrung as Fighter A - since Fighter B, with the exception of his shield, already has maxed-out equipment. Fighter B can literally afford to buy a Manual of Gainful Exercise +5 and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 and have over 90000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzLKKe6TzU) left over. If you really take this to its extreme and use a weak sword as a secondary to your Shield-o-Doom (tm), then you're not really getting any major benefits from two-weapon fighting, since you're front-loading damage onto the SHield and not the sword. Because of this, you would be better served not using the Shield as a Weapon in the first place, both because any decent weapon, maxed, out is greater in terms of both damage capacity and critical hit damage - and a hell of a lot less eggs in a basket if the weapon gets sundered. The added damage you're getting from TWF and a shield in this circumstance is negligable and doesn't serve much point if your secondary weapon is a piece of mung. This is not the case for a TWF, who will be using 2 strong weapons, and thus will be outdamaging you via sheer number of attacks, or a 2HWF, who is going to outdamage you immeasurably on a hit-by-hit basis - and far more when the economic issue is addressed. So it's not just economics. It's out-and-out damage potential as well. A Spiked Chain deals far higher damage per hit than a shield being used as a primary weapon, and criticals more often as part of the bargain. When weapon enchantments are factored in, and especially enhancement bonuses to strength, it becomes heavily lop-sided in the 2HWF's favor. Toss in the Feats, and the 2HWF is better, statstically, than the SAB in every measure other than number of attacks (and touch AC, but that's not exactly gigantic unless you're tripping over foes who are tossing Rays at you like they're tax-free candy or tripping over incorporeal foes or grab-happy enemies with a godless frequency - and the 2HWF can get to the same level with a little bit of toying around economically - hey, something I can blow some more of my 260000 on). This has been brought up throughout this thread, and you have yet to address this discrepancy in any real capacity beyond going "you're wrong" and then bringing in a lot of new facts which have already been patently proven false (like your claims on costs of the Cloak of Displacement/Animated Shield). Also, you're patently screwing your own numbers to display an SAB-favorable position, and have completely ignored every bit of math that has been posed to the contrary that SAB AC is better than other dedicated combat builds. This impervious-to-logic "GIVE ME NUMBERS" - whilst at the same time, ignoring them when they are given - is proving tiresome. Show that you're actually reading these posts and give a decent rebuttal, please. You're coming across as an A-1 lout. Addendum: Ael. Stop insulting people. It's doing nothing to help your case.
Sunic_Flames 05-26-08, 06:10 PM	Ok first, take that long hunk of near unreadable bold text and turn it into something that isn't near impossible to read. You want replies, you do this. I'm going to snag a few things out of it. If you want more points given attention, draw attention to them without obnoxious bold text, repetitive nonsense while accusing me of the same, and so forth. I recommend following my lead and using a nice neat numbered scheme, like so: 1: Lol at likening Wraithstrike to Pun-Pun. What, because it negates the only advantage you can be argued to have? Yes, let's ban anything that lets the enemies laugh at one's strengths. THF guy bans anything that ignores concealment, SAB bans anything that ignores AC. SAB guy has a longer list, proving he has more weaknesses and is therefore inferior. I still win. 2: Brilliant Energy is +4. Further, see how I said NPC weapon and you even quoted it? Yeah, that means the NPC guy uses it to attack an AC in the low to mid teens. Unless SAB guy became an undead or construct that aspect is completely irrelevant. Meanwhile THF guy still has greatly superior offense, as well as defensive measures that still work in the form of miss chances. 3: Druid's ACs had Scent. I was out of range of it. They were not clustered, in fact they were 20-25 feet away from each other, at least. Sculpt Spell doesn't give a damn. It still says at least 4 get affected with every casting. I get two a round. Hello, Quicken Spell. Further, the summons off fighting the thing were grappling and blood draining actually after a single attack. Meanwhile the enemy there would counter with a single attack, and so forth. As for my hiding, first they take two separate penalties to their Notice checks. One for hearing over battle, one for hearing while distracted (from being annihilated). There is also distance penalties. That 20 becomes more like 35. Now consider actual hiding... Not happening, even though Druids are quite good at anti stealth. Further, by the time they realized there was an invisible person there, the fight was mostly over as I already thought of this and played smart accordingly. I do not get why they didn't simply maul the invisible druid, who was directly in front of the dire tiger and near the two elementals, as they would have noticed the whole Heal every round on the Crusader thing. That part was bad tactics. But it also doesn't involve my character. 4: It doesn't matter if the Bodyguard can get to me or not. As long as he is within 110 feet of me, I can as a standard action switch places with him so that he's the one in front of the Lockdown enemy and I'm way over somewhere safe, and still have a move action. This isn't casting defensively, so Mage Slayer doesn't stop it. And unless I missed something, Thicket doesn't trigger on teleportation. Even if it does... Ok, AoO with low chance to do anything. At worst, I need to use a Swift action next round to heal the damage it did. Woo. Greater Healing, for the win. 5: That part of the conversation does not pertain to her henchman. It pertains to a PC SAB character, who would not be her henchman. Really, who wants to play a henchman? Seriously. It works for a cohort, since those are basically henchman anyways. And she has looked out for his effectiveness and efficiency. Why do you think he has an effective wealth of 250,000-275,000 instead of the standard 110,000 for a level 13? Another PC would have to win her over to convince her the risks outweigh the benefits by far. Certainly possible, but again irrelevant as there is no chance to craft stuff right now, meaning no evening out and spreading the wealth - something that benefits the other PCs a lot more than her. 6: That is not a melee problem, it is a sword and board problem. Other melees would be regarded as a threat and draw fire, at which point high defenses such as high Will saves to thwart the turn on your party tactic, DR to thwart the hit the thing with the other thing tactic, and healing on a hit to further undo damage taken. Whereas sword and board doesn't get such spells sent his way as he's not a threat, doesn't get attacked because he is not a threat, and therefore those measures mean nothing. He could just as easily have -3 Will saves, take 50 extra damage from every attack, and it would make no difference as nothing can be convinced to attack him. 7: I stopped reading when you declared his Strength 'pathetic'. Last I checked, 25 strength on a level 13 was actually fairly solid. Sure, template abuse could do more. But without that, very nice. Funny thing? A PC SAB couldn't do that. Well they could, but if they min/maxed their stats for str and con the fact they take 10 Int, and 6 Wis/Cha pretty much ensures they can't do jack outside of combat. And we've already covered in combat extensively. Meaning they likely don't start with 17s in both and drop accordingly in effectiveness. 8: GMW would only add more than +3 with a CL of 16th or better. Further, spec tree = rofl, 5 feats for 6 damage? Either you are very sadly misinformed, or you are joking because that is simply pathetic. 9: All the best buffs are self only, as everyone knows. Well, everyone but you apparently. So it's not a choice of uber buff on self vs uber buff on other that can inherently use it much better, it's a choice of uber buff on self vs crappy and likely redundant buff on another. And no, no size mods or Polymorph. If I included that, the numbers would increase drastically as well as allow many more attacks depending on form chosen. Though Polymorph is not self only, he would still probably lose or at least not gain Strength with such. He'd actually be worse off. 10: Quarterstaff does 36 minimum in the mage's hands, same setup as the 22 minimum damage punches. If you followed the context you should have known this. Others don't get to do it because guess what? Self only buffs. Further, I make one adjustment to 'Staff Guy' (actually Staff Girl) and her lowest save becomes as good as SAB guy's highest save. I remind you this means all her saves become at least +23. If you honestly believe that is pathetic I will slap you with a large trout. I am deliberately holding back a lot remember? SAB guy is the best he can be. Maxed potential. And if she's replacing him, what does she need DD levels for? Only reason they're on the cohort is so said cohort can protect her... normal defenses let her protect herself. 11: Facing optimization favors those capable of keeping up with it. That means the ones capable of more than they currently are due to the fact they're holding back. In other words, the casters. The more optimized foes get, the more tricks I have but haven't used yet come into play. I scale on par to, or better than the foes. SAB guy gets left behind early when he ceilings and dies. THF Crusader guy might keep up, or might die second. Druid will go third, because his player isn't as experienced as me so despite Druid roughly being equal to Artificer power wise, the lack of experience will get him. Artificer last. Though given the fact I have a higher belt in optimization fu than the DM, it's just as likely it comes out as SAB first, THF Crusader second, Druid and Artificer never. Either way, point made. 12: Way to ignore the parts that debunk your point with a 'back to the story' and another repetitive drone. :rolleyes: By the way, CR 20 creatures have on average 409 HP, max is 858. You are not doing anything meaningful unless you do insane amounts of damage, which only THF guy can do. Further, the only one that might actually stand there and fight you instead of using spells, SLAs, and so forth as you would expect from complex opponents at this level brute forces your AC for a 95% hit and eats you anyways. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm) It doesn't ignore concealment though. Of the other 8, your favorite one isn't going to melee, and therefore be tanked until after half the party or more has been SoDed/SoSed/etc, and even then it's not staying there. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#balor) See typical tactics. Another one is much the same. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#pitFiend) The other 6 are all dragons. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#chromaticDragons) Funny, that. Hmmm, looks like none of them need or can be 'tanked', however they can be killed just fine. Humanoid NPCs? Well I suppose if you're actually worried about that NPC Fighter 20 who is of course gear dependent but lacks said gear and therefore is completely trivial, go right ahead. The rest of the party will be fighting the Wizard 20 and Druid 20, because funny thing. They still have about the same save DCs and the same encounter ending spells. Oops! ...The Rogue 20 cries in the corner because everyone is immune to SA at this level. :/
aelryinth 05-26-08, 06:45 PM	Uber Charging situation. An Uber Charger THF should definitely rule this situation. We shall see. Lvl 20, our nameless AC 40 monster. +39 and 38 avg dmg. We assume a charge situation exists, and the monster is dumb enough to let it happen. Or perhaps the melee is smart enough to force it, regardless of what the monster wants. He activates his cloak, and charges on the succeeding round. BOOM. THF crosses the intervening space. No AOO because of the greater cloak. However, the monster can still have a ready action to receive his attack. Shock trooper means sack AC for dmg. THF goes -20 to his AC of 36. he makes his jump check, and will do 3:1 with his Power Attack, for +60, or 98 pts. As he hits 95% of the time, he does an avg of 93 dmg...which is almost exactly the same as his full attack action, incidentally. Before he lands the blow, the monster goes Power Attacking for 20, will auto-hit, and has a 50% miss chance. If we assume nameless monster is like a Greatsword guy, that's base 38 dmg, +40, for 78 dmg. 50% miss chance means, on average, GG takes 39 dmg. Now, the enemy gets a full attack. As the Charger still has his -20 to AC, the enemy rips on him at full power attack, +40 dmg each swing. Chance to hit the 14 AC (charge penalty, too) is automatic for every attack, he only has to cope with miss chance. Dmg is potentially 78 per swing, x4, 50% miss chance. THF guy takes another 156 dmg. he's sucking at 195/230 hp dmg. Quite literally, if his target has one more attack, he has a 50% chance of dying instantly. THF guy will then unleash a full attack action in response, or run/move. If he runs, the monster will follow to finish him. Note also that without his Cloak up, or if the monster has means to avoid it, he's taken 390 dmg back and is quite dead. A True Strike spell and a set spear could also doom him fast...a longspear set against him for double dmg is over 120 HP all by itself, more then likely... ============================== POunce. As illustrated above, Uber CHarger doesn't work anywhere near as well without pounce, or some really hefty Power Attack multipliers (Valorous weapons, FB PA bonuses) or being mounted and doing double dmg and more. Also note that the weapon itself is superfluous, as long as it can be wielded in two hands for maximum PA. A longsword works just as well. If we Pounce, things become much easier for the Uber Charger, as his 98 dmg gets modified by 275% (+2 charge bonus). That equates to roughly 265 dmg on the charge attack. With haste up, it's 370%, or 360ish dmg. With a valorous weapon doubling all dmg, double all dmg numbers above. Yes, at level 20, with no tricks, an Uber Charger one rounds his opposition. There is no contest. It's win init, or die. Which is the reason why many DM's don't allow pounce or valorous! The 'instinctive' defense against it for monsters is a miss chance, which of course many Uber Chargers design around in their builds. Delivering FA's to something you can't hit is silly. And 50% of 720 dmg is 360 dmg, which still leaves a dent, even if the DM lets it fly, and will instantly kill virtually any PC in the game. A Mounted cavalier with a multiplier of x3, 4 or even 5 can easily break 1800 dmg and kill a Great Wyrm instantly. Thus, NPC's should always have this tactic available to them. There is literally nothing special about this build. Pounce, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Valorous Weapon. The enemy is done, and that includes PC's. ------------------------------------- You have only two real defenses against it. Something to overcome the lack of AoO's will be essential at high level, and should be a standard part of a melee character's package. True Sight, Blind Sight, or Pierce Magical Concealment all work. Once you don't have to worry about AoO avoidance, even Awesome Blow knocking the character away does the job. Knockback would do the job as well. Note that the Uber Charger will have miss chance avoidance part of their setup. So should defenders. I.e. Miss Chance shouldn't be workign often at high levels against smart opponents. First, a Ready Action to stop them before they can complete the Charge. This requires Hold the Line and Stand Still. The Charge stalls before it can complete. The last thing is an AC so high that the incoming attack misses regardless. You'd need to hit an AC of 61 ideally, and reduce the chance to hit to 5% for all attacks. An SAB can do this a base AC of 49, Full Defense for +8 to AC, and +5 from Expertise, for an AC of 62. The Uber Charger can only hit him on a natural 20. If his AC is 3 higher, he can do it with defensive fighting, and with a mere -9 to his TH, spear the THF guy on the attack for damage, and he will hit. 98 dmg at 5/5/5/5/5 is 25% x 2 would be ~ 49. Note that if it actually lands, it's going to be 196, but this is a DOT calculation. On average, if the Uber Charger can charge every round, he'll hit the SAB guy one round in 4. SAB guy will likely last longer then a Great Wyrm will. :o SAb guy should make it his job to turtle and get in the Charger's way. The Charger cannot get past him without doing a Bull Rush, which neutralizes his charge for dmg (they are seperate actions). This will stop the Charger and buy time for the rest of the party. Steadfast boots mean that personally any time he is charged, he is readied. Being readied allows a 5' step. In most circumstances, this will neutralize Reach advantages, you'll avoid the AoO, and the Charge still stops. It also allows you to instantly enter Turtle mode if you need to. If he actually takes a Ready action, one of the best things he can do is to take an Improved Bull's Rush, and counter-charge. Not only does this stop the charge well away from his team-mates, it destroys the whole charge if he wins the opposed strength check, even if he's the target! (note, Imp. Bull Rush grants +4 only if you are attack with a Bull Rush, not defending. A Shield Charge would pile a trip Attempt on top of this.). By Pushing the Attacker backwards, you destroy the charge movement entirely. If you can alter the course of the charge, then it's also rendered useless, as it can't complete. ================ The typical counterargument now is how to counter Rage+Frenzy. Note that Supreme Power Attack is complete Overkill at this point...any normal charge attack that hits will succeed in killing the foe, even at Epic Levels (Epic Level Power attacks could be fun). Miss Chance is going to be circumvented somehow, or enemies die. That includes Enemies of NPC chargers. No, the power of a FB Uber Charger build is the effective +16 or so to Strength they get. This is a +8 Bonus to hit! Reaching a 69 AC to minimize this is very definitely not easy. However, this is counter-balanced by the sheer unplayability of the FB in about any normal campaign. At level 20, the fame of the PC's should mean that frenzies get wasted before any combat shows, and the FB should be forced to going Frenzy among the party members, not the NPC's. However, the PC's had best plan for a FB uber charger, as any decent FB should be built this way, with the potential to wipe anyone charged with no recourse. A pure Barbarian build is +4 to hit with Supreme Rage at +8 to Str. This means hitting a 65AC. A Fighter/18 barb/2 gets +2 to hit from normal rage, a 10/10 would get +3. The natural response to this is to ask the DM if Expertise is capped at +5. Most will look at the evolution of the game, and raise it, and the AC problem is handled in both circumstances. Otherwise, you're looking at finding 50K for another +5 AC from insight, luck, sacred, or something (Note that +1 of each luck, sacred, insight, profane and competence AC bonuses is only 10k by the rules...). Once you've taken the Charge, you are obligated to keep the Charger there. This can be difficult with the mobility tactics of a high level party, but the best solution is simply Stand Still with Thicket if he tries to move away. The combination of Four feats (Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, martial Study, martial stance) is hard to beat in utility, and will likely be found in almost every high level melee build. Likewise, the three Uber CHarger feats should be found in any high level melee build. Pounce might be conditional, and so might Valorous. but if all are allowed, they should be in any build. Note that even one-handed, the Uber Charger feats are good. This is because hit rate remains high high high. Once you start taking penalties TH, the usefulness of Uber Charger drops like a stone. A TWF uber charging does about the same dmg as a THF, if he has Pounce. The plethora of 2x PA at full hit chances is monstrous damage. The SAB I've been using would be doing 370% of base 65 dmg + 215% of 58 dmg, or about 373 pts, before Valorous, and whatnot (actually slightly higher then THF...stacking Power Attacks is fun!) ------------------------- I expect that, in most normal campaigns, Shock trooper is either disallowed, or the feed AC to PA is eliminated or tightly restricted, for reasons of game balance. It distinctly overpowers charge against ability to receive a charge. Too, the Valorous enchantment is a player driven +1 enhancement that can reap wonderful benefits. There is no magic to counteract it, the closest being Steadfast boots, and getting charged is dependent upon the DM, not upon the PC, so the benefit is distinctly lopsided. It should have been a fixed amount of dmg not subject to multipliers, possibly like a Bane. tied to Uber Charger, Pounce becomes a supremely overpowered ability. Note that without Pounce, Uber Chargers can with one blow deal a blow likely equal to their full attack. Of the two, I see Shock trooper as the one more likely to be dismissed, although FB abuse could see it from both directions. Unless you build very specifically to be ready for an Uber Charger, you are dead. No casual defense exists against it, be it miss chance or a reasonable AC. He who goes last, dies. Perfect CharOps character build. And only requires 4 feats you can get by level 6. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 07:17 PM	QUOTE=Jaimas By the flying spaghetti monster, enough bold-faced text, Ael. Any more and I will unleash a Black Rabite. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/mavken/lapinnoir.gif Anyway. You want numbers? Fine. Let's do this. First, you dismissed the Cloak of Displacement as "the same cost as a +5 shield," when it isn't. It's over 1000 GP less, and this isn't factoring in that you'd be having to grab Shield Ward as part of the bargain. You are INCORRECT. Sunic is Using a MAJOR CLOAK of displacement. Cost is 72k. That's exactly equal to a +8 Weapon + Cloak = a +10 Weapon. We are at equals. In my math above, I gave him a +5 Shadowstriking Collision weapon, = +8, to show his dmg advantage. In reality, it would likely be valorous to max out his Charges, if the DM allowed it. Furthermore, he's assuming he ALWAYS has his 15 rds of Total Concealment available for the length of any conflict, including suprise rounds, etc. Unlike a Shield, that's not possible, but I let it pass. Would you prefer italics? I take too much time to hunt down quotes, and italics is harder to read. You're equally wrong on cost. A Fully-tricked out Shield/Weapon combination is well over 300000. A +5 Animated Shield is a little over 50000, and that's assuming it's made out of Mithral. Net savings to 2HWFs: 50000 GP. Sigh again. Uber shield is +6/+6. IDeal Uber shield is 300k. Uber Shield is 108K. Will you PLEASE follow the math? and by the beginning strictures of this contest, Animated Shields are not Allowed. If they are, what you have are SAB guys wielding THW...obviously, Shield AC is very important if they choose to do this. That said, there is - literally - nothing that the SAB build has, other than number of attacks, over the 2HWF. Assuming equal economics, the 200000 that the 2HWF saves by not integrating his shield as a weapon in and of itself pays for a +5 Animated Shield and leaves him with over 150000 GP in reserve, allowing him to basically soak the cost of getting basically any high-value enchantment on his armor - or freeing up cash that he can blow on things like a Belt of Giant Strength, Boots of Striding and Springing, and anything else he wants. You're frankly out of your gourd if you are not seeing how that much extra cash saves your ass. You are invading the cycle of repetition. Please note all these arguments are circular. You first made an error of presumption that my gold is off...it isn't...and that I didn't count animated shields...and I did. Please do not make such assumptions. If you assume there's a problem, ask a question and get it clarified. I've clarified this piont probably Five or more times now. Yeah, the 2HWF has less attacks. This is true. But with an Animated Shield that isn't acting as his weapon, his AC is exactly the same as the SAB's. Because shield-exclusive feats can work (defensively - you can't shield bash with an animated shield) on an Animated Shield, none of the OMGWTF benefits you can get from specifically using that style, save for attacks, apply. Compare these two fighters: Fighter A: +5 Mithral Full Plate Armor wth +5 in abilities (110000 GP) +5 Mithral Heavy Shield With Shield Spikes and Shield Ward that is also a +5 Magical Weapon and has +5 in abilities (301030 GP) +5 Weapon (Assume a Longsword for Simplicity) with +5 in abilities (200300) +5 Ring of Protection (50000 GP) +5 Amulet of Natural Armor (50000 GP) Assuming your armor is Full Plate for efficiency's sake, and that you had the max +2 DEX that Mithral Full Plate allows, that's 40AC right there. Respectable, especially if the magic weapon you're swinging has an enchantment like Defending, so you can push it higher still (to 45). However, the above costs a walloping 711330 GP, or close to 99% of a 20th level character's wealth to afford it. All of which, taken into account prior...so what IS your point, except to shoot at a target that isn't there? Let us compare now: Fighter B: +5 Mithral Full Plate Armor wth +5 in abilities (110000 GP) +5 Mithral Animated Heavy Shield (50020 GP) +5 Spiked Chain with +5 in abilities (200350) +5 Ring of Protection (50000 GP) +5 Amulet of Natural Armor (50000 GP) Now this is rather interesting. Assuming - again - the fighter has the same +2 Dex bonus to maximize the efficacy of Mithral Full Plate, this fighter has spent a meager 460370 GP, or roughly 59% of his wealth - and has the same damned AC. He has nearly 260000 left to blow on items, which can be spent on things to further boost both his offensive or defensive might, like a Belt of Giant Strength, something that boosts his CON, a Cloak of Displacement, Boots of Speed, or whatever else he wants for close to 260000 GP in cash. See above. This is extremely relevant when you stack both up next to one another. If Fighter A wants something like a Belt of Giant Strength, he needs to sac items for it. cutting down his Longsword to a +6 (so it can have just defending but be +5) frees up over 120000, and doing similar with his shield (cutting it down to the point where it just has the +5 and Shield Ward) likewise frees up some cash (about another 50000) - but the total is notably less than Fighter B's nearly 260000 in reserve - more pressing when you consider that Fighter B's equipment isn't nearly as hamstrung as Fighter A - since Fighter B, with the exception of his shield, already has maxed-out equipment. Fighter B can literally afford to buy a Manual of Gainful Exercise +5 and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 and have over 90000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzLKKe6TzU) left over. See above. If you really take this to its extreme and use a weak sword as a secondary to your Shield-o-Doom (tm), then you're not really getting any major benefits from two-weapon fighting, since you're front-loading damage onto the SHield and not the sword. Because of this, you would be better served not using the Shield as a Weapon in the first place, both because any decent weapon, maxed, out is greater in terms of both damage capacity and critical hit damage - and a hell of a lot less eggs in a basket if the weapon gets sundered. The added damage you're getting from TWF and a shield in this circumstance is negligable and doesn't serve much point if your secondary weapon is a piece of mung. See above. This is not the case for a TWF, who will be using 2 strong weapons, and thus will be outdamaging you via sheer number of attacks, or a 2HWF, who is going to outdamage you immeasurably on a hit-by-hit basis - and far more when the economic issue is addressed. See above. So it's not just economics. It's out-and-out damage potential as well. A Spiked Chain deals far higher damage per hit than a shield being used as a primary weapon, and criticals more often as part of the bargain. When weapon enchantments are factored in, and especially enhancement bonuses to strength, it becomes heavily lop-sided in the 2HWF's favor. See above. Toss in the Feats, and the 2HWF is better, statstically, than the SAB in every measure other than number of attacks (and touch AC, but that's not exactly gigantic unless you're tripping over foes who are tossing Rays at you like they're tax-free candy or tripping over incorporeal foes or grab-happy enemies with a godless frequency - and the 2HWF can get to the same level with a little bit of toying around economically - hey, something I can blow some more of my 260000 on). See ab-whoa. You do know, you're arguinig the exact opposite of what Sunic is. his argument is AC is irrelevant because fo ways to avoid it, especially Touch Attacks, being ALL OVER the place. You're arguing they aren't anywhere near as frequent. Confer with Sunic on which is actually true. In the meantime, I'll keep my great touch AC, thanks. This has been brought up throughout this thread, and you have yet to address this discrepancy in any real capacity beyond going "you're wrong" and then bringing in a lot of new facts which have already been patently proven false (like your claims on costs of the Cloak of Displacement/Animated Shield). Also, you're patently screwing your own numbers to display an SAB-favorable position, and have completely ignored every bit of math that has been posed to the contrary that SAB AC is better than other dedicated combat builds. See above. This impervious-to-logic "GIVE ME NUMBERS" - whilst at the same time, ignoring them when they are given - is proving tiresome. Show that you're actually reading these posts and give a decent rebuttal, please. You're coming across as an A-1 lout. Sunic never gives numbers. Therefore, he has no logic, because he has no numeric foundation. You've repeatedly addressed a point I disposed of five pages ago. Just how dumb do you think I am at this? Let me reiterate my point on the shield, since you seem to have avoided the multiple posts where I have done it before. First, if Animated Shields are allowed, go somewhere else. Animated Shields turn THW guys into SAB guys. Have your cake and eat it too. Shield AC IS important...how rapidly they grab the Animated Shields shows that. Few DM"s allow them, including WoTC's DM's. Ditto Improved buckler defense. Ergo, don't bring them up. We're talking realism, not CharOps. If you want CharOps cheese, then go Animated all the way and leave the thread. I'm not here to talk about animated shields. Both Fighters have EXACTLY the same gear. The ONLY difference is their weapons and Shield/Cloak. 200K of gear. THF guy has +8 weapon, Major Cloak for the 50% miss chance (the 20% performs so poorly he HAS to use major). TWF guy will have 2 +7 Weapons, 198k. SAB guy has +7 weapon + +6/+6 shield, 208K (minor difference). SAB guy can pump 200K into his shield if he likes. IF he does, he needs to take Ancestral Relic to chop the cost in half. If not, wait til next level, and 200K is pocket change at Epic. There IS no gold Problem. Feats: Everyone has Power Attack. THW guy has Cleave, SHock Trooper, Leap Attack = Uber Charge. TWF guy has 3 MWF feats. SAB guy has 3 shield feats. There IS no feat advantage. There are only choices to be made from here. SAB and TWF guy can become the Same Guy. SAB and Uber Charge guy can become the same guy. It's now a design/build choice. THW guy is not going to become SAB Guy. TWF guy is not going to become SAB guy, but can become Uber Charger guy. THW guy is not going to become TWF guy. Addendum: Ael. Stop insulting people. It's doing nothing to help your case. Addendum 2: Quit repeating points addressed multiple times, take a deep breath, and actually read what I've posted. I can see you're trying to be civil, but I can take your post as a direct insult to my intelligence. Unlike Sunic, I don't believe you are delibrately trying to bait me. And I post in bold so people can see my response. I'm answering three people, you're just answering me. Whatever saves time. If you want to PROVE your points are true, you need proof, not just opinions and words. This is what Sunic is attempting to do...he actively avoids posting any numbers whatsoever. I don't think he can. You at least tried with the gold. However, your point was addressed a long time ago. If you need clarity about the parameters I'm posting under because you don't want to read backwards, then ASK. Otherwise, you're just repeating stuff, and it gets tiresome. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-26-08, 07:42 PM	QUOTE=Sunic_Flames Ok first, take that long hunk of near unreadable bold text and turn it into something that isn't near impossible to read. You want replies, you do this. I reply in bold. It's easier to read then italics. It allows people to see WHAT I'm replying to, and for me to keep my answers straight becasue i'm replying to more then one person. I'm going to snag a few things out of it. If you want more points given attention, draw attention to them without obnoxious bold text, repetitive nonsense while accusing me of the same, and so forth. I recommend following my lead and using a nice neat numbered scheme, like so: As I've noted elsewhere, 'nabbing' numbers just makes people lose track of what you are replying to, and confuses the issue. You do this multiple times. That's why I dont' do it anymore. 1: Lol at likening Wraithstrike to Pun-Pun. What, because it negates the only advantage you can be argued to have? Yes, let's ban anything that lets the enemies laugh at one's strengths. THF guy bans anything that ignores concealment, SAB bans anything that ignores AC. SAB guy has a longer list, proving he has more weaknesses and is therefore inferior. I still win. Go walk over to the CHarOps board. mention Wraithstrike. listen to the laughter. Nobody uses Wraithstrke to justify ANYTHING. That you are doing so shows something of the strength of your argument. 2: Brilliant Energy is +4. Further, see how I said NPC weapon and you even quoted it? Yeah, that means the NPC guy uses it to attack an AC in the low to mid teens. Unless SAB guy became an undead or construct that aspect is completely irrelevant. Meanwhile THF guy still has greatly superior offense, as well as defensive measures that still work in the form of miss chances. Ah, +4. NPC preferred weapon, i.e. it's a PC killer. SAB drops his shield, goes TH, and does 2.5 dmg less then your guy. Yeah, you've got a big advantage, all right. Go over on the CO board, mention Brilliant weapons. hear the laughter. Relying on them for your argument shows something of the strength of it. 3: Druid's ACs had Scent. I was out of range of it. They were not clustered, in fact they were 20-25 feet away from each other, at least. Sculpt Spell doesn't give a damn. It still says at least 4 get affected with every casting. I get two a round. Hello, Quicken Spell. Further, the summons off fighting the thing were grappling and blood draining actually after a single attack. Meanwhile the enemy there would counter with a single attack, and so forth. As for my hiding, first they take two separate penalties to their Notice checks. One for hearing over battle, one for hearing while distracted (from being annihilated). There is also distance penalties. That 20 becomes more like 35. Now consider actual hiding... Not happening, even though Druids are quite good at anti stealth. Further, by the time they realized there was an invisible person there, the fight was mostly over as I already thought of this and played smart accordingly. Sounds like tactics and you caught them in AoE's, i.e. too close. C'est la vie. I do not get why they didn't simply maul the invisible druid, who was directly in front of the dire tiger and near the two elementals, as they would have noticed the whole Heal every round on the Crusader thing. That part was bad tactics. But it also doesn't involve my character. C'est la vie. 4: It doesn't matter if the Bodyguard can get to me or not. As long as he is within 110 feet of me, I can as a standard action switch places with him so that he's the one in front of the Lockdown enemy and I'm way over somewhere safe, and still have a move action. This isn't casting defensively, so Mage Slayer doesn't stop it. And unless I missed something, Thicket doesn't trigger on teleportation. Even if it does... Ok, AoO with low chance to do anything. At worst, I need to use a Swift action next round to heal the damage it did. Woo. Greater Healing, for the win. If it's teleport, that's a mobility issue. On the CO board, every mage has Greater Anticipate Teleport up to catch enemies who try this. But, C'est la vie. 5: That part of the conversation does not pertain to her henchman. It pertains to a PC SAB character, who would not be her henchman. Really, who wants to play a henchman? Seriously. It works for a cohort, since those are basically henchman anyways. And she has looked out for his effectiveness and efficiency. Why do you think he has an effective wealth of 250,000-275,000 instead of the standard 110,000 for a level 13? He's a level 13 with a 16 BAB? And we've already talked about his crappy build for a melee. You need to post builds and numbers or just drop this. Another PC would have to win her over to convince her the risks outweigh the benefits by far. Certainly possible, but again irrelevant as there is no chance to craft stuff right now, meaning no evening out and spreading the wealth - something that benefits the other PCs a lot more than her. C'est la vie. 6: That is not a melee problem, it is a sword and board problem. Other melees would be regarded as a threat and draw fire, at which point high defenses such as high Will saves to thwart the turn on your party tactic, DR to thwart the hit the thing with the other thing tactic, and healing on a hit to further undo damage taken. Whereas sword and board doesn't get such spells sent his way as he's not a threat, doesn't get attacked because he is not a threat, and therefore those measures mean nothing. He could just as easily have -3 Will saves, take 50 extra damage from every attack, and it would make no difference as nothing can be convinced to attack him. Which is who's problem, yours or the DM's? My SAB build is very definitely a threat. your henchman is a mook, that's all. I'd ignore him, too. 7: I stopped reading when you declared his Strength 'pathetic'. Last I checked, 25 strength on a level 13 was actually fairly solid. Sure, template abuse could do more. But without that, very nice. Funny thing? A PC SAB couldn't do that. Well they could, but if they min/maxed their stats for str and con the fact they take 10 Int, and 6 Wis/Cha pretty much ensures they can't do jack outside of combat. And we've already covered in combat extensively. Meaning they likely don't start with 17s in both and drop accordingly in effectiveness. You have a 25 str, which is +7 dmg. You do +9 dmg max. that means your weapon is +2. And you've no extra dmg from outside sources. Pathetic. And now he's 13th, not 15th (as required by the BAB's you've posted). Dude, seriously, just post the build and let us LOOK at the guy. Otherwise, you're just swirling smoke. 8: GMW would only add more than +3 with a CL of 16th or better. Further, spec tree = rofl, 5 feats for 6 damage? Either you are very sadly misinformed, or you are joking because that is simply pathetic. You keep throwing out 15 and 16 BAB, ergo the party level has to be that much. CL increases are cheap and easy. Do I know the levels of everyone in the party? WHy no...because you don't post them and their stats. Do you take everyone reading this for a mind-reader? 9: All the best buffs are self only, as everyone knows. Well, everyone but you apparently. So it's not a choice of uber buff on self vs uber buff on other that can inherently use it much better, it's a choice of uber buff on self vs crappy and likely redundant buff on another. And no, no size mods or Polymorph. If I included that, the numbers would increase drastically as well as allow many more attacks depending on form chosen. Though Polymorph is not self only, he would still probably lose or at least not gain Strength with such. He'd actually be worse off. Then post what you are doing, and let us laugh at the wasted buffs, and what your DM is letting you get away with. 10: Quarterstaff does 36 minimum in the mage's hands, same setup as the 22 minimum damage punches. If you followed the context you should have known this. Others don't get to do it because guess what? Self only buffs. Further, I make one adjustment to 'Staff Guy' (actually Staff Girl) and her lowest save becomes as good as SAB guy's highest save. I remind you this means all her saves become at least +23. If you honestly believe that is pathetic I will slap you with a large trout. I am deliberately holding back a lot remember? SAB guy is the best he can be. Maxed potential. And if she's replacing him, what does she need DD levels for? Only reason they're on the cohort is so said cohort can protect her... normal defenses let her protect herself. Statement of Dmg. Nothing to back it up. Irrelevant. My SAB guy does 80 dmg per attack!!!! Oh, no he doesn't, because you can see exactly where his dmg comes from. Odd, that. Numbers, context, source, or go home. 11: Facing optimization favors those capable of keeping up with it. That means the ones capable of more than they currently are due to the fact they're holding back. In other words, the casters. The more optimized foes get, the more tricks I have but haven't used yet come into play. I scale on par to, or better than the foes. SAB guy gets left behind early when he ceilings and dies. THF Crusader guy might keep up, or might die second. Druid will go third, because his player isn't as experienced as me so despite Druid roughly being equal to Artificer power wise, the lack of experience will get him. Artificer last. Though given the fact I have a higher belt in optimization fu than the DM, it's just as likely it comes out as SAB first, THF Crusader second, Druid and Artificer never. Either way, point made. Sums up the CharOps position nicely, thank you, but I already knew it. Doesn't make it true all the time. It makes it true situationally. 12: Way to ignore the parts that debunk your point with a 'back to the story' and another repetitive drone. :rolleyes: Which you again fail toa ddress. By the way, CR 20 creatures have on average 409 HP, max is 858. You are not doing anything meaningful unless you do insane amounts of damage, which only THF guy can do. Further, the only one that might actually stand there and fight you instead of using spells, SLAs, and so forth as you would expect from complex opponents at this level brute forces your AC for a 95% hit and eats you anyways. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm) It doesn't ignore concealment though. Average CR 20 creature? Balors and Pit fiends are both way under that. Tarrasque is unique. Are you counting each great wyrm seperately? Context. The tarrasque also Power Attacks all the time, which means he misses me, and I can turtle. On his second swing, he swallows you, and you're toast. How am I doing? Love those opinionis with no numbers and references, right? Of the other 8, your favorite one isn't going to melee, and therefore be tanked until after half the party or more has been SoDed/SoSed/etc, and even then it's not staying there. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#balor) See typical tactics. again, you avoid the subject. It's your job as a melee to MAKE him melee. If he doesn't like it, tough crap. Another one is much the same. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#pitFiend) The other 6 are all dragons. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#chromaticDragons) Funny, that. I.e you've got 4 criters so far...dragons, two fiends, unique monster. The rest are just elevated HD of normal monsters. If you want to see a monster, then name a monster. I also notice you were quite selective about picking the one monster that doesn't ignore your miss chance, whereas all the others do...but I was still giving you the miss chance in my examples. Too generous, I know. And his blindfighting skill means your total concealment is effectively 25%, and default is 10%, because he rolls miss chances twice. He can also Power Attack you for 15 and hit you every single time. If he tries that with SAB, SAB turtles and he misses all the time. And I can still put down the shield adn do 2.5 less dmg if raw dmg output is all that is required. Probably do just as well bashing, however. Numbers, man. You are smashing into the brick wall of numbers. Hmmm, looks like none of them need or can be 'tanked', however they can be killed just fine. Humanoid NPCs? Well I suppose if you're actually worried about that NPC Fighter 20 who is of course gear dependent but lacks said gear and therefore is completely trivial, go right ahead. CO rules gear unimportant, remember? Just NPC him a CO build and you die. Gear doesn't mean anything. Very bad argument...and no numbers. The rest of the party will be fighting the Wizard 20 and Druid 20, because funny thing. They still have about the same save DCs and the same encounter ending spells. Oops! Good for them. The uber charging NPC f/20 will one shot either of them. Win init or die. ...The Rogue 20 cries in the corner because everyone is immune to SA at this level. :/ If they rely on concealment, he can get around that. If they rely on fortification, he'll have to go AntiMagic or dispelling. Either way, he has options. And I find it interesting how you give people defenses when its convenient, and strip them when you don't want them, without giving the option to overcome them. Overcoming Defenses is part of Optimizing. and you still gave out nothing. ==Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-26-08, 07:59 PM	I'm going to correct some of your mistaken assumptions, Ael. Shock trooper means sack AC for dmg. THF goes -20 to his AC of 36. he makes his jump check, and will do 3:1 with his Power Attack, for +60, or 98 pts. Leap Attack alone makes it more than 3:1 when using a 2HW, and it is easy to get additional returns. Also, where is your 98 coming from. What weapon, what Str? You provide no source for anything here. As he hits 95% of the time, he does an avg of 93 dmg... No, he either hits for his average damage with a single attack or he misses. There is no way to average the two into any kind of meaningful model. Before he lands the blow, the monster goes Power Attacking for 20, will auto-hit, and has a 50% miss chance. If we assume nameless monster is like a Greatsword guy, that's base 38 dmg Average. You're mixing things up again. 50% miss chance means, on average, GG takes 39 dmg. Again, wrong. 50% of the time he takes full damage on a readied action IF one is prepared (meaning the enemy did nothing to the rest of the party and the Charger can make him waste a full turn by not actually charging) and the character is stupid enough to be charging without reach when he also lacks pounce or a free/swift/immediate escape option, 50% of the time he takes 0. The outcome affects what happens later, and cannot be averaged into a meaningful model. Even this charger, who is the worst specialized charger I have ever seen, you modeled incorrectly. As illustrated above, Uber CHarger doesn't work anywhere near as well without pounce, or some really hefty Power Attack multipliers (Valorous weapons, FB PA bonuses) or being mounted and doing double dmg and more. Really? Something works better when you do it right? I never would have guessed... :rolleyes: as his 98 dmg gets modified by 275% (+2 charge bonus). Numbers from nowhere again. You assume earlier that the poorly built charger misses only on a 1. It's then, I think, fair to assume that you assigned him a hit of 39 after all bonuses (+20 BAB, +5 weapon, +2 Charge, +2 Rage, +10 others). A well built charger, by compare, can do better easily, and I'll say he has +15 (5 more) from others, giving a 44 total bonus. So he hits first attack 95% of the time, second attack 95% of the time, third attack 85% of the time, and his fourth attack 73% of the time. This means, just adding pounce alone and not additional multiples, he's doing, on average, 348% of the damage as the poor charger, or 348 (yes, I'm using your too low Leap Attack number, because it's still enough) damage. With haste up, it's 370%, or 360ish dmg. Haste adds another attack with 95% accuracy, making it 443% even without adding but pounce and haste (and using too low a return on PA). For 434 damage. Yes, at level 20, with no tricks, an Uber Charger one rounds his opposition. There is no contest. It's win init, or die. So stop contesting it. Which is the reason why many DM's don't allow pounce or valorous! So? In THOSE games it's not allowed, but just because one option isn't available, doesn't mean other options are better. Besides, do you know how many ways there are to get Pounce and how many monsters rely on it to be a threat at the appropriate CR? First, a Ready Action to stop them before they can complete the Charge. If the NPC is stupid enough to ready an action for a charge that might come from one enemy out of the 5 he's facing, it doesn't take much for even the stupidest fighter not to run himself into a spear (unless he's a FB, then he'd have to). Even if the PC charges, he'd be an idiot if he wasn't using a reach weapon and size increases to guarantee that no AoO or readied action can even be used. You'd need to hit an AC of 61 ideally, and reduce the chance to hit to 5% for all attacks. 61 is a pretty low goal for a well built charger, even without pulling out actual tricks. The Uber Charger can only hit him on a natural 20. Actually, a real 'Uber' Charger can get to hit bonuses above 80-90, so a 61 ac is still a 95% chance of success. Get your SAB AC up to 110 then come back to this. Also, even for a less well built Charger, it doesn't take hardly anything to hit a touch attack to sunder your shield or trip you, and with the bonuses any good charger is using (size, massive Str, etc), you will lose the trip and your shield will be gone. SAb guy should make it his job to turtle and get in the Charger's way. The Charger cannot get past him without doing a Bull Rush, which neutralizes his charge for dmg (they are seperate actions). This will stop the Charger and buy time for the rest of the party. There are plenty of ways to get past him without a Bull Rush, just not as part of a charge. And guess what, in a true party scenario, a Large or Huge charger with reach and a readied action is a much better roadblock than a M SAB turtler. Being readied allows a 5' step Wrong. You can't make a 5' step as part of a readied action. A readied action allows only a standard action or move action. A 5' step must be made on your own turn. Miss Chance is going to be circumvented somehow, or enemies die. That includes Enemies of NPC chargers. NPC chargers are a joke. They can't get past anyone readying an action to stop them, regardless of who's doing it, they can't even get past reach or half a caster's arsenal. Your 'Death to NPC Charger' line is a blatant overstatement. Now, if you're talking about a SQUAD of chargers or ambushers, that's totally different and a situation in which the PCs are at a disadvantage no matter what as long the NPCs are played intelligently. No, the power of a FB Uber Charger build is the effective +16 or so to Strength they get. No, it's in the PA returns, the ability to never die, and Supreme Cleave. The massive Str is equal to each of these, but does not overshadow all of them together. the sheer unplayability of the FB in about any normal campaign. Only if you and your party members are complete idiots. FBs can actually be played very well, and the rest of the party can easily set up contingencies for any 'accidental' or overlong frenzies. The natural response to this is to ask the DM if Expertise is capped at +5. So the only way to make something effective is with a houserule? Oh, but also only if you have houserules to make the other option less effective? How do you justify to yourself your continued lack of a cessation to your speech??? I expect that, in most normal campaigns, Shock trooper is either disallowed, or the feed AC to PA is eliminated or tightly restricted, for reasons of game balance. I strongly suspect you have no statistical basis for this hogwash. Yet you cling to the 'modifications' you think a 'normal' campaign would use as your justification on balance over the game as whole? Do you still not see how foolish this is? It should have been a fixed amount of dmg not subject to multipliers, possibly like a Bane. And Barbarians should have gotten the ability to shoot lightning out their arses at level 14. But it didn't happen. Unless you build very specifically to be ready for an Uber Charger, you are dead. One on one? As a NPC? In an arena? Yes. As a party? 4/5/6 on one? As a group of PCs taking out an NPC? Not in the least. In this case, your own Charger with modified tactics (but not build, gear, or motivations) is actually the best line of defense. In short... Your arguments are so full of holes and misconceptions, that even actually addressing your point is difficult. Drop all your houserule 'normal campaign' crap, go by what's in the books, and maybe then you'll understand why, years ago, everyone else reached the conclusion you still fail to see.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-26-08, 08:14 PM	I'm confused. You're the one obfuscating stuff. I'm just doing math. ===AelryinthNobody cares about your houserules, dude. Folks are here to discuss D&D, which comes with its own ruleset that is the same for everyone. Saying crap likeThe natural response to this is to ask the DM if Expertise is capped at +5. Most will look at the evolution of the game, and raise it, and the AC problem is handled in both circumstances.I expect that, in most normal campaigns, Shock trooper is either disallowed, or the feed AC to PA is eliminated or tightly restricted, for reasons of game balance.Brilliant Energy discriminates against all wearers of any armor, and don't even bring up Wraithstrike. You may as well be arguing Pun Pun.I consider Armor spikes to probably be heavy weapons (armor certainly isn't light!).is very much attempting to obfuscate and confuse the issue, because you're trying to shift the argument away from Dungeons & Dragons and into Aelryinth's Sword & Board Party Hour, where S&B rules the day because you consistently beef up S&B and nerf other weapon user options. When you deliberately misread things (I'm going to assume this exchange: The Crusader isn't SAB. Not even an Animated shield or IBD. He had a +4 shield bonus via other means.You just said he had an animated shield?!? That's a shield+Weapon, which is the definition of sword and board.is a deliberate misread because the only other viable alternative is that you're illiterate), you don't help the clarity issue. Your prattling on about options is bunk meant to obfuscate, too. For example, this: Feats to take. Well, we have 18 to play with. Weapon Focus/Spec, Melee Weapon Mastery *** Shield Spec/Ward/Improved Shield Bash. Choose Shield, SPikes or Razors for your shield, whatever will match your Melee weapon Mastery. Power Attack. Expertise. Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack. Mobility is excellent for springing AoO's from enemies. Spring Attack gives you a hit and run option. We're up to 11 feats. Seven more to play with. 1) See if your DM allows the Halfweight Armor enhancement. this allows a heavy shield to count as small, and thus a light weapon in your off hand. This brings your TWF penalty down to -2 without blowing a feat on it. If not, you can either get Agile Shield Fighter as a feat, or use a Light Shield instead of a Heavy. -1 AC and Bash/spike dmg is one step lower for a Light Shield. 2) Combat Focus tree option: Focus, Healing, and Resist Special Manuvers. If you get Elusive Target, swap in the one that allows you to change your Dodge Target. Takes care of will save, healing, and people playing combat tricks on you. Note, if you take the COmbat Focus tree, you should take at least 3 of them for the improved abilities. 3) Uber Charge Tree: Cleave, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack. There, you can uber Charge. Put Valorous on your weapon and go to town. 4) Elusive Target: Immunity to Power Attack and getting enemies to hit one another with Dodge. You have Expertise, why not compound your annoyance factor to your enemies? 5) Stand Still, (Combat Reflexes), Martial Stance (Thicket of Blades). This is battlefield control. It's not as good without reach, but it does prevent anything you are fighting from 'ignoring' you, since if they try and move away, you can stop them cold. You may or may not want Combat Reflexes...area battlefield control is if you have Reach (i.e. are Enlarged). But, you have the option of battlefield control, yay! Carry an extendable Longspear of Aptitude, or something. 6) I know few DM's that will actually make you pay for the entire Spec tree, but they might make you pay for Supremacy. 7) Combat Reflexes, (Close Quarters Fighting) and Robilar's Gambit, possibly Deft Opportunist. This nasty combo dares people to hit you. With a high AC, you can still make them miss, and you still get to hit them back. CQF punishes high level Grab/Grapplers, making you virtually immune. Deft Opportunist means you can hit them even when turtling away (buys off the Robilar AC penalty). 8) Dungeon Crasher variant, if you like. Dungeon Crasher dmg is not based on weapon size/Power Attack. Great AC and great dmg bouncing someone around. You have Expertise if you want Improved Bull Rush. 9) Ancestral Relic: Cuts the amount you have to 'pay' for a weapon in half, since you sacrifice directly to it instead of having to sell goodies. Weapon max value 350k. make a +10/+10 shield with 50k yet to blow, turn it into your primary weapon with a Sun Blade type weapon as 'light' in your off hand... 10) Improved Trip. If you want to trip often. Note that you don't need the 'no AoO' as much as a normal person...you just turtle and make the touch attack. The contested check is not penalized by you turtling. Get the feat for the +4. 11) Overwhelming Assault at 16. Works well for you, because it's one single attack for double dmg at your highest TH, leaving you room for more AC! 12) Martial Study (Mind over Body) {or Diamond Mind Item} + Ring of Evasion. Charge into the middle of a group of enemies. Get surrounded. Laugh as they fail to hit you. Laugh harder when the spellcasters drop AoE's on you and all your close, close friends, and you walk away with no dmg. Rogues and Monks tend to get chopped to bits when they try this...misses a critical problem: feats are not hot swappable. You're using three abilities here that replace fighter bonus feats, plus twenty-nine actual feats (at least -- I lack BoED to check prerequisites, but I'd not be surprised if you ignored one of the requisite feats for Ancestral Relic like you did with Shock Trooper). Not even a fighter 20 with flaws can come close to that. The S&B fighter doesn't have those options -- he has a few of them, plus a bunch of stuff he wishes he could do, and might have been built to do, but can't and wasn't. You know, like a THFer or TWFer except they can generally keep the feats it took them to do it on an index card. That's not even going into your skewed base numbers and faulty arithmetic. Cooking the books on your side, and demanding numbers from the opposition, when you've repeatedly ignored or houseruled away the opposition's numbers, isn't obfuscating anything? Looking pretty windmill-shaped (http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2152/logicalfallacyny2.jpg) to me, Aelryinth. ---------- P.S.: I'm not an addict. I can quit any time I want. :P
ORC_Yawgmoth 05-26-08, 08:35 PM	I've removed content from this thread because flaming is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
AlterFrom 05-26-08, 08:47 PM	The Major Cloak of Displacement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#cloakofDisplacementMaj or) is 50,000 gp.
Sunic_Flames 05-26-08, 09:00 PM	Ael: And I find it interesting how you give people defenses when its convenient, and strip them when you don't want them, without giving the option to overcome them. Overcoming Defenses is part of Optimizing. Ael: Brilliant Energy discriminates against all wearers of any armor, and don't even bring up Wraithstrike. There are 9 CR 20s in the SRD. 6 are various dragons. They don't sit nicely on the ground and let you 'tank' them, they use their spells, SLAs, and breath weapons to utterly screw over the party before joining the fray. Two others are the Balor and the Pit Fiend. They do the same damn thing. The last is the Tarrasque. He happily melees you and has enough to hit to not give a damn about your AC.So THF guy gets eaten. This is smart. Now, instead of being outside he has a nice low AC target to full PA on, killing it quickly from the inside. Meanwhile he takes minor damage, far less than fighting it. High AC or no high AC. As for my cohort's strength, you have once again quoted me out of context. I said he had 22 max damage with Powerful Build, then stated without it he would drop to 17 due to losing 2 str and having to downgrade to a medium longsword. As is clear to anyone with basic math skills, this means 2d6+10, or 1d8+9 without that house rule. Sculpt Spell does not care how far apart they are from each other. I get four areas I can place where ever, I will hit at least 4. If they were close together that would have been up to 16. I suspect this is your first time ever hearing of the feat. SAB drops shield. He concedes by admitting inferiority as a non action as soon as he does. Funny how THF can do everything SAB does and more, but for SAB to try to be THF guy he has to surrender his only advantage completely and still be inferior at it.
Shaggy_Shaggs 05-26-08, 09:04 PM	So THF guy gets eaten. This is smart. Now, instead of being outside he has a nice low AC target to full PA on, killing it quickly from the inside. Meanwhile he takes minor damage, far less than fighting it. High AC or no high AC.In the interest of something approaching neutrality (and my own education if it comes to that), I must inquire how you're power attacking while swallowed whole. Is that not generally restricted to light weapons?
Sunic_Flames 05-26-08, 09:26 PM	In the interest of something approaching neutrality (and my own education if it comes to that), I must inquire how you're power attacking while swallowed whole. Is that not generally restricted to light weapons? The Weapon Supremacy he loves so much. Among other things, use a weapon in a grapple when you normally cannot. Being eaten = grapple. Either way, less damage inside, easier to hurt and kill inside... Being eaten = smart. SAB guy could do the same thing, except then he's not tanking anymore and not as good at it. Oops.
CrimsonDeath 05-27-08, 06:05 AM	The Bashing Enchantment turns your dmg from 1-6 to 2-12 with a heavy shield, +3.5 dmg is a great use of an enhancement bonus. It also adds +1/+1 to dmg usage if you don't have it enchanted as a weapon (or you use it as blud instead of spikes.) Considering the fact that it's a shield enhancement and not a weapon enhancement, it may be worth having after all. At least it's cheaper than Animated or Wild... I consider Armor spikes to probably be heavy weapons (armor certainly isn't light!). Well, the Player's Handbook disagrees with you. In the table on page 116, spiked armor is listed as a light weapon. Since you are going to invest less in this secondary weapon, it's also a prime candidate for being +1 with a ton of passive effects (eager, warning, etc) and sticking a GMW on, while your main weapon (the shield) gets the permanent stuff. Except then it's hardly worth having as a Defending weapon, since that only gives you +1 to transfer to your AC. Note that without bashing your spiked shield is only doing 1-6 dmg, which is pretty low for a TH weapon. Except that most of the damage on any two-handed fighter comes from static adds like the Strength bonus and Power Attack. As for cost of the shield...well, it's another thing you can get slammed for, one item with 300K of your wealth potentially tied up into it. But as long as the DM isn't sunder-happy, it's no worse than buying a weapon and shield separately, and better than buying two weapons (especially two weapons and a buckler, or a weapon and a shield that's also a weapon).
aelryinth 05-27-08, 04:11 PM	The Major Cloak of Displacement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#cloakofDisplacementMaj or) is 50,000 gp. Whoops, conceeded. Hmm, that means he gets a +8 Weapon and 22 K extra. 22K could be useful! ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-27-08, 05:24 PM	[QUOTE=Sunic_Flames;15956119]Ael: And I find it interesting how you give people defenses when its convenient, and strip them when you don't want them, without giving the option to overcome them. Overcoming Defenses is part of Optimizing. Ael: Brilliant Energy discriminates against all wearers of any armor, and don't even bring up Wraithstrike. There are 9 CR 20s in the SRD. 6 are various dragons. They don't sit nicely on the ground and let you 'tank' them, they use their spells, SLAs, and breath weapons to utterly screw over the party before joining the fray. And if they fight at a distance, they are toast. The party has more ranged attacks then they do. And it's your job as a melee to be able to get them into melee if you want them to be. Do your job. Or do you build melees without mobility options at that level? Two others are the Balor and the Pit Fiend. They do the same damn thing. See above. Why are you repeating this again? The last is the Tarrasque. He happily melees you and has enough to hit to not give a damn about your AC.So THF guy gets eaten. This is smart. Now, instead of being outside he has a nice low AC target to full PA on, killing it quickly from the inside. Meanwhile he takes minor damage, far less than fighting it. High AC or no high AC. Then he gets squirted back out, the tarrasque regens the dmg, and he does a full attack on you again. You're still hosed. What kind of argument is this? As for my cohort's strength, you have once again quoted me out of context. I said he had 22 max damage with Powerful Build, then stated without it he would drop to 17 due to losing 2 str and having to downgrade to a medium longsword. As is clear to anyone with basic math skills, this means 2d6+10, or 1d8+9 without that house rule. I did not quote you out of context, I used the numbers you gave me, and now you are finally, fulling defining them, and calling it my error because you couldn't get them right. Longsword max dmg 17 is +9 dmg. All you then mentioned is the size of the longsword faded. Please get your references straight. It still means you have a +2 sword, and a 24 Str base, or a 26 Str base AFTER applying the House Rule (which, silly me, I assumed you included in the BASE stats. Again, you didn't say.) You've still got a +2 weapon, no additional tools to hit, or to do dmg, and you wonder why you are in the shadow of the Crusader, who has +8 TH/+4 Dmg over you, +3 from using a weapon Two handed for +8/+7, and you've never addressed this? Sculpt Spell does not care how far apart they are from each other. I get four areas I can place where ever, I will hit at least 4. If they were close together that would have been up to 16. I suspect this is your first time ever hearing of the feat. Sculpt Spell does nothing of the kind. You can change the area of E of the spell, it does not allow you to break the spell up and hit four seperate targets. So not only do you not understand how to read a feat, you are practicing rules abuse. Go over to CharOps and try to find ANYONE who will read Sculpt Spell as divinding one AoE into four. I suggest you read the feat again. And thanks, I heard about it years ago, and since I knew what it did, I was naturally thinking you were employing some other effect to hit them all. SAB drops shield. He concedes by admitting inferiority as a non action as soon as he does. Funny how THF can do everything SAB does and more, but for SAB to try to be THF guy he has to surrender his only advantage completely and still be inferior at it. Yawn. Again. Not worth replying to. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-27-08, 05:38 PM	QUOTE=Shaggy_Shaggs Nobody cares about your houserules, dude. Folks are here to discuss D&D, which comes with its own ruleset that is the same for everyone. Saying crap likeis very much attempting to obfuscate and confuse the issue, because you're trying to shift the argument away from Dungeons & Dragons and into Aelryinth's Sword & Board Party Hour, where S&B rules the day because you consistently beef up S&B and nerf other weapon user options. What house rules? From page two i've been stating that if you allow Animated shields and IBD, SAB doesn't matter. Are you suddenly waking up to this fact? Are you also ignoring the fact that the game has advanced since the Core Feats came out, and they were never revised to compete? Where is the obfuscation? I'm being very clear and direct about the issues at hand. If you c an't understand them, then that isn't my fault. When you deliberately misread things (I'm going to assume this exchange: is a deliberate misread because the only other viable alternative is that you're illiterate), you don't help the clarity issue. He previously said the Crusader had an animated shield. Now he reverses himself. Then he said no shield whatsoever. Then he conveniently forgets that since page Two I've been saying that if you allow Animated, SAB has no advantages and go THW, because now you're an SAB with a THW for no cost. Or are you conveniently forgetting this, or not following the thread, or just trying to find a reason to flame? It's all getting old. Your prattling on about options is bunk meant to obfuscate, too. For example, this: misses a critical problem: feats are not hot swappable. You're using three abilities here that replace fighter bonus feats, plus twenty-nine actual feats (at least -- I lack BoED to check prerequisites, but I'd not be surprised if you ignored one of the requisite feats for Ancestral Relic like you did with Shock Trooper). Not even a fighter 20 with flaws can come close to that. The S&B fighter doesn't have those options -- he has a few of them, plus a bunch of stuff he wishes he could do, and might have been built to do, but can't and wasn't. You know, like a THFer or TWFer except they can generally keep the feats it took them to do it on an index card. I'm giving people options on how to build a SAB guy. I never state in the post he can do it all...It's build OPTIONS. And you fail to understand it, when the other posters do, is my error? That's not even going into your skewed base numbers and faulty arithmetic. Cooking the books on your side, and demanding numbers from the opposition, when you've repeatedly ignored or houseruled away the opposition's numbers, isn't obfuscating anything? If my numbers are 'skewed' and my arithimetic 'faulty', then you go right ahead and 'correct' them. I notice you are insulting the math without correcting the math, which leads me to believe you can't follow what's going on. If you want a different scenario, then you post a different scenario. If you want to use different base numbers, post different base numbers. I don't have a problem with it. Sunic absolutely refuses to. You're calling mine wrong without contributing or correcting, which means you can't support the statement. If my math is 'faulty', I have no problem whatsover with the numbers being corrected. Your failure to do so means you can't back up the words, and you're just trying to flame. Looking pretty windmill-shaped (http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2152/logicalfallacyny2.jpg) to me, Aelryinth. yeah, way to keep working in the flames again. Again, with nothing to support an argument, it's what people on the internet devolve to. Sorry, man, but I just don't think you have a leg to stand on, and you know it. ---------- P.S.: I'm not an addict. I can quit any time I want. :P Uh, huh. ==Aelryinth
EjoThims 05-27-08, 05:43 PM	What house rules? From page two i've been stating that if you allow Animated shields and IBD, SAB doesn't matter. You keep introducing new houserules into the equation, but always only as a limit on chargers. No Pounce. No Valorous. No FB. No Shock Trooper. All things you added recently as an attempt to justify yourself.
archerpwr 05-27-08, 05:48 PM	Best. Thread. Ever.
ORC_Tuhteth 05-27-08, 06:09 PM	Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The Community Management team has been alerted to take a look at it and determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in it’s place.