Weapon choice

[DnDgeek13]

i under stand Roy's family sword and Durkon probably wields the hammer for his god but why in the world does Belkar wield two seemingly unmagic daggers if he is a front line fighter?it makes almost no sense.

[Skorj]

i under stand Roy's family sword and Durkon probably wields the hammer for his god but why in the world does Belkar wield two seemingly unmagic daggers if he is a front line fighter?it makes almost no sense.

A assume he's unwilling to give the guy who nerfed his two swords the satisfaction of changing. Darn game designers, always nerfing everything good.:smallyuk:

[torgum]

style... what else?

[kpenguin]

Belkar's daggers are magical, what are you talking about?

[Murdim]

i under stand Roy's family sword and Durkon probably wields the hammer for his god but why in the world does Belkar wield two seemingly unmagic daggers if he is a front line fighter?it makes almost no sense.Belkar's build makes almost no sense. He is a melee fighter from a Small-sized race who gives -2 Strength, thus giving him about -2 to damage to begin with. He has a skill monkey class but got a crappy Intelligence and refuses to spend his points in the needed skills. He's a Wisdom-based caster with a lower-than-average Wisdom. He has no animal companion when he could have one. And worse than everything else combined, he can't use Power Attack since he wields light weapons.

[Skorj]

Belkar's build makes almost no sense. ... He has no animal companion when he could have one. And worse than everything else combined, he can't use Power Attack since he wields light weapons.

He has Mr Scruffy now! And he did have short swords (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) when he created his build, right? :smallsmile:

[DnDgeek13]

Belkar's build makes almost no sense. He is a melee fighter from a Small-sized race who gives -2 Strength, thus giving him about -2 to damage to begin with. He has a skill monkey class but got a crappy Intelligence and refuses to spend his points in the needed skills. He's a Wisdom-based caster with a lower-than-average Wisdom. He has no animal companion when he could have one. And worse than everything else combined, he can't use Power Attack since he wields light weapons.

that is completely true but when belkar was created it might have been in mind of getting rid of stereotypes. Also, as i pointed out in another thread Mr. Scruffy seems to bee his animal companion though belkar might not know this

[Morquard]

Where did you get the notion that his daggers are not magical?

Might be he doesn't realise that he can use other weapons, after his swords got shrinked. I mean it is Belkar we're talking about here :)

[Ghostwheel]

Those would be Halfling-sized shortswords, not daggers, I presume.

I suspect that Belkar gets a lot of his melee power from improved critical and favored enemies. And lots of plot-20's.

[hamishspence]

he throws them- several times- more likely, halfling sized daggers.

In 3.0, daggers were a pretty good weapon- just the right size to still be wielded one-handed by a halfling, and benefit from being light for two-weapon fighting purposes.

In 3.5, we get shrinkage.

[DnDgeek13]

Where did you get the notion that his daggers are not magical?

Might be he doesn't realise that he can use other weapons, after his swords got shrinked. I mean it is Belkar we're talking about here :)

i just haven't seen them do anything magical so i assumed they wern't

[Dalenthas]

They're most likely straight bonus magic weapons: +4 daggers or somesuch. No special effects doesn't mean they aren't magical.

[DnDgeek13]

They're most likely straight bonus magic weapons: +4 daggers or somesuch. No special effects doesn't mean they aren't magical.

good point my mistake.

[FeAnPi]

Or, simply, Belkar has the quick draw feat, and uses small-sized (magical?) short swords in meele and small sized daggers for ranged attacks.

[Degausser]

I wondered about this for a while. While he isn't crazy "maximized" or "power-gamed" to the extreme, what he does seems to work. In the battle of Azure city, he has the ability to kill hobgoblins in one hit. Even if they are stupid lvl 1 goblins, that is still around 12 HP, right? No way he's using normal daggers.

If he is using Halfing Daggers or Halfling shortswords, that makes no difference, 1d3 vs. 1d4, not a whole lot of change (one possible extra HP . . . whoa boy!) So, if he is using Dual Halfling daggers and hits a hobgoblin, that's 3 HP max, so he needs +9 damage to take one down outright.

If he has 18 strength (16 at start and +2 from lvl 4 and 8) that is +4 dmg, Magic can grant him another +3 (assuming he has plain old +3 daggers), and raging can give him +2 dmg, placing him at +9. While he's not doing as much damage as Roy, he's got a heck of a lot of bonuses to damage and it makes his minimum damage respectable, not to mention he attacks faster. Add to that the fact that he probably has favored enemy (Goblinoid) and he's doing even better!

In the end, is he a super-munchkined out character? No. But he has a decent Dex, Strength, and Con, and can do some respectable base damage. I believe that he has favored enemy (Goblinoid) and (Undead), plus another (possibly Giants or humans), so he does extra damage against those types. (Notice how he didn't go toe-to-toe with Miko, because he didn't have magic daggers and knew he couldn't hurt her as much as she could hurt him.) But against Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Undead, he is golden.

[factotum]

I'm pretty sure someone suggested that Belkar chose to be a Ranger purely for the free two-weapon fighting feat, and if that's true, he uses two weapons because he WANTS to use two weapons. Besides, if Degausser's calculations are correct, using two small weapons isn't such an unreasonable thing to do if you're expecting to make most of your damage from modifiers.

[Jaltum]

Belkar throws his daggers a lot, too, and doesn't seem to have to retrieve them. (Particularly in the Thieves Guild massacre, I noticed.) He may have them enchanted or use a magic item to have them return, or it just might be artistic license, since he has an awful lot of attacks to show.

EDIT: I'm not sure he has favored enemy undead, either. He's complained about them being boring to fight before. It would be *SMART* to pick up, going up against an epic necromancer, but... Belkar.

Favored enemy human seems like a certainty, and probably the oldest one--he was living in human lands and murdering people long before Roy put a leash on him and pointed him at the goblinoids.

[Ancalagon]

EDIT: I'm not sure he has favored enemy undead, either. He's complained about them being boring to fight before. It would be *SMART* to pick up, going up against an epic necromancer, but... Belkar.

Surely not. Belkar finds undead annoying because they have no fear and do no scream in pain.

[Morquard]

Human as first and Goblin as second favored enemy seems absolutely believable.
As his third one... I think elf. After that little explosive runes squabble with V

[theinsulabot]

plus there is a point that belkar apparently has "anything within a 100 yard radius, dead or alive" as his favored enemy, so he gets a plus from that as well

[Vargtass]

Human as first and Goblin as second favored enemy seems absolutely believable.
As his third one... I think elf. After that little explosive runes squabble with V

Third one would be reptilian: Kobolds... blech!

[Morquard]

Third one would be reptilian: Kobolds... blech!
Also possible, but I like the elf idea better.

[Moriarty]

Belkar throws his daggers a lot, too, and doesn't seem to have to retrieve them. (Particularly in the Thieves Guild massacre, I noticed.) He may have them enchanted or use a magic item to have them return, or it just might be artistic license, since he has an awful lot of attacks to show.

nah, he has to get them by hand,

here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html)

in the last row of panelts, he throws both and has to pick them up again and

here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0612.html)

he throws one dagger and uses a bottle to replace it until he can get it back from the body

[Kish]

In 3.0ed, Belkar used daggers because short swords wouldn't have been light for him. When they converted to 3.5ed, "small short swords" would have been light for him, but he was stuck with "small daggers" anyway. This was the very first strip's punchline.

[rewinn]

i under stand Roy's family sword and Durkon probably wields the hammer for his god but why in the world does Belkar wield two seemingly unmagic daggers if he is a front line fighter?it makes almost no sense.

Perhaps the person who rolled up Belkar has a low natural WIS.

[Murdim]

Perhaps the person who rolled up Belkar has a low natural WIS.Isn't min-maxing an Intelligence-based skill ?

[Miklus]

Belkar is a wizard-killer type warrior. It is his job to jump behind enemy lines and take out the spellcasters. For this, he needs lots of attacks that will hit the spellcasters and ruin their concentration. Total damage is secondary. Therefore he has two weapons and high dex/str. Ok, low wisdom is not so good as it gives poor saving throws, but I assume that str, dex and con is maxed out. Or maybe it is not a point build and so it just happend.

Just look how often Belkar jumps great distances. Sometimes he sneaks around the front lines too. He has killed quite a lot of spellcasters, he is quite good at it. Belkar is a spellcasters worst nightmare.

Someone with more patience than me will have to count exactly how many, but I can think of five casters he has killed just off the top of my head.

[Moriarty]

Belkar is a wizard-killer type warrior. It is his job to jump behind enemy lines and take out the spellcasters. For this, he needs lots of attacks that will hit the spellcasters and ruin their concentration. Total damage is secondary. Therefore he has two weapons and high dex/str. Ok, low wisdom is not so good as it gives poor saving throws, but I assume that str, dex and con is maxed out. Or maybe it is not a point build and so it just happend.

Just look how often Belkar jumps great distances. Sometimes he sneaks around the front lines too. He has killed quite a lot of spellcasters, he is quite good at it. Belkar is a spellcasters worst nightmare.

Someone with more patience than me will have to count exactly how many, but I can think of five casters he has killed just off the top of my head.

you try to think of a use for his build in a dungeon-like area but that's not what he enjoys doing.
He likes having so many attackt because most of his targets are not nearly as high level as himself. The belkster enjoys mass murderer, he kills drunk unarmed people for fun and his damage with his daggers is propably enough to kill lv 3-5 commoners

[littlequietguy]

Belkar's daggers are magical, what are you talking about?

Magically Delicious!

[rangermania]

On the character sheet and First Strip (http://http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) he was holding only one shortsword/dagger... Second dagger wouldn't come out until 3rd strip. So I'm thinking he may pulled out the second dagger after this shrinkage and altered his weapons of choice at that point.

Also he had always time between pannels to collect his daggers...

And the way he cut through these guys (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html) (My favorite move ever) should prove his daggers are at least +3

[Ron Miel]

Also he had always time between pannels to collect his daggers...

I'm not sure how he retrieved it from the undead dragon, though.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html

[Degausser]

So it is agreed, Belkar's Weapons of choice are +3 daggers of returning, and he simply chooses to pull them out as part of his swath of carnage sometimes.

[rangermania]

I'm not sure how he retrieved it from the undead dragon, though.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html

Well on 7th panel 4 arrows and Belkar's dagger gets a hit on the UD but none of them are there on the 9th. All of them may have fallen down right away to someplace near because of the magic reduction.

Still it is not satisfactory so I concur with you :smallconfused:

[Morquard]

Belkar throws it in panel 7, and they're gone in panel 9.
He's not seen in panel 8.
He still has his Ring of +20 jumping, since he offers it to Roy in panel 12.

Therefore, Belkar jumped up in panel 8, retrieved his dagger and also the arrows to sell them to the Assassin guy, or ransom them back to Haley.

Or he might just carry a stash of normal thowing knifes with him, in case he needs some sort of ranged attack and doesn't want to use the daggers for it.

[Iranon]

Belkar's build isn't too impressive (cue the groans) but it makes some sense...

He's more mobile than most, can hide, can throw his weapon of choice, and who cares about the damage reduction if favoured enemy will greatly increase per-hit-damage against anything he cares about?

Not optmised to be the greatest possible asset to a team, but good for a little psychopath who likes to stab wimps and toy with those as powerful as himself or more... the abiliy to throw them is useful there. He can be sneaky but with an emphasis on straight-up fights without something as wimpy as magic or sneak attacks.

[Brom]

*Sigh*

"Plus your furry footed friend just made me his temporary magical dagger repository." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html)

Just saying. It's not like it's at all dubious that he uses magical daggers. The all seeing oracle said it himself.

[Shademan]

and he multi-classed to barbarian, remember?

[Optimystik]

Belkar's build is fueled entirely by Phlebotinum and would get him slaughtered in any D&D game with appropriate CRs. I remember the raging debate when he was able to survive being flanked by two supremely high-level Rogue-types (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html) at once without even a scratch. I'm one of the guys who likes to translate most of the things I see in the comic into D&D terms but Belkar just defies all logic. It's probably one of the reasons I dislike him so much.

tl;dr don't bother explaining him, it's just not possible. He'll be gone soon anyway...

[Cizak]

He has no animal companion when he could have one.

Really?? Because, you know, you haven't seen a little white cat that helps him out in fights recently?

[the_tick_rules]

Couldn't V or Durkon use limited wish of miracle or whatever to wish roy's sword would inflict blunt against xykon? That seems reasonable enough.

[The Blackbird]

I had always assumed that Belkar used scimitars, but because they are small-sized Belkar refers to them as daggers. Then Belkar would have a high crit range and could power attack.

[Olorin Maia]

I don't think we've seen any evidence at all that they are scimitars. Can scimitars be thrown properly? It has been pointed out that Belkar uses his weapons as thrown objects a lot.

[KillianHawkeye]

Also, scimitars have a pretty distinctive curved shape.... :smallsigh:

[Decoy Lockbox]

Belkar's build is fueled entirely by Phlebotinum and would get him slaughtered in any D&D game with appropriate CRs. I remember the raging debate when he was able to survive being flanked by two supremely high-level Rogue-types (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html) at once without even a scratch. I'm one of the guys who likes to translate most of the things I see in the comic into D&D terms but Belkar just defies all logic. It's probably one of the reasons I dislike him so much.

tl;dr don't bother explaining him, it's just not possible. He'll be gone soon anyway...

This. Belkar's build is truly awful. Back when I played 3.5, our group wasn't even all that optimized, but even I can see that Belkar would die against...anything. Especially spellcasters. Dual wielding = needs full attacks = limited mobility = can't kill casters very well.

As far as I can tell, Belkar is a mighty warrior because it is funnier/more interesting that way. I can tell that, when it comes to optimizing, The Giant knows what he is doing to some extent, and he specifically made Belkar's build laughably bad to, well, make us laugh :smallbiggrin: This is a comedy after all!

Wasn't there a thread awhile back which concluded that all of the OOTS characters had terrible builds, with the exception of Durkon?

[pflare]

There is no evidence that his daggers are magic or non-magic items. Personally I think of them along the lines of +3 daggers or something. The only thing that is a fact is that he blunts the tips to make the stabbing more painful. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0571.html

[Random832]

There is no evidence that his daggers are magic or non-magic items.temporary magic dagger repository (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html) (also, some people have said that they clearly do more damage on some occasions than small daggers can normally do)


Personally I think of them along the lines of +3 daggers or something.

Which makes them magic. +anything = magic = beats DR */magic = doesn't function in an anti-magic field. This is what people are arguing about here.

[SinsI]

This. Belkar's build is truly awful. Back when I played 3.5, our group wasn't even all that optimized, but even I can see that Belkar would die against...anything. Especially spellcasters. Dual wielding = needs full attacks = limited mobility = can't kill casters very well.

As far as I can tell, Belkar is a mighty warrior because it is funnier/more interesting that way. I can tell that, when it comes to optimizing, The Giant knows what he is doing to some extent, and he specifically made Belkar's build laughably bad to, well, make us laugh :smallbiggrin: This is a comedy after all!

Wasn't there a thread awhile back which concluded that all of the OOTS characters had terrible builds, with the exception of Durkon?
Can you recommend anything better? Restrictions: race - halfling, stats rolled equal to the ones Belkar had (you can redistribute them - "dump stats" are allowed according to the comic), and your character must be a melee fighter (loves killing things with his own hands).
Oh, and D&D 3.0

[Random832]

...and your character must be a melee fighter (loves killing things with his own hands).

Well, that basic concept really seems better for a fighter than a ranger, doesn't it? Of course, then Roy wouldn't have hired him.

Maybe a few more levels of barbarian

[SinsI]

Well, that basic concept really seems better for a fighter than a ranger, doesn't it? Of course, then Roy wouldn't have hired him.

Maybe a few more levels of barbarian
In 3rd edition Fighter has the following advantages over ranger:
4 bonus feats, one of which can be a fighter-exclusive Weapon Specialization(+2 damage, and you're limited to that weapon only).
Can effectively wear heavy armor (and you don't want that for a high dexterity halfling).
And that's all!
Ranger has more skillpoints and class skills(i.e. tumble that gives you a very good dodge AC if you choose total defense action), Ambidexterity and Two-weapon Fighting bonus feats (ranged variation was added in 3.5, so he couldn't follow in Haley's footsteps), Track bonus feat, 2 Favorite enemies(+2 damage against an enemy type, and you can use any weapon).
They were converted about level 6, so I'm only counting those levels.

I think ranger was a better choice for a (melee/thrown) fighter halfling (penalty on strength, bonus on dexterity, bonus to thrown).


Belkar's build makes almost no sense. He is a melee fighter from a Small-sized race who gives -2 Strength, thus giving him about -2 to damage to begin with. He has a skill monkey class but got a crappy Intelligence and refuses to spend his points in the needed skills. He's a Wisdom-based caster with a lower-than-average Wisdom. He has no animal companion when he could have one. And worse than everything else combined, he can't use Power Attack since he wields light weapons.
That's -1 damage, not -2, and he gets +2 to AC in exchange(1 for small race, 1 for dexterity).
Power Attack worked for all melee weapons in 3rd edition.

[Decoy Lockbox]

Can you recommend anything better? Restrictions: race - halfling, stats rolled equal to the ones Belkar had (you can redistribute them - "dump stats" are allowed according to the comic), and your character must be a melee fighter (loves killing things with his own hands).
Oh, and D&D 3.0

Doing it with 3.5 (the edition that OOTS uses) core is pretty easy, since rangers are a pretty bad class (as opposed to 1st or 4th edition, in which they were/are awesome).

Well, halflings are known for being great rogues. The -2 to strength is irrelevant when you use weapon finesse to hit and start throwing fistfuls of sneak attack dice. And being small is actually helpful here, because it gives you +1 to hit and helps your stealth. A 13th level halfling rogue could easily be dishing out 1d4+7d6 damage per hit (not counting static modifiers like magic weapon pluses, str bonus, etc), and getting 4 attacks per round via full attack (5 if hasted). So if they all connect, that would be 4d4+28d6 damage per round, which is, shall we say, mucho stabbo. I think Belkar would probably enjoy doing that much damage -- in fact, he would become the most damaging character in the entire party!

Belkar going full barbarian and swinging a small greatsword/axe would also be far more effective than he is now.

Heck, even going cleric, and doing the buff self + lay beatdown routine would be more effective. But his wis is so low, that we wouldn't do very well at it. But you did say I could move his stats around, so I guess if you switch his dex and wis he could pull it off. He could also do well as a druid using the same strategy. We all saw how well Leeky did as a small-sized druid.

[The Blackbird]

Also, scimitars have a pretty distinctive curved shape.... :smallsigh:

Well, it's more plausible than "Sheer power of awesome".

EDIT: Perhaps he actually has more levels than the rest of the Order.

[Berserk Monk]

i under stand Roy's family sword and Durkon probably wields the hammer for his god but why in the world does Belkar wield two seemingly unmagic daggers if he is a front line fighter?it makes almost no sense.

Belkar's a psychopath. To quote the oracle "I think he dulls his daggers so they hurt more."

[Jaltum]

As people have pointed out, Belkar is a lot better at fighting large groups of mooks, where he can get more use out of his huge number of attacks--say on a battlefield. The Sexy Shoeless God of War thing isn't that untrue; war is different than a dungeon crawl.

(Of course, Roy's great cleavage is pretty useful in the same situation.)

As for fighting the rogues--Crystal was Haley and Belkar's level, as a nemesis. I wouldn't call that supremely high level. Bozzak is at least four levels higher than them, which is pretty rough, to be sure.

Belkar's got a boost to AC from his size, and he picked up a shield for another. If his 'sprinkling of barbarian' includes at least two levels, he's got Uncanny Dodge, and retains his Dex bonus to AC even on a Sneak Attack.

He blocks a blow from each of them while flanked, but doesn't do any damage--doesn't even seem to try--until Bozzak chases after Haley and Crystal loses her flank. (Not counting his two intial hits on Crystal when he interrupts Haley's haircut.)

[The Blackbird]

As people have pointed out, Belkar is a lot better at fighting large groups of mooks, where he can get more use out of his huge number of attacks--say on a battlefield. The Sexy Shoeless God of War thing isn't that untrue; war is different than a dungeon crawl.

(Of course, Roy's great cleavage is pretty useful in the same situation.)

As for fighting the rogues--Crystal was Haley and Belkar's level, as a nemesis. I wouldn't call that supremely high level. Bozzak is at least four levels higher than them, which is pretty rough, to be sure.

Belkar's got a boost to AC from his size, and he picked up a shield for another. If his 'sprinkling of barbarian' includes at least two levels, he's got Uncanny Dodge, and retains his Dex bonus to AC even on a Sneak Attack.

He blocks a blow from each of them while flanked, but doesn't do any damage--doesn't even seem to try--until Bozzak chases after Haley and Crystal loses her flank. (Not counting his two intial hits on Crystal when he interrupts Haley's haircut.)

So far, this makes the most sense.

[SadisticFishing]

EDIT: Perhaps he actually has more levels than the rest of the Order.

This seems the most semi-logical explanation to me.

It also explains the fact that he didn't level and needed to RP.

[Jaltum]

The first time they both miss him is harder to justify, though, but since they aren't simultaneous, maybe he isn't flanked yet; visually, he seems to be standing in between them, but I don't know what mechanical effect his knocking Crystal over represents. There's an extent to which the combat is portrayed 'cinematically,' after all, and the Giant is dealing with a two-dimensional plane. I don't know enough about the mechanics of D&D to be confident about any of it, though.

Celia snatching Haley out from under Bozzak's nose without being AoO into vapor is the biggest WTF, but that's explicitly lampshaded, and is the kind of thing a kindly DM might allow to get a 0 hp character out of the battlefield.

[SinsI]

Doing it with 3.5 (the edition that OOTS uses) core is pretty easy, since rangers are a pretty bad class (as opposed to 1st or 4th edition, in which they were/are awesome).

Well, halflings are known for being great rogues. The -2 to strength is irrelevant when you use weapon finesse to hit and start throwing fistfuls of sneak attack dice. And being small is actually helpful here, because it gives you +1 to hit and helps your stealth. A 13th level halfling rogue could easily be dishing out 1d4+7d6 damage per hit (not counting static modifiers like magic weapon pluses, str bonus, etc), and getting 4 attacks per round via full attack (5 if hasted). So if they all connect, that would be 4d4+28d6 damage per round, which is, shall we say, mucho stabbo. I think Belkar would probably enjoy doing that much damage -- in fact, he would become the most damaging character in the entire party!

Belkar going full barbarian and swinging a small greatsword/axe would also be far more effective than he is now.

Heck, even going cleric, and doing the buff self + lay beatdown routine would be more effective. But his wis is so low, that we wouldn't do very well at it. But you did say I could move his stats around, so I guess if you switch his dex and wis he could pull it off. He could also do well as a druid using the same strategy. We all saw how well Leeky did as a small-sized druid.
They were all generated using 3rd edition, and only upgraded to 3.5.
Sneak attack is extremely unreliable(uncanny dodge, lack of flanker or Xykon as an enemy :) ), and you need to actually hit - we've already seen what that "incredibly bad" build did against two high level rogues in total defense mode.
As for going full barbarian - they had +2 to HP dice roll and Uncanny Dodge and Raging.
At level 6, assuming Str 14, he'd have done 2x(1d8 + 1.5*(2 base str + 2 rage str) + magic damage/power attack damage) = 2d8 + 12 + 2x(magic/power attack bonuses); 21 + 2xbonuses average.
As a ranger, he had 4x(1d6 + (2 base str)*(1 + 0.5)/2 + bonuses) = 4d6 + 6 + 4x(magic damage/power attack damage/favorite enemy damage). 20 + 4xbonuses average.
If he had used even +1 short swords as a ranger he did more damage than a full barbarian(assuming everything hits). If he had Weapon Finesse, 20+Dex and used Power Attack at +5 damage - in 3rd edition he did FAR better (20 more damage). And he has favorite enemy bonuses...

Clerics and Druids stop being melee fighters once they run out of spells - and ranger can be buffed too!

[Decoy Lockbox]

They were all generated using 3rd edition, and only upgraded to 3.5.
Sneak attack is extremely unreliable(uncanny dodge, lack of flanker or Xykon as an enemy :) ), and you need to actually hit - we've already seen what that "incredibly bad" build did against two high level rogues in total defense mode.
As for going full barbarian - they had +2 to HP dice roll and Uncanny Dodge and Raging.
At level 6, assuming Str 14, he'd have done 2x(1d8 + 1.5*(2 base str + 2 rage str) + magic damage/power attack damage) = 2d8 + 12 + 2x(magic/power attack bonuses); 21 + 2xbonuses average.
As a ranger, he had 4x(1d6 + (2 base str)*(1 + 0.5)/2 + bonuses) = 4d6 + 6 + 4x(magic damage/power attack damage/favorite enemy damage). 20 + 4xbonuses average.
If he had used even +1 short swords as a ranger he did more damage than a full barbarian(assuming everything hits). If he had Weapon Finesse, 20+Dex and used Power Attack at +5 damage - in 3rd edition he did FAR better (20 more damage). And he has favorite enemy bonuses...

Clerics and Druids stop being melee fighters once they run out of spells - and ranger can be buffed too!
Sigh...I really don't want to get into an internet argument about the build choices of fictional characters, but its a slow day at work, so here goes.


In this campaign (i.e the OOtS storyline) sneak attack seems very reliable -- there are plenty of melee attackers in the party to flank with (durkon, roy, dashing swordsman elan). The party does fight undead on occasion, but rogue Belkar would only be slightly less effective than Ranger Belkar. Other than that, pretty much everything they fight is liable to take sneak attacks. Also, ranger Belkar is going to useless at fighting Xykon anyway, since Xykon has DR 15/magic bludgeoning. DR is less of a problem for people who make large damage attacks (like Roy) and a huge problem for people who make lots of little attacks (like Belkar).

I'm not going to do the numbers, but my experiences have shown me that a properly built barbarian is really hard to beat when it comes to dishing out the pain.

Druids use wildshape to buff themselves, which at level 13 lasts 13 hours and can be used many times. Its true that clerics need to use spells to buff themselves, but even in a campaign without divine metamagic cheese (like the OOTS story), clerics are still quite good at fighting, it just takes them longer to get their buffs online.

[SinsI]

In this campaign (i.e the OOtS storyline) sneak attack seems very reliable -- there are plenty of melee attackers in the party to flank with (durkon, roy, dashing swordsman elan). The party does fight undead on occasion, but rogue Belkar would only be slightly less effective than Ranger Belkar. Other than that, pretty much everything they fight is liable to take sneak attacks.
In a properly built party there's always someone to flank with - but Order of the Stick tends to break into smaller groups frequently.
Their main enemy is an undead sorcerer that likes to transform everything he kills into undead. And Undead are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks.


Also, ranger Belkar is going to useless at fighting Xykon anyway, since Xykon has DR 15/magic bludgeoning. DR is less of a problem for people who make large damage attacks (like Roy) and a huge problem for people who make lots of little attacks (like Belkar).
Belkar buys the cheapest +1 club(or just asks Durkon for that Disruption buff), grabs it with two hands and proceeds to kick Xykon's ass with less than 50% reduction in deadliness. Rogue's ability to sneak attack? Won't work at all.

I'm not going to do the numbers, but my experiences have shown me that a properly built barbarian is really hard to beat when it comes to dishing out the pain.
Halfling = not a properly built barbarian.
Current Belkar has 11 less HP than full barbarian, can be flanked,has no Damage Reduction/3 and gets 2 less Constitution/Strength during rage - that's about 3 less damage per round in an average one-on-one fight.
In exchange he has twice more attacks and favorite enemy bonuses, and he can effectively employ hit-with-thrown-weapon-and-run tactic (as was brilliantly demonstrated on Miko).


Druids use wildshape to buff themselves, which at level 13 lasts 13 hours and can be used many times. Its true that clerics need to use spells to buff themselves, but even in a campaign without divine metamagic cheese (like the OOTS story), clerics are still quite good at fighting, it just takes them longer to get their buffs online.
Like all casters, they can be a cheat with the right handbook and the right DM due to the sheer amount of different spells and feats written for them(variety is power!). But most of their buffs can be cast onto ranger too, and ranger + buffs MUST be much stronger than cleric + buffs, otherwise something is really wrong with the rules, DM or the setting.
Wild Shape vs Melee depends on the availability of overpowered animal forms and magical items. If somehow your druid is a stronger fighter than any fighter subclass you need to really talk to your DM.

[Moriarty]

Belkar didnt CHOOSE to be a halfling, he was born that way. It's really not Belkars fault he wasn't born as a half orc

[Decoy Lockbox]

In a properly built party there's always someone to flank with - but Order of the Stick tends to break into smaller groups frequently.
Their main enemy is an undead sorcerer that likes to transform everything he kills into undead. And Undead are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks.


Belkar buys the cheapest +1 club(or just asks Durkon for that Disruption buff), grabs it with two hands and proceeds to kick Xykon's ass with less than 50% reduction in deadliness. Rogue's ability to sneak attack? Won't work at all.

Halfling = not a properly built barbarian.
Current Belkar has 11 less HP than full barbarian, can be flanked,has no Damage Reduction/3 and gets 2 less Constitution/Strength during rage - that's about 3 less damage per round in an average one-on-one fight.
In exchange he has twice more attacks and favorite enemy bonuses, and he can effectively employ hit-with-thrown-weapon-and-run tactic (as was brilliantly demonstrated on Miko).


Like all casters, they can be a cheat with the right handbook and the right DM due to the sheer amount of different spells and feats written for them(variety is power!). But most of their buffs can be cast onto ranger too, and ranger + buffs MUST be much stronger than cleric + buffs, otherwise something is really wrong with the rules, DM or the setting.
Wild Shape vs Melee depends on the availability of overpowered animal forms and magical items. If somehow your druid is a stronger fighter than any fighter subclass you need to really talk to your DM.

Okay, this is just devolving into more 3.5 class imbalance stupidity, so I'm bowing out. I suggest you consult the D&D 3.5 charop board, or any of the optimizers on this board if you don't believe that druids can be made into stronger fighters than fighters.

[SinsI]

Okay, this is just devolving into more 3.5 class imbalance stupidity, so I'm bowing out. I suggest you consult the D&D 3.5 charop board, or any of the optimizers on this board if you don't believe that druids can be made into stronger fighters than fighters.
Oh, in no way am I suggesting that druids can't be that.
I'm just telling you that if your PC druids are always better fighters than PC fighters it is a sign that WoTC and your DM have royally screwed up - they made ordinary fighters obsolete!

[Degausser]

Okay, I've come to a realization, what does it matter?

Rich has stated, several times, that this comic will always sacrifice the strictest rules of DnD for story and comedy. Belkar is NOT optimized up the yin-Yang, neither is Roy, Haley, V, or Elan.

In the end, they all come down to character descriptions. Belkar is a halfling warrior-type, who is ridiculous good with daggers. That's what he is, and you guys would be able to accept that if it weren't for all the DnD rules getting in the way.

I maintain that ol' Belkar gets the bulk of his damage from multiple attacks in a round and bonuses to damage, and not from the weapon itself. The specifics of it really doesn't matter.

[TMC]

Oh, in no way am I suggesting that druids can't be that.
I'm just telling you that if your PC druids are always better fighters than PC fighters it is a sign that WoTC and your DM have royally screwed up - they made ordinary fighters obsolete!

Haven't there been 30+ threads on just that: fighters are obselete?

[DnDgeek13]

i did not realize this before but the oracle says that the daggers are magical.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html
Panel 2.
he doesn't say what they do just that they are magical.

[TMC]

i did not realize this before but the oracle says that the daggers are magical.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html
Panel 2.
he doesn't say what they do just that they are magical.

+4 +4 Daggers of Striking Pain

Always return to owner(even if undead), and cause -5 to any concentration checks made due to them, at the cost of constant minor pain to the wielder, causing irritability, sadism, and evil in general.

[pflare]

temporary magic dagger repository (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html) (also, some people have said that they clearly do more damage on some occasions than small daggers can normally do)



Which makes them magic. +anything = magic = beats DR */magic = doesn't function in an anti-magic field. This is what people are arguing about here.

Good points all around. I revise my earlier statement. Belkar uses magic daggers.

[fangthane]

I maintain that ol' Belkar gets the bulk of his damage from multiple attacks in a round and bonuses to damage, and not from the weapon itself. The specifics of it really doesn't matter.

Absolutely. It's a truism of D&D that at a certain level, damage dealt in combat is less about the weapon's damage roll and much more about hit-rate and how much bonus damage you're hanging on each smack.

He'd be more impressive in the general case as a fighter with focus, spec and the TWF feats, but would lack the FE bonus (which is only a drop in damage-per-round if he's got one at +6 and fights that opponent type most commonly) and Evasion. That said, relative to a barbarian/greataxe build (and ignoring DR) he's only missing about 4 hitpoints of damage per round* (2.5 if he's hitting 95%) and is even or ahead against any opponent where he gets at least a +2 Favoured Enemy bonus.

*The maths:

His strength bonus is applied either 1.5* or 1*/0.5*, so the only discrepancy there is added miss-rate multiplied by 1.5*bonus.
Since we're comparing relative hit rates, we're ignoring the 5% auto-miss and comparing hit rates to one another so we can compare relative damage rates in isolation from an actual combat situation. It's a small simplification, but it doesn't meaningfully affect the numbers anyhow.

His 1d3 daggers average 2 points rolled, vs a greataxe's 5.5, and they hit about 15% less often (-1 str, -2 for TWF) so 3.4 vs 5.5 average rolls.
His strength bonus is one lower than a pure barbarian's would be while raging, and his bonus damage takes the same 15% hit in cases where he's not hitting with a 2, so he's losing the 2.1 plus 1 plus .45 (weapon bonus) plus another .45 if his strength is 14, .6 if it's 16 and .75 if it's an 18. That means he's missing between 4 and 4.3 points per round relative to a straight barbarian build, in a combat where he's got to make a decent roll to hit.
Against an opponent he can hit "at will" (95% success) he's hitting at the same rate as he would with a greataxe, so 4 rolled for a loss of 1.5, plus 1 for strength; an average of 2.5 points lower.
Against an opponent where he gets a F.E. bonus, he's dealing +2 (minimum) per hit, making the differentials lower by 3.4 and 3.8 respectively - so with a minimal F.E. bonus, he deals about 1 point less than a barbarian build against a "tough" opponent, and about 1 point more against weak ones. Against anything where he gets a +4 or +6 F.E. bonus, he's doing better than a barbarian built on the same stats, excepting DR and crits (because, let's face it, greataxe crits are almost as nice as scythe crits).

If Belkar really wanted to be optimal relative to his tendencies, he'd be a fighter/barb instead. Focus, greater focus, spec, greater spec, TWF/ITWF/GTWF, improved crit and whatever feats he chooses to take as non-figher-bonuses. The barb dip would be for Rage, of course. Greater focus eliminates the 10% reduced hit-rate for TWF against tougher opponents, greater spec gives him a +4 damage bonus against all opponents with both weapons, and crits prevents him from falling too far behind his pure-barbarian self who'd probably take the same feat. He'd also get an extra hp/level relative to ranger class levels, and be able to use medium armor (barb restrictions) rather than being restricted to light for Ranger TWF.
He would, however, lose Evasion.

[SinsI]

If Belkar really wanted to be optimal relative to his tendencies, he'd be a fighter/barb instead. Focus, greater focus, spec, greater spec, TWF/ITWF/GTWF, improved crit and whatever feats he chooses to take as non-figher-bonuses. The barb dip would be for Rage, of course. Greater focus eliminates the 10% reduced hit-rate for TWF against tougher opponents, greater spec gives him a +4 damage bonus against all opponents with both weapons, and crits prevents him from falling too far behind his pure-barbarian self who'd probably take the same feat. He'd also get an extra hp/level relative to ranger class levels, and be able to use medium armor (barb restrictions) rather than being restricted to light for Ranger TWF.
He would, however, lose Evasion.

a) Belkar probably has very high DEX score, so he has Weapon Finesse and uses that instead of STR - he hits more often than your barbarian/greater axe build. This means he gets twice more from magic weapon bonuses, and even a minimal Favorite Enemy bonus more than compensates for strength difference.

b) Weapons Specialization/Greater Specialization is very much like Favorite Enemy bonuses, only twice weaker - there will always be enemies immune to your favorite weapon. Of course, Focus/Greater Focus and Improved Crit are lost on them too. You are only as strong as your weakest point is.

c) TWF/ITWF/GTWF are ranger's bonus feats, he has them already.

As for Damage Reduction - he can use all weapons equally well, so he can switch to the appropriate one without losing his ability to wreak havoc on the battlefield.