HP damage, how quickly does it become irrelevant?

[Popertop]

What levels does targeting HP become obsolete?

What spells specifically aggravate this issue?

[DeAnno]

It depends on the level of optimization. In highly optimized conditions, it actually rarely does because saving throws escalate quickly and save-or-dies are never really a viable tactic (save for true specialists in the field like Artificers). High level play in those types of games generally revolves around either locking down large groups of enemies with BC and killing them slowly or damaging them to death very quickly.

[Kenneth]

HP damage for me at least is the only true way during 100% of all levels of play that is a sure thing. not that I have played in super crazy optimization land ( i refuse to play with those guys, i actually like having a chance that I might fail makes me feel actually heroic, you know overcoming odds and all that) but even in epic levels of play witht he creazy amount of immunites things have nothing becoms immune to walking up to a creature and punching it in the face/ stabbing it in the spleen/peicing its chest cavity.

[Glimbur]

There is a series of spells which make one immune to hp damage. I think it includes Beastland Ferocity, Delay Death, and maybe something else. It's kind of poor sportsmanship to use that in a game which doesn't expect it though.

The advantages hp damage has is that everyone can try to do it and it usually works. It can be slower than other methods: getting past AC that requires a 15+ roll on your primary attack, beating regeneration, playing with miss chances, fighting swarms of mooks, and other problems can slow down victory via hp damage.

[Kenneth]

the combo you are thinking of don't make you immune to HP damage ,you still take the damage, you just do not die to HP damage untill the spell effects wear off, like the one stance from Tome OF battle. (though in the beastland foreocity text you hit -10 and you die so I would think that would trump delay death's pwoer, or at least that is how i would rule it)

[DeAnno]

There is a series of spells which make one immune to hp damage. I think it includes Beastland Ferocity, Delay Death, and maybe something else. It's kind of poor sportsmanship to use that in a game which doesn't expect it though.


That's what Disintegrate is for :smallwink:


A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.

[Drachasor]

It depends on the capability of the people playing casters, when you get down to it. If they don't work to get the spells that ignore health and kill or incapacitate (whether using Save or Lose spells or just Lose spells), then hit points are always relevant. You can counter some of this with enemies that have high saves, but that's kind of lame since there are many spells with saving throws that ARE reasonable. Having reasonable spells fail because you have to pump up saves to deal with instant-lose spells is lame.

Culprits:
Save or Lose Spells: They might kill on a failed save, make the enemy helpless, lock them down, give insane penalties to any action (blindness) whatever. Point is, if the save fails then the target is out of the fight from one spell. A good number of this have areas of effect. There's a wide variety to pick from, so a caster can afford to cast against the weakest save of the enemy's.

Ability damage or penalties can be bad, particularly to mental stats. Ray of Stupidity takes down all animals, no matter how impressive. IIRC, it's a level 1 or level 2 spell, but it'll take down a CR 30 animal (assuming such exist). Anything with animal intelligence, actually or just low intelligence. Often there can be no save involved with these.

Anything that is highly debilitating without a save is also problematic.

[Eldariel]

Any way to gain a form of regeneration (Shapechange, Trollshape, Wildshape, Polymorph + Metamorphic Transfer, the usual suspects) and then casting Favor of the Martyr tends to work. Or Beastland Ferocity; if you can't go unconscious, going to negative nonlethal hardly matters.

Delay Death also helps. I usually expect default damage immunities around level 11 or so in a game with tier 1 classes not holding back much. They could be acquired earlier, of course, but that's when I'd expect it to become commonplace.


Other than that, HP damage itself isn't really irrelevant but it depends on the quantities. Generally you want value out of your action and if your action can only target one opponent (physical attack) and can in no ways inconvenience them, it better at least be capable of threatening to kill them (provided you can bypass their wards) with the action spent.

AOE damage can be situationally effective but usually, the big thing about single target damage and AOE damage is that they aren't really worth focusing on since they're pretty easy to replicate. A simple casting of Polymorph does quite a bit in that regard already, negating multiple class features and few other buffs and we're looking at a minutes/level juggernaut of phys dps when it needs to be dished out. Phys DPS is generally good for cleaning up; no need to waste spellslots clearing out a bunch of irrelevant Goblins, for example. Just have the Druid go to town instead.

[Bovine Colonel]

i refuse to play with those guys, i actually like having a chance that I might fail makes me feel actually heroic, you know overcoming odds and all that

Which is why the monsters are also optimized.

[Curious]

Isn't it possible to become immune to damage by taking Troll-blooded and Necropolitan?

[Eldariel]

Isn't it possible to become immune to damage by taking Troll-blooded and Necropolitan?

Regeneration requires for you to have a Constitution score.

[mootoall]

Isn't it possible to become immune to damage by taking Troll-blooded and Necropolitan?

No, you lose your immunity to damage with your Con score.

Edit: Damnable half-dragon wartroll swordsages!

[Arundel]

HP damage for me at least is the only true way during 100% of all levels of play that is a sure thing. not that I have played in super crazy optimization land ( i refuse to play with those guys, i actually like having a chance that I might fail makes me feel actually heroic, you know overcoming odds and all that) but even in epic levels of play witht he creazy amount of immunites things have nothing becoms immune to walking up to a creature and punching it in the face/ stabbing it in the spleen/peicing its chest cavity.

http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm344/NecroEX/StormwindFallacyMotivator.jpg

[Curious]

http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm344/NecroEX/StormwindFallacyMotivator.jpg

But Superman is a poor character. Otherwise I agree though.

[Drachasor]

But Superman is a poor character. Otherwise I agree though.

No he's not.

[Curious]

No he's not.

Not the thread for it, so I'll just say I disagree and move on.

[Tvtyrant]

http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm344/NecroEX/StormwindFallacyMotivator.jpg

How does discussing the ramifications of mechanics have anything to do with Stormwind Fallacy? Saying that there is a mechanical effect isn't Stormwind; saying that roleplaying is opposed to optimization is.

[Arundel]

But Superman is a poor character. Otherwise I agree though.

Since June 1938 Superman has been an American cultural icon. I would also say one of the best developed characters in the history of literature.

Your (http://www.ign.com/top/comic-book-heroes/1) opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(disambiguation)) is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(gene)) not (http://www.empireonline.com/50greatestcomiccharacters/default.asp?c=1) supported (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000196/).


How does discussing the ramifications of mechanics have anything to do with Stormwind Fallacy? Saying that there is a mechanical effect isn't Stormwind; saying that roleplaying is opposed to optimization is.

It is a poorly punctuated paraphrase of the fallacy itself. It is entirely relevant to what I quoted.

[Acanous]

let's cut this derail before it ends up being another Dormamu debacle.

HP damage never becomes "Irrelevant", especially in epic levels. there are plenty of other ways to win a fight, and some of them better than brawling it out, but most tactics involve HP damage for your win.

After all, Chained Greater Dispel Magic or Disjunction follwed up by your friend the ubercharger will knock out just about anything.

[JKTrickster]

I believe HP damage becomes "irrelevant" when you optimize it. Hear me out on this.

If you optimize it, it basically becomes a binary effect: "I hit, You die" kind of thing. At this level, any other source of HP damage is actually quite irrelevant. All that matters is the one source that can instantly kill - anyone else that isn't on par is irrelevant, and you really don't need a lot of people capable of one-shots.

If you don't optimize at all, then it becomes more relevant - because suddenly you'll need more people to pitch in or you won't be able to bring down the bad guy. Standard example is like the Fighter setting up as a flanking buddy for the Rogue. This is needed because without the extra damage, it'll be harder to kill the BBEG.

So the more you optimize, the less "relevant" it becomes.

[Ernir]

I have never, ever seen a campaign where damage became irrelevant. I've seen the Favor of the Martyr + Beastland Ferocity + Delay Death combo and Frenzied Berserkers and regeneration and all sorts of things, but these don't make it irrelevant, just less relevant.

Overall, I think hitting something for Lots Of Damage is one of the more reliable ways to kill things.

That being said, some conventional methods of applying damage get more and more difficult as the levels pile up. But that's a whole different issue.

[Kenneth]

I believe HP damage becomes "irrelevant" when you optimize it. Hear me out on this.

If you optimize it, it basically becomes a binary effect: "I hit, You die" kind of thing. At this level, any other source of HP damage is actually quite irrelevant. All that matters is the one source that can instantly kill - anyone else that isn't on par is irrelevant, and you really don't need a lot of people capable of one-shots.

If you don't optimize at all, then it becomes more relevant - because suddenly you'll need more people to pitch in or you won't be able to bring down the bad guy. Standard example is like the Fighter setting up as a flanking buddy for the Rogue. This is needed because without the extra damage, it'll be harder to kill the BBEG.

So the more you optimize, the less "relevant" it becomes.

so what you are saying is save or die spells/effects are the only thing that makes HP irrelevant?

becuase still if you are talking of a physical attack that can one shot almost everything, it is still doing HP damage, which in turns renders you point moot.

after all what if there is that one guy that happens to have 1 more HP than your maximum damage is capable of?

[Psyren]

With tricks like Vigor+Share Pain, it becomes extremely ineffective quickly.

[ericgrau]

I once figured out the number of rounds it takes to drop an average monster with damage at levels 5 and 15. It was 2.6 rounds at level 5, and 2.6 rounds at level 15. Core, vanilla no tricks build, I have average monster stats in my notes. It's scary how accurately that matches up even to the tenth decimal place. Sometimes when I run into things like this I think there were number crunchers at WotC who had no life when putting the system together... and then 1,000 new abilities came along and so now the answer is "Depends how long it takes you to pull some trick to make it irrelevant."

One thing I've never been a fan of when selecting caster spells are single-target save-or-dies. By the time you get the halfway decent ones foes have SR, high saves and half the time they're immune anyway. I dunno how SoDs/SoLs ever snuck onto the batman caster train but they are even worse than damage for a caster. No, good casters use area debuffs, barriers to isolate some of the foes to make it easier on your party, and they help the party with spells like haste. Good batman casters are basically support.

One time a party was set to fight a red dragon and people started suggesting "use a SoD". I asked which ones, people listed some and the dragon was immune to over half of them, or the suggested dragon feats negated them. Such a high level dragon could take over 2/3 the suggested feats if he wanted. What remained calculated out to an average of 6 rounds to land without stacking with the rest of the parties' efforts to actually damage it, a much faster method btw. I figured around 4-6 rounds depending on some things, but then the party could help too and make it faster than that.

[Drglenn]

Well, wizards get save-or-suck spells that can end an encounter from level 1 (sleep, grease, colour spray). So yea, extrapolate from there

[Kenneth]

http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm344/NecroEX/StormwindFallacyMotivator.jpg


uhh grats in reards to linking something that has no relevenacy to what I siad. i think you won -300 interwebs.

[Drachasor]

uhh grats in reards to linking something that has no relevenacy to what I siad. i think you won -300 interwebs.

To be fair, it actually was related. It was a response to someone saying they didn't feel it was heroic to not do hit point damage (which in a real sense isn't the best of optimization).

[Kenneth]

thats not what i said at all, please go back up and re-read my statement.

the whole optimization = bad Rper was nowhere in my statement at all. neitehr was whatever you are reading into about not delaing HP damage is unheroic.

or if I am wrong you can tell me where You read that in a quote as long as it was not anything I siad then I guess we are allrgiht...


but he quoted my first post and that is what I would assume he was replying to so again.. his point and now yours is kinda.. whu..?

[Arundel]

not that I have played in super crazy optimization land ( i refuse to play with those guys, i actually like having a chance that I might fail makes me feel actually heroic, you know overcoming odds and all that) [sic]

Translated: I don't play high OP, I refuse to play with THOSE people. I like roleplaying.

That is a crude paraphrase of the fallacy itself, from a proofread version of your words. I will admit that I am not exactly sure what your last post said however.

[Vandicus]

not that I have played in super crazy optimization land ( i refuse to play with those guys, i actually like having a chance that I might fail makes me feel actually heroic, you know overcoming odds and all that) but even in epic levels of play witht he creazy amount of immunites things have nothing becoms immune to walking up to a creature and punching it in the face/ stabbing it in the spleen/peicing its chest cavity.

This text heavily implies, but doesn't outright state that people who play in super crazy optimization land, wherever that may be from your point of view, are playing non-heroic characters by virtue of not having the chance to fail.

I allow my players to optimize as much as they want, with the caveat that if they wish to optimize something based on RAW arguments, the rest of their character also must operate completely by RAW rather than RAI. As I result I'm able to put them against very difficult through powerful encounters starting at level one with my reoptimized monsters and have them survive. Believe me when I say its very heroic. More OT, hp damage is typically the way they go. They avoid spells with saves and focus on making attacks that hit regularly and hit hard for hp damage.

[Kenneth]

Translated: I don't play high OP, I refuse to play with THOSE people. I like roleplaying.

That is a crude paraphrase of the fallacy itself, from a proofread version of your words. I will admit that I am not exactly sure what your last post said however.

I like how you randomly infer what I am saying. and even then get it wrong. I said I do not play super crazy optimization. but i guess if you like playing with pun-pun types and such then go ahead. I don't enjoy playing with people who make a character so incrediably powerful that there is no chance at all they are going to fail at any given task.

I do enjoy roleplaying and guess what? one of those crazy optimizers is a very good Rper.. again rendering your argument against what I said moot.

WHy you chose to attack me instead of posting a response to the Ops question is beyond my comprehension.

and vandicus I siad that is what makes ME feel heroic not what is actually heroic or not for other people.

and the fallacy mr arudel is that optimizers cannot roleplay and roleplayers cannot optimize, not that I dislike playing in a campaign where peopel are playing Pun-Puns but go ahead and randomly but completly incorrect twist on my words and have fun.

[TwylyghT]

so what you are saying is save or die spells/effects are the only thing that makes HP irrelevant?

becuase still if you are talking of a physical attack that can one shot almost everything, it is still doing HP damage, which in turns renders you point moot.

after all what if there is that one guy that happens to have 1 more HP than your maximum damage is capable of?

You hold your action until the Bard activates Inspire Courage :smallbiggrin:

[Darcand]

Translated: I don't play high OP, I refuse to play with THOSE people. I like roleplaying.

That is a crude paraphrase of the fallacy itself, from a proofread version of your words. I will admit that I am not exactly sure what your last post said however.

"You don't understand. [Superman's] smart, handsome, even decent. But he's not brave. No, listen to me. Superman is indestructible, and you can't be brave if you're indestructible. It's people like you and your mother. People who are different, and can be crushed and know it. Yet they keep on going out there every time." -Grandpa, Angus 1995

He isn't saying that OPers can't roleplay, he is saying that he enjoys the risk of not OPing and does not enjoy playing with people who do because having them in the party shatters the illusion of danger and ruins the experiance for him.

[DeAnno]

But Superman does have to be brave when he's fighting Brainiac, or Doomsday, or would even more against something completely beyond his level like the Xeelee.

In a proper high-optimization game, the villains are as staggeringly dangerous as the heroes are dauntingly powerful. If the party is a bunch of hyperoptimized Tier 2 combat monsters, then the archvillain is the Artificer that built a giant army of under-CRed robots and can travel through time. High-OP has a bad rap because there are cases when the DM doesn't or can't up the ante appropriately, but when played correctly it can actually be much more tense and lethal genre than usual.

Of course, if the party itself is wildly varying in optimization, that can throw a kink in things (Superman and Static Shock have some trouble going on an adventure together.)

[LordBlades]

From my experience, in high optimization play(where casters actually use save-or-suck and BFC effects extensively) HP damage becomes irrelevant the moment it's not a save or die.

If a monster is stuck by a debilitating effect (like paralysis or blindness) he's effectively out of the fight. If a monster is struck by HP damage he's still operating at full capacity until the moment he drops. Thus, if your HP damage is unable to drop the monster in 1 round, it's larger irrelevant(or rather you'd be more helpful to the party if you played something able to take enemies out of the fight in 1 round as opposed to 3-4).

[Saph]

In my experience HP damage never becomes irrelevant, and I've played in some reasonably high-powered games.

The reason is that while it's possible to become mostly immune to HP damage, it's possible to become immune to pretty much any given status effect too. And generally, it's a lot easier to get immunity to something like paralysis than it is to get immunity to damage.

In the higher-level and higher-optimisation games I've played, using Save-Or-X effects on "boss" enemies was usually a waste of time because they always had crazy saves, a bunch of immunities, high/unbeatable spell resistance, or all of the above. When you're dealing with something like an incorporeal undead spellcaster with SR, trying to figure out exactly which one out of the fifty status conditions it's NOT immune to is not a very efficient way to spend your combat actions.

[candycorn]

From my experience, in high optimization play(where casters actually use save-or-suck and BFC effects extensively) HP damage becomes irrelevant the moment it's not a save or die.

If a monster is stuck by a debilitating effect (like paralysis or blindness) he's effectively out of the fight. If a monster is struck by HP damage he's still operating at full capacity until the moment he drops. Thus, if your HP damage is unable to drop the monster in 1 round, it's larger irrelevant(or rather you'd be more helpful to the party if you played something able to take enemies out of the fight in 1 round as opposed to 3-4).

However, at high optimization play, if an enemy is hit by an attack designed to kill it by HP damage, and that enemy takes HP damage, then it's down.

At even mid-high-optimization levels, characters can easily deal enough damage on an attack to drop the biggest things in the MM twice over... By level 15.

HP damage isn't rendered irrelevant unless miss chances, misdirection, and mooks make melee murdering moronic.

And that can happen even at low levels.

[LordBlades]

However, at high optimization play, if an enemy is hit by an attack designed to kill it by HP damage, and that enemy takes HP damage, then it's down.

At even mid-high-optimization levels, characters can easily deal enough damage on an attack to drop the biggest things in the MM twice over... By level 15.

HP damage isn't rendered irrelevant unless miss chances, misdirection, and mooks make melee murdering moronic.

And that can happen even at low levels.

That's what I said. As long as you have a reasonable way to deliver said damage (think mailman; chargers fail short in this regard by quite a large margin due to being unable to deal with many anti-melee defenses) and enough of it to drop the enemy in one hit, HP damage is as relevant as any other save or die in the book.

What's entirely irrelevant is casual HP damage (damage done by people that don't specialize in this). If for some reason you decide to do HP damage instead of what your build specializes in, odds are somebody will have killed the enemy long before your 20-30 damage/round has piled in amounts large enough to matter.

[Saph]

What's entirely irrelevant is casual HP damage (damage done by people that don't specialize in this). If for some reason you decide to do HP damage instead of what your build specializes in, odds are somebody will have killed the enemy long before your 20-30 damage /round has piled in amounts large enough to matter.

Meh. If all 5 party members do 30 damage each, that's 150 damage a round. A CR 10 Fire Giant has 142 HP. "Everyone hits it for 20-30 damage a round" is actually a fairly efficient way of finishing most encounters.

[LordBlades]

Meh. If all 5 party members do 30 damage each, that's 150 damage a round. A CR 10 Fire Giant has 142 HP. "Everyone hits it for 20-30 damage a round" is actually a fairly efficient way of finishing most encounters.

A Fire giant also have a touch AC of 8 and 9 Dex which means a wizard can just incapacitate it with a Shivering Touch as a single action, freeing the actions of the other 4 party members to deal with the rest of the encounter.

It's Ref save is only +4, so Grease and Web also work.

[Saph]

A Fire giant also have a touch AC of 8 and 9 Dex which means a wizard can just incapacitate it with a Shivering Touch as a single action, freeing the actions of the other 4 party members to deal with the rest of the encounter.

It's Ref save is only +4, so Grease and Web also work.

End result is the same: dead monster.

I'm not saying debuff spells don't work: they do. But it's massive hyperbole to go from "non-damage spells can be very effective" (which is true) to "HP damage is irrelevant" (which is what the OP is saying, which is false).

[LaughingRogue]

End result is the same: dead monster.

I'm not saying debuff spells don't work: they do. But it's massive hyperbole to go from "non-damage spells can be very effective" (which is true) to "HP damage is irrelevant" (which is what the OP is saying, which is false).

i completely agree with what you are saying :) --- at super high optimization in theory i guess it becomes irrelevant but at that kind of optimization the game just isn't fun --- I'm happy to say i've never been in a game where it just becomes irrelevant.

[candycorn]

A Fire giant also have a touch AC of 8 and 9 Dex which means a wizard can just incapacitate it with a Shivering Touch as a single action, freeing the actions of the other 4 party members to deal with the rest of the encounter.

It's Ref save is only +4, so Grease and Web also work.

Shivering touch requires the wizard to get to melee range with the giant, or utilize additional spells to avoid this.

Grease and Web work for weakening/CCing the enemy, but it's a temporary solution.

Yes, these are useful spells, but 20-30 damage is doable by most at level 7. (rogue: 5d6+8 - 1d6 shortsword + 4d6 sneak attack + 7 Craven + 1 strength)
(wizard: 8d6 - Scorching Ray, Energy Substituted Acid)
(Barb: 2d6+25 - 2d6 Greatsword + 10 str(raging) + 1 enhancement + 14 Power attack)
I could go on. Druid should be obvious.

Yes, incidental damage is incidental. But it adds up. And at level 7, a CR 10 fire giant is a solo encounter, and supposedly a tough one at that.

[LordBlades]

End result is the same: dead monster.

I'm not saying debuff spells don't work: they do. But it's massive hyperbole to go from "non-damage spells can be very effective" (which is true) to "HP damage is irrelevant" (which is what the OP is saying, which is false).

Except is dead monster in 1 action vs. dead monster in 5 actions. So 5x more effective (unless you're encountering a solo fire giant, then it doesn't matter).

[LaughingRogue]

Except is dead monster in 1 action vs. dead monster in 5 actions. So 5x more effective (unless you're encountering a solo fire giant, then it doesn't matter).

But this in itself doesn't make hit point damage irrelevant...less optimized yes --- irrelevant no.

[LordBlades]

But this in itself doesn't make hit point damage irrelevant...less optimized yes --- irrelevant no.

Consider the following: you're the fighter/barbarian, you go and whack the Fire Giant over the head with your pointy stick for 30 damage, then the wizard comes and casts Shivering Touch. Dead Fire Giant. Has your damage contributed in any way to the outcome of the fight? Absolutely not. therefore irrelevant.

[LaughingRogue]

Consider the following: you're the fighter/barbarian, you go and whack the Fire Giant over the head with your pointy stick for 30 damage, then the wizard comes and casts Shivering Touch. Dead Fire Giant. Has your damage contributed in any way to the outcome of the fight? Absolutely not. therefore irrelevant.

consider the following --- you're fighting a Golem, since the standard way to take down a golem is damage (ORB OF X) damage will be relevant.

and also this is a fallacy --- just because you can come up with one instance where something is irrelevant doesn't mean it is....

this is like me saying "well since i can't use skills in battle, using skills is irrelevant" (intended to be stupid)


Edit:: As long as there are times when it is not irrelevant you can't make a case for it always being irrelevant. So instead of showing one instance where it's irrelevant you need to show that it is irrelevant in ALL cases.

[LordBlades]

consider the following --- you're fighting a Golem, since the standard way to take down a golem is damage (ORB OF X) damage will be relevant.

Silent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm) and it's bigger brothers.

Good luck disbelieving being mindless and with construct saving throws.

Also Wall of X or invisbility.


and also this is a fallacy --- just because you can come up with one instance where something is irrelevant doesn't mean it is....

this is like me saying "well since i can't use skills in battle, using skills is irrelevant" (intended to be stupid)

You've misunderstood my point sorry if I didn't make it clear enough. What I wanted to say is that in an optimized party at least some of the party members will have effects that kill/incapacitate enemies. Now, if party member A comes, does some damage, then party member B comes and casts an incapacitating effect, A has practically wasted his round(the monster would have been incapacitated anyway and hist damage did nothing to help/speed the process). Now, if A's damage would have been enough to kill the monster, then the situation changes, since B can now use his incapacitating effect on a different target or do something else.


I do agree there are some corner cases when damage might not be completely useless.

[LaughingRogue]

Silent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm) and it's bigger brothers.

Good luck disbelieving being mindless and with construct saving throws.

Also Wall of X or invisbility.



You've misunderstood my point sorry if I didn't make it clear enough. What I wanted to say is that in an optimized party at least some of the party members will have effects that kill/incapacitate enemies. Now, if party member A comes, does some damage, then party member B comes and casts an incapacitating effect, A has practically wasted his round(the monster would have been incapacitated anyway and hist damage did nothing to help/speed the process). Now, if A's damage would have been enough to kill the monster, then the situation changes, since B can now use his incapacitating effect on a different target or do something else.


I do agree there are some corner cases when damage might not be completely useless.

I can agree with this

On a side note I am now a dwarf not a halfling :( --- I like halflings

[candycorn]

Consider the following: you're the fighter/barbarian, you go and whack the Fire Giant over the head with your pointy stick for 30 damage, then the wizard comes and casts Shivering Touch. Dead Fire Giant. Has your damage contributed in any way to the outcome of the fight? Absolutely not. therefore irrelevant.

Consider the following: The wizard's success depends on having the right spell at the right time.

For example: Let's say the party comes up against a fire giant.

The fighter moves in and hits for 30 damage.
Fire giant attacks, hitting the fighter for 30 damage.
Wizard comes in to cast shivering touch.
Fire giant gets an AoO, hitting the wizard for 30 damage, staggering him. He can no longer cast.

Or perhaps:

The fighter moves in and hits for 30 damage.
Fire giant attacks, hitting the fighter for 30 damage.
Wizard Casts grease.
Fire giant successfully saves.

Tell me, how much has the wizard contributed in these cases? Does that mean the wizard is irrelevant? No. It means that in these two specific cases, the wizard did not contribute.

Just because damage does not always contribute, does not mean that it is irrelevant.

[candycorn]

Silent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm) and it's bigger brothers.

Good luck disbelieving being mindless and with construct saving throws.

Also Wall of X or invisbility.



You've misunderstood my point sorry if I didn't make it clear enough. What I wanted to say is that in an optimized party at least some of the party members will have effects that kill/incapacitate enemies. Now, if party member A comes, does some damage, then party member B comes and casts an incapacitating effect, A has practically wasted his round(the monster would have been incapacitated anyway and hist damage did nothing to help/speed the process). Now, if A's damage would have been enough to kill the monster, then the situation changes, since B can now use his incapacitating effect on a different target or do something else.


I do agree there are some corner cases when damage might not be completely useless.

We do not misunderstand your point. We refute it. In a party optimized enough to be using save or X effects with reliable effectiveness, the damage dealer WILL be dealing enough damage to drop targets.

You're comparing a mailman vs a fighter with 7 applications of Toughness; i.e. differing optimization levels.

Even if not, it's not the fighter who wasted an action in your example. It's the wizard who wasted the fighter's action.

You assume the following:

1) There are multiple available targets.
2) The fighter moves and engages one, damaging it.
3) The wizard, who has targets that are uninjured and injured, chooses to incapacitate the engaged foe, rather than the unengaged targets.

Point (3) shows that the wizard, when presented with multiple targets... chooses to incapacitate the one that is being whittled down... Rather than a fresh target. Therein lies the problem. The wizard is not a team player, but instead chooses to show up his teammate.

[LordBlades]

Consider the following: The wizard's success depends on having the right spell at the right time.

For example: Let's say the party comes up against a fire giant.

The fighter moves in and hits for 30 damage.
Fire giant attacks, hitting the fighter for 30 damage.
Wizard comes in to cast shivering touch.
Fire giant gets an AoO, hitting the wizard for 30 damage, staggering him. He can no longer cast.

Or perhaps:

The fighter moves in and hits for 30 damage.
Fire giant attacks, hitting the fighter for 30 damage.
Wizard Casts grease.
Fire giant successfully saves.

Tell me, how much has the wizard contributed in these cases? Does that mean the wizard is irrelevant? No. It means that in these two specific cases, the wizard did not contribute.

Just because damage does not always contribute, does not mean that it is irrelevant.

General case: in high-op games, most fights are practically won by save-or-lose or BFC effects. Most suck effects don't give a damn if the enemy's hp are at 1% or 99% of the total. This means that once those spells have been cast (and battle been won) all the damage that has been done without killing the target has been for most intents and purposes useless (the outcome would have been exactly the same without it).

Just to clarify, my stance on this issue is not 'HP damage is always irrelevant' but rather 'HP damage is generally irrelevant unless you manage to kill the monster in a single action'.



You're comparing a mailman vs a fighter with 7 applications of Toughness; i.e. differing optimization levels.

That's exactly what I said. Mailman is good because it can kill what it damages in a single action. Toughness fighter is bad because it can't.



Even if not, it's not the fighter who wasted an action in your example. It's the wizard who wasted the fighter's action.

You assume the following:

1) There are multiple available targets.
2) The fighter moves and engages one, damaging it.
3) The wizard, who has targets that are uninjured and injured, chooses to incapacitate the engaged foe, rather than the unengaged targets.

Fighter's action has had no effect regarding the offensive potential of the enemies. A fire giant with 30 damage taken hits just as hard as a full health fire giant. Probably harder since now he has a target in full attack range.

Supposing the multiple targets are all equal in the threat they present to the party (ie, no spellcasters, no CR20 dragon accompanied by a fire giant mook, you get the point hopefully) it makes quite sound tactical sense to incapacitate the one that can bring it's full potential to bear (full attack) as opposed to one that would have to move and attack.

[candycorn]

General case: in high-op games, most fights are practically won by save-or-lose or BFC effects. Most suck effects don't give a damn if the enemy's hp are at 1% or 99% of the total. This means that once those spells have been cast (and battle been won) all the damage that has been done without killing the target has been for most intents and purposes useless (the outcome would have been exactly the same without it).

Just to clarify, my stance on this issue is not 'HP damage is always irrelevant' but rather 'HP damage is generally irrelevant unless you manage to kill the monster in a single action'.

And that stance is wrong.

You assume that right after every damage dealer is a SoD caster lurking, just a-waitin' to zap that critter to oblivion. This is not the case.

From practical experience, in a 5 man party, one of which is a wizard focusing on SoD effects, the wizard acts once a round. So let's say that wizard goes 3rd. There are 2 enemies.

Fighter charges, wounding a foe.
Rogue moves up and fires a shot, sneak attacking it for damage.
Wizard casts a spell, incapacitating the second foe.
Barbarian charges, incapacitating the first foe.

Tell me, is damage irrelevant in this example? Your point is a gross overgeneralization, and is useful only when reduced to, "SoD effects are generally more effective at removing enemies than damage dealing effects."

Any more than that, and you start in with the generalizations, supported by no more than personal anecdote. These are not accurate.


That's exactly what I said. Mailman is good because it can kill what it damages in a single action. Toughness fighter is bad because it can't.

And therein lies your second fallacy. You're not proving the superiority of one thing over another. You're saying that optimized Tier 1 character is better than unoptimized Tier 4 character.

Duh.

Let's compare Toughness Fighter to SoD wizard with an 11 intelligence, an 8 con, an 8 dex, and an 18 strength, and every feat is spell focus in a banned school.

[LordBlades]

And that stance is wrong.

From practical experience, in a 5 man party, one of which is a wizard focusing on SoD effects, the wizard acts once a round. So let's say that wizard goes 3rd. There are 2 enemies.

Fighter charges, wounding a foe.
Rogue moves up and fires a shot, sneak attacking it for damage.
Wizard casts a spell, incapacitating the second foe.
Barbarian charges, incapacitating the first foe.

Tell me, is damage irrelevant in this example? Your point is a gross overgeneralization, and is useful only when reduced to, "SoD effects are generally more effective at removing enemies than damage dealing effects."

Any more than that, and you start in with the generalizations, supported by no more than personal anecdote. These are not accurate.

Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Barbarian is not a high optimization game sorry. I did agree that in low and mid op games HP damage is completely useful and reasonable.

For me, high optimization games are usually Tier 1 and 2 with the occasional Tier 3 struggling to keep up. And that means mostly(if not entirely) casters, all of which have save-or-die and BFC on their list. Which makes generalizing that most fights are usually won by save-or-die and BFC more than personal anecdote.

More specifically to your example. What if the party has a second caster (let's say a cleric or druid) acting at any point between the fighter and the barbarian? His most powerful(and probably most logical, depending on the enemy's initiative count and offensive potential) course of action is to incapacitate the remaining foe with a spell, thus rendering the fighter's (and possibly rogue's) actions irrelevant.




And therein lies your second fallacy. You're not proving the superiority of one thing over another. You're saying that optimized Tier 1 character is better than unoptimized Tier 4 character.



I'm not even trying to compare(the result is obvious). All I'm saying is that in a high powered environment if you're a damage dealer you need to be able to one shot things in order to be useful.



Let's compare Toughness Fighter to SoD wizard with an 11 intelligence, an 8 con, an 8 dex, and an 18 strength, and every feat is spell focus in a banned school.

Wizard still wins. With a headband of int he can cast Polymorph which is>>>Toughness fighter. Or with no items just be an outsider, put your level 4, 8 etc points in int. At level 4 you can cast Alter Self. Be a Dwarf Ancestor, sit back and laugh at the fighter that keeps missing you.

[Ormur]

In a 17th level game where I'm playing a wizard and my friend is playing a Druid. It's maybe not a high-optimzation game but we're playing tier one classes and we have some idea about what we should be doing (lesser beings tremble before our awsome might). As a wizard I am sometimes capable of ending encounters with a single spell but there are immunities and usually the result isn't straight out death but a very bad status condition, not to mention that there are often many enemies. It's usually just as reliable for my druid friend to buff himself to ridiculous power and kill things by doing 3-400 in damage in the surprise round. Sure there is DR and such to contend with but a straigth out damage immunity is much rarer and damage stacks.

Maybe the fight is prolonged beyond the first round if the HP count or AC is sufficiently high but a succesful save or an unexpected immunity can just as well mean my wizard's first turn is negated. Then there's the action cost of attempts to dispell buffs and such if one or both sides are annoyingly impervious. I think the rocket tag that's resolved in the first round is not always how it goes since in actual games the wizard may not have perfect spell selection or perfect knowledge of the encounter beforehand. Of course in this example the damage dealer is a druid with a bunch of buffs that's still perfectly capable of pulling other tricks than damage out of his rear end but lots and lots of damage is still far from irrelevant even at 17th level.*

*In my experience. Maybe others are used to battling only ridiculous lumps of HP with damage immunity and capable of dishing out world ending spells every turn by that level.

[faceroll]

Isn't it possible to become immune to damage by taking Troll-blooded and Necropolitan?

Trollblooded on a Warforged Juggernaught will do it.

[LordBlades]

Trollblooded on a Warforged Juggernaught will do it.


Actually come to think of it, something like warforged barbarian1/fighter4/juggernaut 5/frenzied berserker 10 is also pretty nice immunity wise. Can't die from HP damage while in Frenzy and is immune to crits, nonlethal damage, ability damage and drain, mind affecting, nercomancy and death effects.

[Ernir]

Sometimes when I run into things like this I think there were number crunchers at WotC who had no life when putting the system together... and then 1,000 new abilities came along and so now the answer is "Depends how long it takes you to pull some trick to make it irrelevant."

I like to imagine that they hired a team of math guys at the start of 3.0 to make sure the base system was numerically balanced.

Then those guys were thanked for a job well done, sent home, and another team was brought in to design the spells.

[faceroll]

It's Ref save is only +4, so Grease and Web also work.

Grease, for sure. Web, maybe not. It's flammable. Might not work in a volcano, and fire giants also have boulders that do fire damage (I dunno how, but it's right there on their table).

Grease also gives -4 AC to the giant, which translates to up to 8 more damage a round, per character with a 2hander and power attack.

[LaughingRogue]

Grease, for sure. Web, maybe not. It's flammable. Might not work in a volcano, and fire giants also have boulders that do fire damage (I dunno how, but it's right there on their table).

Grease also gives -4 AC to the giant, which translates to up to 8 more damage a round, per character with a 2hander and power attack.


I'll just leave this here

[faceroll]

I'll just leave this here

What's your point?
With 5 characters doing 30 points of damage/round, that's enough to kill a fire giant. If the wizard decides to use web, the fire giant doesn't die in one round, because 1 of the 5 characters didn't do 30 damage. However, with grease and the ease of hitting a prone opponent, the wizard easily makes up not doing 30 points of damage, thanks to higher probability of iteratives hitting, more power attack, etc, and the fire giant should still die this round. If it doesn't, he's prone, which means he's taking a pretty big debuff (-4 AC vs. melee, -4 to hit, provokes AoOs when he gets up).

So are you saying because grease is an optimal solution, damage is irrelevant? Ok. Let's take 5 wizards. They all cast grease. Oh look, the fire giant is still alive!

[LaughingRogue]

What's your point?
With 5 characters doing 30 points of damage/round, that's enough to kill a fire giant. If the wizard decides to use web, the fire giant doesn't die in one round, because 1 of the 5 characters didn't do 30 damage. However, with grease and the ease of hitting a prone opponent, the wizard easily makes up not doing 30 points of damage, thanks to higher probability of iteratives hitting, more power attack, etc, and the fire giant should still die this round. If it doesn't, he's prone, which means he's taking a pretty big debuff (-4 AC vs. melee, -4 to hit, provokes AoOs when he gets up).

My point was that the damage is not irrelevant here as there is damage being done --- just reinforcing the damage point.

[faceroll]

My point was that the damage is not irrelevant here as there is damage being done --- just reinforcing the damage point.

Oh yeah, I agree 100%. Outside of certain kiting builds with efficient DoTs, metamagic abuse, or wilders, damage is best left to the people that can do damage without using resources. As a caster, it's best if you can make your opponents weak, afraid, and greasy. A level 1 spell slot could be as much as 32 more damage a round, depending on party composition.

That doesn't make damage irrelevant.