(PF)Two handed weapon or Shield and board?

[ProudGrognard]

Greetings, fellow co-forumites

I have a question I would like help answering. I am trying to figure out what kind of fighting style is best on the long run for a fighter.

The first is Shield and 1H weapon. The benefits of this is that you can get your AC really high, not only because you have the shield bonus (da!), but because you can enchant both shield and armor. You also get more feats to play with.
The downside of course is that you get lower damage dealing capabilities.

The second is a two handed weapon. You get amazing damage but your AC suffers. You also get reach with the right weapon, which gives you more attacks in the long run. But your AC really suffers

There is also the two handed weapon sans reach. This usually entails even more damage, but you lose the reach advantage.

So my question is: What gives? Is it better for the fighter to have the extra AC or the reach advantage? And in which levels?

Thank you for your time.

[RFLS]

You'll find that past maybe level 2, 2HF is much, much better than sword and board. The AC you get from a shield, while nice early on, ends up being irrelevant later into the game. You also actually end up with fewer feats, because you have to invest feats into using a shield, too.

Now, a lot of people will say "No, wait, having the shield prevents damage, while the extra damage from 2HF kills the other guy faster. It evens out, right?" It really doesn't; PF is a binary game; you're either conscious and swinging a sword or you're down. You don't get worse the more bloodied you get. Therefore, you want to take people down as quickly as possible, before they have a chance to do something to you, or their allies do, like casting a "Save or X" spell on you, which WILL take you out of the fight.

TL;DR- 2HF is numerically and tactically superior. Doesn't matter if it's reach or not.

[ProudGrognard]

RFLS, thanks for the reply. What you are saying is what I was thinking too.

However, I am a bit confused on how exactly the AC is irrelevant. I am not arguing the point, just asking. An enchanted shield can give up to +7 to AC. How come that becomes irrelevant?

Though I suppose that the rationale you are describing is 'Better to make the other guy lose 7hp than me saving for 7 hp'. But that would mean that reach, which enables more attacks, is even better. Correct?

[Baroncognito]

You'll find that past maybe level 2, 2HF is much, much better than sword and board. The AC you get from a shield, while nice early on, ends up being irrelevant later into the game. You also actually end up with fewer feats, because you have to invest feats into using a shield, too.

Now, a lot of people will say "No, wait, having the shield prevents damage, while the extra damage from 2HF kills the other guy faster. It evens out, right?" It really doesn't; PF is a binary game; you're either conscious and swinging a sword or you're down. You don't get worse the more bloodied you get. Therefore, you want to take people down as quickly as possible, before they have a chance to do something to you, or their allies do, like casting a "Save or X" spell on you, which WILL take you out of the fight.

TL;DR- 2HF is numerically and tactically superior. Doesn't matter if it's reach or not.

Beyond Shield Proficiency, what feats do you need to use a shield?

I mean, I understand that, if you want to attack with the shield, you need to use Shield Bash and the Two-Weapon fighting tree, but if you're just using it for AC, are there that many feats that make it better?

The two-handed weapon damage bonus is just from Power Attack and strength, right, in that you're getting about 50% more damage from those. But you get the same +2 from weapon specialization and other damage bonuses, right?

[Teh_das]

The reason that Sword/Board are inferior to THF is because AC doesn't scale with level automatically like BAB does. At a certain level (usually early on), it becomes unrealistic to funnel so much wealth into magical armors when your foes keep getting stronger without spending a cent. 2HF on the other hand allows for hitting to scale with level, which means you'll have money to finance other things.

It's not that it's impossible to keep AC in the realm of being useful, it's that you have to pursue it with such one-minded devotion that you sacrifice EVERYTHING else.

[Xerxus]

I would not jump to the conclusion that shields are worse so fast. It depends way too much on the rest of your party. What their abilities and weaknesses sum up to might - not often, but sometimes - make the sword and board viable. I made an example build with a tower shield. You have to remember that this guy would be buffed with enlarge person and bulls strength in an appropriate party. Here it is:

Unnamed Hero
Male Human (Chelaxian) Fighter (Tower Shield Specialist) 5
NG Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +0
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 31, touch 13, flat-footed 28 (+10 armor, +6 shield, +3 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection)
hp 47 (5d10+15)

Fort +6, Ref +4 (+1 vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield), Will +2

Defensive Abilities burst barrier +1
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +1 Longsword +10 (1d8+6/19-20/x2)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 16, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8

Base Atk +5; CMB +8; CMD 26

Feats Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round), Power Attack -2/+4, Shield Focus, Shield Specialization (Tower Shield), Stand Still, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword)

Traits Fencer, Indomitable Faith

Skills Acrobatics -5 (-9 jump), Climb +1, Escape Artist -5, Fly -5, Intimidate +5, Ride +1, Stealth -5, Survival +6, Swim +1

Languages Common

SQ tower shield specialist, tower shield training 1

Other Gear +1 Full plate, +1 Darkwood Tower shield, +1 Longsword, Amulet of natural armor +1, Ring of protection +1
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Burst Barrier +1 (Ex) +1 on Reflex saves vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield.

Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.

Fencer +1 to hit with dagger or sword AoOs.

Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.

Shield Focus +1 Shield AC

Shield Specialization (Tower Shield) You have mastered the use of one type of shield. Choose one type of shield. With it you get +2 AC against critical confirmation rolls, and you apply your shields AC bonus (not including enhancement) to your CMD.

Stand Still When taking an AoO, you can make a combat maneuver check to end opponent's movement instead of attacking. (For this character the total CMB for this maneuver is +11 - +8 base, +1 wpn focus, +1 wpn enhancement, +1 fencer)

Tower Shield Specialist (Ex) Do not suffer penalty to attack rolls from using a tower shield.

Tower Shield Training 1 (Ex) While wearing a tower shield all armor and shields have -3 armor check penalty and +2 max DEX.

In four levels the touch AC will skyrocket as well.

Yes, Pathfinder is about a lot of DPS, but not every party member has to or even should be focused on maximizing damage. In fact, a wizard focusing on DPS-spells is doing it wrong. Like someone already mentioned, allowing a battle to go on for too long is probably going to lead to save or suck failures, but it goes both ways. This is not the right character for a lot of parties, but it is not always the wrong one.

[ProudGrognard]

So, as far as I can see, the consensus is that, though shield builds are viable and can contribute a lot to a party depending on its composition, the d20 mechanics favor damage output vs turtling.

[TuggyNE]

PF still has Animated shields, though they're not quite the auto-win they were in 3.5. So a THF needn't fully give up on shield bonuses if they don't want to.

[Lorsa]

I can't help it but... two shields bonuses do not stack so shield and board is a bit weak. :smallredface:

(yes I understand what you mean but the title was a bit funny anyway)

If you're aiming at having a really high AC then sword and board is your thing, but in that case you need feats and your fighting style to boost it as well and hope that the rest of your party can actually kill stuff for you. Also, as stated, AC doesn't protect against magic, but killing a wizard fast does. So really, I think the question depends on what sort of enemies you will face. Big stupid melee monsters that will keep hitting you simply because you are so hard to take down? Then more AC will definitely help. Small smart wizards that will keep you out of the fight or target your teammates? Two-handed for damage.

[Slipperychicken]

RFLS, thanks for the reply. What you are saying is what I was thinking too.

However, I am a bit confused on how exactly the AC is irrelevant. I am not arguing the point, just asking. An enchanted shield can give up to +7 to AC. How come that becomes irrelevant?


It's because attack bonuses scale very quickly, and the amount of resources you need to put into AC is too damn high, so it makes you cut corners in other areas to finance the AC. Also, AC is only one defense of many, so even if you spend the resources to get it high, you're not completely covered.

[MukkTB]

I did some math on the subject. IIRC At level 1 you get about 33% more damage from using a two handed weapon. You get about 25% more effective hit points using a shield.

AC is one possible defense you can have at mid levels. It is not impossible to keep your AC high enough to be relevant. It just uses up a good chunk of your wealth by level. Now AC is competing against a number of other things you could spend your wealth by level on to mitigate damage: damage reduction, elemental resists, miss chance, immunities, constitution bonuses, saving throw bonuses. I would even go so far as to say spot check boosting items and initiative boosters are important defensive items because they give you a chance to duck into cover or avoid the ambush.

Common wisdom on these boards is to dump AC. People then either suggest some combination of other defenses or they forget about defenses entirely and expect you to play a game of rocket tag. Win initiative, destroy the enemy. I would recommend that you build a rounded character. Invest some into your AC until you hit mid level. Do what you can for your fortitude and will saves. By mid level pick up some miss chance. You need to be able to deal with spot checks, which as a 3.5 fighter is hard. Do it anyway. If you can boost initative you can afford to have slightly weaker defenses. When you hit mid level make the decision. Either pump AC or let it go entirely. This depends somewhat on your play style and feat selection. A Leap Attacking Shock Trooper is never going to have an AC worth mentioning. At some point you can pick up a shield enchanted to fly around on its own. These are worthwhile if you want to use AC as a defense.

[Fouredged Sword]

+2 strength means you hit more often and do more damage when you do hit. This cause exponential gain.

+2 dex simply reduces the number of times your foe hits you. This is a linear gain.

If you have two players with all things being the same, the player who focuses on attack wins out because it gains more per investment unit. The player focused on defense looses because he must invest the same amount just to turn the foes growth from exponential to linear.

Therefor take TWF and invest in enough defense to just keep you ahead of the curve.

Defense starts out ahead, because of the cheep static bonuses that can be gained at low level. Once BAB passes around 10 or so, AC is now harder to gain than attack bonus, and BAB has passed AC.

[The Trickster]

Also remember that, at low levels, most things try to kill you by attacking you (goblins with spears or whatever). At higher levels, things try to kill you with a bunch of new tactics that force different saves, making AC a little less important.

The only other problem with going "tank" build is making sure enemies attack you. A big guy with a two-handed axe chopping off the baddies heads is a lot more threatening than a shield wearer. Having a good AC is only worth it if baddies target you. The only feat that makes enemies attack you is Goad, and (If I remember correctly) it's kinda underwhelming.

[MukkTB]

I forget you said pathfinder. In that case you can take a trait to make spot a class skill.

[Xerxus]

Also remember that, at low levels, most things try to kill you by attacking you (goblins with spears or whatever). At higher levels, things try to kill you with a bunch of new tactics that force different saves, making AC a little less important.

The only other problem with going "tank" build is making sure enemies attack you. A big guy with a two-handed axe chopping off the baddies heads is a lot more threatening than a shield wearer. Having a good AC is only worth it if baddies target you. The only feat that makes enemies attack you is Goad, and (If I remember correctly) it's kinda underwhelming.

There is also the option of penalizing and hindering enemies for attempting to bypass the tank (you). Things like Stand Still, Pin Down, the Sacred Shield archetype for paladins, trip AoOs etc. This only applies to martial opponents, sure, but why else would you have a tank? You can't plan for every eventuality (unless you're a wizard of course).

[Certified]

I can't help it but... two shields bonuses do not stack so shield and board is a bit weak. :smallredface:

(yes I understand what you mean but the title was a bit funny anyway)


What's wrong with the Two Shield Fighter? By taking the Shield Feats and Two Weapon Fighting Feats along with Equipment Trick and the Close Weapon Group for bonus attack and damage you are like a Phalanx all to yourself. Go one, hurl the one shield, then grab a spare from your back, because 3 shields are better than 2, then go for that two weapon rend no one saw coming.

[StreamOfTheSky]

2 Shield build, if using Ranger 1-6 as a starting base to get Shield Slam and Shield Master early, is actually pretty decent. Still not as good as 2HF, though.

If you insist on using a shield and a non-shield weapon, at least don't make the mistake most do and have shield as your off-hand weapon. That means eating another -2 to hit or not using a heavy shield and losing a point of AC along with a bunch of damage. Main hand a spiked bashing heavy shield. Off-hand a kukri or other light 18-20 crit weapon, and make it keen. Take Bashing Finish at level 10 or as soon as you can afterwards. Every time you crit, you get an extra shield bash attack.

[MukkTB]

You can tank melee guys by taking battlefield control feats, but that doesn't help against the really nasty opponents. You can't trip a spell if it goes past you.

[Answerer]

+2 strength means you hit more often and do more damage when you do hit. This cause exponential gain.
No.

Your damage is a function of p, your chance to hit, and d, your damage when you do hit. p is proportional to s, your Strength modifier, and so is d. Thus, p = a s, d = b s, where a and b are constants. Your expected damage per attack is p * d = a s * b s = a b s2.

So the gain in damage with respect to Strength is quadratic, not exponential. Exponential would be dramatically faster.


+2 dex simply reduces the number of times your foe hits you. This is a linear gain.
This, on the other hand, is correct, and linear gain is still generally slower than quadratic. If your chance to not be hit is q and is proportional to x (your Dexterity modifier, since I already used d), then q = c x, where c is some constant.

We can therefore compare what a single point of Strength and Dexterity would do by taking the differential of each of these formula (actually, as discrete system, the differential doesn't really quite work but we can treat the system as continuous for the purposes of this comparison). Therefore we have d/ds (a b s2) vs. d/dx (c x)

d/ds (a b s2) = 2a b s

d/dx (c x) = c

Therefore, you compare a b s to c. For a two-handed weapon, b=1.5, and a and c, as the factors of your odds of hitting or being hit, respectively, should be similar in value. Therefore, improving Strength gets you more bang for your buck, so to speak, by the ratio of 1.5 s to 1.

[Xerxus]

You can tank melee guys by taking battlefield control feats, but that doesn't help against the really nasty opponents. You can't trip a spell if it goes past you.

Well you can't power attack it either. And no, you can still reliably trip enemies on foot way past level 5. This is an example build:

Unnamed Hero
Human (Chelaxian) Fighter (Tower Shield Specialist) 16
CG Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +12
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 49, touch 31, flat-footed 44 (+14 armor, +11 shield, +5 Dex, +4 natural, +5 deflection)

hp 172 (16d10+80)

Fort +19, Ref +15 (+4 vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield, +1 vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield, +1 vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield, +1 vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield), Will +12

Defensive Abilities burst barrier +4, tower shield defense, tower shield evasion (evasion)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +5 Dueling Longsword +28/+23/+18/+13 (1d8+14/19-20/x2)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 21, Dex 20, Con 18, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8

Base Atk +16; CMB +21 (+23 Disarming, +30 Tripping, +15 to both maneuvers while using the longsword); CMD 47 (49 vs. Disarm, 49 vs. Trip)

Feats Combat Expertise +/-5, Combat Reflexes (6 AoO/round), Fury’s Fall, Greater Shield Focus, Greater Shield Specialization (Tower Shield) (1/day), Greater Trip, Greater Weapon Focus (Longsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (Longsword), Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Iron Will, Missile Shield (1/round), Pin Down, Power Attack -5/+10, Shield Focus, Shield Specialization (Tower Shield), Weapon Focus (Longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword)

Skills Acrobatics +0, Climb +7, Escape Artist +0, Fly +0, Heal +8, Intimidate +18, Perception +12, Ride +7, Sense Motive +8, Stealth +0, Survival +11, Swim +7

Languages Common, Dwarven

SQ immediate repositioning, impervious armor and shield, tower shield specialist, tower shield training 4

Other Gear +5 Impervious Full plate, +5 Impervious Darkwood Tower shield, +5 Dueling Longsword, Amulet of natural armor +4, Belt of physical perfection +4, Cloak of resistance +5, Ring of protection +5
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Burst Barrier +4 (Ex) +4 on Reflex saves vs burst spells and effects while using a tower shield.

Combat Expertise +/-5 Bonus to AC in exchange for an equal penalty to attack.

Combat Reflexes (6 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.

Fury’s Fall When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB.

Greater Shield Specialization (Tower Shield) (1/day) +2 AC vs. critical confirmations, negate 1 critical/day.

Greater Trip Foes you trip provoke AoO when they are knocked prone.

Immediate Repositioning (Ex) Reposition tower shield as an immediate action.

Improved Disarm You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when disarming.

Improved Trip You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when tripping.

Missile Shield (1/round) 1/round, when hit by a ranged weapon, take no damage.

Pin Down Opponents that take 5-foot step or withdraw provoke attack of opportunity from you. If you hit you deal no damage but they don't move and lose the move action.

Power Attack -5/+10 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.

Shield Focus +1 Shield AC

Shield Specialization (Tower Shield) You have mastered the use of one type of shield. You get the shield AC bonus excluding the enhancement to CMD.

Tower Shield Defense (Ex) Gain shield bonus to touch AC while using a tower shield.

Tower Shield Evasion (Evasion) (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage while using a tower shield, you take none instead.

Tower Shield Specialist (Ex) Do not suffer penalty to attack rolls from using a tower shield.

Tower Shield Training 4 (Ex) While wearing tower shield armor training yields -6 check penalty, +5 max DEX.

[ProudGrognard]

No.

Your damage is a function of p, your chance to hit, and d, your damage when you do hit. p is proportional to s, your Strength modifier, and so is d. Thus, p = a s, d = b s, where a and b are constants. Your expected damage per attack is p * d = a s * b s = a b s2.

So the gain in damage with respect to Strength is quadratic, not exponential. Exponential would be dramatically faster.



How can this be true, mathematically speaking? . This is wrong:


p = a s, d = b s, where a and b are constants.

The chance to hit is not proportional to Str mod. The chance to hit a given AC is a function of BAB and Str added. Thus, if a Str mod doubles, the chance to hit does not double.

Example: If a fighter level 1 has a str 12, his chance to hit AC 15, is 40%, since he must roll 13 or higher. If he has Str 14 (double the Str mod), his chance is 45%. If his Str mod becomes +4 (quadrupled), his chance becomes 50% from 40%.

That is not proportional. By definition. Same goes for damage.

[Answerer]

The chance to hit is not proportional to Str mod. The chance to hit a given AC is a function of BAB and Str added. Thus, if a Str mod doubles, the chance to hit does not double.
You're correct that there are more terms. I can't quite recall if something can be called proportional if there is another (independent) term, so you may be right that it cannot be called proportional. However, that independent term goes away after differentiating, so that does not affect my final conclusion.

In other words, you're right but that's OK because BAB and Strength are independent, as are Strength and your base weapon damage or whatever else. The effects of these other factors are either included in the (intentionally undefined) constants, or else form independent terms that disappear upon differentiation.

[Morbis Meh]

The main problem with tanking is usually the fact that you are more or less focusing on turtling thus not contributing to defeating the threat directly. The enemy has little incentinve to go for you and there is not much you can do about it really because if you were a monster and wanted to snack on something would you go for something that's well protected like a coconut or go for a more squishy banana? Looking at Xerxus' tower shield fighter he is essentially useless offensively 1d8+14 dmg at level 16, most enemies would have some form of DR probably between 5-10 so the damage per hit is only 10-17 with DR 5 and 5-12 with DR 10. At this level things are flying, teleporting and doing al sorts of shenanigans thus this tank is not doing much of anything since he can be avoided since all of his resources have been allocated to defense.

[ProudGrognard]

You're correct that there are more terms. I can't quite recall if something can be called proportional if there is another (independent) term, so you may be right that it cannot be called proportional. However, that independent term goes away after differentiating, so that does not affect my final conclusion.

In other words, you're right but that's OK because BAB and Strength are independent, as are Strength and your base weapon damage or whatever else. The effects of these other factors are either included in the (intentionally undefined) constants, or else form independent terms that disappear upon differentiation.

The thing is that in differentiation, the variable becomes 1 itself. So the differentiation of dp/ds = d(a+ s)/ds=1. Not a. The same goes for damage.

Also, in the differentiation you posted in the OP, you have multiplied two different variables, when they are independent probabilities of different events (the "p * d = a s * b s = a b s2" thing). This is not correct.

Finally, differentiation itself to compare the change of AC and chance to hit is also meaningless, because different ACs give different chances under different ABs. You cannot assume they remain constant.

[ProudGrognard]

The main problem with tanking is usually the fact that you are more or less focusing on turtling thus not contributing to defeating the threat directly. The enemy has little incentinve to go for you and there is not much you can do about it really because if you were a monster and wanted to snack on something would you go for something that's well protected like a coconut or go for a more squishy banana? Looking at Xerxus' tower shield fighter he is essentially useless offensively 1d8+14 dmg at level 16, most enemies would have some form of DR probably between 5-10 so the damage per hit is only 10-17 with DR 5 and 5-12 with DR 10. At this level things are flying, teleporting and doing al sorts of shenanigans thus this tank is not doing much of anything since he can be avoided since all of his resources have been allocated to defense.

This. I believe this is the main point.

[Answerer]

The thing is that in differentiation, the variable becomes 1 itself. So the differentiation of dp/ds = d(a+ s)/ds=1. Not a. The same goes for damage.
Your chance to hit is not equal to Strength + BAB. It is equal to n / 20, where n is a whole number such that 1 < n < 19, and that number n is based on the sum of Strength and BAB (and any other bonuses you have, to boot).

Regardless, even if you were correct on that point, a = 1 is a valid value that does not change the statements that I made.


Also, in the differentiation you posted in the OP, you have multiplied two different variables, when they are independent probabilities of different events (the "p * d = a s * b s = a b s2" thing). This is not correct.
d is not a probability at all, it is the amount of damage you do. Which is equal to b * s + x, where x includes the base weapon damage, Power Attack damage, etc. etc. Your expected damage is then p, the chance of hitting, times d, the damage you do when you do hit. If you have a 50% chance to hit, your expected damage is half your potential damage. So yes, it is correct. Your expected damage is a function of the square of your Strength modifier (among other things), and the derivative of your expected damage with respect to your Strength modifier is proportional to your Strength modifier (as I originally stated).


Finally, differentiation itself to compare the change of AC and chance to hit is also meaningless, because different ACs give different chances under different ABs. You cannot assume they remain constant.
That would be the bit where I equated a and c, and you are correct, that was a bit of hand-waving. The relative value of adding extra Strength or Dexterity in those instances does depend on the original chances to hit.

Which is all to say, I should have clarified in the beginning that I was speaking ceteris paribus, except that I don't really feel like that should have been necessary since it's the only reasonable way to compare two things in the first place. Yes, there are other variables involved, and yes, they can influence (slightly) the respective value of Strength and Dexterity (and this doesn't even get into all the other things those ability scores potentially do for you). Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that Strength affects your expected damage output in a manner that is quadratic, while Dexterity affects your expected damage taken in a manner that is linear. Which was really all I was actually saying, the differentiation was just there to show why quadratic is better than linear.

[Hiro Protagonest]

First time I read the title, I was like "two-hander, duh".

Second time I read the title, I was like "oh, he's wondering about dual-shielding it. Well, that's cool, it can be pretty good".

When I read the OP, I was like "two-hander, duh".

[Fouredged Sword]

Simplify the math. I made the initial statement with the following in mind.

To characters with BA = armor bonus, a one handed weapon, and determining the benefits of applying ether +2 strength or +2 dex. The math for a general equation becomes complex. The math for a particular setup is much less so.

[ProudGrognard]

Your chance to hit is not equal to Strength + BAB. It is equal to n / 20, where n is a whole number such that 1 < n < 19, and that number n is based on the sum of Strength and BAB (and any other bonuses you have, to boot).

This is what I said, with an example. I am not intimidated by Calculus 1. Actually, what I described with an example, showed why this is so. And because things are thus, the differentiation you carried out is wrong.


Regardless, even if you were correct on that point, a = 1 is a valid value that does not change the statements that I made.

I am, if you take time to read it, and a=1 is NOT what I am describing. I am describing the difference between dp/ds = d(a+ s)/ds=1 and dp/ds = d(a* s)/ds=a. As you should have noted.



d is not a probability at all, it is the amount of damage you do. Which is equal to b * s + x, where x includes the base weapon damage, Power Attack damage, etc. etc. Your expected damage is then p, the chance of hitting, times d, the damage you do when you do hit. If you have a 50% chance to hit, your expected damage is half your potential damage. So yes, it is correct. Your expected damage is a function of the square of your Strength modifier (among other things), and the derivative of your expected damage with respect to your Strength modifier is proportional to your Strength modifier (as I originally stated).

You wrote "p * d = a s * b s = a b s2" . The first part a*s is wrong. The second part b*s is also wrong, because damage in a weapon is not proportional to strength. And thus, all the rest of your argument does not make mathematical sense.

But I will not pursue the point, over the internet and in an unrelated thread. If you know mathematics, you will get what I am saying. If you don't, show what you say to your Calculus professor and he or she will explain. If, finally, you think you know, no amount of argument will convince you.

Over and out.

[Alefiend]

I can't help it but... two shields bonuses do not stack so shield and board is a bit weak. :smallredface:

(yes I understand what you mean but the title was a bit funny anyway)

Not necessarily—he might intend to use a 2x4 as a weapon. :smallamused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Not necessarily—he might intend to use a 2x4 as a weapon. :smallamused:

It's called a club.

[Answerer]

Your insinuations about my education level/maturity/professional status are thinly-veiled insults; I will not respond to them. Suffice to say that your assertions in those regards are inaccurate.


This is what I said, with an example. I am not intimidated by Calculus 1. Actually, what I described with an example, showed why this is so. And because things are thus, the differentiation you carried out is wrong.
Your conclusion is incorrect.


I am, if you take time to read it, and a=1 is NOT what I am describing. I am describing the difference between dp/ds = d(a+ s)/ds=1 and dp/ds = d(a* s)/ds=a. As you should have noted.
Right, except that a + s is not an accurate description of p, and more relevantly, I did not perform dp/ds. I performed d/ds of your expected damage (which I did not bother assigning a variable to).


You wrote "p * d = a s * b s = a b s2" . The first part a*s is wrong. The second part b*s is also wrong, because damage in a weapon is not proportional to strength. And thus, all the rest of your argument does not make mathematical sense.
Sigh, fine.

The probability to hit on a given attack, p, is given by

p = (a s + x)

where a is a proportionality constant (+1 Str does not equate to +1 increase in your odds of hitting, obviously, since 0.05 < p < 0.95) and x are the sum total of any non-Strength-dependent bonuses to attack, scaled by whatever factors are appropriate to them.

The potential damage of a given hit, d, is given by

d = (b s + y)

where b is another proportionality constant (but this time we're sure it's 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, based on the weapon type) and y is the sum total of all Strength-independent damage sources (base damage, Power Attack, etc.)

Therefore, the expected damage, which I am still not assigning a variable, is given by p * d (chance of a hit * damage dealt on a hit; this would be Statistics 101 rather than Calculus). Therefore:

p * d = (a s + x) * (b s + y) = a b s2 + a s y + b s x + x y = a b s2 + (a y + b x)s + x y

And the derivative of this is

2a b s + a y + b x = k s + z

(where k = 2a b and z = a y + b x)

Which means the value of a given Strength modifier increase is dependent upon your current Strength modifier. Yes, there are some constants involved. They are not particularly relevant to my argument. Since z is going to be positive1, they actually help my overall argument, but that's not even really relevant to me anyway since I'm only interested in the highest-order effects.

Literally the only thing that I said was that Strength improves your expected damage dealt in a quadratic fashion, Dexterity improves your expected damage taken in a linear fashion, which means improving your Strength, certeris paribus, does more for you than improving Dexterity. The derivatives show this because the reduction in expected damage received per point of Dexterity is constant, while the increase in expected damage dealt accelerates with greater Strength scores.

Which is why it's often said that AC is worthless: it's not, but improving your expected damage dealt costs less than reducing your expected damage taken, because Strength has that quadratic effect while Dexterity remains linear. There's also the side issue that you can get a great deal of AC very cheaply (+1 armor-of-choice) while additional AC beyond these is relatively very expensive.

1 The constant z is positive because a, b, x, and y are each themselves positive:

a was a proportionality constant of how your Strength affects your attack rolls. Strength generally improves attack rolls, thus a > 0, except in the case where you already hit on a 2, in which case more Strength improves nothing (a = 0, at which point the quadratic effect disappears).
x was any independent bonuses to attack (extremely unlikely to be negative unless you're trying to, particularly after level 4 or so)
b was, well, either 0.5, 1, or 1.5 depending on how a weapon is wielded
y is the base weapon damage and any non-Strength bonuses to damage (conceivably could be less than 0 but very unlikely).

[Xerxus]

The main problem with tanking is usually the fact that you are more or less focusing on turtling thus not contributing to defeating the threat directly. The enemy has little incentinve to go for you and there is not much you can do about it really because if you were a monster and wanted to snack on something would you go for something that's well protected like a coconut or go for a more squishy banana? Looking at Xerxus' tower shield fighter he is essentially useless offensively 1d8+14 dmg at level 16, most enemies would have some form of DR probably between 5-10 so the damage per hit is only 10-17 with DR 5 and 5-12 with DR 10. At this level things are flying, teleporting and doing al sorts of shenanigans thus this tank is not doing much of anything since he can be avoided since all of his resources have been allocated to defense.

It's 1d8+24 with Power Attack. And like I said, the whole point of going sword and board is not to deal damage, but to lock down martial opponents. They can't withdraw or 5ft step away and they can't move away since this guy has a whopping +45 for trips, including those made as attack of opportunities. You are correct about the teleporters, maybe some feats should be swapped around in order to get Teleport Tactician. Iron Will, Improved Disarm and maybe Missile Shield could be swapped out for Disruptive, Spellbreaker and Teleport Tactician.

However, if a twohanded fighter has to pull out fighting while flying and dealing more damage against opponents with high DR then we are talking about the wrong kind of character. Anyhow DR can usually be bypassed (especially with a +5 weapon), and fighting while flying is a very specific situation (ie, why would they choose to fight you up close if they can fly, why not just kite?).

But that is not the point. This character is very good at forcing opponents to stay where they are and more than good enough at protecting himself. He is a tank, not a damage dealer, and while some situations make him useless at tanking weaknesses are always the case for every character ever - a magician in a dead magic zone, a rogue whenever it is very difficult to get a sneak attack in and a twohanded fighter against ranged kiters or things it can't hit etc.

This character would have a fair chance of tripping a Mithral Golem with just an enlarge person cast on him, and other buffs like greater heroism would ensure it. Sure, a Polearm Master would be better at tripping, but he could not take the beating that it could dish out. What is the point of dealing twice the damage with a twohanded weapon when you receive three times as much?

[Lorsa]

I'm guessing a would be 0.05? 1 point of strength increases your hit chance with 1/20 until you hit with every possible number you can on a d20. Likewise 1 point of AC reduces your chance to be hit with 0.05.

The increase strength has to your average damage output however, depends on your current hit chance. If you hit chance is 10/20 (and remains such after the increase) then increasing strength increases your average damage by 1*10/20 = 0.5 for a 1h and 1.5*10/20 = 0.75 for a 2h. On the other hand, if your chance to hit is 5/20 then increasing damage by 1 doesn't do quite as much. This however is more a comparison of increasing damage vs increasing hit chance but it does show that the average damage from strength does increase quite fast the higher chance to hit you have.

Not sure where I wanted to go with this, it's night-time for me and any math have to wait until tomorrow.

[Morbis Meh]

However, if a twohanded fighter has to pull out fighting while flying and dealing more damage against opponents with high DR then we are talking about the wrong kind of character. Anyhow DR can usually be bypassed (especially with a +5 weapon), and fighting while flying is a very specific situation (ie, why would they choose to fight you up close if they can fly, why not just kite?).
DR like /good /adamantine/silver yeah those are much more common at those levels so a +5 weapon does nada vs it. Fighting while fighting is one of the more common encounters at higher levels because most high level monsters have the ability to fly so being stuck on the ground unable to do anything defeats the point. As for why would they choose to fight a tank, they wouldn't they would simply ignore it thus making them unnecessary (just talking about the build you posted, anyone looking to play high levels will have some method of flight unless they want to cheer from the side lines)

But that is not the point. This character is very good at forcing opponents to stay where they are and more than good enough at protecting himself. He is a tank, not a damage dealer, and while some situations make him useless at tanking weaknesses are always the case for every character ever - a magician in a dead magic zone, a rogue whenever it is very difficult to get a sneak attack in and a twohanded fighter against ranged kiters or things it can't hit etc.

He is only good at keeping them their if he can get to him :smallamused: which most monsters won't bother with and like mentioned previous teleport trumps him. A fighter in a dead magic zone is almost as useless as a caster since all of his gear is now mundane. Simply put if I was told by a DM that the next session took place in a dungeon with a permanent dead magic zone in it I wouldn't show/go in it if I was a wizard because I have better things to do than sit there and drool; however, this example is DM fiat where as the problem with the tank is common ie most monsters no longer fight on ground or have methods of bypassing said fighter

This character would have a fair chance of tripping a Mithral Golem with just an enlarge person cast on him, and other buffs like greater heroism would ensure it. Sure, a Polearm Master would be better at tripping, but he could not take the beating that it could dish out. What is the point of dealing twice the damage with a twohanded weapon when you receive three times as much?
This is argument is pointless since a two handed fighter can get the exact same buffs, so skip discussing magic buffs that aren't from the fighter's items. The point of dealing much more than twice damage and hitting more often is that you kill the thing trying to kill you quicker which is a better use of resources since what you're doing pitiful damage. At this point most monsters are not dealing physical damage anyway there are using their spells/SLA's and are flying thus Mr. Tank may as well take up knitting because he will have plenty of spare time

Response in bold, also I would like to point out that you cannot have dueling on a longsword since it is not a finessable weapon

[Answerer]

I'm guessing a would be 0.05? 1 point of strength increases your hit chance with 1/20 until you hit with every possible number you can on a d20. Likewise 1 point of AC reduces your chance to be hit with 0.05..
Err... yes. I didn't want to evaluate the constants because ultimately their values matter little (except in the qualitative sense, particularly "positive or negative?"). As they aren't really important, I figured by evaluating them I only opened myself up to more red herring attacks based on a mis-evaluated constant.

[Baroncognito]

DR like /good /adamantine/silver yeah those are much more common at those levels so a +5 weapon does nada vs it.

This is pathfinder. A +3 magic weapon can bypass DR/silver and DR/cold iron. A +4 magic weapon can bypass DR/silver, DR/cold iron, and DR/adamantine. A +5 magic weapon can bypass DR/silver, DR/cold iron, DR/adamantine, and alignment-based DR.

[Urpriest]

This character would have a fair chance of tripping a Mithral Golem with just an enlarge person cast on him, and other buffs like greater heroism would ensure it. Sure, a Polearm Master would be better at tripping, but he could not take the beating that it could dish out. What is the point of dealing twice the damage with a twohanded weapon when you receive three times as much?

Remember, all of your melee allies are also adjacent to this guy. How much incentive are you giving said Mithral Golem to attack you?

[Answerer]

This is pathfinder. A +3 magic weapon can bypass DR/silver and DR/cold iron. A +4 magic weapon can bypass DR/silver, DR/cold iron, and DR/adamantine. A +5 magic weapon can bypass DR/silver, DR/cold iron, DR/adamantine, and alignment-based DR.
Wow, I've learned of two changes by Paizo today that I find entirely and unequivocally for the better. That doesn't happen often.

[Scow2]

<snip>
You can trip flying enemies as well. It can be a very long fall.

And the advantage of that build's tripping over that of a two-handed fighter's is that the Two-handed fighter has to be wary of the foe's counterattack, and has a high chance of getting splattered. Sword+Board here can harass and shut down the enemy without fear of counterattack.

Not every high-level monster's a caster or flier, and the fighter can work well with other party members - as long as he's the only melee (Except maybe for a Scout with Spring Attack)

[TuggyNE]

You can trip flying enemies as well. It can be a very long fall.

Does that still work in PF? I don't remember.

3.5 definitely allows it for anything flying with wings; it forces them to stall.

[Scow2]

Does that still work in PF? I don't remember.

3.5 definitely allows it for anything flying with wings; it forces them to stall.

Ack. No, unfortunately. Paizo screwed that one up - Because fighters apparently didn't suck enough.

[Morbis Meh]

You can trip flying enemies as well. It can be a very long fall.


Indeed but the build presented cannot he doesn't have reach and most flying enemies will have reach and be able to take their precious time snacking on him after they have dealt with the other party :smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

Indeed but the build presented cannot he doesn't have reach and most flying enemies will have reach and be able to take their precious time snacking on him after they have dealt with the other party :smallbiggrin:

Flight + Reach + Lunge = Winning.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's because attack bonuses scale very quickly, and the amount of resources you need to put into AC is too damn high, so it makes you cut corners in other areas to finance the AC. Also, AC is only one defense of many, so even if you spend the resources to get it high, you're not completely covered.I would also add that getting your AC past 60 is pretty damn hard and costs you many other strengths, but getting attack bonuses that can hit that enough isn't nearly as hard or expensive. That's only from recent experience, and not a hard look at the numbers, though.

[Xerxus]

Like I said earlier, this is not a character for every party ever. It only fits the bill for something like a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric(no melee)/Ranger(ranged) party, where the Fighter is the only character in melee. Without any other melee help but a ton of DPS from his backups, it is more important that he is able to force enemies to stay where they are. This also means that he is going to receive a lot of buffs to be able to accomplish this. This fighter is never supposed to take down the enemies by himself so who cares how much damage he deals against martial opponents? The important thing is that he can force most enemies to remain in CQC with him.

He does have reach since he will be enlarged since level 1. It is true that dueling has to be finessable so let's make it a light pick, it really doesn't matter. He does not have to go to the enemies if they are meleebased, they will come to him. And if they aren't meleebased, a simple Haste or similar will often be enough to get to them. You also snipped the part where I added Teleport Tactician, which makes teleporting a much less viable tactic. Especially for the poor spellcasters with low AC - Power Attack makes that concentration DC too high.

I'm having a hard time keeping check of which of your claims that have been debunked and I have to go so I'll be back later.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I personally think 2H is better because being exceptionally proficient with a two handed weapon is cheaper than being a sword-and-board master. It allows you to do a more and get some strengths in other areas that already complement your strenths. I've seen a very effective 2handed tripper-sunderer.

He tripped you, and then broke all your stuff, and then because combat reflexes, did it to all of your friends.

I've also seen a great sword and board build that utilized a tower shield specialist archetype. It did hit a point where as a DM I just started having creatures ignore him and target his friends, though. They just take more to get going, is all.

[Urpriest]

Like I said earlier, this is not a character for every party ever. It only fits the bill for something like a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric(no melee)/Ranger(ranged) party, where the Fighter is the only character in melee. Without any other melee help but a ton of DPS from his backups, it is more important that he is able to force enemies to stay where they are. This also means that he is going to receive a lot of buffs to be able to accomplish this. This fighter is never supposed to take down the enemies by himself so who cares how much damage he deals against martial opponents? The important thing is that he can force most enemies to remain in CQC with him.


A party in which only one person wants to melee is somewhat unusual, yes. And while such a character is handy for such a party, I can't help but think that a battlefield control caster would be more useful, given that you could maintain the same ability to keep enemies off the squishies while at the same time keeping the field clear for your allies' area attacks.

[Xerxus]

Correct, but then again why shouldn't a party consist of 4 wizards from lvl 11 onward?

[Answerer]

Level 11? You're generous.

Anyway,

The important thing is that he can force most enemies to remain in CQC with him.How are you accomplishing that, exactly? There are very few abilities in 3.5 that are any good at maintaining aggro when the enemy has squishier and more dangerous foes available. Bypassing this Fighter is not hard for a lot of opponents.

And one of the better ways of actually defending an ally is with trip, reach, and Combat Reflexes. Can't really pull that off well with sword'n'board.

[Xerxus]

Level 11? You're generous.

Anyway,
How are you accomplishing that, exactly? There are very few abilities in 3.5 that are any good at maintaining aggro when the enemy has squishier and more dangerous foes available. Bypassing this Fighter is not hard for a lot of opponents.

And one of the better ways of actually defending an ally is with trip, reach, and Combat Reflexes. Can't really pull that off well with sword'n'board.

Well, as the build entails, every kind of movement away from him provokes an AoO, with the withdrawers and 5ft-steppers being simply stopped, teleporters getting spellfizzled and others getting tripped. And he has combat reflexes with a lot of dex. And reach, since he almost always will be enlarged. So he has trip, reach and combat reflexes.

There is no aggro involved in this build, once he gets in CQC he just forces almost every opponent to stay there.

And once again, this is not the best kind of fighter, but it is one kind and one which excels in some situations and party compositions, not every kind.

EDIT: Also, this is pathfinder.

[Scow2]

Level 11? You're generous.

Anyway,
How are you accomplishing that, exactly? There are very few abilities in 3.5 that are any good at maintaining aggro when the enemy has squishier and more dangerous foes available. Bypassing this Fighter is not hard for a lot of opponents.

And one of the better ways of actually defending an ally is with trip, reach, and Combat Reflexes. Can't really pull that off well with sword'n'board.The way to maintain "aggro" is to be a physical wall interposed between the target and the squishier targets, and interrupting anything they try to do.

[Answerer]

You have to get in that position in first place, which if nothing else assumes that all enemies are grouped tightly enough together that there is such a position where you can reach them all. But realistically there are often far too many directions that people could come at your allies for you to cover them all (all three spatial dimensions, from the Ethereal or Shadow planes, or just by teleporting to that location without ever having been in your reach).

Then you have to assume that none have a way around it (though Island of Blades and Mage Slayer do combine to provide fairly thorough coverage, there are without a doubt ways around them – Shadow Blink et al., for three), and you have to assume that there is no one in a position to simply eat the AoO/avoid becoming prone and continue on to bigger and better things.

That's a lot of if's for a character whose only purpose is to be a wall.


And you'd still be better off with a Reach weapon. Get an Animated shield if you want the AC that badly, but ultimately no one who is forced to deal with you first is going to bother attacking your armored AC anyway.

[Xerxus]

You have to get in that position in first place, which if nothing else assumes that all enemies are grouped tightly enough together that there is such a position where you can reach them all. But realistically there are often far too many directions that people could come at your allies for you to cover them all (all three spatial dimensions, from the Ethereal or Shadow planes, or just by teleporting to that location without ever having been in your reach).

Then you have to assume that none have a way around it (though Island of Blades and Mage Slayer do combine to provide fairly thorough coverage, there are without a doubt ways around them – Shadow Blink et al., for three), and you have to assume that there is no one in a position to simply eat the AoO/avoid becoming prone and continue on to bigger and better things.

That's a lot of if's for a character whose only purpose is to be a wall.


And you'd still be better off with a Reach weapon. Get an Animated shield if you want the AC that badly, but ultimately no one who is forced to deal with you first is going to bother attacking your armored AC anyway.

Which is why he has a buttload of CMD and touch AC.

But the point is this:

Let's say the BBEG gets past me and bashes my wizard buddy. Hopefully he survives, but on my turn I can simply run up to the BBEG and lock him down. A twohanded fighter would not have any advantage over the tower shield specialist in any of the steps prior to getting into CQC and is less effective at protecting the party in the later steps, because even if the BBEG is killed faster it's more likely that a PC dies.

I also think that you are talking about 3.5 and not pathfinder. Read the title.

An animated shield would be nice, if not for the fact that you need two of them, with a +2 enhancement tax each, and the luxury of wasting a move action every four rounds. As if fighters weren't already shafted enough for action economy and GP expenditure.

[Answerer]

Which is why he has a buttload of CMD and touch AC.
Yeah, and how are his Will saves? Also, hitting even your "buttload" of touch AC isn't really that hard.


A twohanded fighter [...] is less effective at protecting the party in the later steps, because even if the BBEG is killed faster it's more likely that a PC dies.
How do you figure this?

I'm assuming that anything that any competent Fighter can full-attack is dead. Because that's how the game actually plays.


I also think that you are talking about 3.5 and not pathfinder. Read the title.
The difference is negligible.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It is massively harder to do lockdown in PF than 3E, and slightly easier in PF for a mage to replace the fighter as a tank. The 3E Stand Still feat alone is better lockdown than ANYTHING any martial class in PF can get in the first 10 levels of play for locking down an area. PF nerfed the hell out of stand still and left nothing in its place until high levels.

[Xerxus]

Yeah, and how are his Will saves? Also, hitting even your "buttload" of touch AC isn't really that hard.



How do you figure this?

I'm assuming that anything that any competent Fighter can full-attack is dead. Because that's how the game actually plays.


The difference is negligible.

What are you arguing for here? Like I said, he would need to be buffed, as can your twohanded fighter be, but nonetheless the tank would be able to fulfill his function and lock down enemies, tanking etc. So what if the twohanded fighter can do it in a different way, these are two completely different designs. It does not invalidate this build.

As for the twohanded fighter getting full attacks, as per your earlier reasoning about him always bypassing the tank, there is no reason why the DM should let you fullattack then. There are too many ways to put a twohanded fighter out of business in this game, so of course he would implement them all and make you useless.

[Answerer]

What are you arguing for here? Like I said, he would need to be buffed, as can your twohanded fighter be, but nonetheless the tank would be able to fulfill his function and lock down enemies, tanking etc. So what if the twohanded fighter can do it in a different way, these are two completely different designs. It does not invalidate this build.
Your original argument was that sword'n'board should not be ignored. If you yourself are saying that two-handed weapons can do everything that sword'n'board can (and some of those things, it can do better), why should we not ignore sword'n'board?


As for the twohanded fighter getting full attacks, as per your earlier reasoning about him always bypassing the tank, there is no reason why the DM should let you fullattack then. There are too many ways to put a twohanded fighter out of business in this game, so of course he would implement them all and make you useless.
I was referring specifically to the section about how the sword'n'board fighter does better once in range to attack.

[Xerxus]

Your original argument was that sword'n'board should not be ignored. If you yourself are saying that two-handed weapons can do everything that sword'n'board can (and some of those things, it can do better), why should we not ignore sword'n'board?

It does not fulfill the same function. Yes, the turn after the wizard has been bonked it can charge and deal more damage, but on the BBEGs turn it can simply move away, taking an AoO from the twohanded weapon yes but the wizard will be bashed again. If it doesn't pull off something fun, like a grapple against you. Another disadvantage of twohanded weapons.

The advantage the tower shield specialist has is that while it may be bypassed - which is harder than bypassing a generic twohanded fighter in the first place - it can still get into melee range and lock the foe down. While a twohanded fighter might also have the same feats and lockdown bonuses it would be way less robust and thus worse at locking down opponents.

A couple of other fun things: Evasion and a decent reflex save, being able to get total cover against various things, critical hits are almost not an issue etc.

The point is that even if a twohanded fighter might reach the same goal, ie BBEG dead, it does it in a different and imo less secure way. It is not the "right" choice, is my entire argument.

[Answerer]

I'm failing to see where the lockdown is coming from. You can trip, if you use a flail or something, but the two-hander could (probably should be) a Guisarme or Spiked Chain, which can do that but better. But Tower Shields apply all kinds of penalties. I gather that there's some Pathfinder archetype in play, but I don't know which or what it does. That was what I was asking. How does this Tower Shield user lockdown anything?

[Greenish]

PF spiked chain is worse than a heavy flail, for the record.

[Xerxus]

I'm failing to see where the lockdown is coming from. You can trip, if you use a flail or something, but the two-hander could (probably should be) a Guisarme or Spiked Chain, which can do that but better. But Tower Shields apply all kinds of penalties. I gather that there's some Pathfinder archetype in play, but I don't know which or what it does. That was what I was asking. How does this Tower Shield user lockdown anything?

You can trip with any weapon in pathfinder and a guisarme or spiked chain is not better. You can just drop your weapon whenever you fail by 10 or more to avoid a countertrip if you use a trip weapon. No other advantage.

[Answerer]

PF spiked chain is worse than a heavy flail, for the record.
Oh, well that's pathetic. Still, the heavy flail is a two-handed weapon.


You can trip with any weapon in pathfinder and a guisarme or spiked chain is not better. You can just drop your weapon whenever you fail by 10 or more to avoid a countertrip if you use a trip weapon. No other advantage.
It's better because it has reach.

[Xerxus]

It's better because it has reach.

Well, since this character would be more or less permanently enlarged via enlarge person, unless he actually is permanently enlarged via permanency, he also has reach.

[Greenish]

Well, since this character would be more or less permanently enlarged via enlarge person, unless he actually is permanently enlarged via permanency, he also has reach.Mmn, but the guy with glaive-guisarme-guisarme-ranseur will have more reach when similarly buffed.

[Xerxus]

Mmn, but the guy with glaive-guisarme-guisarme-ranseur will have more reach when similarly buffed.

True, but you don't really need more to lock down and being enlarged with a reach weapon is a deathtrap.

[Answerer]

Well, since this character would be more or less permanently enlarged via enlarge person, unless he actually is permanently enlarged via permanency, he also has reach.
First of all, you cannot assume you will always have enlarge person on you.

The problem is that enlarge person lasts 1 min./level, and has a casting time of 1 round. There are going to be fights where you start without it, and therefore there will be at least one round where you do not have it. More than likely, if you get ambushed without it, it is a tactically poor choice to cast it on you then: by the time it finishes, its primary usefulness will have been negated. In that situation, the caster needs to use their action on something more powerful.

You can use permanency, but that will get expensive if dispel magic is slung around with any frequency (which, at the levels where permanency is available, it should be).


Secondly, and probably more importantly, Large creatures benefit more from Reach than do Medium creatures.

A Large creature with a Guisarme threatens everything from 15 ft. to 20 ft., for a total of 64 threatened squares. A Large creature without Reach threatens everything from 5 ft. to 10 ft., for a total of 32 squares. And with a continuous reach weapon (if those still exist in Pathfinder), that jumps to a whopping 96 squares.


So, again, my question is how this Tower Shield user is locking down anything better than someone with a Guisarme. If Trip is the only lockdown ability you have, then you should be using a reach weapon. The way you were talking, I thought you had something more. That Tower Shield isn't really doing much for you, otherwise.


Ya know, it's a shame that Whips don't threaten. If they did (and it's patently absurd that they do not, since attacks of opportunity are about the only thing a bullwhip is actually good at), then they'd be perfect for your build: you sacrifice damage (though I see this Scorpion Whip which means you don't sacrifice all damage), but you get fantastic reach, and it's one-handed so you can still use your shield. But without threatening, it's worthless.

[Greenish]

True, but you don't really need more to lock down and being enlarged with a reach weapon is a deathtrap.I react to both of these statements with surprise and disbelief.

[Xerxus]

The important point was that you don't have to have more to lock down. You basically only need 5ft reach to begin with anyway. Why would this character have use for more to lock down the BBEG? It could be necessary vs masses of enemies, but they would not have enough CL to use dispel magic anyway.

If I were DM I would make an enlarged reach weapon wielder feel the pain with a medium or large creature simply teleporting within 5 ft of your reach weapon wielder and using step up.

I am sure that you could construct a lot of scenarios where this build wouldn't work, but there are more where it would work. Against a mithral golem, as shown. Against almost any kind of martial BBEG with PC classes, and spellcasters are not safe either. Don't know exactly how the rules for taking flight work, so can't say how it would fare vs Balors and pit fiends etc, but if you can trip someone who is attempting to take flight those would be in trouble as well.

[Shining Wrath]

No.

Your damage is a function of p, your chance to hit, and d, your damage when you do hit. p is proportional to s, your Strength modifier, and so is d. Thus, p = a s, d = b s, where a and b are constants. Your expected damage per attack is p * d = a s * b s = a b s2.

So the gain in damage with respect to Strength is quadratic, not exponential. Exponential would be dramatically faster.


This, on the other hand, is correct, and linear gain is still generally slower than quadratic. If your chance to not be hit is q and is proportional to x (your Dexterity modifier, since I already used d), then q = c x, where c is some constant.

We can therefore compare what a single point of Strength and Dexterity would do by taking the differential of each of these formula (actually, as discrete system, the differential doesn't really quite work but we can treat the system as continuous for the purposes of this comparison). Therefore we have d/ds (a b s2) vs. d/dx (c x)

d/ds (a b s2) = 2a b s

d/dx (c x) = c

Therefore, you compare a b s to c. For a two-handed weapon, b=1.5, and a and c, as the factors of your odds of hitting or being hit, respectively, should be similar in value. Therefore, improving Strength gets you more bang for your buck, so to speak, by the ratio of 1.5 s to 1.

For pure melee as a fighter this is correct. Dex has other bonuses, though: Reflex save, initiative, ranged attacks, and some skills. Str has bonuses to: weight carried and some different skills. Initiative + Reflex >> weight carried. Yes, Str is the prime ability for fighter classes for good reason; but Dex is not far behind Con.

[Answerer]

The important point was that you don't have to have more to lock down. You basically only need 5ft reach to begin with anyway. Why would this character have use for more to lock down the BBEG? It could be necessary vs masses of enemies, but they would not have enough CL to use dispel magic anyway.
A party similar to your own can spread out well beyond your reach and prevent you from stopping all of them. Plus, you need to get them into range in the first place, when they can just go around you before they ever enter your reach.


If I were DM I would make an enlarged reach weapon wielder feel the pain with a medium or large creature simply teleporting within 5 ft of your reach weapon wielder and using step up.
Why on earth would they do that if they could just teleport within 5 ft reach of the far more dangerous spellcaster and gib him?

Also, reach-weapon users typically wear Spiked Gauntlets so they still threaten inside their reach. Not nearly as good, but you could still trip the guy if he did that.


I am sure that you could construct a lot of scenarios where this build wouldn't work, but there are more where it would work.
That's not true in the least, to my mind, since it's painfully easy to bypass mundane melee characters altogether anyway, plus most fights do not involve just one enemy. More importantly, you still have not demonstrated why sword'n'board is better for this than a two-hander with reach.


For pure melee as a fighter this is correct. Dex has other bonuses, though: Reflex save, initiative, ranged attacks, and some skills. Str has bonuses to: weight carried and some different skills. Initiative + Reflex >> weight carried. Yes, Str is the prime ability for fighter classes for good reason; but Dex is not far behind Con.
Yes, at some point in that mess I acknowledged that point precisely. The entire analysis was strictly to deal only with melee attacks with Strength against AC with a bonus from Dexterity.

[Xerxus]

Did you look at the build I posted? It explains why in itself. Other than that I have repeated my arguments several times now.

Post your own build and demonstrate why it is better.

[StreamOfTheSky]

There is a chain of feats to make the whip threaten.

It...is not worth it.

[magwaaf]

what like about sword and board is that with the dedication to the right shield feats you can make your shield do enough damage to make it worthwhile or take feats to be a defensive monster with feats like "Shield Ward" (anything to boost my touch ac!) and the shield enchant "Bashing" (makes your shield go from 1d6 to 2d6) so you can make your own judgement on whether or not each round you wanna do more damage or have the defensive edge. you get to be more flexible with sword and board than you do with a 2hw

side note, anyone know what book the table my dm showed me for the damage dice increases?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, as the build entails, every kind of movement away from him provokes an AoO, with the withdrawers and 5ft-steppers being simply stopped, teleporters getting spellfizzled and others getting tripped. And he has combat reflexes with a lot of dex. And reach, since he almost always will be enlarged. So he has trip, reach and combat reflexes.

There is no aggro involved in this build, once he gets in CQC he just forces almost every opponent to stay there.

And once again, this is not the best kind of fighter, but it is one kind and one which excels in some situations and party compositions, not every kind.
So... what do you do when you're not fighting in a chokepoint?

Or fighting fliers? Guys who are into parkour? Guys who activate teleportation while they're outside of your ten-foot reach?

and being enlarged with a reach weapon is a deathtrap.

Armor spikes. Spiked gauntlet. Improved Unarmed Strike. Whatever.

[Greenish]

Armor spikes. Spiked gauntlet. Improved Unarmed Strike. Whatever.The gore attack you gain from being half-minotaur…

[Scow2]

what like about sword and board is that with the dedication to the right shield feats you can make your shield do enough damage to make it worthwhile or take feats to be a defensive monster with feats like "Shield Ward" (anything to boost my touch ac!) and the shield enchant "Bashing" (makes your shield go from 1d6 to 2d6) so you can make your own judgement on whether or not each round you wanna do more damage or have the defensive edge. you get to be more flexible with sword and board than you do with a 2hw

side note, anyone know what book the table my dm showed me for the damage dice increases?Shield ward needs to be imported from 3.5, since it's currently a VERY terribad capstone in Pathfinder for a fighter archtype.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Did you look at the build I posted? It explains why in itself. Other than that I have repeated my arguments several times now.

Post your own build and demonstrate why it is better.

How is your build doing lockdown? The only thing I see is:

"Stand Still When taking an AoO, you can make a combat maneuver check to end opponent's movement instead of attacking. (For this character the total CMB for this maneuver is +11 - +8 base, +1 wpn focus, +1 wpn enhancement, +1 fencer)"

Sorry, but that's garbage. That is only on adjacent targets, so as others have said, outside of chokepoints you can't hold the frontline and keep people from going around you at all. Lockdown needs reach. Reach weapon and enlarge, preferably more. Many wizard BFC spells can lockdown at 10 or 20 ft radius or more and do it from a safe distance. If you can't even come close to covering that area, you're not so great at your job.

And your CMB, while it might seem nice, is still FAR from auto-success. Monster CMB/CMD is just as out of whack in PF as it was in 3E, and just as in 3E, the numbers get more crazy/bogus as you level up.

My claim was that, "PF made it MUCH harder for melee to do lockdown than in 3E." You have yet to prove otherwise. For reference, here is the 3E Stand Still feat:

Stand Still [General]
You can prevent foes from fleeing or closing.

Prerequisite
Str 13.

Benefit
When a foe’s movement out of a square you threaten grants you an attack of opportunity, you can give up that attack and instead attempt to stop your foe in his tracks. Make your attack of opportunity normally. If you hit your foe, he must succeed on a Reflex save against a DC of 10 + your damage roll (the opponent does not actually take damage), or immediately halt as if he had used up his move actions for the round.

Since you use the Stand Still feat in place of your attack of opportunity, you can do so only a number of times per round equal to the number of times per round you could make an attack of opportunity (normally just one).

Normal
Attacks of opportunity cannot halt your foes in their tracks.

I've highlighted the parts where 3E just plain does it better. Hell, even the pre-req is less demanding. It's nice that you have some gimpy short-ranged "lockdown" option. But I've played 3E for a decade and have come to expect....just a tad but more out of my warriors. That PF was supposed to make the game more balanced and yet they nerfed the warriors is simply inexcusable.

[Xerxus]

That is the first build. Not the second.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Can you repost or direct link to it, then? I missed it scrolling back through the thread.