war hulk worth it for a barbarian half ogre?

[adriana]

I have a player who is playing a half ogre barbarian and is looking at war hulk. From a character perspective it fits the bill. It's the HULK SMASH prc but is it worth the loss of iterative attacks? +20 to str is insane so I can understand the loss of some BAB. The swings are fantastic but you're not always going to be facing adjacent enemies. No time to think is fluff and meh. It might work great in a pounce build., however; I'm not as familiar with those types of builds. Clerics, crusaders, and rogues are my kinda thing.

So what's the general consensus on this prc? Crap or decent? Would shine in a gestalt build though.

[Seppo87]

The loss of BaB can be countered in various ways (divine power being the best but not the only one)
Increasing Reach as much as possible is a given.
Also with the right feats you get more attacks that can also generate more extra attacks while moving enemies around in a deathly tornado of violence and blood.

With proper optimization it's broken strong and can break the barrier of many thousands of damage easily.
Per turn.

With some tricks you can even get rid of No Time for Book Learning. As long as you can temporarily be Medium Sized, you temporarily lose all class features.
This makes you basically The Incredile Hulk.

Even without optimization or tricks, however, it remains a very good frontliner. A solid choice for a barbarian indeed.

[adriana]

The loss of BaB can be countered in various ways (divine power being the best but not the only one)
Increasing Reach as much as possible is a given.
Also with the right feats you get more attacks that can also generate more extra attacks while moving enemies around in a deathly tornado of violence and blood.

With proper optimization it's broken strong and can break the barrier of many thousands of damage easily.
Per turn.

what feats would you recommend. Like I said I've never played a barbarian or any fighter class other than a crusader, cleric and such.

He's def not going cleric so divine power is out. he's really playing up the half ogre barbarian brute hulk.

[eggynack]

It's pretty sweet with hulking hurler, though I wanted to note that it seems most un-good on a pounce focused build. Pounce is all about two things: hitting people a bunch of times with a two handed weapon, and pumping that damage with power attack into shock trooper. Low BAB stops both of those in their tracks.

[adriana]

It's pretty sweet with hulking hurler, though I wanted to note that it seems most un-good on a pounce focused build. Pounce is all about two things: hitting people a bunch of times with a two handed weapon, and pumping that damage with power attack into shock trooper. Low BAB stops both of those in their tracks.

Good point eggy. Like I stated I'm really not great with barbarian builds, haven't spent the time on them that I should.

I'll have him look at hulking hurler as well. I've never looked at it but I've heard a lot about it.

[Seppo87]

what feats would you recommend. Like I said I've never played a barbarian or any fighter class other than a crusader, cleric and such.
Knockback, Knock-Down, Improved Trip and a couple levels of Dungeoncrasher Fighter are the basics
Combat Reflexes and other tactical feats that proc AoO make a War Hulk with a large enough reach even more threatening.
Get as many bonus attacks and extra actions as possible. You also get Cleave in order to qualify, so basically once your turn starts the encounter is pretty much guaranteed to end in 6 seconds.


He's def not going cleric so divine power is out
An item with permanent divine power is relatively cheap.
Otherwise, the Skillful weapon enhancement is the inferior (but still pretty good) replacement

[adriana]

Knockback, Knock-Down, Improved Trip and a couple levels of Dungeoncrasher Fighter are the basics
Combat Reflexes and other tactical feats that proc AoO make a War Hulk with a large enough reach even more threatening.


An item with permanent divine power is relatively cheap.
Otherwise, the Skillful weapon enhancement is the inferior (but still pretty good) replacement

what is the name of the item that gives perm divine power?

[Seppo87]

what is the name of the item that gives perm divine power?
It's a custom item that any caster with the right spells and feats could create, by the rules.

[adriana]

It's a custom item that any competent caster can create by the rules.

didn't know if there was one already made or not thanks. There is an artificer in the group so I think the half ogre and him need to have a chat.

[thedmring]

didn't know if there was one already made or not thanks. There is an artificer in the group so I think the half ogre and him need to have a chat.

You didn't know you could create custom items and you're dming?

[adriana]

You didn't know you could create custom items and you're dming?

that is not what I said. I didn't know if there was an item already made that had that on there. To my knowledge there wasn't so I asked. I'm well aware one can be crafted. That was not my question.

[Seppo87]

didn't know if there was one already made or not thanks. There is an artificer in the group so I think the half ogre and him need to have a chat.
Ok.
If you ever get to Epic Level, your ogre might want to sell his Divine Power item to replace it with a Tenser's Transformation item, since by RAW it makes your BaB "equal to your hit dice" allowing you full BaB progression through epic levels.

Anyway, are you sure you want to allow this?
Your player is going to be quite difficult to manage once it starts dealing 1000+ damage every turn and it will only keep growing.
Just like Frenzied Berserker (but worse), you either allow him to trivialize every encounter, or you disable him entirely.

[thedmring]

that is not what I said. I didn't know if there was an item already made that had that on there. To my knowledge there wasn't so I asked. I'm well aware one can be crafted. That was not my question.

if you knew you could build it then you wouldn't have asked in the first place. I can't say that I give you my stamp of approval on being a dm. You have too much to learn.

[Seppo87]

I can't say that I give you my stamp of approval on being a dm. You have too much to learn.Go easy on her bro, you'll hurt her feelings. What if she takes this too seriously and commits suicide?

[adriana]

Anyway, are you sure you want to allow this?
Your player is going to be quite difficult to manage once it starts dealing 1000+ damage every turn and it will only keep growing.
Just like Frenzied Berserker (but worse), you either allow him to trivialize every encounter, or you disable him entirely.

I haven't decided. they're level 3 so I have plenty of time.


if you knew you could build it then you wouldn't have asked in the first place. I can't say that I give you my stamp of approval on being a dm. You have too much to learn.

I have dm'd before and hardly need your approval. It's nearly impossible to know every class, prc, spell, feat, item etc... ever made. That's why this place exists to begin with.

[eggynack]

if you knew you could build it then you wouldn't have asked in the first place. I can't say that I give you my stamp of approval on being a dm. You have too much to learn.
Custom item rules are wonky, weird, not strictly RAW, and though it's not as relevant here, open to DM adjudication. Seeking out standard book items instead of relying on them seems like a fair move to me.

[adriana]

Custom item rules are wonky, weird, not strictly RAW, and though it's not as relevant here, open to DM adjudication. Seeking out standard book items instead of relying on them seems like a fair move to me.

thank you eggy. I prefer using standard items over custom items any day.

[Segev]

Custom Item rules ARE "strictly RAW," though they are "subject to DM approval." Claiming that last means they're "not strictly RAW" is very misleading. "Not strictly RAW" implies that they are somehow an invention or interpretation which is not valid under the RAW. This is not true. What IS true is that the rules for building custom items are noted to be guidelines and are subject to the DM's approval precisely because so flexible a system is going to risk having broken combinations. Also, there are areas where the guidelines require adjudication. The easiest to point out lies in the fact that it is theoretically possible to create an item of Bull's Strength for less than it would cost to make a +4 Belt of Giant's Strength, but the guidelines spell out that making items of +X to stats use one formula, and the DM is advised to not permit use of "casts X spell"-based permanent items to create cheaper versions of the same item.



There is a +1 weapon tag - I keep wanting to say "aptitude," but that's a different tag - which grants you proficiency with the weapon and a minimum 3/4 BAB. Put this tag on a spiked chain, and give that to a war hulk.

[Seppo87]

There is a +1 weapon tag - I keep wanting to say "aptitude," but that's a different tag - which grants you proficiency with the weapon and a minimum 3/4 BAB. Put this tag on a spiked chain, and give that to a war hulk.
Skillful, from Complete Arcane. It was already mentioned.

[eggynack]

Custom Item rules ARE "strictly RAW," though they are "subject to DM approval." Claiming that last means they're "not strictly RAW" is very misleading. "Not strictly RAW" implies that they are somehow an invention or interpretation which is not valid under the RAW. This is not true. What IS true is that the rules for building custom items are noted to be guidelines and are subject to the DM's approval precisely because so flexible a system is going to risk having broken combinations.
The custom item guidelines are, in fact, strictly RAW. However, as the term denotes, they are guidelines. There thus aren't any absolute custom item rules, and thus, any output of those rules aren't really RAW items either. I guess they're officially guideline'd, but it's all just kinda meaningless. You could just as easily make some item not according to the guidelines, and that item would be equally RAW by rule zero. The guidelines aren't really RAW in any way that's actually meaningful, in other words.

[thedmring]

Custom item rules are wonky, weird, not strictly RAW, and though it's not as relevant here, open to DM adjudication. Seeking out standard book items instead of relying on them seems like a fair move to me.

She is still not DM material. Not like me.

[eggynack]

She is still not DM material. Not like me.
You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, though it seems rather baseless.

[Segev]

Madam thedmring, I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're trying to make some sort of humorous reference. If so, it's falling flat and is making you look rather unpleasant as a person.

If you mean what you're saying in earnest, it is still making you look rather unpleasant to talk to. I suggest you drop this line of discussion, especially since it's pretty well seeming like a personal attack. The OP may not DM in a manner of which you approve, but is hardly doing anything that seems egregious enough to warrant persistent declarations of their unfitness, even if you don't like their choices or abilities. We have no indication they are harming the fun of their table.

I suggest you cease this line of posts, therefore.

Meanwhile...

The custom item guidelines are, in fact, strictly RAW. However, as the term denotes, they are guidelines. There thus aren't any absolute custom item rules, and thus, any output of those rules aren't really RAW items either. I guess they're officially guideline'd, but it's all just kinda meaningless. You could just as easily make some item not according to the guidelines, and that item would be equally RAW by rule zero. The guidelines aren't really RAW in any way that's actually meaningful, in other words.
This line of reasoning can be used to say that Rule 0 means there is no RAW, then. Since all of the rules are guidelines.

The item creation rules are valid RAW because they provide a solid baseline from which to create items which follow their guidelines in such a way that are very clearly well within acceptable limits (largely by easy comparison in power to existing magic items).

The reason we typically have debates centered solely on strict RAW is because we lack a DM on the forum to tell us how a generic game will go. This does mean that, if anybody finds an effect from a custom item questionable, it's valid to debate how firmly within the guidelines it falls and the likelihood of a generic DM allowing it. It does not, however, mean that we are unable to use the item creation rules in a discussion using strict RAW. Which "they're not strictly RAW" implies. Therefore, I disagree with the assessment that they are "not strictly RAW." They are, but they're specifically called out as being more subject to DM approval to determine just how well within the guidelines an item has fallen.

[eggynack]

This line of reasoning can be used to say that Rule 0 means there is no RAW, then. Since all of the rules are guidelines.

The item creation rules are valid RAW because they provide a solid baseline from which to create items which follow their guidelines in such a way that are very clearly well within acceptable limits (largely by easy comparison in power to existing magic items).

The reason we typically have debates centered solely on strict RAW is because we lack a DM on the forum to tell us how a generic game will go. This does mean that, if anybody finds an effect from a custom item questionable, it's valid to debate how firmly within the guidelines it falls and the likelihood of a generic DM allowing it. It does not, however, mean that we are unable to use the item creation rules in a discussion using strict RAW. Which "they're not strictly RAW" implies. Therefore, I disagree with the assessment that they are "not strictly RAW." They are, but they're specifically called out as being more subject to DM approval to determine just how well within the guidelines an item has fallen.
Guidelines are not rules, practically by definition. Guidelines are guidelines. They can provide solid baselines, or show acceptable limits as much as you want, but that doesn't change their status. The item creation guidelines are the guidelines as written. The "GAW", if you will, though I feel silly just writing it out. It ultimately doesn't matter if they're cool, or if you like their output, or if you feel like talking about them is helpful.

In the end though, The idea of "RAW", at its essence, is the things that are a part of the game before DM intervention. There can be a whole debate about how to particularly define it, but we're merely partaking in pointless pedantry at that point. Beyond that, folks can suggest custom items for hopeful players all they want, but it should just about always be appended with the same stuff you'd put next to suggested homebrew, or if you want to get closer to the actual game, variant rules that fundamentally alter the way the game works (fractional saves are a pretty common example).

[Segev]

Beyond that, folks can suggest custom items for hopeful players all they want, but it should just about always be appended with the same stuff you'd put next to suggested homebrew, or if you want to get closer to the actual game, variant rules that fundamentally alter the way the game works (fractional saves are a pretty common example).Except that we have TO which is 100% RAW even by your "no custom items" definition which still requires this sort of "check with your DM" clause. Heck, it often requires stronger warnings, because it can be deceptively powerful and leave a DM feeling blindsided if you don't spell it out carefully for him.

So no, I think you're mistaken to draw an arbitrary distinction and just declare an entire part of the core rulebook "not RAW" just because it requires the same sort of "check with your DM, but it's within the rules and guidelines as written" caveat that just about any optimization exercise requires.

The hazard of homebrew is that it has NO balance mechanism other than the eyeballing experts give it. That's what separates it from custom item rules, even if they're "just guidelines."

[torrasque666]

Oh god.... not this again. How often does the custom item creation guidelines argument crop up around here?


She is still not DM material. Not like me.

No, she doesn't rely on being half-naked for her boyfriend and his cronies to have players. That makes her better than you.

[Magesmiley]

It's pretty sweet with hulking hurler, though I wanted to note that it seems most un-good on a pounce focused build. Pounce is all about two things: hitting people a bunch of times with a two handed weapon, and pumping that damage with power attack into shock trooper. Low BAB stops both of those in their tracks.

I'll second the war hulk + hulking hurler vote. Make sure that you check the charts in the back of Complete Warrior with the damage based on weight for improvised weapons and consider what the additional strength gained from war hulk can do with an improvised weapon (such as a really big rock).

[Chronos]

I strongly recommend against combining Hulking Hurler with War Hulk, or really, against using Hulking Hurler at all. Most classes have damage which increases linearly with strength. A Hulking Hurler's damage increases exponentially with strength. This makes them extremely hard to balance, since even a small change in strength can result in a huge change in damage, and it very easily gets to the point where the damage output exceeds what makes sense for your campaign (no matter what your campaign is).

[OldTrees1]

Contrary to what was said earlier, War Hulk is beneficial to a Pounce.

Assuming target AC = attack bonus + 1
+16 BAB will hit ~2.5 times per turn on a full attack.
+6 BAB and Massive Swing will hit only ~1.75(70%) times per turn but each hit will hurt every enemy in reach.

Even if you were only facing 2 foes:
1 foe * 2.5 hits < 2 foes * 1.75 hits


Edit:
Warning: War Hulk + the SRD version of the Knock-down feat = attacks multiply out the wazoo.

[Ellowryn]

Its not the number of hits that's the problem, its the overall damage. Yes warhulks are near-gods of mook farming but the loss of BaB really hurts as you are effectively cutting the damage you deal from pounce builds in half (assuming every other class/level in the build had full BaB). Again, vs mooks this isn't an issue as their health is generally lower but against lieutenants/generals/BBEG types or heck even single target enemies your ability to hurt them drops significantly.

[Seppo87]

Its not the number of hits that's the problem, its the overall damage. Yes warhulks are near-gods of mook farming but the loss of BaB really hurts as you are effectively cutting the damage you deal from pounce builds in half
Not really, BaB loss was already solved. Also, try to make some math. An optimized warhulk can deal more than 10'000 damage in a turn thanks to easy extra attacks generation due to mighty swing + reach + having the right feats.
Pouncing can only help. Just through the Valorous enhancement you are doubling damage. The investment/gain ratio is greatly beneficial.

[Ellowryn]

Well, lets try some simple math then, Lets say you have a build so that at level 20 you are large sized with 40 Str, along with Power Attack, Leap Attack, and the Valorous Weapon Enchant. Now, with build #1 you have no Warhulk but 20 BaB gets you damage per swing of 2d6(Large Spiked Chain)+22(1.5xStr)+80(PA+LA+Valorous)= avg 109 damage. Build #2 has Warhulk but only 10 BaB so we get 2d6+37+40= avg 82 damage. Now, as i have previously stated, being able to hit everything in reach each swing will skyrocket your damage output per turn, but against single target you fall behind.

[torrasque666]

Yes, but War Hulk doesn't care about your fancy invisibility. So what if I can't see you? I DON'T HAVE TO SEE YOU TO SMASH YOU!

[adriana]

so what could a full build look like. I'm thinking of him combining dungeon crasher fighter with hulking hurler.

Maybe whirlwind frenzy barbarian 1/dungeon crasher fighter 6/war hulk 10/hulking hurler 3?

[OldTrees1]

Well, lets try some simple math then, Lets say you have a build so that at level 20 you are large sized with 40 Str, along with Power Attack, Leap Attack, and the Valorous Weapon Enchant. Now, with build #1 you have no Warhulk but 20 BaB gets you damage per swing of 2d6(Large Spiked Chain)+22(1.5xStr)+80(PA+LA+Valorous)= avg 109 damage. Build #2 has Warhulk but only 10 BaB so we get 2d6+37+40= avg 82 damage. Now, as i have previously stated, being able to hit everything in reach each swing will skyrocket your damage output per turn, but against single target you fall behind.

But, for each mook in reach, you hit the BBEG many more times.

Say you are fighting 1 enemy and 1 mook. You start by tripping the mook (you could attack with knock-down if the mook would survive the first blow). This hits the BBEG for normal damage. Then you use Improved Trip on the mook. This also hits the BBEG for normal damage. Then you use cleave to attack the BBEG for normal damage (only usable 1/turn since great cleave is terrible). Then you use your iteriative attack to hit the BBEG. If any of these succeed in tripping the BBEG (via free Trip attacks from Knock-down vs the BBEG), then you get one more attack against the BBEG.

Summary:
BAB +6, 1 BBEG and 1 mook => prone and dead mook and 4 attacks (or 5 attacks and tripped) against the BBEG (3 at full BAB).

Each additional mook adds even more free attacks against the BBEG.
If the mooks can survive a hit then this number increases much further.