PDA

View Full Version : On Powerattack



Blanks
2008-03-23, 07:37 AM
I play a barbarian at present and was wondering when it was smart to powerattack. I did some calculations and come out with surprisingly low numbers. That sparked this post:

When should you powerattack at different levels?
I have put the calculations in qoutes so people can skip them if they want to. I summarize in the end.

I used the following character as test subject:
Core barbarian with greataxe who focused on strength.

The rules are:
20 always hit
no crits (good or bad)
in rage
Powerattack (PA) is calculated in steps of 5 (0,5,10,15,20)
AC calculated from 10-56
weapon damage is average (6,5)
total damage is calculated as (%chance to hit)*damage

Our test subject scales like this:
Lvl 5 Str 21, Weapon +1
Lvl 10 Str 22, Weapon +2
Lvl 20 Str 25, Weapon +5

Going through it for the 3 scales of our subject

Level 5
You should PA 5 when the foes have AC from 10-12, and PA 0 (that is, not PA at all) from AC 13-31 and then switch back to PA 5 from AC 32.
Explanation:
When the enemy has a very bad AC you should PA for the extra damage. With better ACs the lost damage from a missed attack makes it inefficient to PA. When the only chance you have to hit is a natural 20, you might as well PA so much as you can.

Level 10
You should PA 10 from AC 10-12, PA 5 from AC 13-18, PA 0 from 19- and then switch back to PA 10 from AC 40.
Explanation:
As for level 5

Level 20
You should PA 15 from AC 10-15, PA 10 from AC 16-20, PA 5 from 21-27, PA 0 from 28-55 and then switch to PA 20 from AC 56.
Explanation:
The lost damage from the low AB attacks means it is never a good idea to PA 20. It can also be seen that you should PA moderately even at comparably low ACs. And already at AC 28 you should stop PA at all. This also means that both your first and second attack will have 100% hit chance, and even your fourth attack will have 65% to hit.
Or said in another way:
If your enemies have ACs in the range of 28-55 PA is a wasted feat (!).


So what did we learn?
At low levels PA only foes with very low ACs, basically what amounts to unarmored foes.
At midlevels you should PA foes with low ACs hard, but quickly scale down the amount as the foes ACs rise.
At high levels you should never PA fully. You should PA hard against low AC foes and slowly scale down. Against wellarmored foes you should never PA.
At all levels, if you can't hit nomatter what, you might as well PA fully hoping to get lucky.

It would seem to be evident that a higher AB lets you PA more, but just as importantly, more damage/hit implies that you should PA less. And my test subjects probably have a more stingy DM than most. They aren't buffed at all and 25 str. at level 20 is perhaps low.

So who should PA? The high strength high damage barbarian who is commonly associated with PA isn't the obvious candidate.

With this post i hope to raise a debate about the usefulness of powerattack. I do not which to debate whether my test subjects are optimized or not, neither do i wish to debate exactly how many plusses someone should have at level 20.

EDIT:
This was calculated with PA 1-1 as in the 3.0 rules, 3.5 is below.

Zincorium
2008-03-23, 07:51 AM
Why the increments of five?

It seems like you can find a strong middle ground in between those based on what sort of bonuses are available from round to round, like charging, flanking, and other purely situational modifiers.

Additionally, a very common factor, and one which can make all the difference, is DR when it's bypassed by something you don't have. Especially in the case of something like a vampire, which also has fast healing. I'm not saying you should factor that into the table, but certainly it should inform your advice.

A third thing is that full attacks are not the only attack someone might make, and you're making much of your 'don't power attack' advice based on the loss of iterative attacks. Charges, attacks of opportunity, and other situations arise on a constant basis, and in those your chance of hitting with your one attack will be high enough that power attacking for a larger amount is useful.


Also, I have to question your conclusion that the high-strength barbarian should not be the one power-attacking. Excuse me? Full BAB, high bonus to hit from strength, and commonly using a two-handed weapon? There is no better situation. If that type of character is not going to use power attack, no one should.

Edit1:

You also seem to have not heard of the shock-trooper tactical feat, which along with leap attack is part of the whole power attack strategy. If you're only considering core, that's fine, but you're failing to appeal to those who don't similarly restrict themselves.


Edit2:

You seem to be aware that these builds aren't in any way optimized, which brings up a question: If you aren't interested in creating a mechanically effective concept, why would you be mechanically optimizing the use of the feat? If you're just messin' about, why not just power attack big and see the larger damage numbers? I can't see any situation in which the two would intersect like that.

sonofzeal
2008-03-23, 08:19 AM
Also, I have to question your conclusion that the high-strength barbarian should not be the one power-attacking. Excuse me? Full BAB, high bonus to hit from strength, and commonly using a two-handed weapon? There is no better situation. If that type of character is not going to use power attack, no one should.
Because a Barbarian has more to lose by missing. A character with a higher base AB and lower damage has potentially a lot more to gain, especially over the course of several attacks.

As to using non-optimized enemies and only going in groups of 5, I think that was to simplify simulation. I'd be interested in running a similar experiment, if someone wants to feed me the types of base numbers I should expect at those levels.

Zincorium
2008-03-23, 08:59 AM
Because a Barbarian has more to lose by missing. A character with a higher base AB and lower damage has potentially a lot more to gain, especially over the course of several attacks.

Alright, let's look at this.

At level 10, using Blank's numbers, the barbarian has a total attack bonus of 18/13. Most opponents of a CR appropriate to his party have AC in the low to mid 20s. Let's go 24 for ease of use. There's a 50% or so chance of hitting with the second attack, if he gets one, and a 75% chance of hitting with the first.

With 22 strength, and a greatsword +2, his damage is on average 15. Likelihood of hitting * result of hitting gives us our probable damage.

75% * 15 = 11.25
50% * 15 = 7.5

So a strictly probable damage with no power attack is 18.75 on a full attack, if enough rounds pass with this attack, the average of them should be in that ballpark.

Let's power attack for 5. Primary attack goes to 50%, alternate attack goes to 25%, but our average damage increases to 25 with a two handed weapon.

50% * 25 = 12.5
25% * 25 = 6.25

18.75 again. But notice that the damage is in larger amounts when he does hit, which is an advantage with both critical hits and when facing an opponent with relevant DR.

In Between: Power attacking for 3, our predicted damage goes up.

60% * 21 = 12.6
35% * 21 = 7.35

Giving us a total of 19.95. Not amazingly better, but still undeniably so. It does contradict the idea that you should power attack for 0 at this point. Obviously numbers need to be run for multiple situations.


Let's change it up and run the numbers again for different values, assuming that the barbarian has gone into rage, is flanking with the rogue, and the cleric put up a bless spell. Nothing weird, nothing that couldn't be expected for most combats at that point, and indeed less than will happen in the average game:

PA for 0:
95% * 18 + 75% * 18 = 30.6 (remembering that a 1 always misses)

PA for 5:
75% * 28 + 50% * 28 = 35

PA for 10:
50% * 38 + 25% * 38 = 28.5

Again, it becomes clear that the middle ground is probably the best, but that number which gives the greatest advantage is still higher than 0.

What this shows pretty clearly is that as the attack bonus relative to AC goes up, power attacking becomes better because you're gaining the damage on both the primary and the secondary.

So no, the high-bonus barbarian does not have 'more to lose' by power attacking to a degree. He has more to lose by using it unwisely, but he still gains overall.

Edit:

The barbarian used power attack well because there isn't any class-based bonus to damage he gets that doesn't come with a corresponding bonus to attack.

This doesn't hold true for rogues, or even ranger's favored enemy. If there's a class which benefits more from power attack than a fighter/barbarian, feel free to chuck it out and teach me something new.

Falrin
2008-03-23, 08:59 AM
http://direpress.bin.sh/tools/power.html


Have a look at this.

Blanks
2008-03-23, 10:20 AM
Why the increments of five?
Only because it was easier, it should be done separately but thats 5 times as many calculation at level 20. The result from doing all 20 levels of power attack would just "flatten the curve" so to speak".
For my Level 8 barbarian (22str and greataxe+2) the formula for the optimal powerattack was:
AB+1-AC=PA


Additionally, a very common factor, and one which can make all the difference, is DR when it's bypassed by something you don't have. Especially in the case of something like a vampire, which also has fast healing. I'm not saying you should factor that into the table, but certainly it should inform your advice.
Agreed, I just wished to keep it simple to focus on my main ideas.


A third thing is that full attacks are not the only attack someone might make, and you're making much of your 'don't power attack' advice based on the loss of iterative attacks.
True as well, but 1 attack is often easy to contemplate. I wanted to test the loss from the extra attacks. When charging the PA should be even higher due to the +2 to hit.
Also, im not saying "don't powerattack", im just saying "do it in moderation"


Also, I have to question your conclusion that the high-strength barbarian should not be the one power-attacking. Excuse me? Full BAB, high bonus to hit from strength, and commonly using a two-handed weapon? There is no better situation. If that type of character is not going to use power attack, no one should.
Wrong!
The epitomy of PA would be a fighter with weapon finesse and negative strength. Not one you see a lot ( :smalltongue: ) but that is the character that would benefit most from PA - high hitchance and low damage.


You also seem to have not heard of the shock-trooper tactical feat, which along with leap attack is part of the whole power attack strategy. If you're only considering core, that's fine, but you're failing to appeal to those who don't similarly restrict themselves.
I have heard of shocktrooper, but again, I wanted to keep things simple. With some builds my calculations doesn't hold (eg. transfering hit chance penalty to AC) but I had to restrict myself.


You seem to be aware that these builds aren't in any way optimized, which brings up a question: If you aren't interested in creating a mechanically effective concept, why would you be mechanically optimizing the use of the feat?
I wanted to discuss the notion "high damage barbarians should powerattack for even greater damage". I also knew in advance that i could find PA optimizing webpages online, but optimizing was never my intention. I wanted to consider why people seem to agree that high strength go hand in hand with PA, when my initial napkin calculation pointed to the opposite.

(btw. thanks for the link falrin. It will allow people to test the results out for themselves.)

Chronos
2008-03-23, 10:44 AM
Actually, the character in the best position to use Power Attack is an Arcane Duelist with Dexterous Attack. Dexterous Attack lets you decrease your damage to get an equal increase to your attack roll, up to a max of your BAB. So if you're an Arcane Duelist with a two-handed weapon, you can Dexterous Attack for full and Power Attack for full on every attack, for a net gain of your BAB to damage, and no loss to your attack bonus. Or, of course, you could use one or the other for less than full, if the situation warrants it.

It's a darned shame that Arcane Duelist sucks, or this would be a very appealing tactic.


Only because it was easier, it should be done separately but thats 5 times as many calculation at level 20.It's not nearly that bad... The Power Attack damage curve is fairly simple (quadratic, so long as you're not running into the auto-hit and auto-miss ends), so you can just do it for every five, like you did, and then find the two highest results, and the maximum will be somewhere between them (and closer to whichever of the two was higher). So if, for instance, your increments of 5 give the best results power-attacking for 10, and second-best for 15, then you just have to check 11 and 12.

Thinker
2008-03-23, 11:23 AM
I question your barbarian's strength.

Here is a more accurate representation:
level 5 Str 21 + rage --> Str 25, +1 weapon
level 10 Str 22 + 4 str item + rage --> Str 30, +2 weapon
level 15 Str 23 + 6 str item + rage --> Str 33 +3 weapon
level 20 Str 25 + 6 str item + 5 inherent item + rage --> Str 40 +5 weapon

I think this would severely change your calculations. Having a +15 to hit without BAB is a bit more than +7.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-03-23, 11:38 AM
Wrong!
The epitomy of PA would be a fighter with weapon finesse and negative strength. Not one you see a lot ( :smalltongue: ) but that is the character that would benefit most from PA - high hitchance and low damage.


That's impossible, though. You need STR 13 to use Power Attack.

Eldariel
2008-03-23, 01:17 PM
That's impossible, though. You need STR 13 to use Power Attack.

However, level 2 Rogue can pick the Strong-Arm Style from whatever Dragon and get it regardless of the prerequisites.

Blanks
2008-03-24, 05:23 AM
My initial calculations were made under 3,0 rules, that is, powerattack is 1-1 not as in 3,5 1-2 for twohanded weapons. That should have been changed or at least written in the post. :smallfrown:

I will look at it again when i have the time.

Keld Denar
2008-03-24, 07:53 AM
Wow...that changes a lot. 2:1 PA pushes the risk-reward ratio much more in favor of PAing, especially on single attacks and with multiple attacks at high iteratives (such as from Flurry of Strikes and Slashing Frenzy). 2:1 PA is what makes 3.5 melee viable, and without it, a melee can't compete.

I suggest you rerun your numbers with 2:1 PA, I can almost garuntee it'll change your numbers.

Also, often a melee will have other buffs to increase to hit. Bless/Prayer/Recitation, bardsong, Haste, flanking, invisibility, Marshalls, and a host of other abilities stack up to give melee more than enough AB to hit, even on iteratives, with either full, or almost full PA. My 15th level fighter mutt in LG usually rolls with a fairly optmized party. The high level Pelorite cleric drops a Quickened Recitation + Righteous Wrath and the bard/marshall is throwing up a +5 bardsong on top of a +1 hit Marshall aura. Both me and the other melee in the party have Boots of Speed for the +1 Haste to hit. At level 15, he has a +14 BAB and usually rocks close to a +40ish to hit. Even with full PA, his primary, secondary, Flurry, and Haste attacks hit most things on a 2+, and the tertiary attack hits a less, but still often enough.

PA is what makes 3.5 fighters viable. Thats all there is to it. Without PA, they could not compete with ANYONE for damage. Strength and enhancement bonuses just aren't enough at mid-high levels to kill the things that need to be killed.

Blanks
2008-03-24, 05:10 PM
Wow...that changes a lot. 2:1 PA pushes the risk-reward ratio much more in favor of PAing, especially on single attacks and with multiple attacks at high iteratives (such as from Flurry of Strikes and Slashing Frenzy). 2:1 PA is what makes 3.5 melee viable, and without it, a melee can't compete.
I know, but im playing 3.0 myself so i just whipped out my trusty 3.0 PHB and worked from there. It was only after some thoughts that it hit me that there was a discrepancy. The numbers will follow shortly below.



My 15th level fighter mutt in LG usually rolls with a fairly optmized party (...) At level 15, he has a +14 BAB and usually rocks close to a +40ish to hit.
I know i was stingy with the to hit, but i didn't want to start a debate over wether or not i gave them too many, and im used to a very low powerlevel in our games (level, magic stuff and degree of optimization).

Keld Denar
2008-03-24, 05:24 PM
There isn't that much overly optimized about having a cleric who casts Recitation in most fights, or a bard who inspires courage and has a couple minor feats/items to improve it, or a wizard or bard who casts Haste. Its just plain smart play. Party buffs are a very important part of group combat, and should probably be taken into account for most simulations to be more accurate. I know my high level fighter wouldn't PA for as much as he does as often without GMW, Recitation, and Bardsong at least....

Blanks
2008-03-24, 05:34 PM
When should you powerattack at different levels (3.5) ?
changes in text in italics

Going through it for the 3 scales of our subject

Quote:
Level 5
You should PA 5 when the foes have AC from 10-19, and PA 0 (that is, not PA at all) from AC 20-31 and then switch back to PA 5 from AC 32.
Explanation:
When the enemy has a low AC (not very low but low) you should PA for the extra damage. With good ACs (not decent but good) the lost damage from a missed attack makes it inefficient to PA. When the only chance you have to hit is a natural 20, you might as well PA so much as you can.

Level 10
You should PA 10 from AC 10-14, PA 5 from AC 15-23, PA 0 from 24-38 and then switch back to PA 10 from AC 39.
Explanation:
As for level 5

Level 20
You should PA 20 from AC 10-12, PA 15 from AC 13-18, PA 10 from AC 19-25, PA 5 from 26-32, PA 0 from 33-52 and then switch to PA 20 from AC 53.
Explanation:
The lost damage from the low AB attacks means it is a good idea to PA 20 only at very low ACs (not never but only at very low). It can also be seen that you should PA moderately even at comparably low ACs (PA 10 at AC 20). And at AC 33 you should stop PA at all. This means that your first and second attack will have 100% and 90% hit chance respectively, and even your fourth attack will have 40% to hit.
Or said in another way:
If your enemies have ACs in the range of 33-52 PA is a wasted feat (!).

So what did we learn?
At low levels PA most foes (not rarely but most) fully.
At midlevels you should PA foes with low ACs hard, but scale down the amount as the foes ACs rise (not quickly scale down, just scale down).
At high levels you should rarely PA fully (not never but rarely). You should PA hard against low AC foes and slowly scale down. Against wellarmored foes you should never PA.
At all levels, if you can't hit nomatter what, you might as well PA fully hoping to get lucky.

So who should PA? The high strength high damage barbarian who is commonly associated with PA isn't the obvious candidate. This holds for 3.5 as well as 3.0.

Keld Denar
2008-03-24, 05:44 PM
You also need to take into account extra attacks, such as from Haste, Righeous Wrath, Flurry of Strikes, Slashing Fury and a couple other assorted abilities that grant extra attacks at highest AB. All of a sudden, you are getting multiple attacks at your highest accuracy value, and your iteratives carry less and less weight. Sure, not every character is going to have EACH of those abilities (although I designed one that has most of them!) its probably fair to factor in at least Haste.

I dunno what simulation you are running, but PA is where its at for melee damage. Nothing else allows a mid-high level fighter type to do the kind of damage that's required to take down the beefier monsters.

Blanks
2008-03-24, 05:46 PM
Party buffs are a very important part of group combat, and should probably be taken into account for most simulations to be more accurate.
The problem is that then we would have to agree on what level of buff is normal.

Testing with an extra +10 to hit from various buffs means that you should PA 20 until AC 16. Still not a lot.

That is:
BAB 20 + 10 str + 5 weapon + 10 misc

Remember if any of those 10 extra are also applied to damage the correct PA lowers. To hit transfers into PA to a high degree, while extra hit and damage can often mean you should PA less.

Blanks
2008-03-24, 05:52 PM
You also need to take into account extra attacks, such as from Haste, Righeous Wrath, Flurry of Strikes, Slashing Fury and a couple other assorted abilities that grant extra attacks at highest AB.
Im doing core only ;)
But for level 20, at least 1 extra attack should probably be allowed, if not anything else then an AoO.

I wanted to challenge the assumption that those that already had a high damage output (high str. barbs) should be the ones powerattacking. It should instead be those that have low damage and high hit percentage (see chronos example).

Im not sure, but just looking at the numbers it would seem that PA also declines with level. At 5 level you will meet a lot of foes with AC in the range where you PA, but at higher levels i would expect the AC 10 monsters to be met rarely (The DM can only hide so many colossal zombies in the graveyard before the players start to roll their eyes... :) )

Zincorium
2008-03-24, 05:54 PM
Blanks, seriously, I already showed why only doing increments of five is inaccurate, the math is up there for you to check, and it uses your numbers.

Saying that power attack 'is a waste' for the example character, at any point, is making a point without any real basis. Saying that the barbarian class shouldn't take it is verging on willfully blind.

You can contrive a character who needs power attack more, but in an actual gameplay situation, barbarians should take power attack.

Edit:
Seriously, if you can't figure out why, simulate the effects of power attack when charging.

You know, that thing that all barbarians ever created are known for doing?

Power attacking on a charge, when you have a higher to-hit and do not worry about iterative attacks, creates incredible amounts of damage. Even without leap attack and shocktrooper.

Talya
2008-03-24, 06:00 PM
The duelist badly needs power attack, just to not suck quite as badly as they do to start with.

(And isn't it stupid that you can't power attack with a shortsword, but rapiers work fine?)

Kompera
2008-03-24, 08:11 PM
I question your barbarian's strength.

Here is a more accurate representation:
level 5 Str 21 + rage --> Str 25, +1 weapon

I question yours. I'm running a Human Barbarian now, level 3. I've got an 18 STR, rolled via the '4d6 discard lowest die' system. An 18 isn't terribly likely under that system. With Rage that's a 22. There's not much chance for me to get to a 21 STR by level 5, even if I put my stat point for level 4 into STR, brining it to a 19 and not increasing my Hit or Damage due to the 2 point increment.

This character is at the peak of STR for a core character of his level, and it took luck to get there. Given this, assuming a 21 STR is by no means a "more accurate representation."

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-24, 09:01 PM
This character is at the peak of STR for a core character of his level, and it took luck to get there. Given this, assuming a 21 STR is by no means a "more accurate representation."

Well since a Core ECL 1 character can have 22 Str before raging, I don't think it's out of line to say that that a level 5 Str based character can manage 21.

Chronos
2008-03-24, 09:14 PM
Well since a Core ECL 1 character can have 22 Str before ragingYes, but some folks prefer not to play an orc. And an item of Str +4 is beyond the WBL of a level 5 character, and even +2 would be nearly half of his total... I'm not sure where you're getting those extra points.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-24, 09:30 PM
Yes, but some folks prefer not to play an orc. And an item of Str +4 is beyond the WBL of a level 5 character, and even +2 would be nearly half of his total... I'm not sure where you're getting those extra points.

I believe the assumption was made that one of the following 3 options applied to most Barbarians:

1) Orc 2) Half-Orc 3) +2 Item

Personally, I didn't assert that 21 was a good average, just that the statement that 18 Str was the "peak Str for a character of his level" was wrong.

Kompera
2008-03-24, 11:29 PM
I suppose I should have stated that my character is Human, but after stating that I rolled an 18 I didn't think that it was necessary to point out that I wasn't playing a race with a STR adjustment.

Half-Orcs blow. Their penalties far outweigh the +2 STR. I considered it, because I did want to play a character with great STR, but finally decided to alter my back story to "has some Orcish blood" rather than being a Half-Orc.

Running an Orc (or any other non-core player race) isn't allowed by my GM. And he also doesn't adhere to WBL, instead handing out rewards as he sees fit and not running a game where there is a magical supermarket in every town so that any player who wants something other than what they looted in the last adventure can trade in for char-op items. And we like it that way.

So, yeah, going by char-op methods which assume that the GM is a doormat, you can exceed an 18 STR by 5th level. But really, who would want to?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-24, 11:35 PM
Yes, but Barbarians are what we're talking about here, and since there's several ways to reach 20 Str before raging, including buffs, magic items, and race, 20 str should be assumed as the minimum.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-24, 11:44 PM
Running an Orc (or any other non-core player race) isn't allowed by my GM.

Orc is a Core Player race.


And he also doesn't adhere to WBL, instead handing out rewards as he sees fit and not running a game where there is a magical supermarket in every town so that any player who wants something other than what they looted in the last adventure can trade in for char-op items. And we like it that way.

There doesn't need to me a magical supermarket in every town to get a +Str item. And what is this nonsense about "Char-Op" items. A Char Op Item is nightsticks, or a Candle of Invocation, the Magic Item Compendium rules for for stacking effects where born of the fact that in the vast majority of games, both high and low optimization level, +x to stat or saving throw items are the most commonly bought items.


So, yeah, going by char-op methods which assume that the GM is a doormat, you can exceed an 18 STR by 5th level. But really, who would want to?

Going by the assumed balance of the game WBL (and using it on things that are actually beneficial to you) is an essential part of game balance.

I would want to play in a game where the rules for city size was use to determine the availability of items. Though of course I would prefer if the DM had a certain amount of RP attached to this obtaining.

Kompera
2008-03-25, 01:08 AM
Orc is a Core Player race.
I don't see Orc listed in my PHB, nor do I see it in the D20SRD under 'Races'. The races listed there (dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling or human) are available to play in my GMs campaign. His definition of Core must be different than yours. I do see several Orcs listed under the Variant portion of the SRD (my PHB is not handy to reference), but Variant rules are by definition not Core. The SRD even has subtext under the Variant Rules header "open content from Unearthed Arcana." The Abbreviations and Acronyms thread on this forum does not list the UA under the list of Core books, instead listing it under the header "Expansions to the Core."

There doesn't need to me a magical supermarket in every town to get a +Str item. And what is this nonsense about "Char-Op" items. A Char Op Item is nightsticks, or a Candle of Invocation, the Magic Item Compendium rules for for stacking effects where born of the fact that in the vast majority of games, both high and low optimization level, +x to stat or saving throw items are the most commonly bought items.I beg to differ. Char-op doesn't require any of those items you've listed. They are amongst the most broken, sure. But any methodical stacking of bonuses is char-op. The only difference is one of scale. And it does require a magical supermarket in every town to get a +STR item on demand, if your GM doesn't hand one out as loot. Unless, again, your GM is a doormat.
Edit: And the Magic Item Compendium is not Core, either.

Going by the assumed balance of the game WBL (and using it on things that are actually beneficial to you) is an essential part of game balance.But not an essential part of play. And the parenthetical "and using it on things that are actually beneficial to you" conceals a vast playground of assumption.

I would want to play in a game where the rules for city size was use to determine the availability of items. Though of course I would prefer if the DM had a certain amount of RP attached to this obtaining.My GM does roll for availability if items. But most places we have ready access to are quite small. There's not much adventure to be had in the typical urban setting, after all.

You seem to prefer the style of play where after every play session the characters automatically return to the largest city. Once there, the first thing they do is to find a magical supermarket and trade in their unwanted magic items for the items they most desire. The GM in this campaign has little to no say about this, no matter how unbalanced this activity can make his campaign, because if he objects phrases such as "WBL" and "RAW" are used to beat him down. If that's how you prefer to play, great. You're welcome to it. But you're misinterpreting the rules, and doing so will make you miss out on some excellent D&D experiences. Rather than taking what you're given by an active GM who manages his campaign for the benefit of all, you've got a doormat GM who cringes before Power Word: RAW and allows his campaign to be hijacked by the players. You're still playing D&D, but it's a hollow mockery of what it could be. Instead of the players using what they have to overcome challenges, the GM instead has to craft his challenges to account for whatever the latest magical anti-MacGuffin the players have last traded up for.

Thinker
2008-03-25, 01:15 AM
Orc is a Core Player race. The fact that it is not in the PHB means it is obviously considered unbalancing by the game designers. I think its fairly obvious that the game designers felt that +4 strength was a stupid idea.


There doesn't need to me a magical supermarket in every town to get a +Str item. And what is this nonsense about "Char-Op" items. A Char Op Item is nightsticks, or a Candle of Invocation, the Magic Item Compendium rules for for stacking effects where born of the fact that in the vast majority of games, both high and low optimization level, +x to stat or saving throw items are the most commonly bought items.
If the players can get items that were not handed out as treasure it totally breaks verisimilitude. Why wouldn't Farmer Bob go out and buy a strength +eleventy and not hire the adventurers to begin with? I'd say a char-op item is any item that enhances the effectiveness of a character at the expense of roleplay. Why would a dwarf, who hates giants (Its in the PHB. Just check!), wear a belt of giant strength? I'd say he'd be better off just not pumping his strength at the expense of more important stats, like Charisma. The MIC is a book for munchkins. Have you seen the handful of items that can be abused? In one book, no less!



Going by the assumed balance of the game WBL (and using it on things that are actually beneficial to you) is an essential part of game balance.
The GM needs to maintain WBL, but not by letting the players pick their items. I'd almost recommend a WoW style binding system where the first person to pick up a magic item is the only one that can use it until he dies. Ever heard of a smart fighter? Yeah, I thought not.


I would want to play in a game where the rules for city size was use to determine the availability of items. Though of course I would prefer if the DM had a certain amount of RP attached to this obtaining.
I would want to play in a game where the rules don't tell my GM what is and isn't in his city. Is RP another word for munchkinry?

Nebo_
2008-03-25, 01:15 AM
I don't see Orc listed in my PHB, nor do I see it in the D20SRD under 'Races'. The races listed there (dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling or human) are available to play in my GMs campaign. His definition of Core must be different than yours. I do see several Orcs listed under the Variant portion of the SRD (my PHB is not handy to reference), but Variant rules are by definition not Core. The SRD even has subtext under the Variant Rules header "open content from Unearthed Arcana." The Abbreviations and Acronyms thread on this forum does not list the UA2 under the list of Core books, instead listing it under the header "Expansions to the Core.

Look at the Orc entry in the Monster Manual under 'Orcs as characters'

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-25, 01:19 AM
Orc's are MMI. That is one of the "Core 3". Note the section on "Orcs as Characters"?
Also, I'm not just talking about a +Str item, I'm also considering Bear's Strength, a +1 LA template, or any of the other dozen methods for boosting strength that are assumed by the CR system.
Methodical stacking of bonuses isn't optimizing, it's an in-character decision to try to STAY ALIVE. Your character regularly goes into dark holes in the ground and kills stuff which has not seen the light of day for a thousand years. Are you saying he doesn't pick his weapon based on what is most effective? When he gets to the city, he doesn't check around for an item to make him stronger? Look at your adventurer like a soldier in a warzone. Realize that he will take every advantage he can get his hands on. Anything else is bad roleplaying.

Also, congatulations. (http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/stoopidtallkid/Internet/achievement.gif)

NEO|Phyte
2008-03-25, 01:21 AM
Look at the Orc entry in the Monster Manual under 'Orcs as characters'

Able to be played as a player != player race.

Or are minotaurs a core player race as well?

Thinker
2008-03-25, 01:23 AM
Orc's are MMI. That is one of the "Core 3". Note the section on "Orcs as Characters"?
Also, I'm not just talking about a +Str item, I'm also considering Bear's Strength, a +1 LA template, or any of the other dozen methods for boosting strength that are assumed by the CR system.
Methodical stacking of bonuses isn't optimizing, it's an in-character decision to try to STAY ALIVE. Your character regularly goes into dark holes in the ground and kills stuff which has not seen the light of day for a thousand years. Are you saying he doesn't pick his weapon based on what is most effective? When he gets to the city, he doesn't check around for an item to make him stronger? Look at your adventurer like a soldier in a warzone. Realize that he will take every advantage he can get his hands on. Anything else is bad roleplaying.

Yes, those are for the DM to use. If he wants to add spice to encounters by giving the orcs and templates classes to use. You obviously play hack and slash with brutish fighters. How many classes did your last fighter have? My characters usually talk their way out of those dangerous situations and out-think their opponents, rather than try to fight through the hazards. That way he can use his ancestral sword and doesn't need to give it up in the name of munchkinry.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-25, 01:30 AM
Psh, Orc isn't exactly game breaking. A net negative to stats and light sensitivity.

Thinker, what you're talking about are the PHB player races. Hell, a Couatl could be a core player race if the party ECL was high enough. If Orcs with class levels are just for the DM to add spice to an encounter, why is there a listed LA in the first place? The DM just has to add the class level to the original CR to determine the adjusted CR.

Edit: An aside: Ancestral swords can be enchanted, or even reforged with exotic metals. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-25, 01:30 AM
Munchkinry != being effective.

If the fighter found a weapon that is more effective than his sword, he should give it up. Why? Because if the GM is running difficult encounters, that weapon might be the difference between life and death. IMHO, that overrides sentimentality. IRL, if I was in a warzone and had to choose between my father's '83 CJ7 and a new HumVee(ignoring for the moment that HumVees suck), I'd trade in a second, because that would keep me alive. Talking past encounters is great, and my characters do it every chance they get, but when you have to fight, you want to start the fight in the most advantageous position possible. That is all there is to it.

Kompera
2008-03-25, 01:38 AM
Look at the Orc entry in the Monster Manual under 'Orcs as characters'Our GM is the only person in our group with a MM (He has something like 5 of them, actually), so I can't do that. Despite not being able to look in the MM, it's clear that Orcs are not a Core player race, despite any optional or variant rules published outside the *ahem* Players Handbook. To quote the product description, the Players Handbook is "Within these pages, you'll discover all the tools and options you need to create characters worthy of song and legend for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game." And that of the Monster Manual, "The fully illustrated pages of this book are overrun with all the creatures, statistics, spells, and strategies you need to challenge the heroic characters of any Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game."
My bolds for emphasis.

PHB = for players
MM = for GMs

And thank God that we all don't need 5 additional books to play the game as a player. If every one of our group of 8 had to shell out for all those books I'd like to buy some shares in Hasbro before we all headed to the store.

Thinker
2008-03-25, 01:38 AM
Psh, Orc isn't exactly game breaking. A net negative to stats and light sensitivity.

Thinker, what you're talking about are the PHB player races. Hell, a Couatl could be a core player race if the party ECL was high enough. If Orcs with class levels are just for the DM to add spice to an encounter, why is there a listed LA in the first place? The DM just has to add the class level to the original CR to determine the adjusted CR.

Edit: An aside: Ancestral swords can be enchanted, or even reforged with exotic metals. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html)

Wizards only put in the CR system to sell books and make money. The only way to know if the encounter is balanced is to compare the CR to the party and even that doesn't work right. Just because they're using house-rules doesn't mean I should have to!


Munchkinry != being effective.

If the fighter found a weapon that is more effective than his sword, he should give it up. Why? Because if the GM is running difficult encounters, that weapon might be the difference between life and death. IMHO, that overrides sentimentality. IRL, if I was in a warzone and had to choose between my father's '83 CJ7 and a new HumVee(ignoring for the moment that HumVees suck), I'd trade in a second, because that would keep me alive. Talking past encounters is great, and my characters do it every chance they get, but when you have to fight, you want to start the fight in the most advantageous position possible. That is all there is to it.

In case you missed the memo, this is fantasy. In fantasy old things are supposed to be better. Sentimental value is greater than magic. I don't care about your gritty pseudo-realistic approach. A good weapon at level one should still be able to compete at level 20, otherwise why bother with it to begin with? Why not just get the level 20 sword at level 1? I could probably just steal it from your MagikMart.

Talic
2008-03-25, 01:44 AM
PHB = for players
MM = for GMs


Tell me, what do your druids shift into when they reach level 5? Gnomes? :smallamused:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-25, 01:46 AM
Kompera, I wasn't aware that you had to spend money to read the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm). Or just rip it off the 'net (you people with morals that apply to corporations...), or share books... Also, just because the PHB says it's all you need to play D&D doesn't mean it's the only thing you can read.

Thinker, that's a bit of a non sequitur. Inefficacy of the CR system aside, the game rules in the Core rulebooks still show quite clearly that Orcs can be played as characters unless the DM houserules that they can't. I'm not bashing your game, but I might shed an emo tear if I wanted to join your group as (say) a lovably dumb Orc Barbarian and was rejected outright because Orcs are outside the PHB.

Talic
2008-03-25, 01:48 AM
A good weapon at level one should still be able to compete at level 20, otherwise why bother with it to begin with? Why not just get the level 20 sword at level 1?

Well, because the ancient holy avenger of mystical power is likely a bit beyond your reach, in the dragon's hoard.

Unless you're saying that people with better resources shouldn't get better things... Shame on them, for wanting a benefit of gaining levels!

After all, if a +7 total to hit is good at level 1, it should be good at level 20 too! Otherwise, what's the point of even having it to begin with.

Oh yeah, having it to begin with, until you can get something better.

Optimize != munchkinry.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-25, 01:48 AM
Or what you summon. Or animal companions. Or Familars.

Oh, and Thinker, do you always play a Kensia? Cause normally, weapons don't upgrade on their own, and you don't have time to upgrade them. And what if you aren't attached to your weapon? What if it was just something you bought at a street vender?

Kompera
2008-03-25, 01:49 AM
Munchkinry != being effective.

If the fighter found a weapon that is more effective than his sword, he should give it [the sword] up. Why? Because if the GM is running difficult encounters, that weapon might be the difference between life and death.That is a very limited and unimaginative view.
My character has a suit of +1 Chainmail, which I worked into my back story. If I find a set of +2 Splint mail, you think I should give up my legacy armor for a mere mechanical advantage? For shame!
Instead, what I would do is find a skilled smith and ask if he could use some of the new set to make repairs on my cherished back story set of chainmail. This would be done after discussion with the GM, of course. Perhaps a Wizard or some other NPC capable of crafting magic armor might also need to be involved. In the end I'd have increased the + rating of my legacy set, all within the bounds of good role play, and without either setting foot in a magical supermarket or abandoning the set of armor my mentor gave me as a gift as soon as I found something 'better'. What would he say if he saw me in 5 years and I wasn't wearing the armor he crafted for me with his own hands?

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-25, 02:00 AM
That is a very limited and unimaginative view.
My character has a suit of +1 Chainmail, which I worked into my back story. If I find a set of +2 Splint mail, you think I should give up my legacy armor for a mere mechanical advantage? For shame!
Instead, what I would do is find a skilled smith and ask if he could use some of the new set to make repairs on my cherished back story set of chainmail. This would be done after discussion with the GM, of course. Perhaps a Wizard or some other NPC capable of crafting magic armor might also need to be involved. In the end I'd have increased the + rating of my legacy set, all within the bounds of good role play, and without either setting foot in a magical supermarket or abandoning the set of armor my mentor gave me as a gift as soon as I found something 'better'. What would he say if he saw me in 5 years and I wasn't wearing the armor he crafted for me with his own hands?
Well, if you make a backstory that requires it, go a head. Just don't make us use that same backstory. Plus, let me give you a situation:
You are a junior mercenary of a band, with only the ragtag starting gear they provide every new recruit, some of it obviously used. Later on, you find a much nicer sword(Masterwork as opposed to common). Do you trade now? What if its a +1 sword?

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-25, 02:03 AM
That is a very limited and unimaginative view.
My character has a suit of +1 Chainmail, which I worked into my back story. If I find a set of +2 Splint mail, you think I should give up my legacy armor for a mere mechanical advantage? For shame!
Instead, what I would do is find a skilled smith and ask if he could use some of the new set to make repairs on my cherished back story set of chainmail. This would be done after discussion with the GM, of course. Perhaps a Wizard or some other NPC capable of crafting magic armor might also need to be involved. In the end I'd have increased the + rating of my legacy set, all within the bounds of good role play, and without either setting foot in a magical supermarket or abandoning the set of armor my mentor gave me as a gift as soon as I found something 'better'. What would he say if he saw me in 5 years and I wasn't wearing the armor he crafted for me with his own hands?That's a pretty odd attachment to a piece of armor. But hey, it's your character, and I'm going to take a wild guess and assume your DM tailors encounters to this kind of play well enough for you to have a fondness for it.

But to rerail a bit, it's still quite reasonable to assume that a plurality of (or at least more) campaigns handwave the shopkeep stuff a bit more, allow (edit: most LA 0) MMI player races, and have barbarians with 20 strength.

Kompera
2008-03-25, 02:14 AM
Well, if you make a backstory that requires it, go a head. Just don't make us use that same backstory. Plus, let me give you a situation:
You are a junior mercenary of a band, with only the ragtag starting gear they provide every new recruit, some of it obviously used. Later on, you find a much nicer sword(Masterwork as opposed to common). Do you trade now? What if its a +1 sword?Your question is not relevant.

The point I made was that there's no need for a GM to have a (or many ) magical supermarkets in his campaign or for players to toss aside an item they prefer to use or may even have an in-game attachment to simply because they find a different item with a greater mechanical advantage. There are alternatives which preserve the setting and a sense of roleplay and even wonder, and those are the options which make for a better game.

Trading a stock weapon (or possibly substandard, in your description) for a Masterwork or a +1 weapon has no relevance with either of those scenarios.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-25, 02:23 AM
Your question is not relevant.

The point I made was that there's no need for a GM to have a (or many ) magical supermarkets in his campaign or for players to toss aside an item they prefer to use or may even have an in-game attachment to simply because they find a different item with a greater mechanical advantage. There are alternatives which preserve the setting and a sense of roleplay and even wonder, and those are the options which make for a better game.

Trading a stock weapon (or possibly substandard, in your description) for a Masterwork or a +1 weapon has no relevance with either of those scenarios.You're a Special Ops soldier on the ground in a hot zone(the closest thing the real world has to an adventurer's daily life) You have a Luger your grandpappy took off of a German officer he killed with a KA-Bar during WWII. You find a Desert Eagle and cache of ammo. Which do you use? Which does any sane person use? Sentimentality takes a backseat to survival for any of my characters who have passed level 5, and for many of the ones under it, because that is what their lives demand. You can't roleplay if you're dead.

And no, it's not a magical supermarket, it's half-a-dozen dingy alchemists shops, 3 wizard's private towers on the outskirts of town, and the various local temples to every god under the sun that your character visits looking for those items, taking several hours, or even a couple days if he has to custom-order something crafted. Most GM's just skim over this.

Nebo_
2008-03-25, 02:23 AM
Able to be played as a player != player race.

Or are minotaurs a core player race as well?

So that means that Grey Elves, Wood Elves, Teiflings and Aasimar aren't for players either?


Our GM is the only person in our group with a MM (He has something like 5 of them, actually), so I can't do that. Despite not being able to look in the MM, it's clear that Orcs are not a Core player race, despite any optional or variant rules published outside the *ahem* Players Handbook. To quote the product description, the Players Handbook is "Within these pages, you'll discover all the tools and options you need to create characters worthy of song and legend for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game." And that of the Monster Manual, "The fully illustrated pages of this book are overrun with all the creatures, statistics, spells, and strategies you need to challenge the heroic characters of any Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game."

My quote for emphasis. You certainly don't need more than the PHB races, but the options are there for those who choose to use them.

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-25, 02:25 AM
Your question is not relevant.

The point I made was that there's no need for a GM to have a (or many ) magical supermarkets in his campaign or for players to toss aside an item they prefer to use or may even have an in-game attachment to simply because they find a different item with a greater mechanical advantage. There are alternatives which preserve the setting and a sense of roleplay and even wonder, and those are the options which make for a better game.

Trading a stock weapon (or possibly substandard, in your description) for a Masterwork or a +1 weapon has no relevance with either of those scenarios.

I'm sorry, I thought that you were the one who was arguing that trading in a weapon/armor for a better suit was inherently a bad thing, even when your the only one placing any particular value on it. I was pointing out that there could just as easily be a back story that makes one want to upgrade more often. And while there may not be a magical gift shop, occasionally you do go into cities(and I would argue that there can be just as much adventure in a city, but thats a topic for a different thread), and in major cities there may be magic items on sale. Of course this depends on the setting, and from your posts I'd infer that the setting you play in is relatively low magic, but I've played in campaigns were it be a stretch if a decent sized city didn't have a couple magic item shops.

NEO|Phyte
2008-03-25, 02:30 AM
So that means that Grey Elves, Wood Elves, Teiflings and Aasimar aren't for players either?
Are they in the Races chapter of the PHB, or the Monsters chapter of the MM?

Now, of those two locations, which is full of creatures that, unless specifically told otherwise by the DM, a player can ALWAYS expect to be able to pick from for their race without any problems?

Sure they're made for players. Its just that the DM is under no obligation to allow his players to take them, unlike the races in the Races chapter of the PHB.

Talic
2008-03-25, 02:32 AM
Your question is not relevant.

The point I made was that there's no need for a GM to have a (or many ) magical supermarkets in his campaign or for players to toss aside an item they prefer to use or may even have an in-game attachment to simply because they find a different item with a greater mechanical advantage. There are alternatives which preserve the setting and a sense of roleplay and even wonder, and those are the options which make for a better game.

Trading a stock weapon (or possibly substandard, in your description) for a Masterwork or a +1 weapon has no relevance with either of those scenarios.

Actually, it's making a point. Not every sword you have is an item of legacy, handed to you by a wizened mentor with a fondness for smiting students who spurn his gifts later.

You don't need a magic item supermart to upgrade, either. Say you've got that masterwork chain shirt your dad wore in the War of the Third Age. When adventuring, you investigate a tomb a few miles from the city, because there seems to be evidence that the arcane energies corrupting Prince Thran are stemming from there. You find the tomb inhabited, by an enchanter, who's animated several undead as a backup defense. After defeating them, you notice that among the items the undead were wearing was a dusty suit of Mithral breastplate, bearing the crest of the House of Ishtar, a royal line gone extinct some 1,200 years past. This doesn't appear to belong here, as this was a crypt not even fashioned until 100 years ago, so obviously made it's way here through some non-standard fashion.

See? The upgrade doesn't have to be serial number 123794(b). Those things can have a history too.

Kompera
2008-03-25, 02:32 AM
That's a pretty odd attachment to a piece of armor. But hey, it's your character, and I'm going to take a wild guess and assume your DM tailors encounters to this kind of play well enough for you to have a fondness for it.How is it odd? It was crafted for me by my mentor, of course I value it. You do understand that you're playing a role playing game when you play D&D, right?

But there is some hope for the munchkins. Mechanically speaking the Chain shirt (correction to the Chainmail I misstated previously) is the better piece for me. It's Light armor, allows me to retain my high rate of speed, and has a much better DEX bonus than Splint mail. So my choice to preserve the game setting and try to work within the context of a story should also hold some appeal to those who consider only mechanical advantages. Unless that's so completely boring that you'd rather say "I find a magic shop, and ditch my +1 Chain shirt and the new +2 Splint mail and buy a +2 Chain shirt and a magical toothpick of dental maintenance. Oh, and according to the prices I'm seeing in the book I have open in front of me, the shop keeper owes me 400 Golds, too."

But where's the fun in that? You may as well be playing a video game at that point...


But to rerail a bit, it's still quite reasonable to assume that a plurality of (or at least more) campaigns handwave the shopkeep stuff a bit more, allow (edit: most LA 0) MMI player races, and have barbarians with 20 strength.You can assume that, but I wouldn't call it reasonable. I've never seen a game run that way in a very many years of playing D&D throughout many versions, many GMs, many settings.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-25, 02:34 AM
Are they in the Races chapter of the PHB, or the Monsters chapter of the MM?

Now, of those two locations, which is full of creatures that, unless specifically told otherwise by the DM, a player can ALWAYS expect to be able to pick from for their race without any problems?

Sure they're made for players. Its just that the DM is under no obligation to allow his players to take them, unlike the races in the Races chapter of the PHB.Pff. If, as a DM, I want to preempt Wizards and remove Gnomes as player characters from my game, I'm under no obligation to the PHB to hold back my ban stick. You're putting unwarranted weight in the PHB over the other Core rulebooks.

Edit: Just saw Kompera's reply.


How is it odd? It was crafted for me by my mentor, of course I value it. You do understand that you're playing a role playing game when you play D&D, right?

But there is some hope for the munchkins.I've seen passive aggressive pulled off better. I'd stick with the straight up 'responding to arguments politely' stuff.

Anyway, it's not exactly a matter of course that one's character is so attached to the armor his mentor crafted for him that he would refuse to don obviously superior protection. In your character's situation, I doubt it's too shameful for him to hang up that armor in a prominent place in his (or his family's) house.

Again, though, you're not being presented with obviously superior wares. +2 Splint isn't exactly a huge difference over +1 Chain, but +5 Chain of Heavy Fortification might be worth it. That said, like I implied before, your campaigns probably aren't swimming with items much better than your legacy items in the first place.


Unless that's so completely boring that you'd rather say "I find a magic shop, and ditch my +1 Chain shirt and the new +2 Splint mail and buy a +2 Chain shirt and a magical toothpick of dental maintenance. Oh, and according to the prices I'm seeing in the book I have open in front of me, the shop keeper owes me 400 Golds, too."

But where's the fun in that? You may as well be playing a video game at that point...The point is that, as a player, I have a limited time to play D&D (everyone does, to an extent), and I don't find haggling with the NPC shopkeep for two hours a particularly good way to spend that time. It's not video game mentality to want to get to the fun stuff (which is roleplaying, before you even go there).

Talic
2008-03-25, 02:37 AM
How is it odd? It was crafted for me by my mentor, of course I value it. You do understand that you're playing a role playing game when you play D&D, right?

But there is some hope for the munchkins. Mechanically speaking the Chain shirt (correction to the Chainmail I misstated previously) is the better piece for me. It's Light armor, allows me to retain my high rate of speed, and has a much better DEX bonus than Splint mail. So my choice to preserve the game setting and try to work within the context of a story should also hold some appeal to those who consider only mechanical advantages. Unless that's so completely boring that you'd rather say "I find a magic shop, and ditch my +1 Chain shirt and the new +2 Splint mail and buy a +2 Chain shirt and a magical toothpick of dental maintenance. Oh, and according to the prices I'm seeing in the book I have open in front of me, the shop keeper owes me 400 Golds, too."

But where's the fun in that? You may as well be playing a video game at that point...

You can assume that, but I wouldn't call it reasonable. I've never seen a game run that way in a very many years of playing D&D throughout many versions, many GMs, many settings.

You fail to think fully, in your attack of those who you deem "munchkins". Tell me, ever build a wizard with a 9 Intelligence? After all, putting points into making his casting effective is obviously "munchkinry".

What? You say the wizard is unplayable? What if he was sent to the mage academy, though he didn't have the knack, by his father, and all he wanted to do was wrestle... So he has this high strength, and improved grapple, but attended wizard school every day until he reached level 1.

Point is, if more optimized than you approve of is munchkinry, and less is unplayable, then the only thing acceptable for you is the level of optimization that you're comfortable with. That, IN YOUR OPINION, is right.

You have your opinions. Others have theirs. Standard definition of munchkinry is using feats and abilities in ways that are abusing the system, and doing more than it's designed to do. Let's stick with that one, shall we, rather than screaming munchkin every time someone tries to buy a sword?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-25, 02:38 AM
I'm still waiting for a reason why a character wouldn't upgrade to something more likely to help them stay alive. I don't know about yours, but mine have always had "Stay Alive" fairly high on their list of priorities, right below "Save the World" and just above "Ale and Hookers". A character who's not going to take something that helps him stay alive better have a fairly good IC reason.

NEO|Phyte
2008-03-25, 02:40 AM
Pff. If, as a DM, I want to preempt Wizards and remove Gnomes as player characters from my game, I'm under no obligation to the PHB to hold back my ban stick. You're putting unwarranted weight in the PHB over the other Core rulebooks.


Now, of those two locations, which is full of creatures that, unless specifically told otherwise by the DM, a player can ALWAYS expect to be able to pick from for their race without any problems?
I already accounted for people like you. :smallwink:
I'm well aware that the DM has mystical all-powerful ability to change what he wants, when he wants, why he wants. That doesn't change the base rules of the game, which includes a list of 'preapproved' races for players to use. Which happens to include gnomes. and not tieflings. Until 4e hits, anyway.

Swordguy
2008-03-25, 02:42 AM
Kompera,

Don't bother man. These are REALLY character-op-heavy forums. There's NEVER an excuse here for not squeezing every last bit of effectiveness out of a character, even if effects your RP or basic view of your own character slightly.


(For the record, I agree with you, and would love to see more of that kind of thinking here. I'm just not holding my breath about it. It's also why I don't post here as much as I used to - it's a hostile environment to people who don't do heavy char-op.)

Talic
2008-03-25, 02:46 AM
I already accounted for people like you. :smallwink:
I'm well aware that the DM has mystical all-powerful ability to change what he wants, when he wants, why he wants. That doesn't change the base rules of the game, which includes a list of 'preapproved' races for players to use. Which happens to include gnomes. and not tieflings. Until 4e hits, anyway.

Both. All games should assume use of PHB by players, DMG by DM's, and MM by either, as needed (unless your druids don't shapeshift and their animal companion isn't REALLY allowed). Unless SPECIFICALLY told that something in Core isn't allowed, it is.

There's a difference between a "base race" and a "core race". And that's why most DM's specify. And if you have a good story for the character, why SHOULDN'T you be allowed that?

One of my players wanted to be a lawful good goblin, bent on showing the world the misconceptions of "green skin = bad". Is that "munchkinry"? Another wanted to be a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde wizard lycanthrope. Again, munchkinry? What if I told you the goblin was a rogue? A paladin? Would it make a bit of difference to the backstory? What if the wizard was a fighter? Suddenly, is it wrong?

MeklorIlavator
2008-03-25, 02:46 AM
I've always seen anything from the 3 core books unless told otherwise, and I believe that includes the MM1. Of course, there were limits(if its ECL 3 game, you can't be a Half-fiend), but pretty much everything else was okay.


Kompera,

Don't bother man. These are REALLY character-op-heavy forums. There's NEVER an excuse here for not squeezing every last bit of effectiveness out of a character, even if effects your RP or basic view of your own character slightly.


(For the record, I agree with you, and would love to see more of that kind of thinking here. I'm just not holding my breath about it. It's also why I don't post here as much as I used to - it's a hostile environment to people who don't do heavy char-op.)
Really? I think this is more the fact that were taking issue with the fact that upgrading a weapon/armor at any time was styled to be pretty much the hight of munchinism. While there can be character reasons not to, there may not be.

Talic
2008-03-25, 02:47 AM
Kompera,

Don't bother man. These are REALLY character-op-heavy forums. There's NEVER an excuse here for not squeezing every last bit of effectiveness out of a character, even if effects your RP or basic view of your own character slightly.


(For the record, I agree with you, and would love to see more of that kind of thinking here. I'm just not holding my breath about it. It's also why I don't post here as much as I used to - it's a hostile environment to people who don't do heavy char-op.)

Actually, wizards forums are char-op heavy. These are moderate.

Blanks
2008-03-25, 02:48 AM
As interesting as this discussion is (and it is), I would like to get back to the topic.

Just wanted to reply to a few comments:

Blanks, seriously, I already showed why only doing increments of five is inaccurate, the math is up there for you to check, and it uses your numbers.
I KNOW that it is inaccurate, but great minds like ours can probably guess how it would be if i did it for all the possibilities.
Im NOT showing the exact number you should PA for, we have PA calculators online for that. I AM showing what happens for a range of characters at different ACs. What is the general idea behind when to PA.


Saying that power attack 'is a waste' for the example character, at any point, is making a point without any real basis. Saying that the barbarian class shouldn't take it is verging on willfully blind.
Saying that that is what im saying is willfully blind :smallyuk:
If you are a 20 level character fighting only foes with AC 33+ and do not have any more bonuses than the example character, you will not use PA. At level 5 you PA pretty much everything you meet.


You can contrive a character who needs power attack more, but in an actual gameplay situation, barbarians should take power attack.
From your first post:

I have to question your conclusion that the high-strength barbarian should not be the one power-attacking. Excuse me? Full BAB, high bonus to hit from strength, and commonly using a two-handed weapon? There is no better situation.
Yes barbarians should take PA when created at low levels. I also see that we agree now that barbarians isn't the ones who benefits most from PA.
If you create a 20 level barbarian, You should consider wether you need PA. It depends upon the kinds of monsters you meet, how many extra attacks you get and how much you charge.


Seriously, if you can't figure out why, simulate the effects of power attack when charging.
I can do math just fine thank you. I have ALREADY stated that the iterative attacks are what causes the PA to be used less at higher levels. Why should i run a simulation that i know the outcome of beforehand?

Oh, and could we drop the "what is core" discussion. It is relevant but it belongs somewhere else.

My characters was built using this logic:
halforc+18 str.+ability increases
rage factored in later.

If you use more strength boosting items in your game, just remember to LOWER your PA to match it (!)
If you have a lot of "to hit" buffs, just increase PA to match.

Kompera
2008-03-25, 02:55 AM
You're a Special Ops soldier on the ground in a hot zone(the closest thing the real world has to an adventurer's daily life) You have a Luger your grandpappy took off of a German officer he killed with a KA-Bar during WWII. You find a Desert Eagle and cache of ammo. Which do you use? Which does any sane person use? Sentimentality takes a backseat to survival for any of my characters who have passed level 5, and for many of the ones under it, because that is what their lives demand. You can't roleplay if you're dead.

You may have watched The Terminator a few too many times. Movies do not even begin to approximate life.

I, personally, in real life, would use the Luger. I've fired both weapons. The Luger is a light, accurate, and very reliable piece. Firing the Luger I can hit what I'm aiming at.
The Desert Eagle is a huge and heavy weapon. I stand 6' tall, and have no problems palming a basketball. The Desert Eagle is too big for my hand. Because of this, or perhaps due to the powerful kick of the .357 version I fired, I was horribly inaccurate when shooting this gun. My friend who owned the DE was shorter and had smaller hands then me. He was even more horrible shooting it, but he had a great time playing Arnold at the range anyways. Meh, for the money he could have had a very nice SIG Saur and a raft of accessories. But I digress...
For my survival in your scenario I would continue using the Luger. And so would any sane person in the same situation. Sentimentality doesn't even come into play here, due to the physical issues I have with firing the Desert Eagle. But sentimentality doesn't have to be tossed out the window even if, for example, your scenario included running out of ammo for the Luger. The Luger could be holstered (the Desert Eagle won't be fitting in the Luger holster, despite any movies you may have seen which show this) and I would indeed use the Desert Eagle as a weapon of last resort. And if I survived, I'd sell the Desert Eagle for the cash to buy more Luger rounds, and a few spare clips. That's the 'real life' equivalent of hiring a smith and a Wizard to melt down the Desert Eagle to enchant my mentor's Chain shirt *ahem* my grandfather's Luger.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-25, 02:57 AM
I already accounted for people like you. :smallwink:
I'm well aware that the DM has mystical all-powerful ability to change what he wants, when he wants, why he wants. That doesn't change the base rules of the game, which includes a list of 'preapproved' races for players to use. Which happens to include gnomes. and not tieflings. Until 4e hits, anyway.You didn't exactly. My point was that, under Core rules, Tieflings are just as 'preapproved' as Gnomes. There's no special significance to the Gnome being in the PHB other than the fact that DMs are less likely to Rule 0 them out because of their implied normalcy. (I was also responding to the 'obligation' bit.)

Blanks
2008-03-25, 03:00 AM
And on MM extra races.

ahem:
IM NOT GOING THROUGH THE MECHANICS FOR WHEN A CELESTIAL WEREWOLF/VAMPIRE ATTACKS WITH NATURAL WEAPONS! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME DO IT!
(*sobs*)

Could we limit ourselves to two races:
halforc (+2 str.) and human (+0). That way we can have strength from 13-20 at level 1. Its a good baseline. If your campaign uses less/more strength than that, take it into account when playing the character.

Talic
2008-03-25, 03:42 AM
An extra 5% accuracy means a lot, when damage gets up there. The only time you really need power attack is when your final accuracy is above 50%, or your accuracy prior to power attack is 20% or lower. At these points, when the bonuses provided by power attack out weigh the drawbacks. Otherwise, you're giving up too much in accuracy for damage.

I.E. If your attack bonus is 19, and your target's AC is 37, sure, power attack for 10. you lose 10% accuracy, for 20-40 damage, easy. good trade. When you've got a 75% accuracy, DON'T power attack for more than 4-5. you still want to be able to hit. If you're swinging a +27 against an AC of 24, your MINIMUM Power attack should be 5. You can drop that much and sacrifice nothing in accuracy.

Once you get shock trooper, it's easier to justify full power attack every round.

Kompera
2008-03-25, 06:08 AM
Kompera,

Don't bother man. These are REALLY character-op-heavy forums. There's NEVER an excuse here for not squeezing every last bit of effectiveness out of a character, even if effects your RP or basic view of your own character slightly.


(For the record, I agree with you, and would love to see more of that kind of thinking here. I'm just not holding my breath about it. It's also why I don't post here as much as I used to - it's a hostile environment to people who don't do heavy char-op.)Thanks, I appreciate that there are a few other role players on a forum dedicated to a role playing game.

I do think that there is a lot of misunderstanding rolling around. Perhaps I can clear this up a bit.


You can't roleplay if you're dead.Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's a role playing game. While you're playing, live or die (in character, of course), you should be role playing.


And no, it's not a magical supermarket, it's half-a-dozen dingy alchemists shops, 3 wizard's private towers on the outskirts of town, and the various local temples to every god under the sun that your character visits looking for those items, taking several hours, or even a couple days if he has to custom-order something crafted. Most GM's just skim over this.And that's fine. But there's a huge difference between hand waving away a lot of time spent describing your characters visit to each of those places you list, and the GM stepping completely away from the game while the players freely trade one item for another based on their gold piece values in the GMs guide. Just the fact that those values are in the GMs guide should be enough of a hint that the GM needs to be involved, and say "yes" or "no" to any given request by a player for any given item.


I'm sorry, I thought that you were the one who was arguing that trading in a weapon/armor for a better suit was inherently a bad thing, even when your the only one placing any particular value on it. [...] And while there may not be a magical gift shop, occasionally you do go into cities [...], and in major cities there may be magic items on sale. Of course this depends on the setting, and from your posts I'd infer that the setting you play in is relatively low magic, but I've played in campaigns were it be a stretch if a decent sized city didn't have a couple magic item shops.There never needs to be a magic item shop, no matter how large the city. Any GM worth his/her salt can come up with alternatives which preserve the story and setting. I never said that trading in a set of armor for a better one was a bad idea. I did say that there can be a better way to handle the swap than via resorting to MagicMart™, the place you go to trade in what you don't want for what (potentially) breaks the game.


Again, though, you're not being presented with obviously superior wares. +2 Splint isn't exactly a huge difference over +1 Chain, but +5 Chain of Heavy Fortification might be worth it. That said, like I implied before, your campaigns probably aren't swimming with items much better than your legacy items in the first place.As I said, I'm 3rd level. +5 Chain of Heavy Fortification is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? And there's typically a progression to these things. Players don't typically go from finding +1 armor to finding +10 equivalent armor (+5 Chain of Heavy Fortification, for example).


The point is that, as a player, I have a limited time to play D&D (everyone does, to an extent), and I don't find haggling with the NPC shopkeep for two hours a particularly good way to spend that time. It's not video game mentality to want to get to the fun stuff (which is roleplaying, before you even go there).I won't go there. But I will point out that the time spent saying to the GM "I've got this +2 suit of Splint mail I'm not going to be wearing, since I prefer my story line preserving suit of +1 Chain shirt. So I'll find a skilled smith, or a Wizard, or whatever it may take, and see if they can use the Splint to enhance the Chain shirt my mentor made me." should be about the same amount of time it takes to say to the GM "I find MagicMart™ and swap this set of +1 Chain shirt my mentor made me that I could care less about and this +2 set of Splint mail I got this adventure, and I'll take a +2 Chain Shirt, that there Toothpick of Dental Fortitude, and the 400 Gold balance in cash." No difference in time, but a wealth of difference in flavor. So since it can't be an issue of time, perhaps you simply don't care to roleplay?


You fail to think fully, in your attack of those who you deem "munchkins". Tell me, ever build a wizard with a 9 Intelligence? After all, putting points into making his casting effective is obviously "munchkinry".

What? You say the wizard is unplayable? What if he was sent to the mage academy, though he didn't have the knack, by his father, and all he wanted to do was wrestle... So he has this high strength, and improved grapple, but attended wizard school every day until he reached level 1.
The Wizard in my current group is a Half-Orc. I'm not playing that character, but he chose to ignore the -2 INT modifier for the role play of having a Half-Orc Wizard. So, yeah, it happens. And it doesn't make his character unplayable, either. He has an 18 STR and has done some impressive meleeing on occasion. At high risk, but when things get close to him he has a +4 to hit and a +4 damage, and a 1 BAB. Comparing his character to mine we have a +5 vs a +7 BAB+modifiers. Not much difference at 3rd level.


Point is, if more optimized than you approve of is munchkinry, and less is unplayable, then the only thing acceptable for you is the level of optimization that you're comfortable with. That, IN YOUR OPINION, is right.You say it's unplayable, I did not. Don't put words in my mouth, please. You also provide an extreme example, and one which is not reasonable. If a player had rolled only 9s for character creation stats, a highly unlikely event, any GM I've ever run with would declare that character a barrel maker and would allow a re-roll. If the player chooses to play a Wizard with a 9 INT, that's a different story, and it would be that players choice.


You have your opinions. Others have theirs. Standard definition of munchkinry is using feats and abilities in ways that are abusing the system, and doing more than it's designed to do. Let's stick with that one, shall we, rather than screaming munchkin every time someone tries to buy a sword?Ok. I'll stick with "playing a role playing game like a video game" instead. Better?

Please note that my route also sees the player enhance their gear. It just tries to do so within the context of the story. So for all those saying that I'm arguing against improving a characters gear, please stop. You clearly haven't read or are choosing to misrepresent what I've said.

What I called "munchkin" but will now call "videoplay", as opposed to roleplay, is the concept that every item a character has is assigned a gold piece value, and that the player is able to freely exchange possessions at will and without any input by the GM any one item or items for any other item or items. It's the MagicMart™ concept, that is contrary to every good work of fantasy fiction I have ever read. Yes, by RAW and by WBL this may be able to be justified. But I don't believe it can possibly make for an enjoyable and challenging game. Because it requires a doormat for a GM, and for many other reasons that videoplayers probably are incapable of understanding.

And as to your all caps cry that it's all a matter of opinion, I'll remind you of what I've said previously on the subject:


If that's how you prefer to play, great. You're welcome to it. But you're misinterpreting the rules, and doing so will make you miss out on some excellent D&D experiences. Rather than taking what you're given by an active GM who manages his campaign for the benefit of all, you've got a doormat GM who cringes before Power Word: RAW and allows his campaign to be hijacked by the players. You're still playing D&D, but it's a hollow mockery of what it could be. Instead of the players using what they have to overcome challenges, the GM instead has to craft his challenges to account for whatever the latest magical anti-MacGuffin the players have last traded up for.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-25, 06:36 AM
As I said, I'm 3rd level. +5 Chain of Heavy Fortification is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? And there's typically a progression to these things. Players don't typically go from finding +1 armor to finding +10 equivalent armor (+5 Chain of Heavy Fortification, for example).It was an intended exaggeration. Hell, +2 Splint stretches WBL for a third level character. The point was that no one was condemning you for not selling your legacy armor for some +2 Splint. But if you're throwing away the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd in favor of your +1 Chain Shirt of Sentimental Value, I start wondering whether your character is suicidal.


I won't go there.Holding you to it.


But I will point out that the time spent saying to the GM "I've got this +2 suit of Splint mail I'm not going to be wearing, since I prefer my story line preserving suit of +1 Chain shirt. So I'll find a skilled smith, or a Wizard, or whatever it may take, and see if they can use the Splint to enhance the Chain shirt my mentor made me." should be about the same amount of time it takes to say to the GM "I find MagicMart™ and swap this set of +1 Chain shirt my mentor made me that I could care less about and this +2 set of Splint mail I got this adventure, and I'll take a +2 Chain Shirt, that there Toothpick of Dental Fortitude, and the 400 Gold balance in cash." No difference in time, but a wealth of difference in flavor.There's no difference in time or flavor. Even if your character couldn't care less about his +1 Chain Shirt he wouldn't sell it if all he wanted was a +2 Chain Shirt. He'd have the enchantment improved, just like your character did. It's cheaper. All that aside, you're hand waving the whole process just like I do. Your NPC Wizard might as well be a Magic Mart. The only difference seems to be that you like selling your +2 Splint at under market value (for flavor, of course), and you apparently like characters with missing teeth. (Really, and I thought it was a trait of munchkins not to care about their character's hygiene. :smallbiggrin:)


So since it can't be an issue of time, perhaps you simply don't care to roleplay?Oh, too bad, you screwed up and went there. But as you just established, no roleplaying really went on. You handwaved the whole deliciously flavorful NPC Wizard experience, leaving you with your re-enchanted +2 Chain Shirt and me with my... re-enchanted +2 Chain Shirt, and both of us with ample time to interact with characters who are relevant to the story. So really, who's to deny that I like spending my time roleplaying almost as much as you like to spend time claiming that I don't?

Fixer
2008-03-25, 06:56 AM
I have found a wonderful use for PA that I hope to use once my warblade hits level 6 (and takes the feat).

Two-handed Greataxe + Emerald Razor + Power Attack for full + bonuses to hit not related to BAB equal to 9 = near-auto-hit for maximum PA damage.

I have a dwarf warblade with an adamantine greataxe and I intend, on difficult opponents, for him to PA with all his BAB and use Emerald Razor. He will have a +9 to hit (Str bonus, magic bonus, morale bonuses from teammates) without BAB and our toughest opponents tend to not be dextrous.

Blanks
2008-03-25, 08:17 AM
I have a dwarf warblade with an adamantine greataxe and I intend, on difficult opponents, for him to PA with all his BAB and use Emerald Razor. He will have a +9 to hit (Str bonus, magic bonus, morale bonuses from teammates) without BAB and our toughest opponents tend to not be dextrous.
Thats also how I would do it. Utilize your high to hit ratio.

Just one question - what is your damage bonus? :)

For the record, i have no clue how Emerald razor works :)

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-25, 08:45 AM
I don't see Orc listed in my PHB, nor do I see it in the D20SRD under 'Races'. The races listed there (dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling or human) are available to play in my GMs campaign. His definition of Core must be different than yours. I do see several Orcs listed under the Variant portion of the SRD (my PHB is not handy to reference), but Variant rules are by definition not Core. The SRD even has subtext under the Variant Rules header "open content from Unearthed Arcana." The Abbreviations and Acronyms thread on this forum does not list the UA under the list of Core books, instead listing it under the header "Expansions to the Core."

I do see it in the MM which is "Core" so if you want to whine about using things from the wrong place, perhaps you should figure out what that place is before you start on your rants in the future. Orc is Core, your following arguments further limiting the selection of choices don't change that. Maybe you shouldn't have said Core.

Maybe you should have said that you where near peak Str for a character in 1% of all games everywhere, in which Druids don't have companions, can't Wildshape, Wizards don't have Familiars, and the words "for PCs" clearly designate options that PCs should never have access to. The rest of us will continue to be playing D&D.


I beg to differ. Char-op doesn't require any of those items you've listed. They are amongst the most broken, sure. But any methodical stacking of bonuses is char-op. The only difference is one of scale. And it does require a magical supermarket in every town to get a +STR item on demand, if your GM doesn't hand one out as loot. Unless, again, your GM is a doormat.

And what about obtaining items that enhance your primary ability? Is that Char-Op? Or sensible character development? Getting a +Str item doesn't require a MM, it requires:

1) Finding one on a downed enemy
2) Commissioning one from the local Wizard, any level 3 Wizard who lives based on item crafting could help you here.
3) Going to a bigger city since the one you started in didn't have it.
4) Commissioning the creation of one, or asking to buy/do a favor for one from a local Temple. Kord the most likely deity for a Barbarian anyway, is probably a good choice.


Edit: And the Magic Item Compendium is not Core, either.

I am well aware of that, I did not propose actually using any rules in it, I just referenced a development article in which it was stated that in the designers experience +Str items found their way into every non-caster melee's item list over the course of play, as did +x saves gear and assorted other things which were deemed "essential" to game balance.


But not an essential part of play. And the parenthetical "and using it on things that are actually beneficial to you" conceals a vast playground of assumption.

WBL is an essential part of play if you intend to face CR appropriate encounters. I don't think that's such a crazy idea. And it wasn't concealing the playground, I revel in it. Items, just like spells or feats can be used to great effect in customizing your character (Note that I did not say "optimize" and I mean it, and without this parenthetical you would undoubtedly continue to insult my Char-Op attitude because you do not stop to evalute the possibility that I not a horrible Munchkin, just someone who wants to create interesting fun characters.)


You seem to prefer the style of play where after every play session the characters automatically return to the largest city. Once there, the first thing they do is to find a magical supermarket and trade in their unwanted magic items for the items they most desire. The GM in this campaign has little to no say about this, no matter how unbalanced this activity can make his campaign, because if he objects phrases such as "WBL" and "RAW" are used to beat him down. If that's how you prefer to play, great. You're welcome to it. But you're misinterpreting the rules, and doing so will make you miss out on some excellent D&D experiences. Rather than taking what you're given by an active GM who manages his campaign for the benefit of all, you've got a doormat GM who cringes before Power Word: RAW and allows his campaign to be hijacked by the players. You're still playing D&D, but it's a hollow mockery of what it could be. Instead of the players using what they have to overcome challenges, the GM instead has to craft his challenges to account for whatever the latest magical anti-MacGuffin the players have last traded up for.

Speaking of vast playgrounds of assumption, that's all this is. Much of what you here refer to as my style of play is in fact specifically counter to what my earlier posts have indicated is my preferred style. But you wouldn't let my earlier post stating that I would prefer my DM RP more in the realm of me negotiating with the local Wizard's college for new spells to copy stop you from accusing me of handwaving the item obtaining process.

WBL is a part of game balance. Items are a fun part of the game. WBL doesn't mean that you only pick up Gold off mobs in some sort of XP/Gold grind and then go buy magic items. It means that logically, a character that has done a certain amount of adventuring should have come across a certain amount of wealth during the course of it. One way or another, and that they can use that for whatever they want, including commissioning items from a Wizard.

Whether your character takes a vow of poverty or is a selfish greedy jerk who hordes every copper, you still get to come across your WBL in the assumed D&D setting.

Keld Denar
2008-03-25, 08:55 AM
Komptra, fantasy literature is full of both sides of your arguement, and afterall, isn't 90% of roleplaying rooted in fantasy literature?

Look at FR's Icewind Dale trilogy....

Wulfgar recieved his magical warhammer from his adopted father. To him, its the only weapon he'd ever use in his life. It has both mechanical power and sentimental value. This is an obvious example of your situation.

Now look at the oft maligned Drizzt. What happened when Drizzt found Twinkle? Oops, time to throw away my old sword...UPGRADE! And the sword he recovered from Iceingdeath? The frostbrand one? Cha-Ching, upgrade again. Old sword? Meh, cast it aside. Who cares where I got it. This weapon is superior, so I'm gonna use it instead.

Or Cattie-Brie? New bow? Bonus! Old bow I got, probably purchased in Ten Towns using hard earned money made assisting Bruenor in his hall? Means nothing, magic bow it is!

See, there are 3 examples showing both sides of your desired views. Take a look at LotR. It has both sides as well. Its there in fantasy literature as old (or older) than D&D itself. Desiring basic items that fit archtype is not munchkining, its basic sense. If you had a hammer and a screwdriver, you wouldn't give the screwdriver to the carpenter and the hammer to the electrician, would you? Sure, both COULD use them, but anyone can see that the carpenter would make much better use of the hammer and the electrician of the screwdriver. Same thing with a fighter and a wizards desire for str and int respectively. I'm of the opinion that most basic items (+2 stat items, +1 AC rings and necks, +1 save vests and cloaks, 1-3rd pearls of power, +1 weapons, etc) should be openly available for all players to aquire with disposable funds. Afterall, the PCs probably aren't the only people in the world with PC class levels. The market demand for such minor magic is there. Most places aren't going to have a Robe of the Archmage lying around on the clearance rack, but that's why there is a DM in the game, to moderate.

Seriously, go to the RPGA website and download and read the Living Greyhawk Campaign Source. LG does items best IMO. Basic items that people tend to need (+stat, +resistance, etc) are open access for players to buy because you can find just about anything like that in Greyhawk City if you have the gold. More specific things (weapon upgrades, most wonderous items, some spells, etc) require access to buy. That means you either have to find them from treasure or you have to become friendly with someone who has the means to aquire said item/spell/training/etc for you. These favors are all given out through play.

Back on topic....
PA is seldom a waste. Especially when you consider situations where you can't make iterative attacks, such as during a charge or while making a martial strike. AB scales way faster than AC, and most of the time, especially in the mid-high level range, it is stupid not to PA. Adjusting PA so that even your final iterative hits on a 2+ is not optimizing regardless of what your numbers say.

Blanks
2008-03-25, 09:55 AM
Back on topic....
PA is seldom a waste. Especially when you consider situations where you can't make iterative attacks, such as during a charge or while making a martial strike.
Agree. Don't know what martial strike is, but i will take your word for it...


AB scales way faster than AC, and most of the time, especially in the mid-high level range, it is stupid not to PA.
True, depending on setting. For most people it will be true.


Adjusting PA so that even your final iterative hits on a 2+ is not optimizing regardless of what your numbers say.
1)
My numbers said "final iterative attack hits on a 8+". Don't misrepresent my arguments :smallfrown:

2)
Numbers don't lie. If you think my calculations are wrong, show me where.

Yakk
2008-03-25, 10:41 AM
Ignoring 1/20s, we get:
AvDam(Pow) = Chance * Dam
Chance = (HBonus-Pow-AC+21)/20
Dam = (DBonus+Pow*2+7)
AvDam(Pow) = (HB-AC-Pow+21)/20 * (DB+Pow*2+7)
= [HB*DB+HB*Pow*2+HB*7 -AC*DB -AC*Pow*2 -AC*7 -Pow*DB -Pow^2*2 -Pow*7+21*DB+21*2*Pow+21*7] / 20
= [-2*Pow^2 + Pow*(42+2*HB-2*AC-DB-7) + HB*DB+HB*7+21*DB+21*7 ] /20

Taking the derivative with respect to Pow of AvDam(Pow) gives us:
AvDam`(Pow) = [-4*Pow + (42+2*HB-2*AC-DB-7)]/20
to find the min/max point, set equal to zero:
0 = [-4*Pow + (42+2*HB-2*AC-DB-7)]/20
0 = -4*Pow + 42+2*HB-2*AC-DB-7
4*Pow = 42+2*HB-2*AC-DB-7
Pow = (35+2*HB-2*AC-DB)/4

This is for a single max-damage hit. So a level 5 barbarian with 24 strength, a +1 weapon, and +1 to hit from another source gets us:
HB = +7 str +1 weapon +5 BaB +1 other
DB = +10 str +1 weapon
Pow = (35+14*2-AC*2-11)/4
= (52-AC*2)/4

So at AC=10, 8 points. And you lose 1 point of power attack every 2 increases to AC.

For multiple hits we change the Chance to become "AvConnects".
Chance(-0) = (HBonus-Pow-AC+21)/20
Chance(-5) = (HBonus-Pow-AC-5+21)/20
Chance(-10) = (HBonus-Pow-AC-10+21)/20
etc

AvConnects(-0,-0,-5,-10,-15) = (5HB-5Pow-5AC+105-30)/20
= (5HB-5Pow-5AC+75)/20
Neglecting constant factors, we get:
=~ [-5Pow+(5HB-5AC+75)] * [(Pow*2+(DBonus+7)]
Let AD be AverageDamageWithoutPowerAttack
=~ [Pow-(HB-AC+15)] * [Pow-(-AD/2)]
and the maxima is half way between the zeros:
[(HB-AC+15) + (-AD/2)]/2
At level 20, we have 20 BaB, 34 strength, +5 weapon, +5 other hit bonuses = +42
The weapon has +4d6 damage, +5 enchantment, 34 strength = 44

[(42-AC+15) + (-44/2)]/2
= [35-AC]/2

At 5 AC(heh), full power attack. Lose 1 point of power attack for every +2 AC over 5 AC, until at 45 AC you don't power attack at all.

This model is simple, because it neglects the fact that you still get a 5% chance to hit regardless of how bad your attack bonus, and a 5% chance to miss on the other side.

Fixer
2008-03-25, 10:50 AM
Thats also how I would do it. Utilize your high to hit ratio.

Just one question - what is your damage bonus? :)

For the record, i have no clue how Emerald razor works :)
Emerald Razor requires a standard action to use and allows you to make a single melee attack as a touch attack.

See Besturn Hammerstorm in my sig for the character. He will have Power Attack next level so it isn't on his sheet yet.

With full Power Attack at 6th level he will be at a +5 to hit (without magic) and 1d12+18 to damage at 6th level (provided he cannot get his weapon enchanted before 6th level).

Assuming he can get his hands on a +5 weapon and raises his Str to 29 by 20th level, he will be using full Power Attack for +14 to hit (using Emerald Razor for a touch attack) and 1d12+58 to damage. Although he will have access to Strike of Perfect Clarity before then (+34 to hit, 1d12+118 to damage) so the Power Attack trick will be less useful by then unless the target has a great AC and a lousy touch AC.

Rutee
2008-03-25, 10:56 AM
You're a Special Ops soldier on the ground in a hot zone(the closest thing the real world has to an adventurer's daily life) You have a Luger your grandpappy took off of a German officer he killed with a KA-Bar during WWII. You find a Desert Eagle and cache of ammo. Which do you use? Which does any sane person use? Sentimentality takes a backseat to survival for any of my characters who have passed level 5, and for many of the ones under it, because that is what their lives demand. You can't roleplay if you're dead.

And no, it's not a magical supermarket, it's half-a-dozen dingy alchemists shops, 3 wizard's private towers on the outskirts of town, and the various local temples to every god under the sun that your character visits looking for those items, taking several hours, or even a couple days if he has to custom-order something crafted. Most GM's just skim over this.

Why can't I have my cake and eat it too? If the 300 GP for a Masterwork weapon is that important, can I pay that when I go to get grampy's sword enchanted? Sure, it's not RAW, but a GM would have to be a bit of an ass to force my character to dump something that's important to him just to compete at the most basic level. Some measure of optimization isn't mutually exclusive with roleplaying, after all.


Look at FR's Icewind Dale trilogy....
A DnD book is explicitly going to be written to make DnD tropes okay. Very bad example.

Worira
2008-03-25, 12:31 PM
[Scrubbed]

On topic, rogues should generally be TWFing, meaning that they don't get the 2:1 PA ratio. Also, what do you mean you should decrease the amount you power attack for with a higher strength, Blanks? A higher strength means a higher hit chance, which means better PA.

Craig1f
2008-03-25, 12:53 PM
Do a google search for Power Attack Calculator.

Use a couple of these to figure out your power attack levels for variouas ADs (attack difficulties). Given your target's AC, and your AB (Attack Bonus), The AD = AC - AB. Write down a matrix of values on your character's spell sheet (since you don't have spells). For a two handed weapon, your PA (Power attack) level will go up for every 2 the AD lowers. Write down these values for rage/non-rage, single attack/full attack. If you can, try to adjust the values for DR 5 as well (you want to PA more if they have DR).

Go into the fight, assume your target's AC is 15 + your level. Adjust your PA as you fight and learn their true AC. Try to predict target's AC by asking for descriptions (does the target look dexterous, what armor/shield do they have? Is it glowing? etc). You should be able to simply look at your matrix/spell sheet/notes, see "ok, I have a +21 to hit, and I'm charging, so that's +23. I've fought this kinda guy before, and his AC was 25. That's AD 2. I'll power-attack for x."

It becomes pretty straightforward if you do this. The trick is just determining the target's AC before one of you is dead.

Craig1f
2008-03-25, 01:00 PM
On topic, rogues should generally be TWFing, meaning that they don't get the 2:1 PA ratio. Also, what do you mean you should decrease the amount you power attack for with a higher strength, Blanks? A higher strength means a higher hit chance, which means better PA.

A higher strength means more damage, which means a lower percentile increase in damage for each level of power attack.

That said, if your STR bonus goes up by two, your damage goes up by 3, and your AD (attack difficulty) goes down by 2. The two tend to even out fairly well if you're just making one attack. However, if you're using a full-attack, it tends to be better to power attack for less.

Again, use a power attack calculator if you want exact numbers.

Also, keep in mind, the PA is mainly useful for situations where you're denied a full-attack. Often you have a 95% chance of hitting with your primary attack. It's your iterative attacks that have trouble.

A Fighter that is slowed, or somehow denied a full-action, can still wail on someone by using power-attack. It allows them to make up for being denied a full-attack. However, typically if you have a full-attack opportunity, and are doing decent damage, you don't need to power attack for much.

Keld Denar
2008-03-25, 01:08 PM
On topic, rogues should generally be TWFing, meaning that they don't get the 2:1 PA ratio. Also, what do you mean you should decrease the amount you power attack for with a higher strength, Blanks? A higher strength means a higher hit chance, which means better PA.

What the math works out to, is if you have more base damage, such as from a high str, you risk losing more when you PA, since a miss gets 0x extra damage. This is especially true when you get more iteratives, since you get that bonus damage on all those attacks too, and the risk of missing on iteratives increases more with more PA, since AB goes down.

Its like gambling with your life savings for a car when you have $50 compared to gambling with your life savings for the same car when you have $50,000. More risk, but the same reward.

That said, and like I've said before, AB is easier to aquire than AC. The hardest things to hit in the MM are around AC 35ish. Most things in the 10-15 CR range are in the high 20s. A primary melee type in the 10-15 level range should be rockin about a +30 to +40 range after str and buffs, which means he can maul most things his CR more often than not. In the case of things that are exceptionally hard to hit, obviously scale this back, but most of the time, this damage is gravy (and needed to take down things with 300-400 HP).

Worira
2008-03-25, 01:15 PM
Either you're missing my point here, or I'm missing yours. If your strength bonus goes up by 2, the optimal amount to power attack for is 2 more.

EDIT: never mind, I was Doing It Wrong™

Blanks
2008-03-25, 02:16 PM
Thats a lot of math Yakk :smalltongue: (not disputing it, just saying it)


At level 20, we have 20 BaB, 34 strength, +5 weapon, +5 other hit bonuses = +42
The weapon has +4d6 damage, +5 enchantment, 34 strength = 44
We differ in the numbers we use, so lets call it a sensitivity analysis. Perhaps your numbers are more precise, I have never played at level 20. Anyways, its the intuition that important for me:
just out of curiosity, were does the +4d6 dam come from? Some sort of sneak attack or something :smallconfused:


At 5 AC(heh), full power attack. Lose 1 point of power attack for every +2 AC over 5 AC, until at 45 AC you don't power attack at all. Not full power attack from AC 7 - thats kinda low. And by kinda i mean really REALLY low :smallbiggrin:
I guess that shows how quickly extra damage makes (full) powerattack inefficient. Then again, you don't stop powerattacking until well beyond what Lussmanj described as the highest AC encountered frequently. Seeing as how I have never played at level 20, I will take the easy route and believe he knows better :smallsmile:


This model is simple, because it neglects the fact that you still get a 5% chance to hit regardless of how bad your attack bonus, and a 5% chance to miss on the other side.
Mine included a 20 as always hit, but didn't take into account criticals. Thats also not important, as said I posted to raise a debate regarding the intuition.

That said, if anyone needs to calculate their own optimal powerattack, there have been some very good advice in this thread, both in formulas and links.

Roland St. Jude
2008-03-25, 03:01 PM
Do a google search for Power Attack Calculator...

Indeed. There are a few PA calculators out there that excellent. You can plug in a variety of variables and determine optimum PA.

Aside from that, this thread has been thoroughly derailed by passive-aggressive flaming. Thread locked. ~Sheriff of Moddingham