(3.5) Capping damage

[Zergrusheddie]

I am currently not involved in this DnD campaign, but I am interested to know what y'all think.

One of the party members managed to do like 140+ points of damage with his THF Paladin. It's a Paizo Paladin but the rest of the group is using basic 3.5. Apparently, the Paladin had several different buffs (Eagle's Splendor, Haste, and Enlarge at least) and performed a Full Attack Action on a Cleric. The DM was sort of shocked by the fact that a level 8 character managed to instantly kill an "uber cleric" with three hits and no crits.

There has been a lot of talk about nerfing X or Z but one of the ideas is to nerf the amount of damage that a character can do. Something like 10/level a round was purposed. I do not like this idea but am mostly unable to fully articulate my concerns, so I was wondering what you fine folks thought about it. Personally, I just think the DM is surprised because it is the first time that a THF Power Attacker has ever been used in the group.

Best of luck.
-Eddie

[Amphetryon]

Damage is fundamentally the only thing most melee builds can do. Nerf that and you're eliminating the only thing that (barely) justifies playing anything other than a caster.

[Drakevarg]

Damage is fundamentally the only thing most melee builds can do. Nerf that and you're eliminating the only thing that (barely) justifies playing anything other than a caster.

"Because I like playing them" isn't a valid justification for you, then?

[Greenish]

Damage cap would be just bandage. If one player is consistently doing a lot more damage than the others (specialized on it)*, it's time to discuss about the desired level of optimization in the game.

On the other hand, if a fully buffed character is just doing more damage than DM expected, well, next time he can toss something tougher at 'em.


*Or otherwise leaving the others to bite the dust in things they're supposed to be good at.

[kyoryu]

If the player isn't using anything really out of the ordinary (and it doesn't sound like they are), then I think the DM should reconsider. Just up the HP of critters you're against to compensate for the damage potential you're dealing with.

Who buffed the Paladin? If it was another player, perhaps the DM should be reminded that it wasn't one player that did this - it was two players cooperating and combining their resources. So, really, *two* players combined did 140hp in a round. Which is remarkably in-line with the proposed 10 damage per level max.

[Frosty]

If the paladin was buffed that much, then he deserves to do that much damage.

Think about it. The wizard spent his turn casting Enlarge Person. The sorcerer spent a turn casting Haste. The cleric spent a turn casting Eagle's Splendor. These aren't exactly long-term buffs, so they were probably cast in-combat.

If the three casters hadn't spend their turns doing something else, they could've done 8d6 damage three times...and that's with simple suboptimal blasting (and might hit multiple opponents). This is in additional to the normal unbuffed damage the paladin might've done.

So no...don't cap damage.

[Amphetryon]

"Because I like playing them" isn't a valid justification for you, then?

Given that 'classes' are a metagame-concept that can be entirely, and more efficiently, replicated by non-melee classes, nope, not really.

[Dralnu]

This doesn't sound bad at all. It just sounds epic.

THW Power Attackers are supposed to do big damage. That's what they do. If the Paladin spent turns buffing himself and then managed to full attack a cleric stupid enough to stand beside him, yeah, big damage happens. Any barbarian will be doing relatively the same thing without needing to buff.

My most epic moment in D&D was very similar to this situation. I was the paladin in a level 12 group and we were up against a blue dragon. I couldn't fly but the rest of my group could and took the fight to the air. It was still too tough and was knocking players into the negatives.

I spent like 4 rounds just buffing myself, then readied an action to full attack, and got teleported on top of the dragon's back and unleashed a hasted full attack, max power attack, with smite, used turn undead attempts to do more damage via feats, and did like 300ish damage total. The dragon went down.

Overpowered? Not at all. Epic? Definitely.

[Drakevarg]

Given that 'classes' are a metagame-concept that can be entirely, and more efficiently, replicated by non-melee classes, nope, not really.

"How dare you have fun! It's not optimized!"

[Snake-Aes]

All the trash being spouted about optimization is irrelevant because the scenario is already set
1) pally did lots of damage at once
2) dm was surprised
3) dm wants to ban melee damage.


Whether or not the paladin and the party are optimized is not relevant compared to how much fun they have because of each other's influence. If the paladin isn't outshining the other players, calling either one optimized or not is unnecessary pedantry.

To OP's DM: Melee classes are pretty much restricted to damage. Also, be aware that much of that damage comes from the party's investment on the paladin. Also, be aware that anything they use you can also use. Melee is easy to thwart. Keeping a melee character from full attacking is easily gimping half of the damage most can do.
Leave banning and handicapping as last options. Be creative.

[Amphetryon]

"How dare you have fun! It's not optimized!"

And now the thing that allows you to have fun - dealing damage - is being nerfed? Anything else a melee character does is based off of skills that everyone has access to, or off of roleplay, which is not in any way restricted by what class you have listed on your sheet unless there's a specific houserule in play.

[Drakevarg]

And now the thing that allows you to have fun - dealing damage - is being nerfed? Anything else a melee character does is based off of skills that everyone has access to, or off of roleplay, which is not in any way restricted by what class you have listed on your sheet unless there's a specific houserule in play.

Who said that dealing damage is what allowed me to have fun?

[Snake-Aes]

Who said that dealing damage is what allowed me to have fun?

What's the point in bringing up how you can have fun without doing lots of damage when the op posts because he is not having fun at the prospect of being handicapped?

[Drakevarg]

What's the point in bringing up how you can have fun without doing lots of damage when the op posts because he is not having fun at the prospect of being handicapped?

That wasn't the point I was debating. I was debating the idea that dealing damage was fundamentally the only thing melee classes were capable of, and that the inability to do so effectively therefore made such classes not worth playing.

Too be more on topic, yes I think a damage cap is stupid, especially since a mixture of Massive Damage Rules and the Chunky Salsa Rule pretty much cover that already.

[Hawk7915]

Capping damage is silly. Presumably, to pull this off at level 8...

- The paladin blew 1 of his "Smite Evils" to gain +8 damage and +X attack per hit.
- The paladin (or a cleric) blew a turn and a spell slot to Eagle's Splendor him.
- An arcane caster hasted and enlarged the Pally.

At this level, assuming a not super strong point buy/magic items, the Paladin boasts a +13 attack "base", and probably had an +18 or so with all those buffs. So he full power attacks, -9 attack, +18 damage (I'm assuming Pathfinder power attack rules aren't in effect here). Since the Paladin rolled three hits with a +10/+10/+5 attack routine, he both got fairly lucky and the Cleric had a lousy AC for an effective CR cleric to be sporting (a cleric of this level could easily justify a 23 AC before buffs, meaning the Paladin would have, statistically speaking, rolled only one hit in that round).

So yeah, show your DM that a damage cap is unnecessary because it was hugely situational, required a lot of resources from at least 2 (and possibly 3 or 4) party members, and can easily be avoided by making monsters who have a healthy amount of HP or a high enough AC to punish a full power attack.

[Amphetryon]

Who said that dealing damage is what allowed me to have fun?

Please, enlighten me as to what the Paladin does, aside from a built-in full BAB, that a Cleric could not do? I ask specifically about Paladin because it's the OP's example of "overpowered" damage through melee, and the Cleric is the closest analogue that lacks that built-in BAB. Please, show me something that the Paladin can do that cannot be accomplished at least as well with a Cleric.

[Greenish]

Please, show me something that the Paladin can do that cannot be accomplished at least as well with a Cleric.

Falling in Eberron.

[jiriku]

Most probably the DM just isn't familiar with higher-level play. If anything, my advice to the DM would be:

"You're used to low-level D&D. It's a different game at higher levels. The numbers get a lot bigger. Your party used teamwork and cleverness to produce a whole that was greater than the sum its parts. Don't fight that -- reward it. And next time, give your cleric a higher Con score, an acolyte protecting him with shield other, and five burly bodyguards."

[Amphetryon]

Falling in Eberron.

I can roleplay forsaking my Clerical vows and never again accessing Cleric spells just fine.

[Drakevarg]

Please, enlighten me as to what the Paladin does, aside from a built-in full BAB, that a Cleric could not do? I ask specifically about Paladin because it's the OP's example of "overpowered" damage through melee, and the Cleric is the closest analogue that lacks that built-in BAB. Please, show me something that the Paladin can do that cannot be accomplished at least as well with a Cleric.

Free mount? Detect Evil at will? Pre-packaged sense of selfrighteousness?

Thing is, I don't play DnD like a video game. If I were to play a Paladin, it would be for the storytelling opportunities it would supply. I can already tell from what you've said already that you consider fluff something to be discarded or altered whenever it's convienient, and I'm not going to bother debating with you over the merits of that worldview.

[Cainen]

Free mount? Detect Evil at will? Pre-packaged sense of selfrighteousness?

Minor bennies does not a unique experience make.

Thing is, I don't play DnD like a video game. If I were to play a Paladin, it would be for the storytelling opportunities it would supply.

Nice sentiment, but it's a party-based game. Taking away the one thing melee can actually do is offensive when they're already on the lower end of capability. Playing said nerfbat is a BAD thing in a party; you are going to do nothing but drag them down unless the DM specifically balances around your limited abilities, which will likely make everyone else cut through everything like butter.

[Drakevarg]

Nice sentiment, but it's a party-based game. Taking away the one thing melee can actually do is offensive when they're already on the lower end of capability. Playing said nerfbat is a BAD thing in a party; you are going to do nothing but drag them down unless the DM specifically balances around your limited abilities, which will likely make everyone else cut through everything like butter.

Kind of a minor concern for me. I'm probably fairly unique in this, but it's been a long damn time since I've run or played a campaign where getting into a fight was an even remotely good idea. Both I and most of the DMs I play under generally run under the belief system that if PC death is not probable in any given encounter, you're doin' it wrong.

[Amphetryon]

Free Mount is available to any Druid, and any casting class that wants to invest a single Feat - sometimes not even that.

Detect Evil at will can be done through a 0-level spell in a wand. They're dirt cheap and if you need more than 50 charges, you're paranoid or playing the game differently than anyone I've ever seen.

Sense of self-righteousness is a fluff issue, not an RP one. Any character can be self-righteous, and Paladins can be humble instead. See also: Huma, and Raistlin.

[Tyndmyr]

Capping damage is silly. Presumably, to pull this off at level 8...

- The paladin blew 1 of his "Smite Evils" to gain +8 damage and +X attack per hit.
- The paladin (or a cleric) blew a turn and a spell slot to Eagle's Splendor him.
- An arcane caster hasted and enlarged the Pally.

Here we go. Yup, you can lump a lot of damage into one particular round by spending a lot of resources and actions preparing. If you couldn't...well, buffs and such would be pretty pointless, wouldn't they?

And of course, there's always the chance of those pesky dice not cooperating. Misses happen. But yeah, buffed up characters can do pretty good damage. That's the point of buffing them.

Nerfing physical damage will make melee rather boring, and it'll feel like they're handicapped. It'll also encourage others to just blast, rather than play strategically. Pure dps races are generally pretty lame fights, especially when your dps is artificially limited. That leads to "I keep attacking, roll for me" playing.

[Drakevarg]

Detect Evil at will can be done through a 0-level spell in a wand. They're dirt cheap and if you need more than 50 charges, you're paranoid or playing the game differently than anyone I've ever seen.

You're assuming -- wrongly -- that wands are readily available at any corner market. In campaigns I've played or run receantly I've had the following scenarios:

1- We're in the northern end of civilization (if you can call it that), and you're lucky if you can find FOOD, let alone a magic wand.

2- The DM is heavily anti-magic mart. In a major shipping town, I managed to find a single silvered warhammer. This was the most magical item for sale in the city.

3- It's a setting where magic tends to cause Cthulhu to eat you. Wands are not readily for sale mainly because they're so damned dangerous.

Sense of self-righteousness is a fluff issue, not an RP one. Any character can be self-righteous, and Paladins can be humble instead. See also: Huma, and Raistlin.

I was just snarking at that point, actually.

Again, I view the system on a fundamentally different basis to you. To me, changing fluff is not something to be done casually, or AT ALL without the consent of the DM. So no, I can't just use a Cleric as a Paladin archetype, because Clerics work differently, fluff-wise.

[Tyndmyr]

You're assuming -- wrongly -- that wands are readily available at any corner market. In campaigns I've played or run receantly I've had the following scenarios:

3- It's a setting where magic tends to cause Cthulhu to eat you. Wands are not readily for sale mainly because they're so damned dangerous.

Well yeah, I wouldn't reccomend playing a paladin OR a cleric in call of cthulu. That'd be silly.

Playing a cleric and using wands is pretty safe in D&D, though, I suggest you try it out.

[Drakevarg]

Well yeah, I wouldn't reccomend playing a paladin OR a cleric in call of cthulu. That'd be silly.

Playing a cleric and using wands is pretty safe in D&D, though, I suggest you try it out.

It's not Call of Cthulhu. Nor is it really Cthulhu that's eating you. Just an off-brand cosmic horror. Still not something you want to let out of it's box for something as simple as Detect Evil.

Though I think I might've just failed my Detect Sarcasm check. Or ignored it. I can't tell.

[Lhurgyof]

Tell the DM to run more than one encounter a day, so that their nova-ing will be their downfall?

[Greyfeld]

You're assuming -- wrongly -- that wands are readily available at any corner market. In campaigns I've played or run receantly I've had the following scenarios:

1- We're in the northern end of civilization (if you can call it that), and you're lucky if you can find FOOD, let alone a magic wand.

2- The DM is heavily anti-magic mart. In a major shipping town, I managed to find a single silvered warhammer. This was the most magical item for sale in the city.

3- It's a setting where magic tends to cause Cthulhu to eat you. Wands are not readily for sale mainly because they're so damned dangerous.

CoC =\= D&D

You can't sit there and compare what you and your DMs do in a combat-averse system to a system whose handbook focuses primarily around combat mechanics.

Again, I view the system on a fundamentally different basis to you. To me, changing fluff is not something to be done casually, or AT ALL without the consent of the DM. So no, I can't just use a Cleric as a Paladin archetype, because Clerics work differently, fluff-wise.

No, clerics work differently CRUNCH-wise. Clerics and Paladins have a very similar role within the church. I think you're confusing fluff with flavor.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, Pathfinder Paladins are much more powerful then their 3.5 counterparts.
I was able to a bit over 100 damage on three attacks with a FALLEN paladin, with no buffs. With buffs and smite? Probably quite a bit more. And I don't think of myself as much of an optimiser, being pretty inexperienced.
The thing is though, Paladins are Holy Warriors of Justice. They should be good at this. As well, the player had several buffs going. They prepared for this fight, they should reap the rewards.
Capping damage just says to me as a player, "You can't be good at what you do.", to be frank.