Your forum makes me confused

[hyperfreak497]

Flipping through a few threads here, I soon became utterly confused. I've never played hardcore D&D with minmaxing and different tiers of classes; I've basically just played with my friends, using the core rules and a few supplements. House rules are very rare. So, I've got several questions. I decided not to post this as a series of questions in the "Simple Questions" thread because I thought some of these might get complicated (like the one about different tiers). So, without further ado...

1) How do you minmax? I understand the concept of making a character ridiculesly good, but I'm not really clear how you could make a character so obscene at first level.

2) What is a "shock trooper" combo?

3) What classes are good; what classes are bad (core only, for now) and why? My friends and I have never noticed any of them being extremely bad or good, but we mostly play low-level anyway.

4) What's "ToB"?

5) What makes a druid so good?

I'll post more if I find more that make me wonder.

[Skjaldbakka]

1) How do you minmax? I understand the concept of making a character ridiculesly good, but I'm not really clear how you could make a character so obscene at first level.

Minmaxing originally was optimizing in such a way as to have your important stats really high, while sacrificing stats that aren't important to you (making them very low). Nowadays, minmaxing is more of a catch-all for optimization.

2) What is a "shock trooper" combo?

I don't recall all the specifics, but essentially, you combine effects that give you more efficient power attack with shock trooper's ability to move your PA penalty to your AC instead of your to-hit.

3) What classes are good; what classes are bad (core only, for now) and why? My friends and I have never noticed any of them being extremely bad or good, but we mostly play low-level anyway.

This is a topic for its own thread, or possibly several.

4) What's "ToB"?

Tome of Battle. It is a new sourcebook. Some think it is good, some think it is bad, all agree that it makes fighter-types more powerful.

5) What makes a druid so good?

Wildshape + Natural Spell. After 7th/8th level, a druid can stay in wildshape all day, thus negating the need for any good physical stats. Since druids don't need int or cha for any important class features, you can prioritize wisdom to the exclusion of every other stat. See response to Q#1.

That and they are primary spellcasters.

[Green Bean]

1) That's really a class specific question. Different classes can be easier/harder to optimize.

2) Shock Trooper is a feat in a book that escapes me at the moment. It's widely regarded as a way to almost let Fighters catch up to the casters (almost).

3) The 'Big Three' of Core DnD are Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Wizards are on top, and Clerics and Druids are tied for second. These are fairly powerful at low level, but really come into their own at mid/high levels. Monks are generally considered the worst, with Fighters close behind.

4) ToB stands for Tome of Battle. It's a splatbook that includes different options for melee characters. Supporters say it allows melee combatants to keep up with casters, while detractors tend to either think that it balances the scales too far the other way, or disagree with the fluff.

5) Druids are good because they have so many powerful features, as well as only really needing two stats. They have access to Wildshape (negating their need to bump up STR or DEX), full spellcasting, animal companion, and a decent Hit Die.

[AslanCross]

1) How do you minmax? I understand the concept of making a character ridiculesly good, but I'm not really clear how you could make a character so obscene at first level.

Min-maxing is pumping only a couple of important stats, to the detriment of everything else. Like dumping Charisma, for example. I'm not a fan of this playing style either.

2) What is a "shock trooper" combo?

Shock Trooper is a tactical feat from Complete Warrior that allows a character to be darn good at bullrushing, which includes being able to trip two characters at a time. (Like all tactical feats, it gives three abilities. In this case, you get to chose in which direction to push a target of your bull rush, you get to trip two targets if you bull rush someone into another's space, and you can sacrifice AC instead of AB when Power Attacking on a charge.) I'm not sure about the rest of the combo, though.

3) What classes are good; what classes are bad (core only, for now) and why? My friends and I have never noticed any of them being extremely bad or good, but we mostly play low-level anyway.

General consensus is that casters are good, fighters are bad, and monks are the worst of the worst. Casters get unrivaled versatility and damage output, while fighters (at least core-only fighters) don't really have much options. Monks don't seem to fit any intended role as they aren't as tough as other melee characters and yet aren't as flexible as rogues. Don't get me wrong, I like fighters a lot, and I actually appreciate monks. Just telling you what I hear in these forums a lot. (Not to say that the classes are without problems and that casters really are overpowered)

4) What's "ToB"?

Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords. It introduces a different style of melee fighting that uses stances and techniques. It introduces the Crusader (similar to a paladin), Swordsage (has some rogue-ish and monk-ish attributes) and Warblade (d12 hit dice, but with more polish than a fighter)

5) What makes a druid so good?

The druid and cleric get the best of both worlds: They have full caster progression and decent melee capability. A lot of their spells can make up for their physical stats if they are found lacking. [/quote]

[Lavin]

4) What's "ToB"?

5) What makes a druid so good?

4: Tome of Battle.
5: Everything.

[Zincorium]

I'll see if I can't help out a bit.

Flipping through a few threads here, I soon became utterly confused. I've never played hardcore D&D with minmaxing and different tiers of classes; I've basically just played with my friends, using the core rules and a few supplements. House rules are very rare. So, I've got several questions. I decided not to post this as a series of questions in the "Simple Questions" thread because I thought some of these might get complicated (like the one about different tiers). So, without further ado...

1) How do you minmax? I understand the concept of making a character ridiculesly good, but I'm not really clear how you could make a character so obscene at first level.

Very broad question, you can get answers for 'how do I make a good character with x', where x is what character you'd like to play, but if it's outlandish you should expect a few suggestions for alternatives that would work better.

Also, people rarely play the most brokenly powerful characters, those of us who know the game well enough to do so realize it's not a good idea; the DM will always win a conflict.

2) What is a "shock trooper" combo?

The Shock Trooper tactical feat from Complete warrior has a 'heedless charge' option where you transfer the to-hit penalty from using power attack to your AC instead. Since power attack is a very good way of dealing extra damage, and the AC penalty quickly goes away, it's a key move for many power attacking or charging characters.

3) What classes are good; what classes are bad (core only, for now) and why? My friends and I have never noticed any of them being extremely bad or good, but we mostly play low-level anyway.

Cleric and druid are very good because they are both tough melee characters and full spellcasters, with incredibly large spell lists. Wizards have spell combos that can defeat anything when they get to later levels, but the correct focus as far as spells go will make them potent at low levels as well.

Monks are generally considered bad because they only do one thing, combat, and don't do it as well or as easily as other combat only classes. Bards are not bad if you use them for what they are (spellcasting social types) rather than jack of all trades, which they are not.

4) What's "ToB"?

Tome of Battle: the book of nine swords (see why it's shortened?). Generally makes fighting characters more versatile and more interesting to play. Often rejected because it is perceived as 'anime' (which is subjective) or as 'overpowered', which has more to do with the core classes they're supposed to take the place of.

5) What makes a druid so good?

You get to be a giant bear that either rips people apart or destroys them with spells. At the same time. Without losing anything.

I'll post more if I find more that make me wonder.

Feel free, but I suggest looking at the FAQ thread stickied at the top there, it'll have a lot of answers.

[horseboy]

2) What is a "shock trooper" combo?

Shock trooper is a feat in Complete Warrior. It allows you to drop your AC to add to damage, when combined with a couple of other feats, it allows a barbarian/fighter to do several hundred points of damage in one hit.

3) What classes are good; what classes are bad (core only, for now) and why? My friends and I have never noticed any of them being extremely bad or good, but we mostly play low-level anyway.

Any full caster, namely Cleric, Druid Wizard

[hyperfreak497]

Another question:
6. What's "That Damn Crab"?

And, secondly, I was specifically asking how you would minmax, I don't know, a fighter. I first encountered minmaxing when reading the webcomic "Goblins". One of the characters (named "Minmax") has 22 Strength and 60 ft. speed at first level. The only response to how this is possible is "So he moved a few stats around. What's the big deal?" I don't understand how "moving a few stats around" would change anything.

Thirdly, I own Complete Warrior, and I looked it up when I first saw the Shock Trooper combo referred to, and didn't get it. Maybe I'll go re-read it...

EDIT: And three more responses were up by the time I finished typing this post, making these comments somewhat obsolete. I guess I should expect more by the time I finish typing this edit.

[Serenity]

Tome of Battle. It is a new sourcebook. Some think it is good, some think it is bad, all agree that it makes fighter-types more powerful.

More specifically, Tome of Battle (Full name, Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords) details three new base classes (The Crusader, the Swordsage, and the Warblade) which are essentially variants of the Paladin, Monk, and Fighter respectively. They have the ability to initiate maneuvers, special combat abilities that are mechanically similar to spells, though for the most part the effects they produce are mundane. Those in favor of it argue that it gives melee types a much-needed boost, addressing their problems of poor mobility and reliance on full attack among other things. Those who dislike it argue that the wuxia style that the book is presented in is incompatible with medieval European fantasy, or that the book takes the wrong approach in improving fighters by special powers that (they claim) basically make them into magic-users with a blade. Others even claim that ToB classes are overpowered.

[UglyPanda]

2) Leap attack from complete adventurer vastly increases the amount of damage from power attack if you leap into your opponent's square from a charge. This combined with shock trooper turns you into a glass bazooka in comparison to the flying, invisible, heavily-protected, glass cannons which are casters.

[Jasdoif]

Another question:
6. What's "That Damn Crab"?

Here's a recent thread on it, including a link to its stats and why it's called "that damn crab". To summarize, its combat capability is notably better then its listed CR would suggest.

[ocato]

When browsing these forums, just remember that D&D is not typically played how people treat it here. Yes, people consider Monks to suck here and Wizards to be Batman/God, and yes you can make a fighter with a spiked chain who trips/bull rushes and power attack/ leap attacks into Shock Trooper obscenity, but most of the time, the idea is to make characters of moderately similar power and to work as a team so people are having fun. I've seen far too many groups tear themselves apart when people get the minmaxing bug and start making characters that make the game unfun to everyone in their shadow. Just... take all of the things you read here with a grain of salt.

[Jasdoif]

When browsing these forums, just remember that D&D is not typically played how people treat it here. Yes, people consider Monks to suck here and Wizards to be Batman/God, and yes you can make a fighter with a spiked chain who trips/bull rushes and power attack/ leap attacks into Shock Trooper obscenity, but most of the time, the idea is to make characters of moderately similar power and to work as a team so people are having fun. I've seen far too many groups tear themselves apart when people get the minmaxing bug and start making characters that make the game unfun to everyone in their shadow. Just... take all of the things you read here with a grain of salt.

Players, like DMs, should remember that "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

[Zincorium]

And, secondly, I was specifically asking how you would minmax, I don't know, a fighter. I first encountered minmaxing when reading the webcomic "Goblins". One of the characters (named "Minmax") has 22 Strength and 60 ft. speed at first level. The only response to how this is possible is "So he moved a few stats around. What's the big deal?" I don't understand how "moving a few stats around" would change anything.

'Minmax' doesn't really represent the modern D&D rules. It's a lot easier to do that type of thing with point based games like GURPS, where you can take lots of 'flaws' that don't really affect you much in return for greater power. These are the flaws available in D&D. Murky-eyed is popular for melee characters. Don't expect to use them in most campaigns, though.

[Dervag]

Another question:
6. What's "That Damn Crab"?

An extremely powerful combat monster from somewhere, a gigantic crab. It's huge and fierce and well-armored, and because it's basically a mindless giant bug it's immune to mind-affecting spells, including many of the most useful ones a wizard can fight it with at low level. It can grab you and tear you in half.

The consensus seems to be that "That Damn Crab" is a reasonable monster, but is way more powerful than its CR would indicate.

And, secondly, I was specifically asking how you would minmax, I don't know, a fighter. I first encountered minmaxing when reading the webcomic "Goblins". One of the characters (named "Minmax") has 22 Strength and 60 ft. speed at first level. The only response to how this is possible is "So he moved a few stats around. What's the big deal?" I don't understand how "moving a few stats around" would change anything.

Well, Minmax the Legendary Warrior is a parody of the type, but the idea is sound.

Frankly, minmaxing and other styles of overbuilding a character aren't especially effective unless:
a) the player has access to lots and lots of source books, allowing them to cherrypick the best race/class/feat combos for whatever they're trying to do, or
b) the player has multiple levels over which to build up their character's strength and gain multiple special abilities that work together to produce a superpowerful character.

[Douglas]

Another question:
6. What's "That Damn Crab"?

The Monstrous Crab found here. It's rated as CR 3. Pit it against a typical level 3 party and it will massacre them.

And, secondly, I was specifically asking how you would minmax, I don't know, a fighter. I first encountered minmaxing when reading the webcomic "Goblins". One of the characters (named "Minmax") has 22 Strength and 60 ft. speed at first level. The only response to how this is possible is "So he moved a few stats around. What's the big deal?" I don't understand how "moving a few stats around" would change anything.

How to minmax a fighter depends a lot on the style of fighter you want. For a big damage dealer, take Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Karmic Strike, Combat Reflexes, and one level in Barbarian with an alternate class feature from Complete Champion (I think) that gives you the ability to full attack when you charge.

The Minmax character in Goblins is more accurately described as a munchkin - his build is not actually possible within the normal rules. He is either outright cheating or has an extremely lenient DM who approved a lot of requests for house rules.

Thirdly, I own Complete Warrior, and I looked it up when I first saw the Shock Trooper combo referred to, and didn't get it. Maybe I'll go re-read it...

Fighter 20 charges and takes a -20 penalty for Power Attack. He uses Leap Attack to improve the damage ratio for his two-hander so he gets +60 (I think) damage in exchange. He uses Shock Trooper to redirect the penalty to his AC so he can still hit. Properly done (there are a few more things you can add to the combo), your AC will be negligible but your target will be unable to take advantage of this fact due to being dead. Add in Karmic Strike and Combat Reflexes, and anyone else who tries to take advantage of your vulnerability gets hit back with an AoO that does just as much damage as your charge attack did.

[AtomicKitKat]

To clarify, "min-maxing" refers to minimising your weaknesses while maximising your strengths. Ideally, you want weaknesses that require Deus Ex Machina(God mechanism, aka DM intentionally screwing you) to occur(As an example adapted from an AD&D splatbook, you take a penalty on casting if you're in a river on the night of a full blue moon, drenched in orc blood...), while picking advantages that occur with sufficient frequency(...while getting a boost in casting ability when wrapped in fur; ie, by simply wearing a parka everywhere).

"That damn crab" works a lot like Trolls, in that it's far too strong in practical play, compared to the theory(Challenge Rating). I suspect that a lot of the times, the CRs are calculated for a party of a few levels higher taking on a few monsters of that CR(eg. 2 CR 3 Giant Crabs would be "suitable" for a party of level 5s, or something like that.), rather than a single monster of that CR facing off a party of that level.

Edit: Combat Brute is the other key component of the Leap Attack/Shocktrooper combo. Together, they form the SLACB triumvirate, dealing triple digit damage to all in their path. Frenzied Berserker essentially doubles whatever Power Attack exchange rate you get from there(the final result is something like 18-1 returns on Power Attack, which can then be multiplied further with Critical Hits, and the Headlong Rush Orc feat from Races of Faerun, since the number is a "fixed value", rather than "bonus damage dice".). Elusive Target(if you can somehow fit it) allows you to negate any chance of the opponent getting in a Power Attack to take advantage of your lowered AC. Especially useful, since Karmic Strike requires you to get hit before you get to hit back.

[ocato]

I think that Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike work together so that if he hits you, you get to hit him back twice.

[Draz74]

General consensus is that casters are good, fighters are bad, and monks are the worst of the worst.

I'll out-anti-optimize your Monk with a Samurai or Soulknife any day of the week.

[Zincorium]

I'll out-anti-optimize your Monk with a Samurai or Soulknife any day of the week.

Those only exist because somebody decided "Monks are too powerful, they have way too many special abilities. We need to lower the power level of classes we make so that doesn't happen again".

Soulknife is mostly horrible because it's a bad combatant, with no secondary role, whose entire selection of class abilities can be summarized as 'free magic items' at levels where those magic items are simply not impressive.

Samurai sucks against all classes it's intended to compete against. And it would be nice if it's special ability worked. Kind of like an unoptimized truenamer with the worst weapon style and a lack of anything worthwhile.

[Skjaldbakka]

Except that Truenamer beats everyone else in the 'worst class' category. 3/4 BAB and class features that eat all your feats and magic items before they can work 50% of the time? At least CW Samurai can ignore his crappy class features and still have full BAB and d10 HD. Even 2WF is better than Truenaming.

Which is too bad. I really like the flavor of Truenamer.

[Draz74]

Samurai sucks against all classes it's intended to compete against. And it would be nice if it's special ability worked. Kind of like an unoptimized truenamer with the worst weapon style and a lack of anything worthwhile.

A Samurai could probably beat a Truenamer who didn't take any ranks in the Truespeak skill.

Probably.

[Nowhere Girl]

How to minmax a fighter depends a lot on the style of fighter you want. For a big damage dealer, take Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Karmic Strike, Combat Reflexes, and one level in Barbarian with an alternate class feature from Complete Champion (I think) that gives you the ability to full attack when you charge.

You can do way better than that.

psychic warrior 8/warmind 2/cavalier 10

Get Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Weapon Focus: Lance, perhaps Furious Charge or Saddleback if you're playing in Forgotten Realms and can take regional feats, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leadership for a good mount (like a giant eagle or griffon) ...

Congratulations. You can now execute charge attacks for thousands of points of damage per round. Your progression isn't even hard -- you start out good and become overpowered by level 4, when you pick up Psionic Lion's Charge and begin one-shotting all of your opponents in ridiculous full-attack charges for triple damage. And that's BEFORE you get really strong.

And the Batman wizard is still better than you are and always will be.

(Yes, there was a time when I believed that people were exaggerating about wizards. I concede that I was wrong. Per RAW, wizards are stupidly overpowered, and so are clerics and druids.)

[Skjaldbakka]

I think samurai pretty much wins against equal level truenamer. Look at it this way: Samurai has crappy class features, but they work against a truenamer of equal level most of the time. A truenamer's abilities have an abysmal success rate against a foe of equal level.

Plus the samurai has a full BAB and d10 HD, armor profs, etc.

Of course, we are comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges here.

And the Batman wizard is still better than you are and always will be.

Not always the case. This doesn't kick in until around level 7, so your build gets to be the star of the show for like, 3 levels. Then the wizard is better and always will be.

[Nowhere Girl]

For crappy classes, let's not forget about swashbucklers. As a 3-level dip, they're good, but beyond that, they barely even HAVE class features.

And their value as a dip class is meaningless. You could dip into samurai for one level for a free EWP: bastard sword proficiency, too. So what? Samurai is still a terrible class.

[Nowhere Girl]

Not always the case. This doesn't kick in until around level 7, so your build gets to be the star of the show for like, 3 levels. Then the wizard is better and always will be.

Good point.

That build actually STARTS good (is even strong at level 1, as level 1 characters go), so you might even say it gets to be the star for 7 levels. Then just as it's about to become really strong, the wizard begins an ascent to godhood. Just as the mounted charge build becomes obnoxious, the wizard becomes completely unkillable by any non-caster.

*sigh*

I would never allow Celerity as a GM. EVER.

[Skjaldbakka]

I would never allow Celerity as a GM. EVER.

I am considering adding it as a high level melee character option. Like a feat with a +15 BAB prereq, that gives you Celerity as an ex. ability X/day. Because fighter need the help. Actually, better make it BAB +16, so that druids and clerics can't get it.

[Dervag]

You can do way better than that.

psychic warrior 8/warmind 2/cavalier 10...

True, but different flavor. And the fact that your tactics depend on the use of your mount can limit you in some situations (for instance, your mount will not fit neatly into dungeon corridors).

For crappy classes, let's not forget about swashbucklers. As a 3-level dip, they're good, but beyond that, they barely even HAVE class features.

In your experience do they work? I haven't gotten the chance to play one yet.

I don't mean "are they capable of holding their own in PvP against a wizard" or "are they as lethal against monsters as a super-power-attacking barbarian or super-lancer like the one you describe?" Sure, they're not; but I'm not asking them to be.

I mean "can they serve as one fourth of a party capable of taking on encounters of CR equal to its level without putting an undue burden on the other three members, the way that, say, a commoner would?"

And what prestige or multiclassing options can make them less ineffective?

[Skjaldbakka]

I believe the issue with swashbuckler 20 is that the high level class features it gets, while interesting, very often don't work, due to being precision-based. At the same time, there are a number of dead levels in between the low-level goodies and the high level goodies, thus increasing the desire to PrC out.

This is all second hand from one of my players griping about Swashbuckler, so my data may not be 100% accurate.

[AtomicKitKat]

Actually, Wizard wins levels 1-4 by virtue of Sleep, Colour Spray, and Grease. Level 3 onwards, he blinds you with Glitterdust. And tacks on Blindness/Deafness to gimp you further. Levels 1-7, if he gets enough Dex to beat yours(likely, because he only has Int to focus on otherwise), Ray of Enfeeblement literally renders you helpless as a baby, and he humiliates you by grappling you to death.

So yeah, you really don't get to shine at any level, compared to him.